Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[joaquinmiller]

I would guess it's because only 17 transcripts were included in the House Report. OE says it was a 'briefing'(intel), rather than witness testimony. I don't know that technically, but OE is reliable. At any rate, unless it's classified, Ratcliffe is free to show it to us. If it is classified, we won't know if Ratcliffe is lying about it or not.

Thanks.

Schiff reportedly designated Atkinson’s testimony as a “briefing,” which allowed him to make what Atkinson said classified and makes it so Republicans in the Senate cannot use what he said in their defense of the president.​

Why, it's almost as if they want more evidence! Almost.

 

[basquebromance]

is it just me...or does Shiffty Schiff look like Benedict Arnold?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Absolutely. Dimwingers have no case.

Next?

It's because it backfired on the Repubs in 1998. They expected to pick up a lot of seats, and wound up losing a few. It led to Gingrich's resignation. You could look it up.

1998 has zero to do with your Dimwingers not having a case.

The Democrats have a good case. The Trump defense is to say, "Unh-uh" and block witnesses. The Unh-uh Defense - a staple of two-year cookie thieves for as long as there have been cookies.

The fact you are too stupid to understand why the subpoenas issued by the House were invalid is hilarious.

I know this one. Because Pelosi, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry don't PERSONALLY hold impeachment power, the House as a body does. We covered this at the time, and we were right.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

A judge ruled otherwise on October 25.

The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham …

In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.

[D.C. District Court] Judge [Beryl] Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.

 

[Shawnee_b]

I don't know how many are old enough (I'm 65) to remember the little animal erasers that you could put over the eraser on your pencil. I'd love to see one of shitty. "Schifty on a pencil"

 

[The Original Tree]

I don't know how many are old enough (I'm 65) to remember the little animal erasers that you could put over the eraser on your pencil. I'd love to see one of shitty. "Schifty on a pencil"

That would be awesome. I should bet a patent on that. That or an Adam Schiff Punching Bag.

 

[22lcidw]

schiff has been kind of slimy since the late 90's....

Swamp oil!

 

[Olde Europe]

Starr.

Impeachment is invalid without a statutory crime. That's clearly false. See, "violation of some public trust."

Impeachment is invalid without bipartisan support. That's clearly false. Moreover, one corrupt faction sticking with a corrupt president would render impeachment redundant.

Impeachment is invalid without "due process" rights for the accused. That's clearly false, and a false analogy. Of course, Clinton's lawyers swarmed all around Starr during that investigation, so much so they essentially co-wrote the misnamed "Starr Report". Neither the Clinton, nor the Trump impeachment discovery phase had anything to do with "due process" as misrepresented by Starr. That's laughable.

The House's subpoenas were invalid without a House vote, because the House has the power to impeach, not the Speaker. That's risible. House Committee chairs have subpoena power (also outside of impeachment proceedings), and issuing subpoenas is not the same as actually impeaching the president, which is what the House did. There is no rule how to start impeachment proceedings, and Speaker Pelosi was well within her rights to announce that start.

U.S. v. Nixon established "Executive Privilege". Starr forgot to mention, it established that Nixon had to hand over the tape, and that the Executive has to cooperate in the House's Constitutional exercise of its Impeachment powers.

Starr is very lucky sanctimony doesn't actually, physically stink, for otherwise they'd have to throw him out of the Senate chamber.

 

[Zorro!]

It's because it backfired on the Repubs in 1998. They expected to pick up a lot of seats, and wound up losing a few. It led to Gingrich's resignation. You could look it up.

1998 has zero to do with your Dimwingers not having a case.

The Democrats have a good case. The Trump defense is to say, "Unh-uh" and block witnesses. The Unh-uh Defense - a staple of two-year cookie thieves for as long as there have been cookies.

The fact you are too stupid to understand why the subpoenas issued by the House were invalid is hilarious.

I know this one. Because Pelosi, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry don't PERSONALLY hold impeachment power, the House as a body does. We covered this at the time, and we were right.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

A judge ruled otherwise on October 25.

The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham …

In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.

[D.C. District Court] Judge [Beryl] Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.

In the Andrew Johnson impeachment they did not attempt to compel testimony until AFTER the whole House vote. Same with Clinton and Nixon.

