Impeachment?

[JaneV2.0]

Radical actors of today just punch their keyboard rather than blowing up buildings. Maybe that’s a good thing?

I'd like to believe that, but tell it to all the victims of church and synagogue shootings, and other victims of politically-motivated terrorists.

[LDAHL]

I'd like to believe that, but tell it to all the victims of church and synagogue shootings, and other victims of politically-motivated terrorists.

That’s true, but we don’t see the bombings, riots and burning cities to the extent we did when the Beatles were still together.

[jp1]

Man, republicans really do want to make this impeachment trial as shammy as possible. I guess when a coverup is the only way to succeed you have to be all in on the coverup.

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/...76642988236806

[Alan]

Man, republicans really do want to make this impeachment trial as shammy as possible. I guess when a coverup is the only way to succeed you have to be all in on the coverup.

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/...76642988236806

I believe that's how witness depositions were handled in the Clinton trial as well. It's also how the House impeachment team took statements from key players. What makes this a coverup?

[LDAHL]

I believe that's how witness depositions were handled in the Clinton trial as well. It's also how the House impeachment team took statements from key players. What makes this a coverup?

According to Rep Schiff, “the evidence is already overwhelming”. If that is the case, would additional witnesses serve any purpose other than theatrical?

[jp1]

According to Rep Schiff, “the evidence is already overwhelming”. If that is the case, would additional witnesses serve any purpose other than theatrical?

Sure. Because you got people who are saying "there's no firsthand evidence". Not that that's actually true, but having Bolton testify would end that silly argument.

[jp1]

I believe that's how witness depositions were handled in the Clinton trial as well. It's also how the House impeachment team took statements from key players. What makes this a coverup?

Reading a book is the same as taking a witness deposition? And are the senators going to then be able to read parts of the book in public at the trial the way the videotaped depositions were played at the clinton trial? If not, then no, this isn't really the same at all.

[Alan]

Reading a book is the same as taking a witness deposition? And are the senators going to then be able to read parts of the book in public at the trial the way the videotaped depositions were played at the clinton trial? If not, then no, this isn't really the same at all.

I don't believe the book has been published yet so my assumption is they'll be reviewing an unedited manuscript. If I'm not mistaken, when key government figures become authors of commercial works there is an obligation for the publisher to vett the contents with relevant government agencies to ensure no potentially confidential information is disclosed. I'm assuming the manuscript has not completed that process.

[jp1]

Considering that the book has a release date of mid-March I'd assume that that review is finished. But neither here nor there, reading a book or manuscript and keeping it secret doesn't seem quite the same as doing a videotaped deposition and making it public. The republicans in the senate should surely know that this too will become public and yet again make them look like fools.

[Alan]

The republicans in the senate should surely know that this too will become public and yet again make them look like fools.

Believe it or not, lots of Democrats believe Republicans always look like fools. As hard as that might be to believe, I think I could show enough examples to make the point, so why should Republicans be concerned if even the most reasoned jurisprudence would achieve the same result?