Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[Indeependent]

There will always be another bullshit slant.
I actually am starting to relish the idea of President Pence.

There's not enough spine in the GOP for that outcome, no matter the evidence. They really should dump Trump. Who knows when they'll get another chance, but they're not willing to lose a few Senate seats through depressed turnout. I'll be surprised if the Senate calls Bolton.

It will be far more than a few seats.

Maybe. There are 23 R seats up for reelection, and strong, entrenched tribalism will carry the day in some states, regardless. Many of those up for reelection could be given cover and continue to support Trump. They wouldn't suffer from that.

Because Democrats are all free thinkers.
Perhaps that’s why all the Liberals here are interchangeable?
Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist.

I responded to you and offered an opinion. I'm not the subject.

Neither am I.
Most of what I know is college requisites, class Titles and what the students say the Professors say...
White Man Bad.

 

[joaquinmiller]

There's not enough spine in the GOP for that outcome, no matter the evidence. They really should dump Trump. Who knows when they'll get another chance, but they're not willing to lose a few Senate seats through depressed turnout. I'll be surprised if the Senate calls Bolton.

It will be far more than a few seats.

Maybe. There are 23 R seats up for reelection, and strong, entrenched tribalism will carry the day in some states, regardless. Many of those up for reelection could be given cover and continue to support Trump. They wouldn't suffer from that.

Because Democrats are all free thinkers.
Perhaps that’s why all the Liberals here are interchangeable?
Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist.

I responded to you and offered an opinion. I'm not the subject.

Neither am I.
Most of what I know is college requisites, class Titles and what the students say the Professors say...
White Man Bad.

You attempt to make me the subject when you invent this: "Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?" That's no argument. And "see a psychiatrist"? Please. I don't deny I'm a partisan, but don't be silly.

 

[Indeependent]

It will be far more than a few seats.

Maybe. There are 23 R seats up for reelection, and strong, entrenched tribalism will carry the day in some states, regardless. Many of those up for reelection could be given cover and continue to support Trump. They wouldn't suffer from that.

Because Democrats are all free thinkers.
Perhaps that’s why all the Liberals here are interchangeable?
Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist.

I responded to you and offered an opinion. I'm not the subject.

Neither am I.
Most of what I know is college requisites, class Titles and what the students say the Professors say...
White Man Bad.

You attempt to make me the subject when you invent this: "Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?" That's no argument. And "see a psychiatrist"? Please. I don't deny I'm a partisan, but don't be silly.

You are partisan to an apeshit extent.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Maybe. There are 23 R seats up for reelection, and strong, entrenched tribalism will carry the day in some states, regardless. Many of those up for reelection could be given cover and continue to support Trump. They wouldn't suffer from that.

Because Democrats are all free thinkers.
Perhaps that’s why all the Liberals here are interchangeable?
Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist.

I responded to you and offered an opinion. I'm not the subject.

Neither am I.
Most of what I know is college requisites, class Titles and what the students say the Professors say...
White Man Bad.

You attempt to make me the subject when you invent this: "Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?" That's no argument. And "see a psychiatrist"? Please. I don't deny I'm a partisan, but don't be silly.

You are partisan to an apeshit extent.

Blow it out your ass, dummy, and have a nice evening.

 

[Indeependent]

Because Democrats are all free thinkers.
Perhaps that’s why all the Liberals here are interchangeable?
Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist.

I responded to you and offered an opinion. I'm not the subject.

Neither am I.
Most of what I know is college requisites, class Titles and what the students say the Professors say...
White Man Bad.

You attempt to make me the subject when you invent this: "Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?" That's no argument. And "see a psychiatrist"? Please. I don't deny I'm a partisan, but don't be silly.

You are partisan to an apeshit extent.

Blow it out your ass, dummy, and have a nice evening.

Was that an ad hominem?
If it makes you feel any better I can’t stand Right Wingers who idolize Ayn Rand.

 

[joaquinmiller]

I responded to you and offered an opinion. I'm not the subject.

Neither am I.
Most of what I know is college requisites, class Titles and what the students say the Professors say...
White Man Bad.

You attempt to make me the subject when you invent this: "Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?" That's no argument. And "see a psychiatrist"? Please. I don't deny I'm a partisan, but don't be silly.

You are partisan to an apeshit extent.

Blow it out your ass, dummy, and have a nice evening.

Was that an ad hominem?
If it makes you feel any better I can’t stand Right Wingers who idolize Ayn Rand.

No, I don't think so. It was a personal insult, followed by a pleasantry, and not offered in lieu of argument. This from you was an ad hominem:

"Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist."

Also a lie, insofar as I haven't claimed to be an independent thinker, but I don't think your intent was to lie - it was to insult. I'm able to swap insults, but I quickly grow bored with it.