From The Office Of Legal Counsel

House Committees’ Authority to Investigate for Impeachment The House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s power of impeachment. The House had not authorized an impeachment investigation in connection with impeachment-related subpoenas issued by House committees before October 31, 2019, and the subpoenas therefore had no compulsory effect. The House’s adoption of Resolution 660 on October 31, 2019, did not alter the legal status of those subpoenas, because the resolution did not ratify or otherwise address their terms. J
​

https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1236346/download

It's seems like these clowns don't understand our system of government. They have NO inherent power, they only have DERIVED power, and they derive that power from We The People. And We The People didn't give Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry sole Impeachment Power we GAVE THAT TO THE ENTIRE HOUSE.

If this judge is saying anything different than that, she is wrong and will be reversed.

 

[joaquinmiller]

1998 has zero to do with your Dimwingers not having a case.

The Democrats have a good case. The Trump defense is to say, "Unh-uh" and block witnesses. The Unh-uh Defense - a staple of two-year cookie thieves for as long as there have been cookies.

The fact you are too stupid to understand why the subpoenas issued by the House were invalid is hilarious.

I know this one. Because Pelosi, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry don't PERSONALLY hold impeachment power, the House as a body does. We covered this at the time, and we were right.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

A judge ruled otherwise on October 25.

The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham …

In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.

[D.C. District Court] Judge [Beryl] Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.

In the Andrew Johnson impeachment they did not attempt to compel testimony until AFTER the whole House vote. Same with Clinton and Nixon.

From The Office Of Legal Counsel

House Committees’ Authority to Investigate for Impeachment The House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s power of impeachment. The House had not authorized an impeachment investigation in connection with impeachment-related subpoenas issued by House committees before October 31, 2019, and the subpoenas therefore had no compulsory effect. The House’s adoption of Resolution 660 on October 31, 2019, did not alter the legal status of those subpoenas, because the resolution did not ratify or otherwise address their terms. J
​

https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1236346/download

It's seems like these clowns don't understand our system of government. They have NO inherent power, they only have DERIVED power, and they derive that power from We The People. And We The People didn't give Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry sole Impeachment Power we GAVE THAT TO THE ENTIRE HOUSE.

If this judge is saying anything different than that, she is wrong and will be reversed.

In the Court of Hannity, yeah. Not in a real court.

And she didn't just say it now, she ruled on October 25, 2019, and Trump's spokespeople have been gaslighting you ever since.

 

[easyt65]

Ya know that MILITARY aid to Ukraine that was NOT delayed by President Trump? The House Impeachment Monitors voted AGAINST it.

1st, the Javelin missiles were never part of the aid temporarily delayed...something Schiff and Nadler 'forgot' to mention.

2nd, if giving aid to Ukraine was so critical to our national security.....why did the Democrats vote to deny it altogether?


"Nadler, Lofgren, and Jeffries are working tirelessly to dislodge President Trump for delaying aid to Ukraine when they themselves voted to stop such relief, dead in its tracks.

On July 26, 2018, all three voted against the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which included $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine. Despite Lofgren’s assertions to the contrary, such funds turned out not to be “unanimous, forceful, and unwavering,” with Lofgren herself among those undermining the very same unanimity that she ballyhoos.

In its time of need, these three impeachment managers told Ukraine to go to Hell. The vote was a lopsided 359-54, with Nadler, Lofgren, and Jeffries among the minority who just said no to this bill and its aid to Ukraine.

Even worse, Nadler opposed $300 million in aid to Ukraine when he voted against the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Astonishingly, Nadler’s vote was on December 11, 2019, two days after he chaired a Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing and exactly one week before he was the House floor manager for the December 17 debate and December 18 votes on articles of impeachment.

While 40 other Democrats rejected the NDAA, which contained the aid to Ukraine, 188 Democrats endorsed this bill. If Ukraine is a necessary condition for America’s national security — so much so that President Trump’s hold on this aid triggered Nadler to co-direct the effort to pry him from office — why didn’t Nadler join 188 of his Democrat colleagues and vote Yea?"


The Democrats' attempt to Impeach the President for DELAYING aid THEY VOTED TO DENY COMPLETELY is another neon friggin' sign signaling how much BS they are shoveling!



Deroy Murdock: Trump Senate trial -- Democrat impeachment managers voted AGAINST military aid to Ukraine


.

