WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 4)

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Jan 24, 2020.

  1. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would like you to watch Crow's absolute destruction of your legal argument that is ongoing right now.
     
  2. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Representative Crow started his speech tonight by noting, "Impeachment is not about punishing Presidents for previous wrongdoing. It is about protecting America from the threat created by the President."
     
  3. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The DEMS still not able to substantiate that impeachment case against Trump, it's a very boring proceedings.
     
  4. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are now hearing the closing presentation from Adam Schiff.

    He is starting by reminding us all of the articles of impeachment and stating emphatically that each element "has been proved!"
     
  5. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh please do... How did the Judicial branch get Dean to testify between March 1973 and June 1973?
     
  6. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,164
    Likes Received:
    20,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's like a circular argument with these people. Their arguments would hold, if they actually went through the process. But they shortcircuited the process and now want the results that might have come from a full fledged process.

    AKA: Have my cake and eat it too.

    Nah, this cake's not for sale.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  7. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,164
    Likes Received:
    20,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And when Trump's re-elected 10 months from now, the futility of today will maybe start to sink in.
     
  8. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you answer the question that poster will end up ignoring? How did the Judicial Branch get John Dean to testify against Nixon?

    It's either a lack of reading comprehension or the constant need to parrot the same **** over and over again... I truly cannot decide which it is...
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2020
  9. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He is really hammering the notion that "without an article 2...without the ability to investigate the president...because he can simply say 'under article 2 i can do whatever I want,' ...there will never be an article 1."
     
  10. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there is even a remote chance that today acts as a check against trump or any future president from attempting to cheat in a domestic election and then attempting to cover up that attempt, then today and the last few months have served their purpose.
     
  11. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He is now really delving into the expected defenses from the trump's legal team.

    Attack the process:

    "They will rail against the most unfair process in the history of the world...how dare they follow trey gowdy... how dare they follow the Republican rules...how dare they take depositions where 46 Republicans were permitted to ask questions?!"

    Attack the managers:

    "He mocked the President! I learned that for someone who loves to mock others, he does not like to be mocked...hes got a real thin skin. Who would have thought!?"
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2020
  12. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,164
    Likes Received:
    20,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As that poster stated: The huge difference is that Watergate had criminal activity involved(armed robbery, to be precise.) That's why the Collusion Conspiracy theory invoked a special counsel. In this case, the DOJ closed the file on the WB complaint and actually admonished the ICIG. As far as the DOJ is concerned, there's no criminal element in this case.

    (Insert: Nancy Pelosi complaining that BIll Barr is somehow Trump's attorney.) This lack of criminality is of course, at the center of the controversial DOJ argument in court that you and I went over this morning. But as it relates to the difference between this and Watergate, the Courts had a jurisdictionover criminal matters and so could compel Dean(or anyone else) to testify.

    Had Speaker Pelosi decided to go through the court process all the way. Had she decided for a formal vote on subpoenas and issuing them, the House would be on much stronger terms.

    Now the House is asking the Senate, Republicans and Americans to excuse their shoddy work. Sorry, they get no grade for skipping steps.
     
  13. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Attack the Constitution:

    "The President has the authority to Abuse the Power of his office. The President has the authority to Obstruct Congress. And I look forward to the arguments from Dershowitz because he previously argued that you can be impeached for Abusing the power of his office. And I look forward to hearing the argument from Ken Starr who will argue that it is impeachable to obstruct your own branch of government (obstruction of justice) but you cant obstruct a co-equal branch of the government."
     
  14. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Was Trump impreached or impeached?
     
  15. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The whistleblower:

    "You will probably hear about the whistleblower and originally we did want him to testify...but then the president started to threaten the whistleblower. His testimony only serves to obtain a pound a flesh."

    The hate of President:
    "I do not hate the President, I hate what he has done to this country. He is a danger to this country. He is telling us every day that he will do it again."

    The Bidens:
    "They want to use this trial to do what they could not do with the scheme. Do not pay attention to what the President did. Let's finish what the scheme could not because he got caught."
     
  16. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,164
    Likes Received:
    20,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The House of Representatives, actually, nay Congress itself does not have law enforcement power. That's why it goes to the judiciary to begin with. Law is fiat. There is no law that says "one can't obstruct Congress"(Mr. Levin gave a more simple argument that Congress consists of both the House/Senate, but I also want to tack it on from this angle.) Show the President the law where 'Congress' has the same authority as the DOJ. It doesn't.

