Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Both sides will debate the proposed rules before voting on them ... ABC's Trish Turner on Capitol Hill reports aides to moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins say she and others raised concerns about trying to fit the 24 hours of opening statements in two days under the proposed rules and the admission of the House transcript of the evidence into the Senate record.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

What about Hillary's emails, though?

#1 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2020-01-21 03:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Lock him up! Lock him up!

Trump/Prison 2020!

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-01-21 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How long did it take before Trump's lawyers lied in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in front of 100 Senators, and more importantly, in front of the American people?

OCU

#3 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-21 03:25 PM | Reply

that sweeping sound you repeatedly hear,
is McConnell desperately working the broom
and shouting, "Nothing to see here! Nothing
to see here!"

#4 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-01-21 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How long did it take before Trump's lawyers lied in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in front of 100 Senators, and more importantly, in front of the American people?
OCU

#3 | POSTED BY OCUSER AT 2020-01-21 03:25 PM | REPLY

That's Schiff opening so I would say within 5 seconds of when he started.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-01-21 03:59 PM | Reply

24 hours of opening statements? lol. That's enough hot gas to put the Goodyear Blimp into orbit. What's their carbon footprint?

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-21 04:05 PM | Reply

""The essay explains the framers' thinking on impeachment, as their reasoning had evolved over weeks of debate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It shows that political and criminal prosecutions are neither inextricably intertwined nor mutually exclusive. A president can be impeached for abuse of power in office, followed by a criminal prosecution or not. What offends the Constitution isn't identical to a statutory crime. Hamilton noted of impeachment:

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

The emphasis on "political" exists for a reason. Hamilton and his fellows had engaged in long and heated arguments about this particular prosecution process. Initial resistance to impeachment by some attendees"for fear it would be used to cow public officials"was eventually overcome when Constitutional Convention representatives explicitly agreed there had to be a distinct way to censure abuses of office and remove offending public servants, separate from criminal prosecutions and elections." -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 65, a seminal essay in the 1788 Federalist Papers

drudge.com

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

24 hours of opening statements? I thought this was an open and shut case in the house. Now they want witnesses? Why didn't they call them in the house? I mean this latest Ukraine wants to sing and the President couldn't order him not to testify in the house. And what about calling both Bidens? I mean if there's nothing there than what do they have to hide? Why are the Dems so against them testifying.

#8 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-01-21 04:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

David Jolly @DavidJollyFL

GOP Senators may vote to acquit, but there is something truly cleansing to the national conscience to see Adam Schiff walk into their chamber and shove a full dose of truth down their throats before they do.

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Jon Ward @jonward11

I sat in chamber for entire Schiff speech. That was a mauling. Trump team thought they were there to debate process and Schiff ambushed them with a full-throated case for impeachment. Republicans were visibly uncomfortable. Sekulow & Cippolone responses were rambling & bombastic

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Tom Nichols @RadioFreeTom

Sekulow and Cipollone are not actually bothering with this trial: They're speaking directly to Fox Nation and creating talking points, knowing their audience is too stupid and too partisan to know (or care) how much of it is a lie.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Currently the GOP violating their oaths en masse to kill any subpoenas of relevant documents from the Trump WH.

The Fix in well in.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 04:38 PM | Reply

a full dose of truth down their throats before they do..
--looking at Schiff, that's not he'd like to shove down their ******...

#13 | Posted by homerj at 2020-01-21 04:42 PM | Reply

Now the GOP will be forced by voting down an Amendment to do the same with the State Dept; kill any subpoenas relevant to Trump's actions.

Some trial.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 04:43 PM | Reply

24 hours of opening statements? I thought this was an open and shut case in the house. Now they want witnesses? Why didn't they call them in the house? I mean this latest Ukraine wants to sing and the President couldn't order him not to testify in the house. And what about calling both Bidens? I mean if there's nothing there than what do they have to hide? Why are the Dems so against them testifying.

#8 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

This is the Trial. This is when Witnesses are called. The House only does the Charges.

This would be the only Impeachment in the history of the country where witnesses aren't called.

As for the Bidens, if you can give me a rational legal reason why their testimony is important to whether the President illegally withheld aid to Ukraine to get them to announce investigations into Biden, I'm all ears.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-21 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Currently the GOP violating their oaths en masse to kill any subpoenas of relevant documents from the Trump WH.
The Fix in well in."

Sons of f(c)cking b(r)itches. One and all.

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pretty cool though how Dems are presenting their case through the Amendments being read; noting who and why the docs need to be given to the Sen.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 04:48 PM | Reply

Why would a "perfect call" need to have all evidence and testimony blocked?

If it was perfect then what's to fear?

#18 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2020-01-21 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

GOP showing the world on how corruption is ignored and cover-ups are done:

'It's a cover up': Key takeaways from McConnell's proposal for impeachment trial

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: 'A trial with no evidence"no existing record, no witnesses, no documents"isn't a trial at all'

nationalpost.com

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 04:49 PM | Reply

Yurtle calls a Time Out! rather go ahead with debate.

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 04:49 PM | Reply

No documents, no records, no witnesses = no trial... just what the GOP wants.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 04:51 PM | Reply

"Why would a "perfect call" need to have all evidence and testimony blocked?
If it was perfect then what's to fear?"

Why indeed.

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 04:53 PM | Reply

Tyranny of the minority:

Manu Raju @mkraju

Senate kills Schumer amendment to subpoena WH documents. 53-47, straight party-line vote

Ian Millhiser @imillhiser

Fun Fact: The senators who supported this amendment represent 15 million more people than the senators who opposed it.

#23 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 04:55 PM | Reply

President's Counsel claiming that the Dems are at fault for needing evidence subpoenaed when Trump has for the first time in history issued a blanket denial of all witnesses and documents.... might even be transparent in it's staggering hypocrisy to some Republicans.... naw.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 04:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Senate needs to stop Trump now because he's going to make it hell to stop him later.

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 04:59 PM | Reply

#25

Republicans are giving Trump the green light to continue bribing foreign powers in the current election... and he's thrilled about it.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 05:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Republicans are giving Trump the green light to continue bribing foreign powers in the current election... and he's thrilled about it.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 05:02 PM | Reply

Let's see if JEFF agrees with this or if he's still hiding in Trump-enabling nuance.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 05:05 PM | Reply

"Republicans are giving Trump the green light to continue bribing foreign powers in the current election... and he's thrilled about it."

And so are they! This is a win/win for all of them. Cheating to win is still winning to them.

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 05:07 PM | Reply

Republicans are giving Trump the green light to continue bribing foreign powers in the current election... and he's thrilled about it.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 05:02 PM | Reply

I expect Donald to keep doing this, of course. It will have more of a negative effect on his legitimacy than even before. What's certain is that the more you point out the obvious to him, the more angry he becomes.

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 05:07 PM | Reply

Should an American president be able to solicit foreign interference in U.S. elections with impunity?

It's a question that's near the center of Donald Trump's Ukraine scheme. It's a question that's been around for months.

And it's a question Republicans still don't know how to answer.

www.msnbc.com

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 05:09 PM | Reply

Susan Collins now says she will vote against subpoenaing any witnesses or documents until the end of the argument section of the trial.... which is the GOP way of making them irrelevant and only possible AFTER arguments.... which is the way this Show Trial was designed.

So much for "moderate" Republicans acting responsibly.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 05:12 PM | Reply

Susan Collins is NOT someone you should rely on to stand up against Humpy and his deplorables.

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 05:15 PM | Reply

And it's a question Republicans still don't know how to answer.

#30 | Posted by donnerboy

They can be honest or get what they want.

They've chosen.

#33 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 05:15 PM | Reply

#32

Well, see, RoCheney told me early on that, given the evidence and witnesses, which they would surely have, honest patriotic 'Merican Republicans would do the right thing and vote to convict Trump.

So much for that.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 05:19 PM | Reply

Val Demmings(D) Fl doing a good job with the opening salvo on this vote. She's the former Chief of the Orlando Police Department, and the first woman to hold this office from this district.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 05:23 PM | Reply

The repubs will continue to use the Constitution for Charmin and Trump's partisans will be thrilled. Bet they won't be when a Dem does the same thing. What these fools don't see is that Trump is permanently damaging rule of law and creating an unaccountable pres. This could well come back to bite them in the ass if someone like AOC ever gets elected president. Good times watching their heads explode when she demolishes their world legally with her new powers courtesy.of Trump, mitch, etc. Be careful what you wish for. Precedent is it bitch.

#36 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-01-21 05:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

...honest patriotic 'Merican Republicans would do the right thing and vote to convict Trump.

One of the best laugh lines ever.

#37 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-01-21 05:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#34

Quit stuttering, Corky. A picker bush awaits!

Yours,

Frank

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 05:30 PM | Reply

#38

Frank Cotton is my ----. My kung -- is immaculate in nature.

www.youtube.com

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 05:33 PM | Reply

Susan Collins is NOT someone you should rely on to stand up against Humpy and his deplorables.

POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2020-01-21 05:15 PM | REPLY

Honey I'll run a marathon before Susan Collins stands up against Trump and fellow Republicans.

#40 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-21 05:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

------- kangaroo court.

Republicans are scum

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-21 05:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Honey I'll run a marathon before Susan Collins stands up against Trump and fellow Republicans."

Yeah she turned out to be a real disappointment.
Whatever happened to Nullifidian, seems to have happened to her too.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 05:43 PM | Reply

Love it that the Dems are laying out the evidence testimony of witnesses that they used to impeach Trump at every opportunity, over and over again.

Iteration and constant reiteration conveys an alien thought to a recalcitrant mind... or not.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 05:44 PM | Reply

24 hours of opening statements? lol. That's enough hot gas to put the Goodyear Blimp into orbit. What's their carbon footprint?
#6 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

When you understand that the opening statements are the entire trial, you'll get it.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 05:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dulli is only here for one purpose; Trolling for Trump. It's the only thing to get about him.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 05:51 PM | Reply

Trump is NOT on trial! AMERICA IS ON TRIAL and it's not looking good.

OCU

#46 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-21 06:00 PM | Reply

John Roberts gets to watch his legacy destroyed by these clowns. Captain Kangaroo, lol.

#47 | Posted by chuffy at 2020-01-21 06:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

John Roberts gets to watch his legacy destroyed by these clowns. Captain Kangaroo, lol.

#47 | Posted by chuffy at 2020-01-21 06:02 PM | Reply

I hadn't thought of that, but yes.

#48 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:04 PM | Reply

Democracy Itself Is on Trial

by Thom Hartmann

While Donald Trump is on trial in the Senate impeachment hearings, many commentators are pointing out that the Senate is also at trial. Few, however, are pointing out that the fare and future of our country may will also be decided by this trial.

Donald Trump is currently following the same trajectory blazed by autocratic leaders across the world including Victor Orbn in Hungary, Duterte in the Philippines, Putin in Russia, Modi in India, and Bolsonaro in Brazil. Each of those countries have flipped from being democratic republics to authoritarian oligarchies.

If Trump is not convicted in the Senate and his Republican firewall there holds, he will be greatly empowered and will see his "exoneration" (what he will call it, for sure) as a license to practice even more gross corruption and to even more aggressively prosecute and persecute people he sees as political enemies.

If the Senate fails to convict him, it's also possible that will boost his popularity enough that he gets reelected in 2020, and then the real Trump will come out, unrestrained, unrepentant, and committed to increasing his own wealth and power along with that of the toadies who surround him.

Nothing less than the future of our republic is at stake in this Senate trial.

****************************************************

OCU

#49 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-21 06:05 PM | Reply

Now the Trump's lawyer denies reality and lies to the American people; plenty of subpoenas were issued, Trump ordered them all quashed.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 06:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

49 | Posted by OCUser at 2020

We have another chance to nail him in November. The issue being, of course, that Trump can't let himself be defeated and as the evil sociopath he is going to respect no law or morality to get that second term.

If he gets a second term, he'll go for a third.

As George W. Bush once famously said: "The Constitution is a god-damned piece of paper".

#51 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:10 PM | Reply

"Nothing less than the future of our republic is at stake in this Senate trial."

Hysteria, in a nutshell.

#52 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-01-21 06:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

plenty of subpoenas were issued, Trump ordered them all quashed.

#50 | POSTED BY CORKY

Clinton had plenty of subpoenas quashed. The GOP-lead House got court orders and successfully had compliance with said subpoenas. Why didn't the Dem House seek court orders this time around?

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hysteria, in a nutshell.

#52 | Posted by SheepleSchism

I have absolute faith in Trump's willingness to continue and expand on his pattern of behavior so far.

Trump is a nasty, nasty man. You argue differently?

#54 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:13 PM | Reply

"Nothing less than the future of our republic is at stake in this Senate trial."
Hysteria, in a nutshell.
#52 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

^
So if Trump is convicted and removed from office, nothing much changes for the future of our Republic?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 06:14 PM | Reply

#53 |

Bubba had specific subpeonas quashed, not a blanket veto on all records, documents, and witnesses which Trump is the first to do.... and Bubba testified himself.

Those things are not the same.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 06:16 PM | Reply

Turning Trump and Trump fascism around at this point still remains fairly easy.

I am afraid the country will have to learn to step up to its duty in a hard way.

#57 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:16 PM | Reply

Those things are not the same.

#56 | Posted by Corky at

JEFF knew everything you posted, CORKY.

Again the mystery of Trumpism.

#58 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:17 PM | Reply

Interesting how much squawking the Dems are doing now that they see what it is like to not control the process.

And Dorkus, if the House had done their job correctly they had a shot at gaining the votes. Unfortunately, all you got was a Schiffsandwich that you now have to choke down.

Enjoy.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 06:17 PM | Reply

I didn't vote for Trump. I staunchly opposed him during the GOP primary and voted 3rd party in the General as Clinton was, and still is, unfitting for the job.

Democrats left WAY too much on the table. Their obstruction of congress article of impeachment is so risible that it's actually offensive.

The abuse of power article is legit but it's going to be overshadowed by the stupid obstruction article and ludicrous over-the-top end of the Republic and Hitler rhetoric.

The public opinion needle on impeachment has barely moved and the ball is still in the Democrats/left/MSM court. How does that dynamic change when POTUS is actually allowed to provide a defense and the procedural ball moves to the GOP?

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:18 PM | Reply

Interesting how much squawking the Dems are doing

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020

Interesting how little truth and American culture matters to you, and people like you. Something bad must have happened to you some time, some where.