 

[jc456]

SCHIFF (tape): We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.

PHILBIN: It turned out that that statement was not truthful. Around October 2nd or 3rd, it was exposed that the Manager Schiff’s staff at least had spoken with the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed the complaint and potentially had given some guidance, some sort to the whistleblower. After that point it became critical to shut down any inquiry into the whistleblower. During the House hearings, of course Manager Schiff was in charge. He was chairing the hearings. That creates a real problem from a due process perspective, from a search for truth perspective, because he was an interested fact witness at that point. He had a reason, since he had been caught out saying something that wasn’t truthful about that contact, he had a reason to not want that inquiry. It was he who ensured that there wasn’t any inquiry into that.

Now this is relevant here I think because as you’ve heard from my colleagues, a lot of what we’ve heard over the past 23 hours, over the past three days, has been from Chairman Schiff. He has been telling you things like what’s in President Trump’s head, what’s in President Zelensky’s head. It’s all his interpretation of the facts and the evidence trying to pull inferences out of things. There’s another statement that Chairman Schiff made that I think we have on video.

CHUCK TODD (tape): But you admit all you have right now is a circumstantial case.

SCHIFF: Actually, no Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. Again, I think —

TODD: So you have seen evidence of collusion.

SCHIFF: I don’t want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation.

PHILBIN: That was in March of 2017 when Chairman Schiff was ranking member of HPSCI was telling the public, the American public, that he had more than circumstantial evidence through his position on H that President Trump’s campaign had colluded with Russia. Of course, the Mueller Report, as Mr. Sekulow pointed out, after $32 million and over 500 search warrants or roughly 500 search warrants, determined that there was no collusion. That wasn’t true. We wanted to point these things out simply for this reason. Chairman Schiff has made so much of the House’s case about the credibility of interpretations that the House Managers want to place on not hard evidence but on inferences. They want to tell you what President Trump thought. They want to tell you don’t believe what Zelensky said. We can tell you what Zelensky actually thought. Don’t believe what the other Ukrainians actually said about not being pressured. We can tell you what they actually thought. That it is very relevant to know whether the assessments of evidence he’s presented in the past are accurate. We would submit that they have not been and that that is relevant for your consideration.

There is a reason Pencil Neck didn't want to go into "specifics"......he had none.

I still conclude that Schitt's is the whistleblower.

 

[jc456]

You gotta admire Starr's chutzpah - he rushed his Porn Report out 60 days before an election, and now, in somnolescent lament, he frets over politicized impeachment.

Starr had been investigating for 4 years, so how the hell to you get that he "rushed"? And 1998 was a mid term election, not a Presidential election year.

Oops......and Oops.............

no president but now trump was impeached in the first term.

 

[Nostra]

It's because it backfired on the Repubs in 1998. They expected to pick up a lot of seats, and wound up losing a few. It led to Gingrich's resignation. You could look it up.

1998 has zero to do with your Dimwingers not having a case.

The Democrats have a good case. The Trump defense is to say, "Unh-uh" and block witnesses. The Unh-uh Defense - a staple of two-year cookie thieves for as long as there have been cookies.

The fact you are too stupid to understand why the subpoenas issued by the House were invalid is hilarious.

I know this one. Because Pelosi, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry don't PERSONALLY hold impeachment power, the House as a body does. We covered this at the time, and we were right.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

A judge ruled otherwise on October 25.

The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham …

In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.

[D.C. District Court] Judge [Beryl] Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.

She is a lefty hack DC circuit judge appointed by Obama.

 

[joaquinmiller]

1998 has zero to do with your Dimwingers not having a case.

The Democrats have a good case. The Trump defense is to say, "Unh-uh" and block witnesses. The Unh-uh Defense - a staple of two-year cookie thieves for as long as there have been cookies.

The fact you are too stupid to understand why the subpoenas issued by the House were invalid is hilarious.

I know this one. Because Pelosi, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry don't PERSONALLY hold impeachment power, the House as a body does. We covered this at the time, and we were right.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

A judge ruled otherwise on October 25.

The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham …

In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.

[D.C. District Court] Judge [Beryl] Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.

She is a lefty hack DC circuit judge appointed by Obama.

Lawyers call her Your Honor, same as with every other Federal Judge.

 

[Zorro!]