    You could argue "Contempt of Congress", but there's no such thing as obstructing Congress ROFL.
     
  17. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The call was perfect:

    "They dont want to make that argument, you wouldn't either. But they have a client who will insist that they do....Ukraine said the call was perfect or felt no pressure....remember that the President of Ukraine wants to Ukraine to survive and they still depend on the US."

    "He said 'No QPQ,' because that is a well known and settled aspect of criminal law...when the defendant learns he was caught and declares he didnt do it that means he didnt do it!"

    No harm, no foul

    "Ukraine learned they could not trust us and Russia learned that Ukraine could not trust the US when we withheld the aid for no reason, that is harm...and when they did not get the meeting they wanted and still havent got, that is harm."

    Claim of Privilege

    "They will claim that you cant impeach for a claim of privilege that he never made because they knew that even making such a claim would reveal too much evidence of wrongdoing."
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2020
  18. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Something really interesting just happened, I think.

    Schiff referenced the reporting from last night about some Senators being told that if they voted against the President, then their head would be on a pile and he said, "Now I dont know if it's true, I hope it is not..."

    And then i think a senator might have yelled out that it isnt true.

    Also, a short while later, he got a laugh when he said the Chief Justice could make a ruling here and yet the Senate could overturn. "It is every legislators dream to be able to overturn a Supreme Court justice."
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2020
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    His final words were a plea to "give Americans a fair trial."
     
  20. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,164
    Likes Received:
    20,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sure Mr. Sekulow and his team will give a powerful opening statement, but I'll refute some of what Adam Schiff's saying right here and now:

    On the Whistleblower:
    Esteemed Senators, House Manager Adam Schiff has lied to you. As many of you may well be aware, information came out that the House Manager has actually met with the whistleblower, well either he or his team. This demonstrates as you know, a great conflict of interest. This man heard the complaint before it became public, and is pursuing the case before you today. For all we know, he may have collaborated with the whistleblower. We simply don't know. That's why we view Adam Schiff as a material key witness and will be calling him to testify if you should vote to allow witnesses.

    But in any event, no harm has come before the whistleblower, and no violations of the federal protection act has occurred. He must testify and we will be calling him as well.

    The Bidens:

    'The House Manager has also made a fraudulent argument. He would argue that the Bidens are immaterial, because in his view it was a scheme to extort the Ukrainians to negatively impact the 2020 elections and his so-called "political rival". Well, I wonder how that sits with you, Elizabeth Warren, you're still running for President. Doesn't it feel a bit disrespectful to presume Biden to be the nominee? Or how about you, Mr. Sanders? Mr. Booker? Ms. Harris? Didn't you view your campaigns seriously? Well, according to Adam Schiff here your campaigns weren't serious. According to him, the only candidate our client, the President of the United States was concerned with, was Joe Biden.

    We can demonstrate this falsehood, simply by releasing campaign information from the Trump Campaign team. Including all preparations to date! That, in of itself invalidates the fiction that Adam Schiff has propagated to this body of the Senate. The President and his political team had no indications, nor did anyone have any indications of Biden being the presumptive nominee. No one from the DNC has declared Biden or anyone currently running for President to be the nominee.

    It bares repeating: This assertion by Adam Schiff is a lie. It's a fiction, not even covered in cloak. It's a deliberate falsehood to this body, and in a legal fashion should be stricken from the court record.

    I apologize for taking the slight detour to destroying that lie, but it was absolutely necessary to get to the relevance of the Biden's. Let's paint the picture in no uncertain terms: A former VP has bragged to extort a foreign government to remove a prosecutor, lest there be funds removed. I thought that's why we were here, but the House has simply accused the wrong person. In addition to this uh, what was it? Quid Pro quo, right? Yeah, that. In addition to that, we have information that Hunter Biden received these kickbacks from Ukraine and China and it smells awfully like money laundering.

    Given the clear abuse of power, if that term has the meaning the managers applied it, it applies no less to Joe and Hunter Biden they should also testify. I understand some Senators who want this properly investigated, so do I. But it's to illustrate plainly, both the corruption and the president's desire to clean that corruption. The only one covering up anything here is Adam Schiff, who only wants certain people to not testify, but not others.