#61 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:20 PM | Reply

"The abuse of power article is legit"

But you'll still vote for Republicans who don't see it that way.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 06:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't vote for Trump.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ

Sure, but you still knew everything CORKY said is true. So why all the counter-point?

#63 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:21 PM | Reply

Hysteria, in a nutshell.

#52 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Only if you're stupidity in a nutshell.

This sham of a proceeding will have two effects:

A. Unleash Trump in all his corrupt glory because he knows the Senate won't do a thing
B. Set an incredibly poor standard of conduct for future POTUSes

Repubs are showing there is no low they won't stoop to to maintain power and push an agenda that is losing in the polls.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-21 06:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

if the House had done their job correctly they had a shot at gaining the votes....

#59 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Yes. Focus on Ukrainegate, drop the stupid 'obstruction of congress article' and introduce a separate obstruction article handed on a silver platter by the Mueller Team and this would actually put pressure on GOP Senators - at least some of them.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:22 PM | Reply

Interesting how much squawking the Dems are doing now that they see what it is like to not control the process.

Joke 1

if the House had done their job correctly they had a shot at gaining the votes.

Joke 2

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter

Joke 3

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-21 06:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

- if the House had done their job correctly

If they did what you call correctly, they would be advocating thier Constitutional duty to the Vourts, and doing so for up to years.

-they had a shot at gaining the votes.

Laughable.... or do you not observe your loyal patriot GOP lying and obfuscationg in fornt of your face right now to protect their Cash Cow Trump?

- when POTUS is actually allowed to provide a defense

He's always been allowed to do that, and refuses. Because he knows what his aides would say under oath.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 06:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#66 | POSTED BY JPW

Joke Infinity

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the Senate had taken their oath seriously they had a shot at gaining the votes.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 06:24 PM | Reply

abdicating their Constitutional duty to the Courts,

AND now the GOP again votes to be ignorant of the facts; to not subpeopna evidence and continue their charade of "we'll talk about that AFTER the arguments."

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 06:28 PM | Reply

House Dems stepped on their own jocks.

What Nadler and other Democrats are insisting on is that the Senate take up its investigative baton. In other words, the body controlled by the party that was desperate to impeach Trump wants to outsource its work to the body controlled by the party that rejects Trump's impeachment.

This is a cockamamie demand that is of a piece with the House's attitude to the Senate's proceedings: We are going to rush the impeachment, but don't dare rush the trial. We are going to impeach without key witnesses and documents, but if you hold a trial without key witnesses and documents, you are engaged in malfeasance. We didn't want to deal with knotty questions of privilege and potential litigation arising from them; you are obliged to.


www.sunjournal.com

All McConnell has to do is adopt the Dem House tactics in a purely quid pro quo fashion and this thing will fail bigly.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:30 PM | Reply

AND now the GOP again votes to be ignorant of the facts; to not subpeopna evidence and continue their charade of "we'll talk about that AFTER the arguments."

#70 | POSTED BY CORKY

Consistent with the Clinton impeachment protocol which received a unanimous 100-0 Senate vote.

I've been saying this throughout this entire process - What's good for the goose...

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:31 PM | Reply

#71 is total BS

Dems knew that Trump would have to produce docs and witnesses to the Sen if subpoenaed by them... and they already had enough witness testimony to support impeachment.

You are falling for the rwing GOP lie.

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 06:32 PM | Reply

What's good for the goose...

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:31 PM | Reply | Flag

You make me tired. What do you imagine Donald Trump is attempting to roast and eat?

#74 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:33 PM | Reply

You are falling for the rwing GOP lie.

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-

There could be a logical reason for that.

#75 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:34 PM | Reply

#72

Clinton testified himself and ordered no blanket refusal of witnesses and docs. Those two things are still not the same.

iow, your whataboutism is lacking.

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 06:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All McConnell has to do is adopt the Dem House tactics in a purely quid pro quo fashion and this thing will fail bigly.

LOL yeah! It'll be the Dem's fault when this kangaroo court clears Trump.
Talk about joke infinity.

#77 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-21 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Consistent with the Clinton impeachment protocol which received a unanimous 100-0 Senate vote.

Still clinging to this line of stupidity.

Just admit you're a Trumper and have no interest in justice, morality, principles, dignity, decency...

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-21 06:37 PM | Reply

Dems knew that Trump would have to produce docs and witnesses to the Sen if subpoenaed by them... and they already had enough witness testimony to support impeachment.

You are falling for the rwing GOP lie.
#73 | POSTED BY CORKY

the House could have subpoenaed and gotten court orders for any witness or document denied by POTUS. They chose not to go that route. Political reality is either no witnesses will be called or ALL witnesses will be called. McConnell is in control at this point - just like Schiff/Nadler/Pelosi were up to this point. The power structure is such that your Democrats can't have their cake and eat it too. Up until now, they had control of the process. Now, they no longer do. Any crying about the process moving forward is going to result in both a middle finger and a mirror thrust back in their faces.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at

Would JEFF support impeaching Trump again when the Democrats take the Senate?

#80 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:40 PM | Reply

After all, no thinking man doubts that new-and entirely fresh-Articles of Impeachment could be drafted say, by late January, 2021?

#81 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:41 PM | Reply

They should subpoena Justice Roberts' bald spot.... The stories it could tell!!

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 06:42 PM | Reply

Just admit you're a Trumper and have no interest in justice, morality, principles, dignity, decency...

#78 | POSTED BY JPW

I'm a realist who understands how things work in DC.

Dems control the House and they ran a heavy-handed and 1-sided hearing. That you expect the GOP Senate to do anything other than reply in kind...just admit you're a DNC hack with no interest in anything other than one-sidedness so long as your beloved Democratic Party benefits.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:42 PM | Reply

You are falling for the rwing GOP lie.
#73 | POSTED BY CORKY

That would suggest he doesn't know better.

Jeff knows better. He's just got enough shame to try and hide his partisanship behind a facade of objectivity and impartiality.

#84 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-21 06:42 PM | Reply

I'm a realist who understands how things work in DC.

Yawn.

Doesn't rebut the quote you were supposedly responding to.

#85 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-21 06:43 PM | Reply

so long as your beloved Democratic Party benefits.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:42 PM | Reply

Let's talk what's good for the country.

Would JEFF support impeaching Trump again when the Democrats take the Senate?

#86 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:44 PM | Reply

Jeff knows better. He's just got enough shame to try and hide his partisanship behind a facade of objectivity and impartiality.

#84 | POSTED BY JPW

*Jeff Holds a mirror up to your hypocritical, partisan face*

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- They chose not to go that route.

You are being obtuse. The Constitution gives responsibility for impeachment to Congress, not the Courts... and litigation could be ongoing for years.

Any crying you are doing you should argue with Alexander Hamilton and the Founders.

drudge.com

#88 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 06:45 PM | Reply

Would JEFF support impeaching Trump again when the Democrats take the Senate?

#86 | POSTED BY ZED

Between the two, I prefer Pence over Trump.

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:45 PM | Reply

Yawn.

Doesn't rebut the quote you were supposedly responding to.

#85 | POSTED BY JPW

It absolutely does. You have two completely different standards depending on the letter after the name.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:47 PM | Reply

87 | Posted by JeffJ at

Would you support another impeachment, JEFF? Since the basic argument you advance has little to do with what's good or right, but raw political power?

#91 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:47 PM | Reply

Between the two, I prefer Pence over Trump.

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:45 PM

Then use your words, JEFF. Good to go for another impeachment? I can promise you that soliciting foreign interference in a US election for Donald's personal benefit will be back on the menu.

#92 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:49 PM | Reply

Jeff's a water carrier for the GOP and Trump. Don't expect something different from him.

#93 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-21 06:51 PM | Reply

#91 I supported impeachment for obstruction as laid out by the Mueller Report, Zed.

Democrats chose to ignore that and turn their impeachment inquiry into mostly a farce.

Trump is a POS. I believe a case can be made for impeaching him. Having said that, I think that Democrats have handled this as poorly as it could have possibly been handled. The end result will be an acquittal with unanimous GOP support and probably a couple of Dem Senators defecting, especially as it pertains to the stupid Obstruction of congress article.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:52 PM | Reply

Don't expect something different from him.

#93 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-21 06:51 PM |

It reminds me of a show I saw about the Holocaust, where some Jewish people attempt to coral the Nazis taking them to Auschwitz into saying that yes, they actually will kill them. A moral victory, at least.

#95 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:54 PM | Reply

#91 I supported impeachment for obstruction as laid out by the Mueller Report, Zed.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:52 PM | Reply

Great. So you're good to go for a second try at it?

#96 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:54 PM | Reply

I know it's difficult for Republicans like Jeff and RoChead to make excuses for their party... even after electing Trump. But you'd think that after that party has elected Nixon, Reagan, GW, and now the trifecta of criminal traitor imbecile Presidents, Donald Trump, that they might stop shilling for that Party.

#97 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 06:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump is a POS.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2

Why yes, yes he is. Problem is that the Right has less and less trouble admitting that and less and less trouble caring about it.

#98 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:56 PM | Reply

"Great. So you're good to go for a second try at it?"

Never mind, JEFF. I get you. Auschwitz is a death camp.

#99 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-21 06:58 PM | Reply

I said it before, I'll say it again.

Republicans are scum.

#100 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-21 07:01 PM | Reply

Dems seem to be doing quite a solid job at the moment exploiting the GOP's process by using Amendment debate time to re-state the magnitude of facts they used to impeach and how more evidence and witnesses would only corroborate their effort in the House.

Which they obviously would, otherwise Trump would not be blocking witnesses and records.... well, unless one buh-lieves that he is honestly interested in precedent..... HAHAHAHAHA!!

#101 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 07:02 PM | Reply

The purpose of a grand jury (i.e. the House actions) are to determine whether there is probable cause for removing the President. This has been done by far. The readily available documentation makes it glaringly obvious.

The job of the Senate is trial-you know witnesses and entering documentary evidence.

The Senate is not doing their job.

Again

Republicans are scum

#102 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-21 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#91 I supported impeachment for obstruction as laid out by the Mueller Report, Zed.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 06:52 PM | Reply

Great. So you're good to go for a second try at it?

#96 | POSTED BY ZED

Sure. I'm merely pointing out that all of this comes at a political price. Democrats have handled this horribly and I believe it's going to come back to bite them in the arse.

Impeachment is not a political norm and it's not something that is supposed to be handled cavalierly. When this impeachment gambit fails - and it will - it makes any future attempts to impeach and remove Trump astronomically more difficult.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 07:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Jeff is under the false impression that no matter what the House did the Senate trial would be any different.

Who here believes it would be?

#104 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-21 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If McConnell rams this through without witness testimony, documents or evidence, he sets a dangerous precedent. He'll break every rule of trial convention and drop a steaming pile on the Constitution. Impeachment will happen again when Democrats are in power. The fact that the GOP is cutting their own throats for Donald Trump is like blowing a mansion because some miscreant clogged the toilet.

#105 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2020-01-21 07:16 PM | Reply

The needle has been pegged at over 50% in favor of impeachment and removal, so that whole, "This isn't moving the needle" nonsense from you, JEFFJ, is getting old. We all know that the cult isn't going to change its mind, so even a 1% or 2% shift in public opinion is a big deal. We're getting there.

Using your argument against you, the needle not moving in the opposite direction is really bad for Repubicans. It means that they are failing to exonerate the POTUS. If you think that the needle inching towards a higher percentage of people in favor of impeachment (done!) and removal (we'll see...) is somehow going to translate into a landslide victory for Drumpf in 2020, then I have a bridge for sale that I think you're going to be very interested in!

#106 | Posted by chuffy at 2020-01-21 07:19 PM | Reply

McConnell just backed down already. This is all a Hail Mary pass. Sometimes they work, most of the time, they don't. Still a lot can happen during this trial, but as of right now, the Repubicans look like trash. I doubt those optics get any better over time, just like trash.

#107 | Posted by chuffy at 2020-01-21 07:21 PM | Reply

Chuffy,

Up until now Democrats have been in complete control. House managers are now making their case. Once that is done the Executive will make its defense. Right now the needle has likely moved about as far as it's going to move. Once the House managers are done the defense takes over and will probably move the needle in the other direction. After that, McConnell is mostly in control.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 07:44 PM | Reply

I doubt those optics get any better over time, just like trash.

#107 | POSTED BY CHUFFY

And like garbage the smell of this Sad Saga gets worse every day.

The Republican senators will wear the smell of this like an albatross.

Not a single republican senator can answer the following question yet every democratIc senator instinctively knows the correct answer :

"Should an American president be able to solicit foreign interference in U.S. elections with impunity?"

Remember America?

That land where no man was above the law?

Yeah. They were so naive.

#109 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 07:50 PM | Reply

Once the House managers are done the defense takes over and will probably move the needle in the other direction.

Again, there is zero evidence that this will happen and there is even less of a chance that it will happen. That needle is not going any direction other than more in favor of Drumpf being removed.

Repubicans have miscalculated here, and outside of the Fox bubble, most Americans can see that the Emperor has no clothes. It's bad for Repubicans, and whenever Moscow Mitch refuses to allow evidence and witnesses, he makes more people outside of the Fox bubble understand how guilty Drumpf is.

This is a total tire fire.

#110 | Posted by chuffy at 2020-01-21 07:56 PM | Reply

-------> #ShamTrial

#111 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 07:56 PM | Reply

History never repeats, except when it does...

CSPAN, January 14, 1999: Democratic Senators Harkin and Schumer argue that no witnesses or evidence are needed for Clinton Trial

Sen. Harkin at 2:40: "The first six hours we have heard indicates they want to call witnesses but it looks like they have themselves in a box, on the one hand they say they have enough evidence on the record to remove the President from office on the other hand they say we need witnesses in order to make that case...you can't have it both ways, either they have the evidence or they don't."

Sen. Schumer at 9:02: "Let me say that this idea that they didn't have to call witnesses in the House but have to call them in the Senate doesn't make sense: you call witnesses before a grand jury and you call witnesses before a trial. There were some on my side that argued strongly that they ought to call witnesses (during the hearings in the House) and they resisted it all the way."

#112 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 08:06 PM | Reply

How much do these guys get paid?:

Elaina Plott @elainaplott

"Risch was the first lawmaker seen by Washington Post reporters to clearly have fallen asleep, about four hours after the trial proceedings began Tuesday."

www.washingtonpost.com

#113 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 08:12 PM | Reply

#112

Haha, OK. This is TOTALLY the SAME, right?

