Impeachment Megathread Part 3

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Blondie mistakenly thinking this is a trial about Hunter Biden again...

[Lisa's voting Biden]

Question by: LEE

Question: Was the whistleblower employed by the NSC between 2017 and now, and did the whistleblower coordinate with other employees to take down the president?

I was trying to be nice, Do you want me to mute you?

Eh, I personally enjoy Wulfric's live commentary of sorts, much easier than watching the whole thing.

As a compromise, I guess he can just type the questions into a word document and post them when the session is over or something

I had no problem with it either, until he started this nonsense.
QUESTION BY: LOSER SCHUMER I
QUESTION BY: SOCIALIST HARRIS

It's harmless fun. I don't mind it and it doesn't break site rules.

[Frodo]

Question by: LEE

Question: Was the whistleblower employed by the NSC between 2017 and now, and did the whistleblower coordinate with other employees to take down the president?

I was trying to be nice, Do you want me to mute you?

Do it. 

[Meclazine for Israel]

Winesses. No Witnesses.

It does not change the result. All it does is drag Hunter Biden through the mud and lower Joe Biden's chances in the Democratic Primary.

What I don't get is why these witnesses did not get heard in the House inquiry phase of the impeachment?

That makes no sense. Why didn't the House get the facts, questions and answers sorted during their Impeachment investigation?

Then it was sent to the Senate with an incomplete case. It's like watching a kid who didn't do their homework.  

[Hindsight was 2020]

Winesses. No Witnesses.

It does not change the result. All it does is drag Hunter Biden through the mud and lower Joe Biden's chances in the Democratic Primary.

What I don't get is why these witnesses did not get heard in the House inquiry phase of the impeachment?

That makes no sense. Why didn't the House get the facts, questions and answers sorted during their Impeachment investigation?

Then it was sent to the Senate with an incomplete case. It's like watching a kid who didn;t do their homework. 

If you actually been following the case instead of just being massively disingenuous then you’d know why Bolton wasn’t called

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Winesses. No Witnesses.

It does not change the result. All it does is drag Hunter Biden through the mud and lower Joe Biden's chances in the Democratic Primary.

What I don't get is why these witnesses did not get heard in the House inquiry phase of the impeachment?

That makes no sense. Why didn't the House get the facts, questions and answers sorted during their Impeachment investigation?

Because the Executive Branch, acting under Mr. Trump's orders, did everything possible to prevent such testimony or investigation. Which is why he's being impeached for obstruction of justice. (Not that I believe for a nanosecond that you don't already know that.)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/10/us/politics/articles-impeachment-document-pdf.html#g-page-5

Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its “sole Power of Impeachment”. President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump’s corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the “sole Power of Impeachment” vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Winesses. No Witnesses.

It does not change the result. All it does is drag Hunter Biden through the mud and lower Joe Biden's chances in the Democratic Primary.

What I don't get is why these witnesses did not get heard in the House inquiry phase of the impeachment?

That makes no sense. Why didn't the House get the facts, questions and answers sorted during their Impeachment investigation?

Then it was sent to the Senate with an incomplete case. It's like watching a kid who didn;t do their homework. 

You're kind of right about a witness compromise muddying the waters with Hunter Biden, should he be called as a condition.

But your homework metaphor is completely off-base. The Democrats, or the student in this case, did all the homework they could manage to get their hands on because the teacher (Trump and the GOP) intentionally wanted to make sure the student failed and deprived them of a portion of the assigned work.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Also the “homework” the democrats handed in would be more than enough to sink Trump in a normal environment. The call for Bolton and other witnesses is because you guys (and I use that term Meclazine because you’re one of the worst enablers here for this bad faith rw mentality) have sunk so low in your toleration of Trump’s clear corruption that the democrats are trying to find the line

[Yellowhammer]

Gardner, a NO on witnesses.

Figures. He knows he’s going to lose.

Virtually no one is going to care anyway.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Dershowitz seriously argued that if the president believes that him staying in power is in the public interest, then he should be allowed to do whatever he thinks is necessary to attain that goal and therefore a quid pro quo is not impeachable.

Can someone please tell me why this clown is so highly respected despite routinely making a fool of himself since the 90's?  Is it just because he successfully defended a man who killed two people or is it something else?

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1222677793986830338
Rand’s hardon to out the WB shows you how dead the libertarian movement is ideologically wise

[Nyvin]

Dershowitz seriously argued that if the president believes that him staying in power is in the public interest, then he should be allowed to do whatever he thinks is necessary to attain that goal and therefore a quid pro quo is not impeachable.

Can someone please tell me why this clown is so highly respected despite routinely making a fool of himself since the 90's?  Is it just because he successfully defended a man who killed two people or is it something else?

So Trump can shoot the Dem candidate in the face during the first debate and that'd be perfectly okay with Mr Dershowitz. 

[7,052,770]

https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1222677793986830338
Rand’s hardon to out the WB shows you how dead the libertarian movement is ideologically wise

It's a totally bizarre and perverse fixation that Republicans have on the whistleblower, as if he's solely responsible for Trump's crimes. The identity of the person who called the police is not relevant in determining a defendant's guilt.

