Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Elixir]

What gets me about the Bolton deal is that his testimony would be confirming what we've already been told. There seems to be this misimpression that the case for Impeachment hinges on Bolton's testimony. The reality is that the impeachment case hinges on Trump's own words in the transcript and the testimony of the right-wing partisan diplomat that gave Trump's Inauguration $1 million.

Bolton's testimony would be more of a confirmation for the right-wing via the truth bias created by their high esteem for the far-right wing warhawk. The GOP would be hard pressed to ignore Bolton's testimony. It would require them to shift the argument (as we've been seeing) to one of... well... okay, Quid Quo Pro, but not impeachable.

The actual case has been made and quite thoroughly so through the words of Sondland and Trump (and later confirmed via Parnas and Giuliani)... and this is ignoring Mulvaney's statement to the press. The only real question remaining is the final argument presented by the obstructionist GOP... ie... was there a wrong-doing (they were trying to get away with even saying there was never a wrong-doing) or there was a wrong-doing, but it isn't impeachable conduct.

They always have the Dershowitz idiocy to fall back on: The President cannot be indicted or investigated or questioned no matter what he does because he's the Prezidunce and that is the same thing as The Dictator or Der Fuhrer.
That brilliant argument seems to have grabbed the hearts and minds of the Repiblican Senators, all of whom have now been brought into "the loop". So many people now "in the loop" means further dividing up the spoils of the epic Trump theft of taxpayer resources. But that's okay - it just means they have to steal more, faster. Uncle Vlad can certainly help them out with that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What gets me about the Bolton deal is that his testimony would be confirming what we've already been told. There seems to be this misimpression that the case for Impeachment hinges on Bolton's testimony. The reality is that the impeachment case hinges on Trump's own words in the transcript and the testimony of the right-wing partisan diplomat that gave Trump's Inauguration $1 million.

Bolton's testimony would be more of a confirmation for the right-wing via the truth bias created by their high esteem for the far-right wing warhawk. The GOP would be hard pressed to ignore Bolton's testimony. It would require them to shift the argument (as we've been seeing) to one of... well... okay, Quid Quo Pro, but not impeachable.

The actual case has been made and quite thoroughly so through the words of Sondland and Trump (and later confirmed via Parnas and Giuliani)... and this is ignoring Mulvaney's statement to the press. The only real question remaining is the final argument presented by the obstructionist GOP... ie... was there a wrong-doing (they were trying to get away with even saying there was never a wrong-doing) or there was a wrong-doing, but it isn't impeachable conduct.

They always have the Dershowitz idiocy to fall back on: The President cannot be indicted or investigated or questioned no matter what he does.
And that seems to have grabbed the hearts and minds of the people "in the loop".

So, really just have to ask, In 12 years, if President Hillary were to use taxpayer money to get dirt on McConnell, or Cruz, or Kavenaugh, or the dog-catcher in West Bonnaducci, Nevada, it'll be okay with them?

 

[Elixir]

What gets me about the Bolton deal is that his testimony would be confirming what we've already been told. There seems to be this misimpression that the case for Impeachment hinges on Bolton's testimony. The reality is that the impeachment case hinges on Trump's own words in the transcript and the testimony of the right-wing partisan diplomat that gave Trump's Inauguration $1 million.

Bolton's testimony would be more of a confirmation for the right-wing via the truth bias created by their high esteem for the far-right wing warhawk. The GOP would be hard pressed to ignore Bolton's testimony. It would require them to shift the argument (as we've been seeing) to one of... well... okay, Quid Quo Pro, but not impeachable.

The actual case has been made and quite thoroughly so through the words of Sondland and Trump (and later confirmed via Parnas and Giuliani)... and this is ignoring Mulvaney's statement to the press. The only real question remaining is the final argument presented by the obstructionist GOP... ie... was there a wrong-doing (they were trying to get away with even saying there was never a wrong-doing) or there was a wrong-doing, but it isn't impeachable conduct.

They always have the Dershowitz idiocy to fall back on: The President cannot be indicted or investigated or questioned no matter what he does.
And that seems to have grabbed the hearts and minds of the people "in the loop".

So, really just have to ask, In 12 years, if President Hillary were to use taxpayer money to get dirt on McConnell, or Cruz, or Kavenaugh, or the dog-catcher in West Bonnaducci, Nevada, it'll be okay with them?

