McConnell lays out rules for Trump's Senate trial, allowing for vote on witnesses, documents

To what end? What can you possibly get out of a trial with no possible appeal and no chance of a new or more complete public record and where justice is precluded by jury nullification, except a lot of trumpeting about the acquittal in front of the blatantly partisan jury? The only reason to even send the articles to the Senate, is to say that you sent the articles to the Senate. You can't recall the damn articles for a rewrite with new evidence found in further House investigation. You can only move forward with a new article on the older charges from the Mueller report.

Really all we will get from this exercise is the Senate votes, which may or may not be useful in November. They may help in some races, and they may hurt in others.

 

No matter. The pursuit of the truth is a very worthy notion, and if someone stands in your way, then that is at their feet.

(I do get your point, but I am not into the politics of this. I am into getting to the truth, and there is no way that can happen given the useless way the impeachment process was drafted by a bunch of blokes centuries ago based on the experience they had AT THAT TIME. 2A is another classic example.)

 

Yes, I am calling McConnell a liar for saying the Senate would follow the Clinton model and then significantly altering that model in identifiable ways.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/...peachment-rules-modify-clinton-precedent.html

I do want to thank you for raising the Clinton motion because I forgot that happened. The above link actually notes the difference between McConnell's model and the Clinton model on the motion to dismiss is based on the additional freedom afforded the President's team. They may, or may not, raise the motion whereas the Clinton model forced the motion.

 

Cant handle the truth, huh?

 

The Senate trial to decide whether Trump should be removed from office based on a mere 67 voted will begin.

 

I think you will be watching him talk a lot in the next several days. Do try to refrain from breaking your TV.

Also, can I ask why you still want to hear from the whistleblower? Schiff said he or she would testify because at the time, the whistleblower was the only witness that Schiff had any degree of certainty would be wing to testify because all the others had been ordered by trump to keep their mouth shut.

 

That could be TRILLIONS of dollars!

 

Oh I agree the process argument is tough to make, but consider that is essentially the only argument that trump's defense has been making for months and effectively the only one they will continue to make over the next several weeks.

Also, consider the benefit over potential witness votes and testimony - both on an individual campaigning level (vulnerable senators facing political ads over the decision) and the long shot of actual removal. If Bolton appears and provides a moment like the "there are tapes" moment from the Senate trial of Nixon, then the outcome is no longer guaranteed.

I suggest that playing even for that potential jail mary is still worth playing, especially when compared to the alternative of saying that you arent willing to prosecute the case because you got the grand jury indictment.

Edit: Got auto-corrected to "jail mary," but I like it, so gonna keep it.

 

Relevant?

 

Still having a Merry Impeachmas, you?

 

You don't like how the senate is handling impeachment?

Go read all the stuff yall said to us when we didn't like how the house handled it. Its still applicable

Partisan peachmint is as partisan peachmint does.

 

The press access/transparency issue is a bit infuriating just because the potential for the star chamber exists. Its absurd to me that in the age of all this technology and access to think the Senate might literally decide, based on a simple majority vote, to just turn off the one camera.

 

So, tell me, do you want the truth to emerge, or are you one of those who will seek to suppress it?

 

I concede that if Bolton takes the stand or other relevant witnesses, we are adding to the public record in a meaningful way and that is a huge reason to support this entire impeachment process in the first place. History matters, and testimony under oath about recent events is a great way to get at history . Its serves its own master, independent of politics or law and why I supported the House process.
You have a point about the ads. A nifty juxtaposition of the oath taken, and the quotes in a 30 second piece - except that a hell of a lot of our current crop of senatorial candidates have plenty of quotes that can be juxtaposed with their oaths as well. Its not a couple of Dems, that declared removal was the right and only course. Its three of them that have a direct self interest pending, themselves. They just don't have the votes to make their biases matter so they will be forgiven.

 

I think all govt officials should have live streaming cameras on them 24/7.

But they don't.

If the dems complain about something being hidden, it better not be something they could've made public before handing it all over to McConnell.

 

And he will be acquitted forever.

 

Yes your tax dollars WASTED!!!

 

Free men see this as it is.

Let us each focus on our respective hemispheres.

 

I remember all the posts yall made where bitching and moaning over the process (because the substance was so bad) took place. I also remember all the posts which defended that process while collecting damning evidence.

Get ready to defend the process while arguing that you have no substance.

 

See, I don't much care if they could have made it public beforehand. I care 1. that the defense counsel is provided ample time to object to its inclusion on relevancy grounds 2. It is provided ample occasion to cross examine the testimony or call its own witnesses to dispute the accuracy of the documents and that it be allowed to 3. call its own witnesses and bring its own documents that are just as relevant but have exculpatory value. I want a fully informed jury pool on relevant facts pertaining to Trump's behavior in this matter.

 

Democrats passed the USMCA and a massive drug pricing bill while holding him accountable.

Meanwhile, Trump still used our tax dollars to go golfing at his own private resorts.

 

...and your point? Most U.S. Presidents go golfing and it cost taxpayers huge money.
Trump happens to golf at a resort that he ownes, would you rather he golfed elsewhere?

 

Perhaps. Or maybe it lasts until the grand jury indictments for campaign finance law violations, obstruction of justice, and tax fraud get handed down and convictions occur.

 

Yes, I would prefer that he did not use government money to enrich his privately owned businesses whenever he golfs.

 

What do suggest he does then?