 

[jc456]

So he’s a liar. Sleepy creepy joe has the cash

He says what he needs to say. If you want to call him a liar, feel free. You brought him up. Stay away from any new evidence or testimony. You'll feel better.

There will always be another bullshit slant.
I actually am starting to relish the idea of President Pence.

There's not enough spine in the GOP for that outcome, no matter the evidence. They really should dump Trump. Who knows when they'll get another chance, but they're not willing to lose a few Senate seats through depressed turnout. I'll be surprised if the Senate calls Bolton.

It will be far more than a few seats.

Maybe. There are 23 R seats up for reelection, and strong, entrenched tribalism will carry the day in some states, regardless. Many of those up for reelection could be given cover and continue to support Trump. They wouldn't suffer from that.

it's amazing how much you despise this country and it's processes. wow.

 

[jc456]

Neither am I.
Most of what I know is college requisites, class Titles and what the students say the Professors say...
White Man Bad.

You attempt to make me the subject when you invent this: "Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?" That's no argument. And "see a psychiatrist"? Please. I don't deny I'm a partisan, but don't be silly.

You are partisan to an apeshit extent.

Blow it out your ass, dummy, and have a nice evening.

Was that an ad hominem?
If it makes you feel any better I can’t stand Right Wingers who idolize Ayn Rand.

No, I don't think so. It was a personal insult, followed by a pleasantry, and not offered in lieu of argument. This from you was an ad hominem:

"Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist."

Also a lie, insofar as I haven't claimed to be an independent thinker, but I don't think your intent was to lie - it was to insult. I'm able to swap insults, but I quickly grow bored with it.

we know you are not an independent thinker, thanks for acknowledging you aren't.

 

[easyt65]

Sekulow destroyed Schiff's and Nadler's claim that the President put his own personal political welfare above that of national security.

Sekulow pointed out that in their own hearings / interviews it was pointed out by Dr. Hill and Ambassador Yovanovitch that not only had President Trump had concerns over Ukraine's possible corruption but they ALL had a concern about Ukraine's potential inner-govt corruption:

"So multiple witnesses testified that the President had longstanding concerns and specific concerns about Ukraine. The house managers understandably, ignore the testimony that took place before their own committees. In her testimony of October 14th, 2019, Dr. Hill testified at pages 118 and 119 of her transcript that she thinks the President has actually quite publicly said that he was very skeptical about corruption in Ukraine. And then she said again in her testimony, “And in fact he’s not alone, because everyone, because everyone has expressed great concerns about corruption in Ukraine.” Similarly, Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that they all had concerns about corruption in Ukraine and as noted on pages 142 of her deposition transcript."

“Eliminating corruption in Ukraine was one of, if the central goals of a foreign policy.”
- Dr. Hill

That is from the House Democrats' own 'witness'!

Sorry, disagreeing with the President's Foreign Policy is NOT grounds for Impeachment.





Trump Defense Team Opening Argument Transcript: Jan 25 Impeachment Trial Statements from Cipollone, Philbin, Sekulow, Purpura - Rev
.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Trump's lawyers argued on Saturday that aid to Ukraine was not "conditioned" on Trump's request for investigations. The R's will now have to avoid first-hand testimony to the contrary from John Bolton. I think the Republicans are up to it. I know my own Senators have already come out for dismissing the case and/or acquitting Trump. They're not going to let evidence get in the way.

 

[Indeependent]

Neither am I.
Most of what I know is college requisites, class Titles and what the students say the Professors say...
White Man Bad.

You attempt to make me the subject when you invent this: "Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?" That's no argument. And "see a psychiatrist"? Please. I don't deny I'm a partisan, but don't be silly.

You are partisan to an apeshit extent.

Blow it out your ass, dummy, and have a nice evening.

Was that an ad hominem?
If it makes you feel any better I can’t stand Right Wingers who idolize Ayn Rand.

No, I don't think so. It was a personal insult, followed by a pleasantry, and not offered in lieu of argument. This from you was an ad hominem:

"Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist."

Also a lie, insofar as I haven't claimed to be an independent thinker, but I don't think your intent was to lie - it was to insult. I'm able to swap insults, but I quickly grow bored with it.

Like when you say anyone who agrees with even one thing Trump does is a Trump Bot.
Apparently, when you insult someone you disagree with it’s not an insult; that’s why you need to see a psychiatrist.

 

[joaquinmiller]

You attempt to make me the subject when you invent this: "Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?" That's no argument. And "see a psychiatrist"? Please. I don't deny I'm a partisan, but don't be silly.

You are partisan to an apeshit extent.

Blow it out your ass, dummy, and have a nice evening.

Was that an ad hominem?
If it makes you feel any better I can’t stand Right Wingers who idolize Ayn Rand.