Ya know that MILITARY aid to Ukraine that was NOT delayed by President Trump? The House Impeachment Monitors voted AGAINST it.

1st, the Javelin missiles were never part of the aid temporarily delayed...something Schiff and Nadler 'forgot' to mention.

2nd, if giving aid to Ukraine was so critical to our national security.....why did the Democrats vote to deny it altogether?


"Nadler, Lofgren, and Jeffries are working tirelessly to dislodge President Trump for delaying aid to Ukraine when they themselves voted to stop such relief, dead in its tracks.

On July 26, 2018, all three voted against the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which included $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine. Despite Lofgren’s assertions to the contrary, such funds turned out not to be “unanimous, forceful, and unwavering,” with Lofgren herself among those undermining the very same unanimity that she ballyhoos.

In its time of need, these three impeachment managers told Ukraine to go to Hell. The vote was a lopsided 359-54, with Nadler, Lofgren, and Jeffries among the minority who just said no to this bill and its aid to Ukraine.

Even worse, Nadler opposed $300 million in aid to Ukraine when he voted against the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Astonishingly, Nadler’s vote was on December 11, 2019, two days after he chaired a Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing and exactly one week before he was the House floor manager for the December 17 debate and December 18 votes on articles of impeachment.

While 40 other Democrats rejected the NDAA, which contained the aid to Ukraine, 188 Democrats endorsed this bill. If Ukraine is a necessary condition for America’s national security — so much so that President Trump’s hold on this aid triggered Nadler to co-direct the effort to pry him from office — why didn’t Nadler join 188 of his Democrat colleagues and vote Yea?"


The Democrats' attempt to Impeach the President for DELAYING aid THEY VOTED TO DENY COMPLETELY is another neon friggin' sign signaling how much BS they are shoveling!



Deroy Murdock: Trump Senate trial -- Democrat impeachment managers voted AGAINST military aid to Ukraine


.

Yup. And Trump, after talking with the President and deciding to go ahead with the aid, added the deadly tank killers that Obama withheld.

This whole thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[WEATHER53]

We have not presented our case effectively enough, you call additional witnesses who may shine a more favorable light on our shoddy and incomplete work.
Lib 101

 

[jc456]

You gotta admire Starr's chutzpah - he rushed his Porn Report out 60 days before an election, and now, in somnolescent lament, he frets over politicized impeachment.

Starr had been investigating for 4 years, so how the hell to you get that he "rushed"? And 1998 was a mid term election, not a Presidential election year.

Oops......and Oops.............

Do you know why everyone worried, claimed, or predicted impeachment would backfire on the Democrats?

Absolutely. Dimwingers have no case.

Next?

It's because it backfired on the Repubs in 1998. They expected to pick up a lot of seats, and wound up losing a few. It led to Gingrich's resignation. You could look it up.

dude, I completely agree with you here. wow, satan's in trouble, hell just froze.

 

[jc456]

We have not presented our case effectively enough, you call additional witnesses who may shine a more favorable light on our shoddy and incomplete work.
Lib 101

nope. a weak case is a weak case because it's weak. this is a no case.

 

[Olde Europe]

In the Court of Hannity, yeah. Not in a real court.

And she didn't just say it now, she ruled on October 25, 2019, and Trump's spokespeople have been gaslighting you ever since.

You know what's funniest of all in Starr's fountain of lies? His whining about how the House impeachment investigators were not under oath - given ... neither is he.

And that's when he claimed that Trump, in the last months of 2019, rejecting any and all cooperation with the House inquiry, followed the OLC opinion, issued on "January 19, 2020".

I actually, for once, agree with Starr: The defense team should take Starr's advice, and make their case under oath.

 

[Nostra]

The Democrats have a good case. The Trump defense is to say, "Unh-uh" and block witnesses. The Unh-uh Defense - a staple of two-year cookie thieves for as long as there have been cookies.

The fact you are too stupid to understand why the subpoenas issued by the House were invalid is hilarious.

I know this one. Because Pelosi, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry don't PERSONALLY hold impeachment power, the House as a body does. We covered this at the time, and we were right.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

A judge ruled otherwise on October 25.

The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham …

In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.

[D.C. District Court] Judge [Beryl] Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.

She is a lefty hack DC circuit judge appointed by Obama.

Lawyers call her Your Honor, same as with every other Federal Judge.

So?