Of course not! That would be totally corrupt, and Hillary should be lynched. But Hillary should be lynched anyhow, because The Base needs entertainment and the Trump show is 100% repeats now, with no new material on the horizon.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What gets me about the Bolton deal is that his testimony would be confirming what we've already been told. There seems to be this misimpression that the case for Impeachment hinges on Bolton's testimony. The reality is that the impeachment case hinges on Trump's own words in the transcript and the testimony of the right-wing partisan diplomat that gave Trump's Inauguration $1 million.

Bolton's testimony would be more of a confirmation for the right-wing via the truth bias created by their high esteem for the far-right wing warhawk. The GOP would be hard pressed to ignore Bolton's testimony. It would require them to shift the argument (as we've been seeing) to one of... well... okay, Quid Quo Pro, but not impeachable.

The actual case has been made and quite thoroughly so through the words of Sondland and Trump (and later confirmed via Parnas and Giuliani)... and this is ignoring Mulvaney's statement to the press. The only real question remaining is the final argument presented by the obstructionist GOP... ie... was there a wrong-doing (they were trying to get away with even saying there was never a wrong-doing) or there was a wrong-doing, but it isn't impeachable conduct.

They always have the Dershowitz idiocy to fall back on: The President cannot be indicted or investigated or questioned no matter what he does.
And that seems to have grabbed the hearts and minds of the people "in the loop".

So, really just have to ask, In 12 years, if President Hillary were to use taxpayer money to get dirt on McConnell, or Cruz, or Kavenaugh, or the dog-catcher in West Bonnaducci, Nevada, it'll be okay with them?

Of course not. They take the GOP Hypocritical Oath for a reason. Graham is already in polar opposition to the Clinton Impeachment Lindsey Graham.

 

[Treedbear]

After Clinton's impeachment trial he was disbarred. Will all of Trump's 'lawyers' also get disbarred for their pathetic distortions of the law?

There are arguments that have been made that should flunk a law student out of law school.. but being a defense lawyer allows for the exploration of novel defense tactics in the interest of doing every last possible thing to minimize the negative impact on your client.
But, ya, I agree that there are some tactics and arguments that should raise the attention of the Bar for ethical review.

I wonder if Dershowitz is technically functioning as a defense lawyer. I've heard him saying he's not taking part in the team's strategy planning. OK he's got a law degree and he's a professor of constitutional law at Harvard. But his role seems to be to offer a legal opinion on whether something is constitutional. He also claims that he's been making his point well before he was ever approached to be on the team. He seems to be claiming to be independent and unbiased. His role really seems to be that of an "expert witness". Actually I wonder about Ken Starr also, who became dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law in 2004. They both claim that although they'd made the opposite argument during the Clinton impeachment that over the past decades they've become enlighted on the matter and that Presidents can't be impeached for abuse of power. IOW they've looked at impeachment from both sides now. Now it's one thing for politicians like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer to have an about face on matters when it serves them. But seasoned law professors? Anyway, my point is that the President's defense team has in effect already called a witness. An expert witness.

ETA - I mean, the last thing he did was to thank the Senators for allowing him to be there and deliver his argument. Not something someone in the role of a lawyer would do.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Anyway, my point is that the President's defense team has in effect already called a witness. An expert witness.

Meh, During the House investigation, GOP members used their 'question' time to deliver sermons, effectively testifying during someone else's testimony.

 

[Treedbear]

Anyway, my point is that the President's defense team has in effect already called a witness. An expert witness.

Meh, During the House investigation, GOP members used their 'question' time to deliver sermons, effectively testifying during someone else's testimony.

That wasn't during a trial and it wasn't under Senate rules.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Anyway, my point is that the President's defense team has in effect already called a witness. An expert witness.

Meh, During the House investigation, GOP members used their 'question' time to deliver sermons, effectively testifying during someone else's testimony.

That wasn't during a trial and it wasn't under Senate rules.

But it's the same tactic. Get Trump's narrative out there, spin, spin, spin, take up time and spotlight with their own crap.

 

[Treedbear]

That wasn't during a trial and it wasn't under Senate rules.

But it's the same tactic. Get Trump's narrative out there, spin, spin, spin, take up time and spotlight with their own crap.

I understand why you're not excited about more spin. The point is that if technically Dershowitz was an expert witness then if the Dems asked Judge Roberts to issue a subpeona to call their own witness he would ethically have the grounds to do so.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That wasn't during a trial and it wasn't under Senate rules.

But it's the same tactic. Get Trump's narrative out there, spin, spin, spin, take up time and spotlight with their own crap.

I understand why you're not excited about more spin. The point is that if technically Dershowitz was an expert witness then if the Dems asked Judge Roberts to issue a subpeona to call their own witness he would ethically have the grounds to do so.