In 1999, there were witnesses, and evidence and documents during the Starr investigation (Whitewater). We have none of that here. The POTUS committed his impeachable act in real time, then refused to comply with the investigation. Apples and oringins.

Keep swinging for the fences, though, you might get one of your false equivalences to stick.

#114 | Posted by chuffy at 2020-01-21 08:13 PM | Reply

"CSPAN, January 14, 1999: Democratic Senators Harkin and Schumer argue that no witnesses or evidence are needed for Clinton Trial"

The big difference between the Clinton impeachment trial and this one is that Ken Starr had previously interviewed every witness he requested under oath, including Bill and Monica. Also, the Clinton administration turned over tons of documents, and Bill even turned over his DNA. Trump has done nothing but obstruct Congress every step of the way.

#115 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 08:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#112

Trump quisling who still pretends that Clinton didn't testify and did issue a blanket order quashing witnesses and documents.

Those two cases are not the same, will never be the same, and you saying they are is just more delusional thinking... if you can call it thinking.

House Dems managed to get enough witness testimony to impeach Trump without giving that responsibility to the Courts. The Sen could now get corroborating evidence, but hey, they won't, because the are Republican Trump shills first and patriots a distant second.

#116 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 08:20 PM | Reply

Fox News Anchor Confronts Lindsey Graham With His Statement Calling for Impeachment Witnesses Ahead of Clinton Trial

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace confronted Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who represents South Carolina, with remarks he made ahead of former President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, noting that they appeared to "contradict" his statements ahead of President Donald Trump's Senate trial.

Putting Graham's previous statement from 1999 on the screen, Wallace pointed out during a Fox News Sunday interview that the GOP senator (who was then in the House of Representatives) had argued that witnesses may need to be called in the Senate trial of Clinton. Meanwhile, Graham has dismissed the possibility when it comes to Trump's case.

"There may be some conflict that has to be resolved by presenting live witnesses," Graham had said ahead of Clinton's trial. "That's what happens every day in court and I think the Senate can stand that."

www.newsweek.com

#117 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 08:21 PM | Reply

#115

There you go being all rational again, Gal. You know that won't fly with the Republican Firsters.

#118 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 08:21 PM | Reply

McConnell opposes impeachment witnesses now -- but supported them during Clinton trial

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is arguing against witnesses giving testimony in the expected impeachment trial of President Donald Trump -- but he had a different view in 1999 when he advocated for a request by Republican House impeachment managers to have witnesses testify in the case against then-President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

"There have been 15 impeachments in the history of the country. Two of them were cut short by resignations. In the other 13 impeachments there were witnesses," he told CNN's Larry King Live on January 28, 1999, as the Clinton trial played out in the Senate. The number included judges who were charged with impeachment.

"It's not unusual to have a witness in a trial. It's certainly not unusual to have witness in an impeachment trial," McConnell said at the time.

He added: "The House managers have only asked for three witnesses. I think that's pretty modest."

www.cnn.com

#119 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 08:23 PM | Reply

Those two cases are not the same, will never be the same...

One thing that is the same between the two... Bubba and donald were both impeached.

#120 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-01-21 08:31 PM | Reply

At the moment, Dems are doing a great job of tearing down this false comparison we see here between the impeachment of Bill Clinton and that of Donald Trump.... they even have pictures to try to help rwingers get the differences, lol.

#121 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 08:32 PM | Reply

#Innocentpeopledonthidedocuments

#122 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 08:35 PM | Reply

"McConnell opposes impeachment witnesses now -- but supported them during Clinton trial"

This type of hypocrisy is risible!!
I shall cast away my Elephant Badge and confront Father this minute!

NOT

Sheeple: This album, released in 1987 by British group Def Leppard, contains the both the title track, and this donut maker's favorite, "Pour Some Sugar On Me"

Answer in Jeopardize, if u please.

#123 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-21 08:49 PM | Reply

You know, listening to Trump's lawyers reminds one of why "kill all the lawyers" was such a well accepted saying; their position of defense only regardless of the facts is a licence to lie. They are like James Bond, 'cept without the hot chicks and fast cars.

#124 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 09:05 PM | Reply

This resolution was accepted 100-0 in the Clinton impeachment... of course, Clinton himself testified and allowed his aides to testify... AND never made a deal with the Sen Leader on how to make the show trial work, and never did they tell us the outcome before it started.

ALSO, one just doesn't know who to buh-lieve on whether a crime is necessary to convict for impeachment.... Trump's mouthpieces or Alexander Hamilton.

#125 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 09:09 PM | Reply

Angus Johnston @studentactivism

NEW: Elizabeth Warren just announced plans for an independent DoJ task force to investigate and prosecute Trump administration crimes. This is such a big deal.

"I will direct the Justice Department to establish a task force to investigate violations by Trump administration officials of federal bribery laws, insider trading laws, and other anti-corruption and public integrity laws..."

"... and give that task force independent authority to pursue any substantiated criminal and civil violations. I have also committed to establishing a task force to investigate accusations of serious violations by immigration officials during the Trump era."

twitter.com

#126 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 09:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"A vote to delay is a vote to deny." Schiff

#127 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 09:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's too bad most Americans didn't see this performance by both sides today, and will only get their information from biased sources on either side as to what was said and what was meant and what is actually happening.

Schiff is right about what is actually happening, and if Americans ever do catch on... and 71 percent of Republicans now say they want witnesses... if that were to somehow miraculously happen, then GOP Sens may lose more seats in 2020.

#128 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 09:26 PM | Reply

LOL, Corky and Gal just can't stand it when Schumer's hypocrisy is revealed.

#129 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 09:28 PM | Reply

LOL, RoC just can't stand it when folks correct the record and GOP hypocrisy is revealed.

#130 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

RoMussolini just can't stan' it when Gal and others point out Yurtle's hypocrisy... and the fact that Clinton testified and let witnesses from the WH testify and released documents unlike the Glorious Leader of his Party.... so comparing Shumer's point of view in that case to this case is like comparing apples and orange morons.

#131 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 09:34 PM | Reply

LoL

Republicans can't stand listening to the evidence over and over.

Schumer is gonna make them sit there and listen to the facts.

They are nailing them Republicans to the cross.

Don't relent senator Schumer.

They need to listen to what they are allowing over and over.

They presented overwhelming evidence of Trumps abuse of power and told you how to corroborate it.

We know it doesn't matter

So they will vote on each request.

Ha!

#132 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 09:39 PM | Reply

Washpo is reporting that some Dem Sens are suggesting that they call Republicans bluff and offer Hunter Biden's testimony for that of several WH officials.

Sounds fair. Biden knows nada about this and Trump's aides knew about this "drug deal" as Bolton called it from the start.

#133 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 09:43 PM | Reply

Wow, I never realized this:

Peter Baker @peterbakernyt

Worth noting that the Javelins Trump provided were given on condition that they NOT actually be used in the war. Instead, the Ukrainians set up fake missiles to fool the Russians, using logs and empty ammunition boxes to mimic the silhouette of a Javelin.

The Cost of Trump's Aid Freeze in the Trenches of Ukraine's War

As President Trump froze military aid to Ukraine and urged it to investigate his rivals, the country was struggling in a bare-bones fight against Russian-backed separatists.

www.nytimes.com

#134 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 09:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Sounds fair.

Does it? Negotiating for sound bites is what a trial is supposed to be about?

#135 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-01-21 09:48 PM | Reply

"A vote to delay is a vote to deny." Schiff

#127 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

No more delays.

"Now is the time for all good men to come the aid of their country."

Not next week.

#136 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 09:51 PM | Reply

2018 Barr memo counters Trump's claim that abuse of power is unimpeachable
www.axios.com

...A 2018 memo by now-Attorney General William Barr contradicts President Trump's legal argument that abuse of power is not alone an impeachable offense.

What we know: Barr issued the memo for the Justice Department and Trump's legal team while still in private practice. The 19-page document was written as Robert Mueller conducted his special investigation into whether Trump illegally interfered in the Russia probe.

- Barr argued in the memo that Trump should not speak to investigators about his actions as president, even if subpoenaed. He based his recommendation "on a sweeping theory of executive power under which obstruction of justice laws do not apply to presidents, even if they misuse their authority over the Justice Department to block investigations into themselves or their associates for corrupt reasons," the New York Times writes.

- However, Barr wrote that presidents who abuse their discretionary powers could be subject to penalties, including impeachment.

- The memo posed that because the president "is ultimately subject to the judgment of Congress through the impeachment process means that the president is not the judge in his own cause."


...


#137 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 09:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It sounds fair to call their bluff... there's not much else happening that might get witnesses called.

Of course, it's just a small step and not a grand gesture resolving all the problems, so not sure people who hate small steps would be accepting.

#138 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 09:52 PM | Reply

It absolutely does. You have two completely different standards depending on the letter after the name.

#90 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

LOL whatever you need to tell yourself, champ.

Or you can stop assuming everybody is the same as you are.

#139 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-21 10:01 PM | Reply

LOL, Corky and Gal just can't stand it when Schumer's hypocrisy is revealed.

#129 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Sticking with the lame schit tonight, are we?

#140 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-21 10:03 PM | Reply

If the dems agree to allow Hunter Biden to testify, the republicans will come up with another excuse.

Truth Hurts

#141 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-21 10:06 PM | Reply

Republican Senators should just hold a closed door session, vote to acquit, and call it done.

That's what will happen anyway, would just save all the time and pageantry.

#142 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-01-21 10:09 PM | Reply

@#115 ... The big difference between the Clinton impeachment trial and this one is that Ken Starr had previously interviewed every witness he requested under oath, including Bill and Monica. Also, the Clinton administration turned over tons of documents, and Bill even turned over his DNA. Trump has done nothing but obstruct Congress every step of the way. ...

Thanks for that.

I had known parts of it, but not all of it.

It definitely exposes some of the hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans here.


#143 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 10:11 PM | Reply

It absolutely does. You have two completely different standards depending on the letter after the name.

#90 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's Dershowitz slick

#144 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-21 10:12 PM | Reply

Republicans could shoot the Constitution dead on 5th Ave and not lose any big donors to buy rwing votes.

#145 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 10:13 PM | Reply

1998 December 19 President Clinton impeached

In late July, lawyers for Lewinsky and Starr worked out a full-immunity agreement covering both Lewinsky and her parents, all of whom Starr had threatened with prosecution. On August 6, Lewinsky appeared before the grand jury to begin her testimony, and on August 17 President Clinton testified. Contrary to his testimony in the Paula Jones sexual-harassment case, President Clinton acknowledged to prosecutors from the office of the independent counsel that he had had an extramarital affair with Ms. Lewinsky.

Less than a month later, on September 9, Kenneth Starr submitted his report and 18 boxes of supporting documents to the House of Representatives. Released to the public two days later, the Starr Report outlined a case for impeaching Clinton on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power, and also provided explicit details of the sexual relationship between the president and Ms. Lewinsky. On October 8, the House authorized a wide-ranging impeachment inquiry, and on December 11, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment. On December 19, the House impeached Clinton.


www.history.com

#146 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 10:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Clinton turned over 90,000 pages of documents" Schiff just now.

#147 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 10:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#146 NW

Clinton turned over 90,000 documents BEFORE the trial... so that's exactly the same as Trump, right?

Jeffy and RoCheney think so.

#148 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 10:25 PM | Reply

"On January 7, 1999, the impeachment trial began. Five weeks later, on February 12, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. Clinton was acquitted on both articles of impeachment. The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted "not guilty," and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50."

www.history.com

#149 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 10:26 PM | Reply

#146 NW

Clinton turned over 90,000 documents BEFORE the trial... so that's exactly the same as Trump, right?

Jeffy and RoCheney think so.

#148 | POSTED BY CORKY

How many of those documents were procured only after seeking a court order?

How many documents did the Dem House request - how many did they seek a court order for after being rebuked?

Comparisons with the Clinton impeachment are a bad look for partisan Democrats.

#150 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"In the Clinton impeachment process, 66 witnesses were allowed to testify including 3 in the Senate trial, and 90,000 pages of documents were turned over," Pelosi, D-Calif., tweeted in a direct response to the president. "Trump was too afraid to let any of his top aides testify & covered up every single document. The Senate must #EndTheCoverUp."

www.nbcnews.com

#151 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 10:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans

They don't make Republicans like they used to, eh?

Remember when some of them were honest people.

#152 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 10:29 PM | Reply

"Comparisons with the Clinton impeachment are a bad look for partisan Democrats."

Only a partisan Republican would think so.

#153 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 10:30 PM | Reply

#140 | POSTED BY JPW

You don't even try to make a refutation anymore. Your so-called rejoinders are nothing more than grade-school ad hominem.

It's not a good look.

#154 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:32 PM | Reply

I didn't vote for Trump.
POSTED BY JEFFJ

Nobody cares. You buff the guy's balls all day, every day, for years. What you claim happened for five seconds in a voting booth is irrelevant.

#155 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Gal,

The House hearing was a partisan joke. Those who ran an incredibly partisan and 1-sided process are now bitching over the possibility that the tables might be turned. It's insane.

#156 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#150'

Blah, blah, blah.... the point is that there are substantial reasons that Dems are offering Amendments asking for witnesses and documents now and not waiting until after the trial arguments... and why the GOP saying that their plan is the same as for Clinton is meaningless.

It's meaningless because they already had 10s of thousands of documents, witness testimony, and the President's testimony.

If you try real hard not to be a Republican hack following Yurtle's every meme, you'll understand that. I know you can do it.

#157 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 10:34 PM | Reply

@#150 ... Comparisons with the Clinton impeachment are a bad look for partisan Democrats. ...

Not really.

Two impeachments. Two boat loads of data and information. And process.

You seem to be of the opinion that the Clinton impeachment was bad.

Yet you seem to use that bad behavior to justify a very similar behavior on the part of Republicans for the Trump impeachment.

imo, if you were really in favor of an appropriate impeachment process, then you would stop justifying the current Republican behavior via what you seem to think is past Democratic misbehavior.

Just a thought...

#158 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 10:36 PM | Reply

Nobody cares. You buff the guy's balls all day, every day, for years. What you claim happened for five seconds in a voting booth is irrelevant.

#155 | POSTED BY JOE A

That is what I was hoping for earlier today. This post is cathartic - it puts things back to normal after a day of way too much civility and even agreement between the 2 of us.