No, I don't think so. It was a personal insult, followed by a pleasantry, and not offered in lieu of argument. This from you was an ad hominem:

"Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist."

Also a lie, insofar as I haven't claimed to be an independent thinker, but I don't think your intent was to lie - it was to insult. I'm able to swap insults, but I quickly grow bored with it.

Like when you say anyone who agrees with even one thing Trump does is a Trump Bot.
Apparently, when you insult someone you disagree with it’s not an insult; that’s why you need to see a psychiatrist.

I said it was a personal insult, but not an ad hominem. They're not identical. I don't deny insulting you.

 

[Indeependent]

You are partisan to an apeshit extent.

Blow it out your ass, dummy, and have a nice evening.

Was that an ad hominem?
If it makes you feel any better I can’t stand Right Wingers who idolize Ayn Rand.

No, I don't think so. It was a personal insult, followed by a pleasantry, and not offered in lieu of argument. This from you was an ad hominem:

"Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist."

Also a lie, insofar as I haven't claimed to be an independent thinker, but I don't think your intent was to lie - it was to insult. I'm able to swap insults, but I quickly grow bored with it.

Like when you say anyone who agrees with even one thing Trump does is a Trump Bot.
Apparently, when you insult someone you disagree with it’s not an insult; that’s why you need to see a psychiatrist.

I said it was a personal insult, but not an ad hominem. They're not identical. I don't deny insulting you.

Any insult that avoids the actual issue at hand is an as hominem.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Blow it out your ass, dummy, and have a nice evening.

Was that an ad hominem?
If it makes you feel any better I can’t stand Right Wingers who idolize Ayn Rand.

No, I don't think so. It was a personal insult, followed by a pleasantry, and not offered in lieu of argument. This from you was an ad hominem:

"Do you believe your bullshit that you’re an independent thinker?
If so, see a psychiatrist."

Also a lie, insofar as I haven't claimed to be an independent thinker, but I don't think your intent was to lie - it was to insult. I'm able to swap insults, but I quickly grow bored with it.

Like when you say anyone who agrees with even one thing Trump does is a Trump Bot.
Apparently, when you insult someone you disagree with it’s not an insult; that’s why you need to see a psychiatrist.

I said it was a personal insult, but not an ad hominem. They're not identical. I don't deny insulting you.

Any insult that avoids the actual issue at hand is an as hominem.

What issue was I avoiding?

 

[easyt65]

Trump's lawyers argued on Saturday that aid to Ukraine was not "conditioned" on Trump's request for investigations. The R's will now have to avoid first-hand testimony to the contrary from John Bolton.

There is no need to call witnesses based on the fact that:

The only 2 people who have direct knowledge of the call - the Ukraine PM and President - said the Democrats' claim is false.

The transcript proves the claim the be false.

Dr. Hill and Ambassador Yovanovitch both testified they were all concerned about Ukrainian corruption, that making sure there was none had been going on for some time. As Sekulow proved by reading Dr. hill's testimony: “Eliminating corruption in Ukraine was one of, if the central goals of a foreign policy.”

Sorry, you don't get to Impeach based on your disagreeing with the President's Foreign Policy.

Calling Bolton to testify is also not required because there is no guarantee that he has any information to add, that this may be just another 'fishing expedition'. Schiff claimed for 2+ years he had direct evidence and was forced to admit he had nothing. Schiff called witnesses in his Committee hearings, and ALL of them were forced to admit NONE of them had any direct knowledge. So Bolton claiming he has any now is no reason to 'go down that rabbit hole'.

The Democrats had their chance to collect documents and access witnesses. Despite the President claiming Executive Privilege - as Barry had done in 'F&F' - the Democrats could have taken this to court, which is the next step to resolving the issue. Instead they went directly to Impeachment, which Constitutional Expert Jonathon Turley called a Democrat abuse of power - one which the courts agreed with by declaring not going through the courts denied the President Due Process.

 

[Zorro!]

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

Nothing to see. Move along.

Trump released the aid, before the end of the fiscal year, aid, by the way, that SEVERAL HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS VOTED AGAINST!

Yes, we need less evidence and more irrelevancies.

Indeed!

The Deep State Tapestry of Deceit is Beginning to Unravel. The sheer shoddiness of the work here makes one wonder how much they’ve gotten away with in the past, to be so careless in such a major undertaking.

The FISA court granted a Title 1 FISA warrant against Page, reserved for those accused of being “an agent of a foreign power,” one who is “knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.” Yet Page was never arrested or indicted for his activities. The reality is that he was a CIA asset “engaged in clandestine intelligence activities” not for Russia, but for America, and this minor bit of information was deliberately omitted from his FISA warrant application and three renewals.

What does “18 U.S. Code § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government” say about “knowingly”?

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises… of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States.