    I'll throw the gauntlet down: I'm willing to have Bolton and Mulaveney testify, with no preconditions. Because our client, the President didn't do anything wrong. On the flip side, is the House Manager even remotely willing to hear from a single witness that could possibly exonerate the President? Hardly and we all know it.

    Of course, all of this is pending the Senate vote. Even without a single witness, we can destroy this fabrication of a case, exonerate our client and prove that he is and always has been on the side of justice.


    The Call:
    While we're to discuss the House Manager's offenses, I demonstrate this brief of the "parody" that Adam Schiff read on the floor of the House.



    You will note, that nothing in the parody is true and he conducted himself on the House floor, just as he's conducted himself here as a so-called impeachment manager. Of course, he called a parody to excuse himself of the judgment that should have been brought down in the House if that body were remotely healthy. This is the same lead prosecutor of the case, I remind you.

    In the actual transcript, which even the House Manager has finally used you'll see several things:

    1)That the President referenced European Union assistance, and the need for the EU to do more. If this President were to extort the Ukrainians, why is he pointing the Ukrainians towards other sources of aid? And why is the Ukrainian President agreeing with him?

    2) You'll note that the President has used "us". As in, the United States. This is the same man who has refused to take one personal check since becoming President. We're now expected to believe, because Adam Schiff said so that the President was concerned with personal political motives during the call. Where was this oh-so-convenient charge during any other day he was President?


    3) As it relates to the meeting, the President has met with the Ukrainian President at the UN meeting. In addition, both the President and Prime Minister of Ukraine have both given exculpatory statements, that we can submit to you here. Unfortunately, of course it's not the same as a live source, but credible all the same.

    There is no extortion, no bribery, no quid pro quo. Nothing. The call doesn't show it, we're prepared with financial records of WH activity to prove it and so forth. The only thing the House Manager has, is his diatribe of the mouth.


    Lastly, we'll close on the subject of Harm:

    It goes beyond saying that the Ukrainians were not harmed by this temporary delay. There hasn't been a single casualty reported "as a direct result" of the withheld aid, or anything of the sort. In fact, weapons made their way to the Ukrainians just on time for the money order. But, this event has caused a great deal of harm. FIVE TIMES, classified information was released. FIVE TIMES. Said classified information was released to a second hand source and to a US House of Rep(Adam Schiff) without proper declassification. Add that to another one of the many reasons we want him on the stand. This harm is irreparable and impeachment would solidify this harm as okay. It's okay to leak classified information if it leads to the impeachment and removal of an opposing party President.

    Our client is innocent of both charges. But that's for this body to decide, along with witnesses. Counsel is prepared for a long and lengthy trial, and we are prepared fully to cooperate to exonerate our client and prove his innocence.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  21. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell us wise one
     
  22. LoneStarGal

    LoneStarGal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    15,050
    Likes Received:
    18,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I saw that episode, pretty funny. it was an uncomfortable silence. I was on the couch saying "who is pencil neck "

    I lol'd, the wife lol'd, alexa lol'd. good times.
     
    mngam and LoneStarGal like this.
  24. Market Junkie

    Market Junkie Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An actual "perfect" phone call...

    *Ringgggg*

    Melania: Hello

    Recorded voice: This call is from Federal Correctional Institution, Ray Brook.

    Muffled voice in background: Melania, it's me Donald.

    Melania: *CLICK*


    (Courtesy #Alan!)

    LMAO
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  25. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Adam Schiff yesterday complained Trump compromised our national security by holding up needed money to Ukraine to buy weapons to fight Russia and Russian back insurgents. I find that kind of funny when in reality it was Obama that flat out refuse to give weapons to Ukraine when it was being invaded by the Russians and Russian backed insurgents. Trump turned over the money within the required time. It was also Trump that armed Ukraine after Obama refused. Did it twice even before this controversial time. Sent them anti tank missiles, grenades and sniper rifles. Obama not only refused to arm Ukraine, he also refuse to arm the Kurds and Jordan in their fight with ISIS. How soon the other side forgets.
     
    LoneStarGal likes this.

Share This Page