***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***

Lerxst1992

"THE FIELD"

pjl44 said:

josevolution said:

Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.

Where are you seeing that it would take years?

They have been suing to get the redacted portions of muller report released. Is it out yet? That’s almost a year. 

They’ve been suing to get McGahn to testify since before Ukraine was a thing.

are we even close to getting the USSC hearing anything on those cases? 

pjl44

Lerxst1992 said:

pjl44 said:

josevolution said:

Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.

Where are you seeing that it would take years?

They have been suing to get the redacted portions of muller report released. Is it out yet? That’s almost a year. 

They’ve been suing to get McGahn to testify since before Ukraine was a thing.

are we even close to getting the USSC hearing anything on those cases? 

I have no idea if that's the same as witness subpoenas in an impeachment hearing or not. I haven't read anything that indicates it would take that long but maybe it would? I just want to read it from a journalist who knows what they're talking about. 

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

pjl44 said:

josevolution said:

Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.

Where are you seeing that it would take years?

They have been suing to get the redacted portions of muller report released. Is it out yet? That’s almost a year. 

They’ve been suing to get McGahn to testify since before Ukraine was a thing.

are we even close to getting the USSC hearing anything on those cases? 

I have no idea if that's the same as witness subpoenas in an impeachment hearing or not. I haven't read anything that indicates it would take that long but maybe it would? I just want to read it from a journalist who knows what they're talking about. 

Well if you figure it would start at the local circuit and move through the appellate channel, with each court having to schedule and hear the case, and then because of the high profile nature, at least a month each to write the opinion.  Then it has to go the the scotus session.  So it could definitely take a while.

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

pjl44 said:

josevolution said:

Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.

Where are you seeing that it would take years?

They have been suing to get the redacted portions of muller report released. Is it out yet? That’s almost a year. 

They’ve been suing to get McGahn to testify since before Ukraine was a thing.

are we even close to getting the USSC hearing anything on those cases? 

I have no idea if that's the same as witness subpoenas in an impeachment hearing or not. I haven't read anything that indicates it would take that long but maybe it would? I just want to read it from a journalist who knows what they're talking about. 

Well if you figure it would start at the local circuit and move through the appellate channel, with each court having to schedule and hear the case, and then because of the high profile nature, at least a month each to write the opinion.  Then it has to go the the scotus session.  So it could definitely take a while.

Oh, sure. And everything I've read has said months. Which is way different than years.

The reason I'm pushing on it is I think it makes a big difference. Even if it took months, I thought the House should have fought to hear from Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, etc. If someone in the know is saying it could take years, that's another story.

The Juggler

2019

The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day. 

70% of Americans want witnesses. On what other subject do 70% of us agree on? Not much. They're in a bad spot either way...and that's a good thing, folks.

Edit---plus, I have heard Bolton's book might be out by the Spring. Let's say they vote no for witnesses and his book is damning. That's even worse for them. 

pjl44

The Juggler said:

The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day. 

The McGahn case isn't a good analogue, though. This is from a New York Times story about the Charles Kupperman subpoena in December. 

The Juggler

2019

pjl44 said:

The Juggler said:

The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day. 

The McGahn case isn't a good analogue, though. This is from a New York Times story about the Charles Kupperman subpoena in December. 

They probably should have at least issued the subpoenas. But I doubt they would have gotten these guys to come in and testify any time soon. My point remains. 

pjl44

The Juggler said:

pjl44 said:

The Juggler said:

The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day. 

The McGahn case isn't a good analogue, though. This is from a New York Times story about the Charles Kupperman subpoena in December. 

They probably should have at least issued the subpoenas. But I doubt they would have gotten these guys to come in and testify any time soon. My point remains. 

I think we just disagree on the impact. I'm fine with it dragging into the summer to give every effort to get those guys in. I hope you're right about 4 Republicans voting for witnesses, but even then the best case scenario is that you get Bolton. No way those other dudes are coming in unless they're compelled. 

HughFreakingDillon

2018

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Kat said:

John Roberts should be sent home. He's supposed to be there to make sure people follow the rules and he isn't doing anything at all in that regard much less having any influence with people telling the truth. The Senators are supposed to sit in their seats and listen. No electronics and that means Apple watches. Crossword puzzles, toys...what a joke. These are toddlers, not Senators. Roberts is useless and I can't see justice ever coming from him in any court or anywhere else. I guess his soul has been eaten too. Very sad. :(

he didn't even know when it was appropriate to use his gavel during the beginning of the proceedings. he's an idiot. 