#159 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:36 PM | Reply

#137 | Posted by LampLighter

Dershowitz was on Anderson Cooper last night, claiming that abuse of power isn't a criminal offense and therefore not an impeachable offense.

Then Cooper played a 1998 video where Dershowitz was claiming the exact opposite was true about the abuse of power charge agasint Clinton, and therefore impeachable.

#160 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-01-21 10:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#156 ... The House hearing was a partisan joke. ...

It seems to be the Republicans who have been propagating the misinformation that Republicans in the House were not allowed access to the hearings...

In Senate trial, Pat Cipollone was wrong on GOP access to SCIF depositions
www.politifact.com

...On the first full day of President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone claimed that House Democrats had run roughshod over the president's procedural rights by denying Republicans access to key parts of the investigation.

Cipollone had several complaints, but one stood out to us as clearly wrong.

"Not even (House Intelligence Chairman Adam) Schiff's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF" during the House impeachment investigation, Cipollone said on the Senate floor Jan. 21. (A "SCIF," which stands for "sensitive compartmented information facility," is a secure government facility where classified intelligence can be discussed without eavesdropping.)...


So you really need to ask yourself, why does Pres trump's lawyer seem to intentionally propagate misinformation in defense of his client?

Why cannot he defend his client with truths?

#161 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 10:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's funny comparing Bill lying about a BJ, to Trump undermining our constitution, our government, our nation.

Really exemplifies the petty, vindictive brain of a conservative.

It's the same thing. Right, Trumpies?

#162 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-21 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One wonders how senators feel having to actually work an 8 hour day in the Senate chamber.

Bet there are lots of "whew!! I'm exhausted!!" in private.

#163 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-01-21 10:43 PM | Reply

#161 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Were Republicans allowed to call the witnesses they wanted to call?

Were Republicans prevented from asking certain questions of Dem witnesses?

In DC - what goes around comes around.

#164 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The House hearing was a partisan joke.
#156 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yea! The Republicans and the DoJ really shht all over it.

Anything to protect Trump!!

(Which, incidentally, is Jeff's motto. "Anything to protect Trump!!")

#165 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-21 10:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#160

Yup.

Thanks for showing what I having been saying.

Defense lawyers will say whatever is appropriate for their clients.

However, in the case of AG Barr, one needs to remember that AG BArr is the lawyer for the People of the United States, not Pres Trump. And what he has been saying of late seems to run counter to that job assignment.

This cartoon comes to mind...
thecomicnews.com

#166 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 10:45 PM | Reply

"Were Republicans allowed to call the witnesses they wanted to call?"

Should they have been?

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 10:45 PM | Reply

#130-131

Show me where the statements by Sens. Harkin and Schumer are incorrect.

Oh, wait, you can't.

#168 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 10:45 PM | Reply

In DC - what goes around comes around.
#164 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Really exemplifies the petty, vindictive brain of a conservative.
#162 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Thanks for your honest response.

#169 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-21 10:46 PM | Reply

Once again, who would have thought that the Dems would complain about process once the Impeachment Trial moved to the Upper Chamber...

Reap what you sow.

#170 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 10:47 PM | Reply

"Were Republicans allowed to call the witnesses they wanted to call?"

Should they have been?

#167 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Good question. They weren't permitted to do so - should they have been?

The answer to that question will absolutely apply to Senate Democrats wanting to call their preferred witnesses.

What's good for the goose...

#171 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:47 PM | Reply

in the case of AG Barr, one needs to remember that AG BArr is the lawyer for the People of the United States, not Pres Trump.

Well. Someone should remind him of that.

#172 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-21 10:47 PM | Reply

Once again, who would have thought that the Dems would complain about process once the Impeachment Trial moved to the Upper Chamber...

Reap what you sow.

#170 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Yep. It's a mirror I will relentlessly hold up in their faces.

#173 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:48 PM | Reply

@#162 ... It's funny comparing Bill lying about a BJ, to Trump undermining our constitution, our government, our nation. ...

No it is not funny.

By any stretch of the imagination, it is not funny.

It is a sad commentary upon how low Pres Trump has dragged the Republican Party, and what the Republican Party has become in enabling his egregious behavior.

#174 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 10:49 PM | Reply

who would have thought that the Dems would complain

Anyone interested in a fair trial.

But. Who knows. Perhaps this is the type of trial you're accustomed to.

#175 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-21 10:49 PM | Reply

"Show me where the statements by Sens. Harkin and Schumer are incorrect.
Oh, wait, you can't."

Show me where 66 witnesses and 90,000 documents is similar to the obstruction of Congress Trump has been perpetrating.

Oh, wait, you can't.

#176 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 10:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No it is not funny.

Oh...

I was being facetious.

#177 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-21 10:50 PM | Reply

Anyone interested in a fair trial.

But. Who knows. Perhaps this is the type of trial you're accustomed to.
#175 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

What's good for the goose....

#178 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:51 PM | Reply

Reap what you sow.

#170 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

This will come back to haunt Republicans?

I agree. This will come to haunt all Americans who care about the rule of law and the proposition that no man is above the law.

#179 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 10:52 PM | Reply

#168 |

Hilarious! You should be in the Sen right now on Trump's Legal Team... you lie and obfuscate well enough.

"show me where they are incorrect" addresses none of what Gal or I pointed out as the buffoonery of your claims of hypocrisy, that is, the two trials were not the same as far as witness and document availability are concerned, so it is unsurprising that quotes by participants might be different then and now.

One supposes that what must be true is that all Republican mouthpieces are alike.

#180 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 10:52 PM | Reply

@#170 ... who would have thought that the Dems would complain about process ...

Once again your comment completely misses the gist of the issue at hand...

The Democrats are complaining about process when it concerns the suppression of evidence.

The Republicans complained about process when it concerned the exposure of evidence.

See the difference?


#181 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 10:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Show me where 66 witnesses and 90,000 documents is similar to the obstruction of Congress Trump has been perpetrating.

Oh, wait, you can't.

#176 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

How much time and resources did the GOP lead House dedicate to introducing impeachment to the Senate vs the Dee-Lead House this week? To say that you are trying to compare apples and oranges is an insult to apples and oranges.

#182 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:54 PM | Reply

@#177 ... I was being facetious. ..

Yeah, I knew that.

Thanks for giving me a springboard so I could opine. :)


#183 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 10:56 PM | Reply

The Democrats are complaining about process when it concerns the suppression of evidence.

The Republicans complained about process when it concerned the exposure of evidence.

See the difference?

#181 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Um, no. Why were Republicans denied calling witnesses in the impeachment hearings? Why did they have questions shot down by Schiff? That is both a dishonest assessment of what happened in the House AND an accusation of a crime that hasn't even yet been committed in the Senate.

#184 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:57 PM | Reply

I'm pretty sure if Trump had turned over 90,000 pages of documents and allowed 66 members of his administration to testify under oath, Democrats would not see a need to call for documents and witnesses now.

#185 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 10:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm pretty sure if Trump had turned over 90,000 pages of documents and allowed 66 members of his administration to testify under oath, Democrats would not see a need to call for documents and witnesses now.

#185 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

They couldn't be bothered. That would have taken too long and this was pressing, until it wasn't and it took Pelosi a month to hand articles over to the Senate. You are polishing a turd.

#186 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:59 PM | Reply

"Um, no. Why were Republicans denied calling witnesses in the impeachment hearings? Why did they have questions shot down by Schiff? That is both a dishonest assessment of what happened in the House AND an accusation of a crime that hasn't even yet been committed in the Senate."

Because Trump obstructed Congress and because some members of that Congress, like Devin Nunes, were likely involved in Trump's Ukrainian shakedown.

#187 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 10:59 PM | Reply

#184

GOP witnesses were called in the House... several of which gave testimony that implicated Trump in this "drug deal".

The idea that the House hearings were more unfair than a Sen trial where Trump colludes with the Sen Leader on the show trial and the outcome is...amazing even for you.

#188 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 11:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#187 None of that prevented House Democrats from seeking a court order. Also, the vilified Nunes was vindicated by the Horowitz IG report. Throwing his name out as if it's an automatic taint is a backfire.

#189 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 11:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#188 You are in no position to cry foul if the Senate emulates the House in regards to its impeachment hearings. What goes around comes around.

#190 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 11:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They couldn't be bothered. That would have taken too long and this was pressing, until it wasn't and it took Pelosi a month to hand articles over to the Senate. You are polishing a turd."

The pressing part is that Trump is engaged in soliciting foreign election interference, and he would have delayed for months through the courts, thereby allowing his cheating to continue without the American people being made aware of his crimes. The only turds here are the GOP and its supporters.

#191 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Were Republicans allowed to call the witnesses they wanted to call?"
Should they have been?
#167 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
Good question. They weren't permitted to do so - should they have been?

I believe both parties agreed to those rules, is that correct?

#192 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 11:03 PM | Reply

@#164 ... Were Republicans allowed to call the witnesses they wanted to call? ...

Your question really should be, were Republicans allowed to call witnesses who were directly relevant to what it was that Pres Trump allegedly did.

Hunter Biden and the whistleblower are sideshows, not relevant witnesses.

So if the Republicans really wanted to call relevant witnesses, I am sure the Democrats would have allowed it.

In that light, who might be a relevant witness? Well, listen to the Republicans when they say they want witnesses with direct knowledge, e.g. Mr Bolton, Mr Mulvaney, etc.

If the Republicans really wanted the witnesses that they themselves stated they wanted, I have no doubt that the Democrats would have welcomes such witnesses.


The Republicans blew it bigly in this one.

#193 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 11:04 PM | Reply

#187

Is that all you got at this point? What about the court order in the McGahn case? Why couldn't the Dems be bothered to do that with Bolton, Mulvaney and why did they withdraw Kupperman's subpoena?

A younger Sen. Schumer certain would agree with that, as would Sen. Harkin, at least as evidenced by their statements in 1999.

*shrieks about the time to get to an unfriendly SCOTUS incoming in 3...2...1*

#194 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 11:04 PM | Reply

- seeking a court order

As you have been schooled and ignored it several times now involves the House relegating their stated impeachment responsibilities in the Constitution to the Courts. And could have taken years while Trump continues his crimes.

#195 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 11:04 PM | Reply

Re#184

Now you know that Biden is not relevant to the charges.

None of the witnesses Tepublicans asked for were even remotely relevant to the case.

You don't get to investigate your prosecutors and put them on trail instead of you.

If that were true you would be above the law.

Trump has been indicted. Evidence is available. He has ordered witnesses to not appear and agencies to not cooperate. And you have no defense for that. Except whataboutisms.

#196 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 11:05 PM | Reply

"#188 You are in no position to cry foul if the Senate emulates the House in regards to its impeachment hearings. What goes around comes around."

Doesn't really make sense.
The Senate can't emulate the House.
Their roles are entirely different.

#197 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 11:05 PM | Reply

Once again, who would have thought that the Dems would complain about process once the Impeachment Trial moved to the Upper Chamber...

Has it occurred to you that one chamber's process is far more deserving of complaint than another? And that Republicans (literally) lying about the House process was setting the table for the Senate to actually engage in a whitewash?

Or are you actually dumb enough to think that Republicans weren't allowed to ask questions during the House proceeding, or that Hunter Biden is a relevant witness?

Just keep sniping from the sidelines. It's all you've got.

#198 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 11:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

And could have taken years while Trump continues his crimes.

#195 | POSTED BY CORKY

His crime is undermining the presidential elections so naturally republicans want him to continue to be able to do that.

Astounding.

#199 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 11:06 PM | Reply

@#184 ... Um, no. ...

You can lead a person to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

#200 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 11:06 PM | Reply

"Also, the vilified Nunes was vindicated by the Horowitz IG report. Throwing his name out as if it's an automatic taint is a backfire."

The IG report had nothing to say on Nunes and his aides working with Trump, Rudy, Parnas, etc. on the Ukrainian drug deal. Speaking of drugs, I think you must be on them if you think I threw Devin's name out there "as if it's an automatic taint."

#201 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:06 PM | Reply

First this:

*shrieks about the time to get to an unfriendly SCOTUS incoming in 3...2...1*

Then immediately thereafter Dorkus posts this:

As you have been schooled and ignored it several times now involves the House relegating their stated impeachment responsibilities in the Constitution to the Courts. And could have taken years while Trump continues his crimes.

#195 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2020-01-21 11:04 PM

So easy.

#202 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 11:07 PM | Reply

#194

Still oblivious. See 180.

#203 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 11:08 PM | Reply

#202

So sleazy.

#204 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 11:09 PM | Reply

Beaten like a Red-headed Stepchild, Dorkus goes to his fall back...quoting himself.

#205 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 11:10 PM | Reply

#205

Unable to refute 180... or half a dozen Gal posts, Fake Lawyer claims victory and sashays into the sunset.

#206 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 11:13 PM | Reply

@#184 ... Why were Republicans denied calling witnesses in the impeachment hearings? Why did they have questions shot down by Schiff? ...

They were denied calling witnesses becauses the witnesses were irrelevant.

The questions were shot down because they were irrelevant.

Impeachment is a serious, very serious, process for Congress.

The Republicans were trying to kick up dust everywhere they could to degrade the seriousness of the process.

Take a step back and think about it...

The Republicans could not justify what Pres Trump did, so the only thing they could do was try to degrade the process being used to hold Pres Trump accountable.


The aspect that will sustain through all of this is that Pres Trump sold the United States for his own political gain.

The evidence is overwhelming.

And that is why the Republicans have been so crazy (OK, crazier than usual) of late.

#207 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 11:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nothing to refute, Ginger...

#208 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 11:14 PM | Reply

Impeachment is a serious, very serious, process for Congress.

Especially when you get commemorative pens!

-Mad Maxine

#209 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 11:15 PM | Reply

180 to refute, Trumpetta... your claims of hypocritical quotes on completely different trial evidence circumstances.

Better known as blatant stupidity on your part.

#210 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 11:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"A younger Sen. Schumer certain would agree with that, as would Sen. Harkin, at least as evidenced by their statements in 1999."

A younger Graham and McConnell both thought there should be witnesses in the Senate. In fact, Mitch went further than that:

McConnell said in 1999 he would have voted for whatever the House managers wanted

www.ksfo.com

#211 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The IG report had nothing to say on Nunes and his aides....

