WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 2)

You are not seriously selling that are you. Shifforbrains has been repeatedly going over his same talking points for days. An occasional camera pan shows members dozing off in boredom.

 

You have been told time and again by legal experts from across the political spectrum that the only requirement, constitutional or internal rules, in terms of how the House conduct the impeachment inquiry is that the full house vote on the articles after being provided those articles by the House Judiciary.

What they do before then is entirely up to the Speaker.

 

I already dealt with the GAO report which brings no factual evidence into the matter. The only question about the GAO report is why did they issue an OPINION that was required to have been made months ago when the action could have been remedied? And the money was released before the end of the fiscal year.

Are they now saying they really didn't have the evidence to impeach and now they need more?

 

...there are no camera pans because there is only one fixed camera, so I do not think you are a credible source.

 

There is no requirement on when the opinion must be issued. That's is some hot nonsense.

 

I've already posted that I believe the House impeachment WILL become more like a "vote of no confidence," used in parliamentary systems, largely because of the broadening of the electorate (primarily through the 15th and 19th amendments), which were not there when the Constitution was written. Eventually this may reverse itself. IMO, the Senate is and has been closer to "the establishment" than the House. However, because the Senate is now elected by "the people" and not the state legislatures, the Senate conservatism may slowly die away and come to represent a constituency more like the House.
The "founding fathers" were, IMO, much more conservative then the majority of the electorate today. But, I don't view this impeachment as one over liberals versus conservatives. Plenty of conservatives SUPPORT the Trump impeachment and removal from office and have left the GOP over it. This, IMO. is a battle of between Congress defending its Constitutional prerogatives and a President intent on the further expansion of Executive power, at the expense of Congress.

 

They should have subpoenaed the witnesses they wanted. The position of the WH is that it has not been constitutional and the articles do not include impeachable offenses. Executive privilege exist. Congress does not have an unbridled right to the communications between the President and his staff of advisors. Never has. Even Washington asserted it. And he named his defense team last week the trial has been in progress two days.

 

And that is exactly NOT what the Constituion presents nor the founding fathers wanted and in fact feared so we the citizens should be up in arms about it and vote the Democrats out of the Congress.

This is government run amuck and taking us down a very dangerous path. And that Schiff on the floor of the Senate announced that the citizens cannot be trusted in voting for the President anymore and that we must remove Trump before the election to prevent them from reelecting them says it all about the Democrats. They don't trust the citizens so they must take over.

 

The House is in the act of making it's case to the Senate with the testimonies of the 17 witnesses that appeared before them either in response to a subpoena or by their own free will. The WH position (taken in the October 8th letter from Pat Cipollone to Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Cummings) is that the entire Impeachment Inquiry is/was illegal, thus relieving them of any obligation to cooperate with the subpoena power of Congress. Rather than wait for a drawn out legal battle i9n the Courts, the House has decided to make their case in the Senate, based on the impeachment inquiry and results, and on the prospect of calling additional direct witnesses to the articles of impeachment charges. The "accusers" are the House managers. Now is the opportune time for the President to personally come forward and confront his accusers...under oath, or to release the documentation and testimony of direct witnesses to sustain his claims of innocence.

 

There have always been limitations to executive privilege. Most recently, during the Nixon presidency, the Court ruled that executive privilege may NOT be used to cover-up crimes. The position of the WH was established in the October 8th letter.

 

The Founding Fathers never claimed to have offered a perfect system. They knew changes would occur. That's the reason they put in the amendment process. And, I contend two of those amendments changed the composition of the electorate. The history of liberal democratic development has always been toward increasing the voting franchise rather than reducing it.

 

I wonder if Trump's defense will be able to show the video clips of the Impeachment Managers lying to the Senate?

This impeachment trial would be more interesting if they allowed objections to the prosecution's case more like a real trial. This repetition from the House managers is grueling to sit through.

Ah well. Hopefully, when it's Trump's defense team's turn, they'll save us the torture of so much repetition. It won't take 24 hours to state the facts which exonerate Trump and as rebuttal to the hours of babbling from the Impeachment Managers, they can run the clips where each of the 17 witnesses contradicted themselves when answering questions asked by House Republicans.

 

Such as?

 

Sorry it was on Fox ans I looked up and saw an image. It was a sketch.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/impeachment-trial-01-21

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/...ing-impeachment-trial-washington-post-reports

 

Whistleblower protections aren't what you think they are.

 

The charges aren't being made by the Whistle Blower; they are being made by the House of Representatives, based on the WB's complaint and testimony of 17 witnesses, who either refused to challenge their subpoenas or gave forward of their own accord. If the President wishes to come forward and defend himself against his accusers, he's welcome to do so, under oath.

 

"charges" ROFL. Their THOUGHTS are a charge now. You do see the writing on the wall, right?

 

Which subpoena are you talking about? One was thrown out. The Democrats wanted to withdraw the subpoena because the courts would have taken to long because Trump is so dangerous. In other words they shortcut their own impeachment expecting the Senate to do the heavy lifting.

"A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that former Trump national security official Charles Kupperman had filed challenging a House subpoena for him to testify in the impeachment inquiry after the chamber withdrew their subpoena.

Judge Richard Leon wrote in a 14-page opinion that there is no expectation that the House will reissue the subpoena, therefore the lawsuit is unnecessary."

https://fox61.com/2019/12/30/judge-...itness-lawsuit-after-house-rescinds-subpoena/

 

That's fair and I wasnt trying to imply that some senators weren't bored or struggling to pay attention. I do wish there had been more cameras as well.

 

And what does that have to do with my posts?

 

They should consider the specific evidence for the specific crimes that the House impeached him for. Of course since they invented the crimes and have no evidence; that would be difficult. But still, if the House screwed up the Impeachment, then that is on them.

 

The opinion that the President obstructed is what's being debated. They fell short of using the tools that were available to compel the president to produce what they wanted. It would have taken too long, according to Schiff. That's his problem. I also think that he didn't want to fight in the courts about "executive privilege" because he was afraid of what the court wold have ruled. Now he has taken a strategy that executive privilege doesn't exist. Schiff's going to lose this fight for his bogus impeachment..

 

If you say something significant, I'll respond.

 

I presume you are supporting calling him a witness. If that's wrong then I misunderstood you.

 

I was but that has nothing to do with what you said.