I'm sorry, Roberts is hardly an idiot.  As to enforcement of the rules, I'm sure my perspective would be "I'm going to pick my battles and not interrupt the trial to lecture someone about playing Candy Crush".  Let the press filet them for it.  

i'm not talking about the enforcement of the rules (but he's also not really doing any of that, either). he's the fucking presiding judge, and didn't have the respect enough of the responsibility to know when to use the gavel. it wasn't to enforce the rules, it was the end of a certain proceeding (my memory currently fails me); he whispered to someone next to him "is this when i use this?".  

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Kat said:

John Roberts should be sent home. He's supposed to be there to make sure people follow the rules and he isn't doing anything at all in that regard much less having any influence with people telling the truth. The Senators are supposed to sit in their seats and listen. No electronics and that means Apple watches. Crossword puzzles, toys...what a joke. These are toddlers, not Senators. Roberts is useless and I can't see justice ever coming from him in any court or anywhere else. I guess his soul has been eaten too. Very sad. :(

he didn't even know when it was appropriate to use his gavel during the beginning of the proceedings. he's an idiot. 

I'm sorry, Roberts is hardly an idiot.  As to enforcement of the rules, I'm sure my perspective would be "I'm going to pick my battles and not interrupt the trial to lecture someone about playing Candy Crush".  Let the press filet them for it.  

i'm not talking about the enforcement of the rules (but he's also not really doing any of that, either). he's the fucking presiding judge, and didn't have the respect enough of the responsibility to know when to use the gavel. it wasn't to enforce the rules, it was the end of a certain proceeding (my memory currently fails me); he whispered to someone next to him "is this when i use this?".  

Pretty sure this is the first impeachment trial where he's presided.  There's no rule book.  I'm guessing he asked the parliamentarian, which is essentially the official historian of the Senate.  That person will have a much stronger understanding of proper etiquette than the chief justice.  

mrussel1

This seems bad for Trump's case,  but I don't know.  Maybe Bolton is just a crazy Democrat.   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tied-ukraine-aid-to-inquiries-he-sought-bolton-book-says/ar-BBZlMfy

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

This seems bad for Trump's case,  but I don't know.  Maybe Bolton is just a crazy Democrat.   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tied-ukraine-aid-to-inquiries-he-sought-bolton-book-says/ar-BBZlMfy

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

This seems bad for Trump's case,  but I don't know.  Maybe Bolton is just a crazy Democrat.   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tied-ukraine-aid-to-inquiries-he-sought-bolton-book-says/ar-BBZlMfy

Bravo for finding that!

mickeyrat

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-white-house-offers-senators-a-false-and-poisonous-choice/2020/01/26/0b90d34c-403b-11ea-aa6a-083d01b3ed18_story.html

ikiT

2018

I found this this morning...

Republican senators seemed relieved to finally have the president’s side of the debate presented on the floor.

“They completely undermined the case of the Democrats and truly undermined the credibility of Adam Schiff,” Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told reporters afterward.

Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, who joined Mr. Trump onstage to address abortion opponents at the March for Life on Friday, said the president’s lawyers showed that the managers were selective in their presentation of the facts.

“It happened over and over again for three days where they really cherry-pick one part of a sentence and then would not read the full part of the sentence,” he said. “Today we got a chance to see the whole sentence.”

uccchchhh.  These assholes.

The Juggler

2019

The Juggler said:

The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day. 

70% of Americans want witnesses. On what other subject do 70% of us agree on? Not much. They're in a bad spot either way...and that's a good thing, folks.

Edit---plus, I have heard Bolton's book might be out by the Spring. Let's say they vote no for witnesses and his book is damning. That's even worse for them. 

josevolution

2018

Farce of a trial , fuck your precious constitution someone should rip it up on Capitol building..

The Juggler

2019

josevolution said:

Farce of a trial , fuck your precious constitution someone should rip it up on Capitol building..

Well...let’s wait and see if there will be witnesses first?

mrussel1

josevolution said:

Farce of a trial , fuck your precious constitution someone should rip it up on Capitol building..

YEAH!  Down with trials in this country!  Mob rules! 

josevolution

2018

The Juggler said:

josevolution said:

Farce of a trial , fuck your precious constitution someone should rip it up on Capitol building..

Well...let’s wait and see if there will be witnesses first?

I have zero confidence that will happen...