The IG Report vindicated the much-maligned Nunez memo that alleged FISA abuse. The entirety of the MSM assailed Nunes and lauded Schiff and proved to be spectacularly wrong.

At this point - just trowing out the name "Nunes" as guilt-by-association is Fool's Gold.

#212 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 11:16 PM | Reply

#211 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

You're arguing against a hypothetical. At this point witnesses are still on the table.

#213 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 11:18 PM | Reply

@#198 ... Has it occurred to you that one chamber's process is far more deserving of complaint than another? And that Republicans (literally) lying about the House process was setting the table for the Senate to actually engage in a whitewash? ...

My opinion at this point, after listening to so many Republicans on the various news channels (yes, Fox News was one of them), is that is the intent.

#214 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 11:18 PM | Reply

= witnesses are still on the table.

Since you will buh-lieve anything, I have some swamp land, er, I mean real estate down here you might be interested in.

#215 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 11:19 PM | Reply

They were denied calling witnesses becauses the witnesses were irrelevant.

The questions were shot down because they were irrelevant.

That is completely arbitrary and you will scream bloody murder if I use the same arguement if Dem-Preferred witnesses and Den-Preferred questions are stymied under the exact same reasoning.

#216 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 11:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Heidi Przybyla @HeidiNBC

More NOT TRUE from POTUS lawyers.

"The president had no opportunity to make any defense in the House."

POTUS + of his lieutenants (Mulvaney) all refuse to testify.

His counsel was also invited to participate in the Judiciary hearings. He declined.

"White House rejects House Judiciary's invitation to participate in impeachment hearings"

twitter.com

#217 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:22 PM | Reply

Has it occurred to you that one chamber's process is far more deserving of complaint than another?

#198 | POSTED BY JOE

So, double standards based upon a letter. At least you are honest about it.

#218 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 11:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

= witnesses are still on the table.

Since you will buh-lieve anything, I have some swamp land, er, I mean real estate down here you might be interested in.
#215 | POSTED BY CORKY

I will wait until the point in the process is reached that a motion can be filed for witnesses to be called before I lash out. You are lambasting something that hasn't even happened - yet.

#219 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 11:25 PM | Reply

"The IG Report vindicated the much-maligned Nunez memo that alleged FISA abuse. The entirety of the MSM assailed Nunes and lauded Schiff and proved to be spectacularly wrong. "

Which shows how much you know:

Nunes Memo v Schiff Memo: Neither Were Entirely Right

As I noted, I spent much of the last month wading through the DOJ IG Report on Carter Page. Back when the IG Report came out, a bunch of people " largely Devin Nunes flunkies " declared, incorrectly and apparently without close review, that the IG Report shows that Devin Nunes was right and Adam Schiff was wrong in their memos from 2018.

www.emptywheel.net

#220 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:26 PM | Reply

"At this point - just trowing out the name "Nunes" as guilt-by-association is Fool's Gold."

Does the name Derek Harvey mean anything to you? If you are going to persist in defending Nunes, it should:

Devin Nunes Billed Taxpayers $63,000 for a Jaunt to Europe Chasing Accused Fraudster Lev Parnas' Disinformation

Betsy Woodruff Swan just put the maraschino cherry on the impeachment sundae with this story describing how Lev Parnas served as tour guide for a trip Devin Nunes, failed NSC staffer Derek Harvey, and two other House Intelligence staffers took to Europe last year.

www.emptywheel.net

#221 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:30 PM | Reply

Don't be such a gullible partisan, Jeff. You know, what you accuse others of being.

There's isn't a snowball's chance in hell that GOPhers will allow Trump's top aides that know what he did to testify.

#222 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 11:32 PM | Reply

"You're arguing against a hypothetical. At this point witnesses are still on the table."

Hypothetically the are still on the table. Realistically they are not. If Republican Senators intended to call them, they would be voting yes to do so now.

#223 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:32 PM | Reply

Hypothetically the = Hypothetically they

#224 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:33 PM | Reply

Whenever Gal rolls out emptyhead.net you know that the walls are closing in.

#225 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 11:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Whenever RoC slaughters the source, you know he doesn't have a refuting argument.

#226 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Cork and Gal,

I'm not going to protest against something that hasn't yet happened.

This is ridiculous.

#227 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 11:38 PM | Reply

#225

Fake Lawyer: Slaughter the Source is only OK when I do it!!

You should go back to comparing the Clinton trial with 90k docs, witnesses, and Pres testimony to this trial with blatant blanket obstruction by your Dear Party Leader and castigating people who notice the difference.

#228 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 11:39 PM | Reply

"I'm not going to protest against something that hasn't yet happened.
This is ridiculous."

What's ridiculous is the process that, as Schiff put it, is "a$$-backwards."

#229 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:40 PM | Reply

@#225 ... Whenever Gal rolls out emptyhead.net you know that the walls are closing in. ...

Whenever the righocenter alias complains about the source and not the content, the walls are closing in.

Touche, mon ami... :)

#230 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-21 11:42 PM | Reply

"Ass-Backwards" and (So Far) Witness-Free, Trump's Senate Impeachment Trial Begins

It was only a couple hours into the first day of arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of Donald John Trump when Adam Schiff, the lead House manager prosecuting the case, summed up the day's proceedings. The Senate's proposed process for the trial, he said, was simply "ass-backwards," requiring the House to present its case before considering whether to call witnesses and demand White House documents that Trump has been withholding.

www.newyorker.com

#231 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 11:47 PM | Reply

#229
So Schiff is going to gripe if his tactics are used as a template?

Jesus H.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

#232 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 11:48 PM | Reply

"So Schiff is going to gripe if his tactics are used as a template?"

Why would an indictment and a trial use the same template, JeffJ?

#233 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 11:59 PM | Reply

Impeachment is a political remedy, Snoofy.

#234 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:00 AM | Reply

This:

Ari Berman @AriBerman

Senate Republicans who represent 15 million fewer people than Senate Dems can block impeachment of a president who committed crimes worse than Watergate, lost popular vote by 2.9 million votes & suffered largest midterm election defeat in US history

#235 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-22 12:02 AM | Reply

"a republic, if you can keep it"

I hope I'm wrong, but I think we've already lost it.

#236 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-22 12:05 AM | Reply

So ROCLCL is playing STS after he has castigated me for doing the same thing. Well if that ain't the drizzling schits I Don't know what is.

#237 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-22 12:06 AM | Reply

#236

Jesus, Gal

Our checks and balances are still strong.

#238 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:08 AM | Reply

"Our checks and balances are still strong."

Are they? That reminds me of, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." And we all know what happened after that.

#239 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-22 12:15 AM | Reply

Jesus, Gal
Our checks and balances are still strong.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-01-22 12:08 AM | REPLY

Mitch McConnell proves daily that is absolutely not the case. Coordinating with the White House and Trump regarding the Senate trial bears this out.

#240 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-22 12:25 AM | Reply

= witnesses are still on the table.

Since you will buh-lieve anything, I have some swamp land, er, I mean real estate down here you might be interested in.
#215 | POSTED BY CORKY

I will wait until the point in the process is reached that a motion can be filed for witnesses to be called before I lash out. You are lambasting something that hasn't even happened - yet.
#219 | Posted by JeffJ

Common trial tactic. Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, tell 'em then tell 'em what you told 'em.

Argue amendments substantively, present substantive opening statements then argue motions for subpoenas substantively.

The "'em" ain't the Senate. That conclusion is foregone.

#241 | Posted by et_al at 2020-01-22 12:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good lord, Nadler is a disaster.

#242 | Posted by et_al at 2020-01-22 12:48 AM | Reply

The Chief dresses 'em down.

#243 | Posted by et_al at 2020-01-22 12:59 AM | Reply

Go Chiefs!

#244 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-01-22 01:04 AM | Reply

#239 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY
#240 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I see the Russian trolls are out in force supporting Biden and his Ukraine connections.

#245 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-01-22 01:07 AM | Reply

@#209 ... Especially when you get commemorative pens! ...

Oh please.

I dislike that aspect as much as you do. Maybe even more so, because it causes me to write comments such as this one...

But, apparently, unlike you, I do not continually use that small, very small, aspect of the proceedings to negate the trove of information and facts that were discovered during the proceedings.

So if you really want to hang your hat upon some minuscule self-congrats, continue to do so.

But, by doing so, you will try to ignore, yet implicitly acknowledge, the facts that were discovered during the proceedings that those pens are commemorating. (spell check helped me a lot with that last word... :) )

Your choice.


#246 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-22 01:23 AM | Reply

@#238 ... Our checks and balances are still strong. ...

Why do you say that?

#247 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-22 01:25 AM | Reply

Schiff was masterful this morning when he asked the senate to vote on having the Chief Justice to decide the relevance of witnesses thereby leaving it to impartial hands. Of course Republicans voted against that idea proving once again Jeff is so wrong about so much when he says the checks and balances are still strong in this government. What a whopper that statement was.

#248 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-22 02:17 AM | Reply

Basically. Jeff and RoC are emulating Republican senators.

They couldn't care less. They're mocking and trolling. They're pretending this is the same as lying about a BJ. They keep bringing up that Democrats are getting what they deserve, because what ever happened during the Clinton impeachment, still burns so hot in the pit of their souls, they're gleefully cheering on this charade. An actual fair trial is the last thing they're interested in. They prefer playing politics. This is their Super Bowl.

In the end. Trump really allows people to expose and embrace who they are.

#249 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 02:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Impeachment is a political remedy,
#234 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Impeachment is one branch of the government exerting it right to limit the abuse of power of the other.

It's a political remedy because the legislative branch and executive branch are political entities.

#250 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 02:31 AM | Reply

Impeachment is a political remedy,
#234 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I feel like it's better described as a Constitutional remedy.

#251 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:18 AM | Reply

That being said, the Electoral College is a political remedy.
Three Fifths is a political remedy.
The Missouri Compromise is a political remedy.

Impeachment in the House and Trial in the Senate is more of a... political process.
Sort of like an Election.

#252 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:20 AM | Reply

Yeah well blah blah blah republicl0wns... no matter what you how you try to rewrite this... Trumpleskin is leaving office in disgrace.

and once again you get to take credit for screwing up the country just like you did with Bush and Nixon.

#253 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-01-22 05:04 AM | Reply

Republicans are for the most part party over country. Their support for this sham trial bears this one out.

#254 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-22 05:43 AM | Reply

You don't even try to make a refutation anymore. Your so-called rejoinders are nothing more than grade-school ad hominem.

It's not a good look.

#154 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's all you sellouts deserve.

You're selling your soul for Trump against all the information we already have and you expect to be taken seriously and debated with? Pffft. Hell no.

#255 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 07:23 AM | Reply

Our checks and balances are still strong.

#238 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

LOL Christ Jeff, are you really this naive.

While you breathlessly give the "realist" play by play the checks and balances between Congress and the Executive are being shredded and one major party is entirely abdicating their responsibilities as a check.

And you're cheering them, as if it's a game, and deriding those who are demanding they live up to their oaths and do their jobs.

#256 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 07:26 AM | Reply

@#238 ... Our checks and balances are still strong. ...

Why do you say that?

#247 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Because impeachment is happening in spite of a lack of strong public support for it.

You people have become completely unhinged. Trump sucks but he's actually been more restrained than Obama in terms of Executive over-reach and it's really not even been close, at least up to this point.

Impeachment is most likely a dead-end that will probably end up harming the Democratic Party and will considerably raise the bar for any future attempts at impeachment for this president.

Here is my advice to the Democratic Party and its supporters: Impeachment is going nowhere. Focus you energy on nominating the best possible candidate and win a God damned election. That is how it's done in this country. You aren't entitled to the levers of power. You have to earn the support of the people. Do that - build a winning message.

#257 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 07:27 AM | Reply

It's all you sellouts deserve.

You're selling your soul for Trump against all the information we already have and you expect to be taken seriously and debated with? Pffft. Hell no.

#255 | POSTED BY JPW

I don't know which has taken you over more - your self-delusion or your steadfast belief that you are the smartest person of all time who has all of the answers to everything in life.

#258 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 07:29 AM | Reply

I don't hunk I have all the answers.

But this topic is so thoroughly reported it's quite easy to see who's deluded and who's not.

Sorry the truth hurts, sport. But you're being had.

#259 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 07:48 AM | Reply

You people have become completely unhinged. Trump sucks but he's actually been more restrained than Obama in terms of Executive over-reach and it's really not even been close, at least up to this point.

Talk about unhinged.

Here is my advice to the Democratic Party and its supporters

We don't need the advice of somebody who's a full blown Trumper but is incapable of admitting it.

Especially when said "advice" is mundane, obvious stuff that's the point of every election.

#260 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 07:53 AM | Reply

We don't need the advice...

Actually, you do. What is really needed is an intervention. Beating Hillary Clinton is not an impeachable offense and (if memory serves it was in WaPo) impeachment talk kicked off before the fricking inauguration.

#261 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 08:11 AM | Reply

I don't hunk (sic) I have all the answers....

#259 | POSTED BY JPW A

Let's just say that humility is not your strong suit.

As for (sic) you probably know that I'm not a spelling or grammar Nazi, especially when fricking auto-correct sometimes changes my words - I just like using (sic) when the opportunity presents itself.

#262 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 08:14 AM | Reply

Dude, my job is parsing information from complex data sets.

Seeing the forests for the trees is literally what I do everyday.

A significant portion of the discussion that goes on on any topic is weeds, sideshows that may be interesting as sideshow conversation but aren't meant to take the place of the main event, which is often what they do.

#263 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 09:04 AM | Reply

For instance, #261 is sideshow.

Irrelevant information in light of everything we've learned since those few loud voices immediately began demanding impeachment for Trump for being a god awful person.

#264 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 09:06 AM | Reply

#216/218 There can be good faith, substantive determinations of relevance that cut against you and it isn't always just because people don't like you. Judges allow or deny discovery requests every day in America and it if a lawyer just screamed about how the judge loves Plaintiffs and hates Defendants he'd be treated like the five year old he's acting like. Grow up.

#265 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-22 09:07 AM | Reply

When you get right down to it, the president really can be impeached only for a serious abuse of power. Everything else is just a specific example of a serious abuse of power and therefore a redundancy. Treason and bribery are both clearly high crimes and therefore are redundancies in being named separately. Treason and bribery are both also abuses of power.

Clinton's gross indiscretion was also an abuse of power, becoming serious when it became a perjury, if not sooner.