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government.

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence.

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.​

This is gross and deliberate abuse of power, a coup to undermine and remove a duly elected president. All done with intent, knowingly. The fallout is far and wide and all as bogus as the predication of this entire hoax.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Trump's lawyers argued on Saturday that aid to Ukraine was not "conditioned" on Trump's request for investigations. The R's will now have to avoid first-hand testimony to the contrary from John Bolton.

There is no need to call witnesses based on the fact that:

The only 2 people who have direct knowledge of the call - the Ukraine PM and President - said the Democrats' claim is false.

The transcript proves the claim the be false.

Dr. Hill and Ambassador Yovanovitch both testified they were all concerned about Ukrainian corruption, that making sure there was none had been going on for some time. As Sekulow proved by reading Dr. hill's testimony: “Eliminating corruption in Ukraine was one of, if the central goals of a foreign policy.”

Sorry, you don't get to Impeach based on your disagreeing with the President's Foreign Policy.

Calling Bolton to testify is also not required because there is no guarantee that he has any information to add, that this may be just another 'fishing expedition'. Schiff claimed for 2+ years he had direct evidence and was forced to admit he had nothing. Schiff called witnesses in his Committee hearings, and ALL of them were forced to admit NONE of them had any direct knowledge. So Bolton claiming he has any now is no reason to 'go down that rabbit hole'.

The Democrats had their chance to collect documents and access witnesses. Despite the President claiming Executive Privilege - as Barry had done in 'F&F' - the Democrats could have taken this to court, which is the next step to resolving the issue. Instead they went directly to Impeachment, which Constitutional Expert Jonathon Turley called a Democrat abuse of power - one which the courts agreed with by declaring not going through the courts denied the President Due Process.

Yes, too much evidence might be detrimental to Republicans.

Is there a link to this assertion: "one which the courts agreed with by declaring not going through the courts denied the President Due Process."?

 

[rightwinger]

So, Republicans are rushing to wrap up the trial and rush a quick acquittal

The 800 lb gorilla in the room is John Bolton. Recent revelations from his book indicate more Trump involvement than has been reported.

Are Republicans going to just cover their ears and say they don’t want to hear any more? Any vote to acquit, without hearing from Bolton will look like a coverup.

Trump will win and claim victory but Republican Senators will have to answer to voters

 

[Nostra]

Trump's lawyers argued on Saturday that aid to Ukraine was not "conditioned" on Trump's request for investigations. The R's will now have to avoid first-hand testimony to the contrary from John Bolton. I think the Republicans are up to it. I know my own Senators have already come out for dismissing the case and/or acquitting Trump. They're not going to let evidence get in the way.

The R's will now have to avoid first-hand testimony to the contrary from John Bolton.

Link to this contrary testimony from Bolton?

 

[Zorro!]

Trump's lawyers argued on Saturday that aid to Ukraine was not "conditioned" on Trump's request for investigations. The R's will now have to avoid first-hand testimony to the contrary from John Bolton.

There is no need to call witnesses based on the fact that:

The only 2 people who have direct knowledge of the call - the Ukraine PM and President - said the Democrats' claim is false.

The transcript proves the claim the be false.

Dr. Hill and Ambassador Yovanovitch both testified they were all concerned about Ukrainian corruption, that making sure there was none had been going on for some time. As Sekulow proved by reading Dr. hill's testimony: “Eliminating corruption in Ukraine was one of, if the central goals of a foreign policy.”

Sorry, you don't get to Impeach based on your disagreeing with the President's Foreign Policy.

Calling Bolton to testify is also not required because there is no guarantee that he has any information to add, that this may be just another 'fishing expedition'. Schiff claimed for 2+ years he had direct evidence and was forced to admit he had nothing. Schiff called witnesses in his Committee hearings, and ALL of them were forced to admit NONE of them had any direct knowledge. So Bolton claiming he has any now is no reason to 'go down that rabbit hole'.

The Democrats had their chance to collect documents and access witnesses. Despite the President claiming Executive Privilege - as Barry had done in 'F&F' - the Democrats could have taken this to court, which is the next step to resolving the issue. Instead they went directly to Impeachment, which Constitutional Expert Jonathon Turley called a Democrat abuse of power - one which the courts agreed with by declaring not going through the courts denied the President Due Process.

Yes, too much evidence might be detrimental to Republicans.

Is there a link to this assertion: "one which the courts agreed with by declaring not going through the courts denied the President Due Process."?

I don't believe anyone in the history of the nation has ever charged a co-equal branch with "obstruction" simply for not complying with an improper subpoena.

WHEN HE’S RIGHT, HE’S RIGHT: ‘They’ve Taken Their Best Kill Shot And Missed’: Geraldo Rivera Says Impeachment Is Doomed.