Again, Meh. He was introduced as Trump's counsel. Which means every lawyer in the chamber understands that his entire purpose was to pretend Trump's side has merit, whatever he has to do.
I doubt that Roberts will allow counsel to be subpoenaed as expert testimony.

Although it would make a good SNL skit. Dershowitz calls Dershowitz to the stand.
"Now, sir, when did you first come to understand that you were wrong about impeaching a president?"
Then he jumps into the witness booth. "As soon as the check cleared."
Jumps back up. "Don't you mean, after a long and considered review of the relevant articles?"
Sits down. "No, it didn't take all that long, Trump has a reputation of stiffing lawyers, so i waited until the bank said it was paid."

Then at some point, asks Roberts for permission to treat the witness as hostile...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I heard this while driving home yesterday and found it fascinating... Pam Bondi's case on Hunter Biden.

Sen. Kennedy asks what Hunter Biden did for the money he was paid, and Bondi's response was pretty much *shoulder shrug* *corruption in the gap*.

 

[blastula]

[URL="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-declines-to-read-rand-pauls-impeachment-trial-question/ar-BBZufdH"]Rand Paul walks out of Senate after question is rejected in impeachment trial[/URL]

Paul is such a weenie. He tried this yesterday too, asking a question naming the whistleblower.

 

[Half-Life]

I heard this while driving home yesterday and found it fascinating... Pam Bondi's case on Hunter Biden.

Sen. Kennedy asks what Hunter Biden did for the money he was paid, and Bondi's response was pretty much *shoulder shrug* *corruption in the gap*.

Hunter was making $83,000 a month working for Ukraine. Just what kind of job was he doing that's worth that much? People with PHD's don't even make 83 grand a month!!!

You guys need to smell what Biden's shoveling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rand Paul walks out of Senate after question is rejected in impeachment trial

Paul is such a weenie. He tried this yesterday too, asking a question naming the whistleblower.

Not to self-promote, but... *self-promote*

 

[Patooka]

I heard this while driving home yesterday and found it fascinating... Pam Bondi's case on Hunter Biden.

Sen. Kennedy asks what Hunter Biden did for the money he was paid, and Bondi's response was pretty much *shoulder shrug* *corruption in the gap*.

Hunter was making $83,000 a month working for Ukraine. Just what kind of job was he doing that's worth that much? People with PHD's don't even make 83 grand a month!!!

You guys need to smell what Biden's shoveling.

What the fuck does this have to do with Trump? That's right, nothing. And what would you consider to be a fair salary for a former member of the board of directors for Amtrak?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Witnesses are routinely called in slam-dunk cases!

I am not up to date. I thought there did not need to be any witnesses because it is not a criminal trial, so it is not subject to the rules of a criminal trial.

You use witnesses in civil trials also.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fox News just showed a part of the trial and I forget who it was but he asked a Democrat on the stand, "Do you have any evidence of Trump committing any crime at all?" The woman responded, "No."

Case closed.

What evidence do you have that Clinton did anything wrong?

Case closed.

The sperm stain on Monica's dress came from?

1) Half-Life doesn't have the dress.

2) It's only evidence of sexual behavior, not of wrongdoing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I heard this while driving home yesterday and found it fascinating... Pam Bondi's case on Hunter Biden.

Sen. Kennedy asks what Hunter Biden did for the money he was paid, and Bondi's response was pretty much *shoulder shrug* *corruption in the gap*.

Hunter was making $83,000 a month working for Ukraine. Just what kind of job was he doing that's worth that much? People with PHD's don't even make 83 grand a month!!!

You guys need to smell what Biden's shoveling.

It is called "Window Dressing". Hunter Biden is there to make the company look legit. It's bullshit, it created what looks to be a potential conflict of interest, but as Bondi was able to tell the Senate yesterday, they don't know a fucking thing about what Hunter Biden did. Which makes it pretty hard to suggest he did something corrupt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After Clinton's impeachment trial he was disbarred. Will all of Trump's 'lawyers' also get disbarred for their pathetic distortions of the law?

The disbarment was political. Since he wasn't going back to being a lawyer there there was no reason for a big fight about it.

 

[Half-Life]

The sperm stain on Monica's dress came from?

1) Half-Life doesn't have the dress.

2) It's only evidence of sexual behavior, not of wrongdoing.

Even Hillary showed how much she didn't care by not divorcing the guy. Money talks. He was the President. Why would she gain a moral compass and divorce for adultery when she had all that fame and fortune?

And you guys complain about Trump's morals.