Nixon's taped suggestion to use the CIA to block the FBI's investigation into Watergate was also a serious abuse of power, as was his suggestion to raise $1,000,000 to buy silence.

Andrew Johnson was impeached on 11 articles, not only for firing Stanton in violation of the Tenure in Office Act, but separately for sending a letter to Stanton's proposed replacement about it, and separately again in four more articles for conspiring with others about doing it.

Johnson was even impeached in one separate and additional article for uttering "with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces ... against Congress [and] the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled and within bearing." Sound familiar?

And judges have been impeached for inebriation on the bench. Not a statutory misdemeanor, but certainly a serious abuse of power.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" all come down to serious abuses of power, of one type or another.

#266 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2020-01-22 09:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#266 Don't expect Trumpcucks to understand or acknowledge history.

#267 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-22 09:37 AM | Reply

impeachment talk kicked off before the fricking inauguration.

#261 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Which is not surprising. Humpy was exhibiting criminal behavior long before he was ever elected.

Because Trump was exhibiting impeachable offenses such as abuse of power even before he was inaugurated.

YOU elected a criminal. What the Fricking Frack did you expect?????

#268 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-22 10:04 AM | Reply

#268

Me? I voted for Gary Johnson.

#269 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 10:08 AM | Reply

Because impeachment is happening in spite of a lack of strong public support for it.
#257 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

First. You think impeachment should only occur if there's public support? Do you know what impeachment actually is? You clearly don't.

Second. Are you sure there isn't strong public support for impeachment? Or are you simply talking about you, yourself not strongly supporting impeachment?

#270 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 10:22 AM | Reply

Me? I voted for Gary Johnson.
#269 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

What a waste of a vote.

Considering the countless hours you spend on the DR defending everything Trump says and does. You should've just voted for the man.

#271 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 10:25 AM | Reply

Me? I voted for Gary Johnson.
#269 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnn tell us another one slick.

#272 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-22 10:27 AM | Reply

Piss off, Laura.

You are one of the most useless people on this site - rarely contributing anything and usually just ankle-biting.

You are a shell of your former self and, sadly, you are a terrible advocate for trans rights.

#273 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 10:30 AM | Reply

What a waste of a vote.

I voted my conscience. Our 2 political parties gave us 2 objectively horrible choices. I couldn't vote for either one of them.

Considering the countless hours you spend on the DR defending everything Trump says and does. You should've just voted for the man.

#271 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Nope. He's too much of a POS for me.

#274 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 10:32 AM | Reply

First. You think impeachment should only occur if there's public support?

My point was that it's obvious that our checks and balances are in place and cited impeachment moving forward in spite of a lack of strong public support as evidence.

Are you sure there isn't strong public support for impeachment?

I've yet to see polling results show strong public support for impeachment. And up until this point Democrats have been able to control the narrative. That is going to change in a couple of days.

Or are you simply talking about you, yourself not strongly supporting impeachment?

#270 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I'd love to see Trump removed from office. The man is toxic. I don't like Mike Pence but he's preferable to Trump. At the very least he'd return a degree of decorum to the office of president.

#275 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 10:39 AM | Reply

I'd love to see Trump removed from office. The man is toxic. I don't like Mike Pence but he's preferable to Trump. At the very least he'd return a degree of decorum to the office of president.

#275 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I can respect that but I can't agree our checks and balances are in place if there is no check on a President trying to illegal influence an election.

It means that if the President succeeds in illegally influencing the public, he can't be voted out of office because their won't be public support. The whole point of Senators swearing their oaths to be impartial jurors is to ignore public support and do the right thing, morally and legally.

Unfortunately, Morally and Legally are two terms Republicans don't know the meaning of.

#276 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-22 10:53 AM | Reply

Here is my advice to the Democratic Party and its supporters: Impeachment is going nowhere. Focus you energy on nominating the best possible candidate and win a God damned election. That is how it's done in this country. You aren't entitled to the levers of power. You have to earn the support of the people. Do that - build a winning message.

#257 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Essentially you are asking Democrats to let Trump cheat and trying to win despite the Cheating.

The truth is the Impeachment is showing Trump to more of the public as the lying POS he is. And he will take down Republican Senators, House Members, and State elected officials with him. The only reason we know of half of the evidence and some of the dirty things Trump did is because of the impeachment investigation.

And if you don't think there will be more down ballot consequences for the Republicans because of this fiasco, you are nuts.

#277 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-22 10:56 AM | Reply

You are a shell of your former self and, sadly, you are a terrible advocate for trans rights.

#273 | Posted by JeffJ

Getting personal.

She hit a nerve, didn't she?

#278 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 10:57 AM | Reply

I couldn't vote for either one of them.

But yet you can't stop supporting the one that won and is objectively worse than Hillary could have ever been.

Considering the countless hours you spend on the DR defending everything Trump says and does. You should've just voted for the man.

#271 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Nope. He's too much of a POS for me.

#274 | Posted by JeffJ

LOL the self delusion is strong in this one.

#279 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 10:59 AM | Reply

And if you don't think there will be more down ballot consequences for the Republicans because of this fiasco, you are nuts.

#277 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Maybe it will. My crystal ball doesn't work particularly well but I see this harming Democrats more than Republicans.

She hit a nerve, didn't she?

#278 | POSTED BY JPW

Not really. Her incessant ankle-biting is somewhat annoying so I decided to slap it down. Dogs sometimes need to be disciplined.

#280 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:00 AM | Reply

But yet you can't stop supporting the one that won and is objectively worse than Hillary could have ever been.

I think Hillary would have been worse.

LOL the self delusion is strong in this one.

#279 | POSTED BY JPW

I didn't vote for him and won't vote for him come November. Nothing delusional about that.

#281 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:02 AM | Reply

The only reason we know of half of the evidence and some of the dirty things Trump did is because of the impeachment investigation.

Given how brazen the corruption was in the Ukraine issue, I can't imagine how bad other things are that we don't know about yet.

Which is yet another example of short sighted stupidity on the part of Republicans-that this is the only ethical infraction of a serious magnitude that is currently being undertaken by Trump and his cadre of POS lowlifes.

#282 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:02 AM | Reply

I think Hillary would have been worse.

Then you truly are an idiot.

Sorry. But anybody willing to simply believe something in a complete absence of logic or evidence is an idiot.

I didn't vote for him and won't vote for him come November. Nothing delusional about that.

#281 | Posted by JeffJ

Doesn't matter.

You vote for him everyday you carry his dirty water.

#283 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:04 AM | Reply

"Doesn't matter. You vote for him everyday you carry his dirty water."

And every time he votes for Trump's enablers.

#284 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-22 11:07 AM | Reply

But anybody willing to simply believe something in a complete absence of logic or evidence is an idiot.

She's an incompetent abusive POS. For all of Trump's faults - and they are numerous - how many times has he been smacked down by SCOTUS? How many times was Obama smacked down? 13 times and some of those were scathing unanimous rulings. It would have been that on steroids with someone who feels as entitled and untouchable as Clinton.

#285 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:08 AM | Reply

It would have been that on steroids with someone who feels as entitled and untouchable as Clinton.

#285 | Posted by JeffJ

LOL you mean the system of checks and balances worked under Barack the Terrible? What?!?! He didn't run roughshod over them and push his agenda through like a mobster?

If anything, Trump has shown himself to be exactly what you claim Hillary would have been-an incompetent abusive POS.

Spin me another one, Jeff. I'm enjoying the laughs.

#286 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:13 AM | Reply

I'm enjoying the laughs.

#286 | POSTED BY JPW

Actually, you're not.

Your lashing out, and it's sadly become the norm with you.

#287 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jeff says that I'm a shell of my former self that's rich coming from the faux fence sitter tn extreme intellectualy dishonest right wing partisan hack jobs. Spare me Jeff.

#288 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-22 11:22 AM | Reply

Your lashing out, and it's sadly become the norm with you.

#287 | Posted by JeffJ

Because you still look in the mirror and see somebody worthy of respect and discourse.

Despite posting gems like That is a direct result of a lack of strong public support for removal. Spare me any conspiracy crap about Senate Republicans backing Trump no matter what.

AFTER the GOP made it clear they were coordinating with the WH to brush this under the rug as quickly and neatly as possible.

Why? Because that's what the public supports? Hardly.

But whatever. Explain it away any way you'd like. My "lashing out" is a sign of my disrespect.

#289 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:23 AM | Reply

This administration operates like an organized crime outfit in a country with weak, corrupt law enforcement.

>>I can't imagine how bad other things are that we don't know about yet.

Think about it - what's that little nazi f**k stephen miller doing anytime he's not in the news? Can't be good.

#290 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-22 11:23 AM | Reply

My "lashing out" is a sign of my disrespect.

#289 | POSTED BY JPW

Actually, it's a sign of immaturity.

#291 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

AFTER the GOP made it clear they were coordinating with the WH to brush this under the rug as quickly and neatly as possible.

They are following the same protocols that were in place for the Clinton impeachment and said protocols received a unanimous 100-0 Senate vote.

#292 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:27 AM | Reply

Actually, it's a sign of immaturity.

#291 | Posted by JeffJ

It's all that's left.

You've shown yourself immune to critical thought or...well...reality.

They are following the same protocols that were in place for the Clinton impeachment and said protocols received a unanimous 100-0 Senate vote.

#292 | Posted by JeffJ

Ahhh yes this canard.

Not rehashing why that's a piss poor line thought for the umpteenth time. You're invested in it and there's no way you're going to be dislodged.

#293 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:30 AM | Reply

Not rehashing why that's a piss poor line thought for the umpteenth time. You're invested in it and there's no way you're going to be dislodged.

#293 | POSTED BY JPW

Ever notice how your double standards always flow in 1 direction?

You probably don't but the rest of us sure do.

#294 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:38 AM | Reply

Actually, it's a sign of immaturity.

#291 | Posted by JeffJ

Only if the interaction deserves treatment other than what it's currently getting.

It doesn't.

#295 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:40 AM | Reply

Ever notice how your double standards always flow in 1 direction?

You probably don't but the rest of us sure do.

#294 | Posted by JeffJ

Ohh ohhh now do the hypocrisy argument!

YAAAAAWWWWWWNNN.

It's almost as if every conversation is new to you and previous debates weren't had.

They were had.

The clinging to the Clinton impeachment rules is convenient garbage, nothing more.

BTW if that was 100% true, Mulvaney et al would be giving taped depositions that would be played in the Senate. Are they?

#296 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:42 AM | Reply

"I voted for Gary Johnson" is the call sign for embarrassed Trumpers across America. If as many people who claim they voted for Gary Johnson actually did, the man would be President.

#297 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-22 11:47 AM | Reply

Here is what Senator Hirono (D) had to say about impeachment:

"If we were following the Clinton precedent, there would have been all of this discovery done at the House level, and that's not what's happening at all."

Only if the interaction deserves treatment other than what it's currently getting.

It doesn't.

#295 | POSTED BY JPW

Yeah, any disagreement with your big brain warrants immaturity. I acknowledge that you are a smart person but you are nowhere near the genius that believe yourself to be.

The clinging to the Clinton impeachment rules is convenient garbage, nothing more.

Yeah! How dare they apply a consistent standard! / snark

#298 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:47 AM | Reply

"I voted for Gary Johnson" is the call sign for embarrassed Trumpers across America. If as many people who claim they voted for Gary Johnson actually did, the man would be President.

#297 | POSTED BY JOE

I've been 100% consistent about it.

Just prior to the election I came up with this slogan: Don't be a johnson, vote for Gary Johnson.

It would be nice if once in a while you'd extend the same courtesy to me that I always extend to you. Are you capable of that?

#299 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:48 AM | Reply

Sorry Jeff. I really don't think people who support and defend Donald J. Trump on a daily basis are deserving of even a modicum of respect. No need to be butthurt about what some random people on the internet think of you. Toughen up.

#300 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-22 11:52 AM | Reply

Yeah, any disagreement with your big brain warrants immaturity.

If your views moved with reality there wouldn't be a problem.

But they don't. So there's a problem.

#301 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:52 AM | Reply

Jeff,

You ever hear the saying, "actions speak louder that words"?

Words: "I voted for Gary Johnson."

Actions: Defending, deflecting, and lying in order to protect Trump from all the stupid awful shht he does, every single day.

Anyway.

Carry on.

#302 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 11:53 AM | Reply

-If as many people who claim they voted for Gary Johnson actually did, the man would be President.

Either call him a liar or STFU, you spineless twit.

I won't jump on either side of this issue because I am not spending the time to read the rules of law, rules of order, how this compares to Clinton's impeachment proceedings, etc....so I have no basis to agree or disagree with anybody.

But I have a question for everyone here regardless of where you stand.

AT the conclusion of this, assuming it's going to end the way we think....with a partisan senate voting to keep trump and squelching as much testimony and evidence as possible in the process.......will this be bad for the democratic party or not?

#303 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 11:56 AM | Reply

Yeah! How dare they apply a consistent standard! / snark

#298 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

There's no logical reason to demand different cases be tried by identical rules.

And why the rules from Clinton's impeachment and not Johnson's?

I'm he only reason it it's favorable to Trump for multiple reasons .

Your being absurd if you assert anything else without some serious explanations that haven't been blvoiced yet.

#304 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:57 AM | Reply

#303 who cares if it's bad for the Dems. It's bad for the country.

#305 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#300 | POSTED BY JOE

This has nothing to do with Trump. You moved the goalposts bigly.

I extend you the courtesy of taking you at your word.

Are you capable of extending that same courtesy?

#306 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:59 AM | Reply

If your views moved with reality there wouldn't be a problem.

But they don't. So there's a problem.

#301 | POSTED BY JPW

Again - you regard your personal opinions as absolute facts. If you understood the distinction between opinion and fact there wouldn't be a problem.

But you don't. So there's a problem.

#307 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:00 PM | Reply

#303 who cares if it's bad for the Dems....

#305 | POSTED BY JPW

You apparently do.

#308 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:01 PM | Reply

That's your interpretation. Perfect example of why you're a partisan.

All you see is partisanship, even when somebody tells you otherwise.

#309 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 12:03 PM | Reply

307 it isn't an opinion that your views don't jive with reality.

Your statement that removal was DOA because the Dems didn't build a strong enough case is a perfect example of it.

#310 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 12:05 PM | Reply

There's no logical reason to demand different cases be tried by identical rules.

The illogic of that statement is astounding.

And why the rules from Clinton's impeachment and not Johnson's?