[2016]

Politico increasingly floating Witness Vote TIE (50/50)
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/john-roberts-trump-impeachment-trial-109109

By God I hope it doesn't happen.

BUT it looks increasingly likely that Murkowski, Collins and Romney vote YES and Alexander votes NO. If that happens we have a TIE.

And I do not trust Chief Justice John Roberts at all given that this is the same guy who upheld the ObamaCare Law Public Option.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Regardless of the differing viewpoints, I just wanted to point out how nasty Trumps lawyers are.

They just cut people in half, and if I was ever in a situation that needed a lawyer, I would use them if I could afford them.

Jay Sekulow - "Have you proved your case in it's entirety?"

Adam Schiff - "Yes."

Jay Sekulow - "Then you don't need witnesses then."

Ouch. Lots of legal gotchas coming out now for both sides.

For example, why was President Trump suddenly interested in corruption in the Ukraine upon Joe Biden nominating for President, after already sending $1Bn to the Ukraine during the 2 years previous.

I wouldn't give $1Bn to the Ukraine. A few hospitals and schools could be built for that.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Regardless of the differing viewpoints, I just wanted to point out how nasty Trumps lawyers are.

They just cut people in half, and if I was ever in a situation that needed a lawyer, I would use them if I could afford them.

Jay Sekulow - "Have you proved your case in it's entirety?"

Adam Schiff - "Yes."

Jay Sekulow - "Then you don't need witnesses then."

Ouch. Lots of legal gotchas coming out now for both sides.

For example, why was President Trump suddenly interested in corruption in the Ukraine upon Joe Biden nominating for President, after already sending $1Bn to the Ukraine during the 2 years previous.

I wouldn't give $1Bn to the Ukraine. A few hospitals and schools could be built for that.

Whether you wanted it, or even whether Trump wanted it, is irrelevant.  Congress appropriated it for that purpose.

[2016]

Regardless of the differing viewpoints, I just wanted to point out how nasty Trumps lawyers are.

They just cut people in half, and if I was ever in a situation that needed a lawyer, I would use them if I could afford them.

Jay Sekulow - "Have you proved your case in it's entirety?"

Adam Schiff - "Yes."

Jay Sekulow - "Then you don't need witnesses then."

Ouch. Lots of legal gotchas coming out now for both sides.

For example, why was President Trump suddenly interested in corruption in the Ukraine upon Joe Biden nominating for President, after already sending $1Bn to the Ukraine during the 2 years previous.

I wouldn't give $1Bn to the Ukraine. A few hospitals and schools could be built for that.

Schiff was nasty as well with his "Head on a Pike thing" during the Managers Presentation. And Schiff is a total liar IMO. He lied about the Russia Collusion Day after Day, Month after Month for two years until Muller came finally out and debunked him.

[Former President tack50]

Wait, why would Roberts break ties? Wouldn't it either be Pence, or automatically fail?

[2016]

Pence has no Rule in this Trail unfortunately.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

The house votes against impeachment in a bipartisan fasion
And it looks like the Senate will vote against removal in a bipartisan fasion after what Manchin has said about Hunter Biden

[brucejoel99]

Politico increasingly floating Witness Vote TIE (50/50)
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/john-roberts-trump-impeachment-trial-109109

By God I hope it doesn't happen.

BUT it looks increasingly likely that Murkowski, Collins and Romney vote YES and Alexander votes NO. If that happens we have a TIE.

And I do not trust Chief Justice John Roberts at all given that this is the same guy who upheld the ObamaCare Law Public Option.

What do lawyers do in when in uncharted territory? Look to precedent.

What is there precedent for the Chief Justice to do in tied impeachment trial votes? Break ties.

And what does precedent say the answer is to the question of who's been present in all impeachment trials? Witnesses.

[Pericles]

Honestly it seems like Denison's rule is a better way of handling tie-breaks than the US system, and the principle of a change only occurring if there is an actual majority for it seems sound. That said, this is of course not how things are usually done-but maybe would be appropriate here given that Roberts is supposed to be neutral and less partisan than the Vice President. With regards to the actual outcome, I'd prefer there to be witnesses of course so I'd want Roberts to tie-break for them. I haven't heard Roberts say he'd abide by this rule, but it could be a good way to reduce further damage to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

[SteveRogers]

Wait, why would Roberts break ties? Wouldn't it either be Pence, or automatically fail?

If Roberts rules that he can break ties, then he can break ties (not that there’s any evidence that he’s inclined to assert that authority). There’s precedent from the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial. Now, the Senate could vote to overrule Roberts’s ruling that he can break ties, but the rub is that the vote to overrule the presiding officer would require 51 votes.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1222696163259944960?s=20

[pppolitics]

Politico increasingly floating Witness Vote TIE (50/50)
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/john-roberts-trump-impeachment-trial-109109

By God I hope it doesn't happen.

BUT it looks increasingly likely that Murkowski, Collins and Romney vote YES and Alexander votes NO. If that happens we have a TIE.

And I do not trust Chief Justice John Roberts at all given that this is the same guy who upheld the ObamaCare Law Public Option.

What are you so afraid of?

If Trump is innocent, Bolton's testimony wouldn't make a difference or might even help the case for an acquittal.

It's as if facts aren't on your side and you know it.