#304 | POSTED BY JPW

The protocols established for the Clinton impeachment were voted for in a unanimous bipartisan Senate vote of 100-0. That strongly suggests those protocols are solid.

What is it you are looking to change? Strip POTUS of a defense? Change the Constitutional barrier of 2/3 majority to remove and instead require only 46 votes to remove?

For all of your bitching about the Clinton protocols being applied here (Heaven forbid a consistent standard be applied) I haven't seen what you think should be different.

#311 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:05 PM | Reply

-who cares if it's bad for the Dems.

I think a lot of dems care. So does Jeff, apparently....if you believe him.

I believe him. Meaning I don't think he cares about the dems...but rather he believes it's bad for the dems.

-It's bad for the country

I think the vast majority of people agree with you and think this is bad for the country.

but how exactly is it bad?

economically?
materially some other way?
militarily or national security?

or....when it really comes down to it...is is just "symbolically" bad to most people?

#312 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 12:06 PM | Reply

removal was DOA because the Dems didn't build a strong enough case is reality

#310 | POSTED BY JPW

FTFY - you can thank me later.

#313 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:07 PM | Reply

All you see is partisanship, even when somebody tells you otherwise.

#309 | POSTED BY JPW

You appear motivated, in part, by partisanship. I construe that because you decry any kind of consistent standards.

#314 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:09 PM | Reply

Either call him a liar or STFU, you spineless twit.

I'll post however i want, you little ankle-biting ----. Nobody asked you.

#315 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-22 12:09 PM | Reply

but rather he believes it's bad for the dems.

I do. I think they look like complete fools. They took something very serious and turned it into a joke and it didn't have to be this way.

#316 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:10 PM | Reply

#315 He effectively called you out, Joe.

You would have better served yourself by not replying at all to his post. Or just sacking up and owning it.

#317 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:11 PM | Reply

will this be bad for the democratic party or not?
#303 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Pretty sure what actually matters is whether you believe Trump is good for America, or not.

#318 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 12:11 PM | Reply

I think they look like complete fools.
#316 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You need to find a mirror.

#319 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 12:12 PM | Reply

-Nobody asked you.

you should add that to your name. Joenobodyeverasksmeanythingsoimlonely

#320 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 12:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You appear motivated, in part, by partisanship. I construe that because you decry any kind of consistent standards."

My irony meter just exploded.

Tell us again how you're completely against more debt...while you were totally silent about the massive new debt in the Trump tax code. Be sure to point out your consistent standards along the way.

#321 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-22 12:14 PM | Reply

#317 You'd be better served not sticking up for a traitorous POS every minute of your life, but i doubt you care what an internet stranger thinks "best serves" you (i don't).

#322 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-22 12:16 PM | Reply

-Pretty sure what actually matters is whether you believe Trump is good for America, or not.

to me? yes....but I'm not a player in the democratic party strategizing the next election or worried about my seat.

What truly concerns me the most is seeing the democratic party NOT go backwards and not making Trump's reelection easier.

It doesn't mean I disagree with this impeachment...I believe the right thing for the country was to move forward with it....IMO, we had no other choice.

I just don't want the democrats to suffer collateral damage from this.

#323 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 12:17 PM | Reply

I think a lot of dems care. So does Jeff,

Jeff is a Trumpite. His cares mean little regarding this process.

he believes it's bad for the dems.

Pretty sure 2018 signaled the people's desires. The house became Democratic because people wanted someone to step up to Trump.

#324 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 12:18 PM | Reply

-They took something very serious and turned it into a joke and it didn't have to be this way.

I'm sure you've posted this many times....but I'll ask anyway...what should the dems have done differently?

#325 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 12:18 PM | Reply

324

The House became democratic. fact. why? maybe you're right. I don't know.

By my calculation, the HOR has switched parties in power 4 times in the last 25 years. Is it always because the sitting president drove them away? Usually it gets spun that way but think the true causes are more complex than that.

don't get me wrong....I agree with you on this one...Trump is certainly a factor in this last switch.

#326 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 12:27 PM | Reply

Key Differences between the Clinton and Trump Impeachment Trials:

1. Witnesses Blocked
Clinton: All key witnesses testified or were interviewed by Ken Starr
Trump: Most key witnesses have been blocked (14 now specifically)

2. Witnesses Called
Clinton: Witnesses were allowed to be called by the Senate and some were called
Trump: No witnesses will be called (first time in the history of impeachment actually)

3. House Record as only evidence to consider
Clinton: The House record was considered only a part of the necessary evidence and the Senate added to that record as it saw fit
Trump: Republicans argue the Senate cannot add to the House record even though the Senate is to conduct an actual trial and the House is only supposed to providing charging documents

4. Time for Argument
Clinton: No set time for arguments
Trump: 3 days set by McConnell (2 days originally)

5. House Evidence Admitted
Clinton: House evidence automatically admitted with no possibility for objection
Trump: Trump lawyers can object to House evidence

6. Documents turned over by White House
Clinton: 90,000 pages turned over prior to House
Trump: None. Trump refused to comply with subpoenas (70 documents)

7. Motion to Dismiss
Clinton: Motion to Dismiss specifically allowed AFTER arguments and questioning by Senators (in Republican controlled Senate)
Trump: Motion to Dismiss not barred by Rules and Trump's lawyers will have the ability to make one at any time

8. Violation of Criminal Law
Clinton: Republicans indicated a violation of criminal law not required for impeachment
Trump: Republicans indicate a violation of criminal law is required for impeachment

9. President's testimony
Clinton: Clinton testified under oath for Ken Starr
Trump: Trump did not testify

10. Investigation by Executive Branch Agency
Clinton: No government agency ruled Clinton broke the law
Trump: GAO has reported the withholding of Ukraine aid specifically broke US laws (unrelated to reason for withholding aid)

11. Executive Privilege
Clinton: Executive Privilege invoked only 14 times but dismissed in Court. Challenges were put aside. Republicans declared Executive Privilege non-existent in impeachment inquiries, witnesses testified before Ken Starr and House and Senate, and could testify before the Senate
Trump: Executive Privilege is considered absolute by Republicans on all matters

12. Conduct in Question
Clinton: Personal Conduct that did not relate to his position as President or actions on behalf of the country
Trump: Professional Conduct in office as it relates to illegally influencing an election

13. Obstruction:
Clinton: Obstruction for telling friends and subordinates he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky is Impeachable according to Republicans
Trump: Obstruction for blocking all witnesses possible and failing to turn over documents under subpoena is alleged by Republicans not to be impeachable

14. Witness Testimony videos shown during Senate Trial
Clinton: Witness testimony videos were shown during the Senate Trial
Trump: None are expected to be shown

15. Press Access
Clinton: Full Press Access with Video Feeds
Trump: Near blackout of Press Access and Video Feeds

16. Public Support
Clinton: 30% support for removal
Trump: 50% support for removal

17. Witnesses for the Defense
Clinton: Numerous witnesses testified against the allegations for Impeachment
Trump: Not a single witness has testified against the Impeachment allegations (other than as to legal grounds)

DR Conservatives (looking at you JeffJ), explain to me why the differences are okay with you.

#327 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-22 12:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Joe really is angry today.

#328 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:46 PM | Reply

Clinton: All key witnesses testified or were interviewed by Ken Starr

How many of those witnesses testified only after a court order was sought? If memory serves, it was 10. How many blocked witnesses did the Dem House seek court orders for? Zero. That's right, zero.

No witnesses will be called (first time in the history of impeachment actually)

You're condemning something that hasn't even happened. Just like the Clinton impeachment a motion to call witnesses will take place after the House managers have made their case, the defense has made its case and written questions have been submitted by the Senate.

You're being disingenuous.

#329 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"..every minute of your life"

only a 14 year old on their period would type that.

#330 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 12:55 PM | Reply

what should the dems have done differently?

#325 | POSTED BY EBERLY

A number of things....

Allow the minority party to call witnesses.

Not coach witnesses on how to testify.

Not selectively leak closed testimony to the press.

Seek a court order to compel testimony from individuals they are now saying are critical.

Not claim that the process was rushed because Trump is an existential threat and then sit on articles for a month as Pelosi tries to pretend she's not only Speaker of the House but is also Senate Majority leader.

Not rail against the Clinton protocols that were voted 100-0.

This is an incomplete list, BTW, but hopefully it paints a picture for you.

#331 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:55 PM | Reply

Pretty sure 2018 signaled the people's desires....

#324 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

It was quite clearly a referendum of Trump, not unlike the 2010 or 2006 midterms.

#332 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 12:57 PM | Reply

I just don't want the democrats to suffer collateral damage from this.

#323 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I think its pretty likely they will.

#333 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 01:04 PM | Reply

My irony meter just exploded....

#321 | POSTED BY TAPEWORMDAN AT 2020-01-22 12:14 PM

It should have - for you of all people to try and call out partisanship? Yeah, my irony meter would explode too.

#334 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 01:09 PM | Reply

- Clinton protocols that were voted 100-0.

sighs..... those were protocols for a trial where there had been 90k docs supplied, key witnesses provide, and the public testimony of the Pres.

Nothing like what we have now; the collusion of the Pres and the Sen Leader on the show trial and it's verdict, the judge a Pres appointee, a blanket order of no testimony from key witnesses and no docs, and no testimony from the Pres.

Those two things are still not the same and never will be the same no matter how many times you imply that they should be.

#335 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-22 01:24 PM | Reply

Those two things are still not the same and never will be the same no matter how many times you imply that they should be.

You are correct for once, but for the wrong reasons: many of those documents and 10 witnesses were produced after the GOP went to the Courts to get orders that they be produced over Executive Privilege objections raised by the Clinton Administration.

How any court orders did the Dems try to get? Let me help you...one, and once they got it they decided not to have McGahn testify, withdrew their subpoena to Kupperman when he sued them and withdrew their subpoena to Bolton when he threatened to sue them. That is the difference and nothing that you can scream or cry about will change it.

As for Clinton's testimony...he testified not in his impeachment proceedings but pursuant to a court order in the Jones case, where he promptly perjured himself, ultimately resulting in his disbarment.

#336 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-22 01:34 PM | Reply

Holy shht. Jeff has gone into overdrive.

He reeks of desperation.

You're being disingenuous.
#329 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Disingenuous seems to be your middle name.

#337 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 01:38 PM | Reply

- for the wrong reasons

Distinctions without differences are really, really interesting.... uh-huh. To real estate attnys, maybe.

The point stands. Trump has kept McGann's case in court for mos and it may take years; he could do the same in his trial. He and Mitch have already decided the form and results of his trial. He has ordered no witnesses, no docs. He won't testify, and he appointed the judge to office.

Not to mention that Bubba got a bj and Trump gets and or tries to get foreign interference into our elections.

As I said, these two cases are not the same.

#338 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-22 01:42 PM | Reply

^THIS

#339 | Posted by e1g1 at 2020-01-22 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Fact check: Trump lawyers make at least three false claims during impeachment arguments

"Not even Mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF," Cipollone said, referring to House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, who is also the Democrats' lead impeachment manager.

Facts First: This is false. As Schiff noted in his response to Cipollone, the 48 Republican members of the three committees holding the closed-door hearings -- Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight -- were allowed into the SCIF, and they were given equal time to question witnesses."

www.cnn.com

#340 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-22 02:09 PM | Reply

only a 14 year old on their period would type that.
#330 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I'll take your word for it, pederly.

#341 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-22 02:31 PM | Reply

#341

Here's a piece of unsolicited advice, Joe: when you find yourself standing in a hole, ditch the shovel.

#342 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

removal was DOA because the Dems didn't build a strong enough case is reality

#310 | POSTED BY JPW

FTFY - you can thank me later.

#313 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

There's nothing more dangerous than confident stupidity.

#343 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 02:34 PM | Reply

"It's bad for the country"

Of course Trumps behavior is bad for the country. It's bad for the world.

We will be feeling the aftershocks for decades. It may even be the end for us. If the President believes he is above the law and all he has to do is obstruct Congress, then there goes our three coequal branches of government. At that point all bets are off. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Without three branches our system of government will eventually collapse.

This seems to be trumps ultimate goal

Sure hope I don't live long enough to see that.

#344 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-22 02:36 PM | Reply

Here's a piece of unsolicited advice, Joe: when you find yourself standing in a hole, ditch the shovel.

#342 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You really need to stop thinking you're in a position to give advice.

#345 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 02:37 PM | Reply

Joe really is angry today.

#328 | Posted by JeffJ

I share that anger. In fact, a better word would be "fury". It is ----------------- outrageous the way Trump and the GOP have stone-walled. At times I think it would be nice to line them all up against a wall and shoot them. Then I calm down, and just shake my head in disgust. Point is, Joe articulates an anger that millions of truth loving Americans share.

#346 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-22 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#342 Here's a piece of advice: Stop sucking Trump's ----.

#347 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-22 02:39 PM | Reply

#343 nobody exemplifies it more than you.

#348 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 02:43 PM | Reply

#346. Joe's anger today has nothing to do with Trump or impeachment.

He's being called out and it pisses him off.

He may very well be angry about impeachment also, but that's not what is driving him on this thread.

#349 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 02:45 PM | Reply

-Stop sucking Trump's ----.

Joe wants a turn at it....

#350 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 02:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

JeffJ: The impeachment trial (- going on as we speak) is the dark cloud under which all of us are living right now. Those of us who are outraged at the hypocrisy, criminality and dishonesty of the GOP are all feeling pretty angry about most everything right now. Trump is a criminal who is ruining America. The GOP wants to do nothing other than protect him. Of course we are all feeling generalized anger currently. If you don't get it, that's because you are part of the problem.

#351 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-22 02:50 PM | Reply

Moder8

for a moment, try and set aside your outrage and anger.

Convince how this whole thing is bad for Jeff. Convince Jeff that Trump is ruining his life (a consequence of ruining America).

You believe that...then sell it to Jeff.

#352 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 02:53 PM | Reply

Eberly: Good advice. lol - I'm too angry to follow it at this moment.

#353 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-22 02:55 PM | Reply

#348 lol says the guy clinging to the illogical notion of sticking to the Clinton impeachment rules for the equally illogical supposed "consistency".

Or the weaponization of the DoJ when they conducted their investigation the same way they conduct all their investigations! LOL

Or "it's the Dem's fault removal won't happen" when the GOP has said it wouldn't and have been coordinating with the WH to make it so. LOL

Except none of those are LOL because you're complicit in destroying our institutions and country.

#354 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#352 useless endeavor. Jeff doesn't want to be convinced.

Neither do Trumps base.

You don't seem to get the fact that we're past the point of no return.

#355 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 02:59 PM | Reply

355

So, you can't do it either?

#356 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

sell it to Jeff.
#352 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You ever try to sell something to someone who doesn't want it?

It's an exercise in futility.

#327 did a good job of pointing out the differences between Clinton and Trump's impeachment. Jeff found something about it he disagreed with and dismissed the entire post.

Jeff strongly feels like Trump is a great President. He's mentioned numerous times how much better Trump is than Obama. He agrees with Trump's domestic and international policies, and his judicial appointments.

Actually. Thinking about it. The only thing Trump ever did with which Jeff disagreed with, was preferring his steak well done.

#357 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 03:04 PM | Reply

In my opinion. Moscow Mitch and Senate Republicans have done everything in their power to exemplify why the legislative branch is vestigial.

They're supposed to be a separate and equal branch to the Executive branch.

Instead. They've become the executive branch's coconspirators.

#358 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 03:10 PM | Reply

#356 nobody can.

Can you really not see that?

#359 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 03:10 PM | Reply

You're arguing against a hypothetical. At this point witnesses are still on the table.

#213 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-01-21 11:18 PM | REPLY |

McConnell warns against witnesses in pitch for quick impeachment trial resolution

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hardening his argument against new witness testimony in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, a sign that the powerful GOP leader plans to rally fellow Republican senators to block witness testimony and bring a swift end to the proceedings, according to GOP sources.

McConnell has already led his conference in a fight to defeat Democratic efforts to push for an initial deal to subpoena witnesses, arguing that such decisions should wait until after both sides make their opening arguments and senators ask questions to the House impeachment managers and Trump's defense team. But now that the trial has started, McConnell is focused on bringing the proceedings to a close in about a week-and-half's time, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

www.cnn.com

#360 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-22 03:15 PM | Reply

Cork and Gal,
I'm not going to protest against something that hasn't yet happened.
This is ridiculous.

#227 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

See my above post #360.

#361 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-22 03:16 PM | Reply

#355

All you've done is evade, cherry pick evidence, present your personal opinions as unassailable facts and condescend.

Yeah, that's real persuasive. /. Snark

#362 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 03:18 PM | Reply

"I'm not going to protest against something that hasn't yet happened."

Worried an Indian might stand in front of you?

Could be your chance to strike it rich!

#363 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 03:19 PM | Reply

#360. As of this moment calling witnesses s is still on the table.

#364 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 03:20 PM | Reply

-You ever try to sell something to someone who doesn't want it?

only about a million times.

-#356 nobody can.

absolutely false.

you want to know why you can't sell it....because not even you believe it.

If you think Jeff's future or life or happiness is affected by Trump and the damage he's causing.....if you really believed that...then you could make that case.

But you can't see how Jeff is so negatively impacted by Trump.....THAT is why you can't do it.

#365 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 03:20 PM | Reply

On the microscopically naive table.

drudge.com

#366 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-22 03:21 PM | Reply

#362 lol evade what?

All I've done is point out the detached from reality nature of your positions.

Whatever defensive measures you put up to avoid acknowledging that is your problem.

#367 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 03:22 PM | Reply

stop worrying about Jeff.

sell it to me. Convince me Trump is ------- my life up and my family's future.

I'm reasonable. I don't defend Trump or attack criticism of his actions.

sell it to me.

#368 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 03:23 PM | Reply

He's embarrassing, and boorish. An ugly American personified.
That being said, I lost respect for the office years ago, so none of that crap bothers me anymore.

I just can't believe Trump, and whatever loser the Dems are going to trot out are the best we can do. Something has to change.

#369 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2020-01-22 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Impeachment Trial Live again now

www.youtube.com

#370 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-22 03:28 PM | Reply

- none of that crap bothers me anymore.

Apathy is why we can't have nice things... like a large majority of people voting and holding their elected officials responsible to them rather than to the pol's donors.

#371 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-22 03:30 PM | Reply

#368 because doing so is largely predictions which are inherently in accurate.

You're asking us to read the future for specifics when all we have right now is another example of rank corruption in a powerful office.

What examples do you have of that turning out well?

#372 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 03:31 PM | Reply

I just can't believe Trump, and whatever loser the Dems are going to trot out are the best we can do. Something has to change.

#369 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

I would NW flag this if I wasn't on my phone.

#373 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 03:32 PM | Reply

--Impeachment Trial Live again now

Isn't there something more truthful and realistic on, like a Twilight Zone marathon?

#374 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-22 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-because doing so is largely predictions which are inherently in accurate.

reasonable predictions given with probabilities are not inaccurate.

make some predictions...scare me. educate me...paint me a picture.

#375 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 03:39 PM | Reply

#367

You've serially evaded when called out for your steadfast position the Page FISA warrants were properly obtained. Not just on this thread - every time it comes up.

The thing is it's not even a big deal. You, like much of the MSM chose to faithfully believe Schiff over Nunes. But for some reason you can't even admit this.

I can't even get you to acknowledge basic facts.

#376 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 03:45 PM | Reply

#373

Are you using an iPhone? It's very easy to flag posts on mine.

#377 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 03:47 PM | Reply

"Convince me Trump is ------- my life up and my family's future."

Eberly isn't an Iranian-American?
Who could possibly have guessed!

Eberly's concern for his fellow Americans is limited to his immediate family?
Who could possibly have guessed!

Let's get serious here, Trump is actually making Eberly's life much better.
Soon he won't have to flush ten times!

#378 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 03:56 PM | Reply

#360. As of this moment calling witnesses s is still on the table.

#364 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Which four Republicans do you think will keep it on the table?

#379 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-22 03:58 PM | Reply

You've serially evaded when called out for your steadfast position the Page FISA warrants were properly obtained. Not just on this thread - every time it comes up.

LOL I've steadfastly corrected you to the correct position, not the strawman you're destroying.

I can't even get you to acknowledge basic facts.

Because what you're trying to sell aren't facts.

en.wikipedia.org

#380 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 04:07 PM | Reply

Are you using an iPhone? It's very easy to flag posts on mine.

Yeah. It pulls up the flags but doesn't register when I've chosen one.

#381 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 04:08 PM | Reply

On a serious note, Eberly, has any President ever ------ up your life up and your family's future?
Because if not, why hold Trump to a standard that no other President could achieve?
Thanks for reading and understanding.

#382 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:12 PM | Reply

Yeah. It pulls up the flags but doesn't register when I've chosen one.

#381 | POSTED BY JPW

Hmmm...strange.

#383 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 04:13 PM | Reply

It pulls up the flags but doesn't register when I've chosen one.
#381 | POSTED BY JPW

You'll have to flag the comment twice.

The second time you flag it it says "received".

#384 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 04:14 PM | Reply

has any President ever ------ up your life up and your family's future?

Pretty sure Presidents who send Troops to war are doing just that.

Vietnam being the worst of them. Although. Who's to say. It's all bad.

"War is hell"

#385 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 04:17 PM | Reply

I can't say a president has done that to me in my lifetime.

I could argue GWB's failure to prevent 9-11 and the consequential experience in the Middle East.....that cost me money in the stock market. cost me more in gas. stuff like that.. wasted my time at the airport with insane security, etc...

------ my life up? nope.

#386 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 04:20 PM | Reply

If nothing else, this "trial" has really driven home for me the fact that a year from now we will have a Democrat controlled Senate. America by and large is repulsed by the GOP Senate's refusal to honestly consider evidence and conduct a serious proceeding. It is inevitable.

#387 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-22 04:20 PM | Reply

LOL I've steadfastly corrected you to the correct position, not the strawman you're destroying.

Prior to the IG testimony you were adamant the Page FISA warrants were properly obtained.

To your credit, you altered your view as new evidence presented itself.

My point is, you were 100% confident in your assessment that those warrants were legit. Today, you appear 100% convinced that "Crossfire Hurricane" was adequately predicated in spite of the fact that John Durham issued a brief statement saying otherwise. Heck Horowitz testified (he appeared before the Senate twice) that he didn't conclude that personal/political bias was NOT a factor. I totally get waiting for the results of the Durham investigation to be released and drawing conclusions from there. This is where I am currently at. You, on the other hand, have already pronounced this investigation is a sham and is nothing more than political retribution. You have drawn this conclusion preemptively and you are wrong to do so.

#388 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 04:21 PM | Reply

"Pretty sure Presidents who send Troops to war are doing just that.
Vietnam being the worst of them."

my neighbors growing up lost their son in Vietnam...he was drafted. Perhaps they could make an argument I certainly can't make.

#389 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 04:22 PM | Reply

"I can't say a president has done that to me in my lifetime."

So then why ask how Trump is doing it?
You're asking someone to paint a picture that you'll never believe because you know you've set the bar impossibly high.

That's... not what we call arguing in good faith.

#390 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:26 PM | Reply

Prior to the IG testimony you were adamant the Page FISA warrants were properly obtained.

Resurrecting your straw man for another beating doesn't make it right.

#391 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 04:30 PM | Reply

390

STFU, moron.

I'm the only one arguing in good faith.

If I'm wrong then convince me. Maybe I'm not seeing it right. Maybe I'm dismissing horrible impact to my family you can see that I can't.

and why do I ask how Trump is doing it? Because you believe he is, so are plenty of others here and you're spending time here day and night attacking anybody who doesn't agree with you that Trump is causing this much damage.

so...either show me the damage, how it impacts me, how it impacts you, and why should I be so worried.

instead, all i see is this.."Goddam republicans..such hypocrites, criminals, etc" okay...fair enough...but you want someone to give a ----....so why should I give a ----?

Try to make an argument without attacking someone......for once.

#392 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 04:31 PM | Reply

-paint a picture that you'll never believe

nobody has even tried to paint a picture....don't accuse me of no believing it.

#393 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 04:32 PM | Reply

my neighbors growing up lost their son in Vietnam...he was drafted. Perhaps they could make an argument I certainly can't make.

#389 | Posted by eberly

The problem is that for your average citizen the effects aren't so immediate or tangible.

But decreased air and water cleanliness is a direct effect.

Decreased services, education, infrastructure ect is a direct effect.

Many of them you might not realize because they were taken for granted or happen so slowly you're not aware of the magnitude of the change.

#394 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 04:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Maybe I'm dismissing horrible impact to my family you can see that I can't."

There is no horrible impact, no matter who is President.
That's what you're dismissing... yet somehow expecting someone to convince you of, when it comes to Trump.
It's a impact you've never asked for literally any other President.
Which is why it's phony.

#395 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:34 PM | Reply

"and why do I ask how Trump is doing it? Because you believe he is"

People said that about Obama too.
Did you ask how Obama is ruining your life?

#396 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:35 PM | Reply

The notion that Trump has to directly and tangibly make your own life worse for you to oppose him is childish, sociopathic nonsense. But then again i see who posted it and it seems to line up.

#397 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-22 04:40 PM | Reply

394

good points...all of them. they are impactful but with stealth of sorts.

hard to see, but it's real...

"Which is why it's phony."

we're done, jackass.

#398 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 04:46 PM | Reply

War is war and hell is hell and between the two War is worse.

youtu.be

#399 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-22 04:48 PM | Reply

"Which is why it's phony."
we're done, jackass.
#398 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Good.
I don't like phony people.

#400 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:49 PM | Reply

"so...either show me the damage, how it impacts me, how it impacts you, and why should I be so worried."
"and why should I be so worried."

LOL.
"What, me worry?"
I never knew the E stood for Eberly!

#401 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:51 PM | Reply

I've never attacked anyone here for support of a president. for being a hypocritical partisan? yes...many times.

but I'm watching folks personally attack others and I assume they are doing that because they feel justified for attacking someone for no other reason than their support of this president.

how is that justified unless you feel so strongly that Trump is the out of control forest fire you're making him out to be?

If you're that angry and frustrated and you're attacking others that much then you must feel it's a forest fire heading this way.

Remember, I asked this originally of Moder8 who specifically expressed his contempt for others here and his own anger and frustration.

#402 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 04:52 PM | Reply

"how is that justified unless you feel so strongly that Trump is the out of control forest fire you're making him out to be?"

If you're a migrant child separated from their parents, Trump is exactly what you said.
That's how.

It's called empathy.
It's like when you pretend to care about the well-being of your clients, but for some reason it extends to people who aren't making you rich.

#403 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:55 PM | Reply

Eberly.

Not to step on your point, but, "I'm watching folks personally attack others."

Same as it ever was.

I've been on the DR since 2008 and the only consistent thing has been people personally attacking each other.

#404 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-22 04:57 PM | Reply

How many of those witnesses testified only after a court order was sought? If memory serves, it was 10. How many blocked witnesses did the Dem House seek court orders for? Zero. That's right, zero.

#329 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

How many of those witnesses testified only after a court order was sought?
During the Impeachment phase? Zero.
During the Federal Grand Jury phase as allowed under the rules of Federal Criminal Procedure? Probably 5-10.

Differences:
1. Clinton didn't order people not to testify before the House Impeachment investigation. Trump did.
2. Clinton didn't bar turning over any documents to a House Impeachment subpoena. Trump did.
3. Clinton cut deals on providing evidence and testimony before the House ever took up Impeachment. Trump issued a total non-compliance order for the Executive Branch for the House Impeachment investigation.

Fighting a subpoena in a criminal investigation is not obstruction. Ordering people to ignore a subpoena from a House Impeachment investigation is.

The House has sought to enforce several subpoenas. They just end up going through appeals...which could take years. One subpoena made it to the Supreme Court briefly before being sent back down.

But I get what you are saying: The Senate shouldn't do its Constitutional duty to hold a fair trial and call witnesses. The House should have essentially gone beyond its Constitutional duty and had their own trial presenting all evidence rather than just investigate whether there was enough evidence to send it to the Senate for trial.

Explain this to me though because I'm confused:
Because the House could have gone to great legal lengths to fight for each subpoena in Court and enforce the law, the President is not guilty of Obstruction for ordering people not to testify?

#405 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-22 04:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If you're that angry and frustrated and you're attacking others that much then you must feel it's a forest fire heading this way."

Well obviously that's not fair.
There were good forest fires on both sides!

#406 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 04:59 PM | Reply

I just checked in to see how Faux News was was covering the impeachment trial and all they're doing is showing the video feed with NO audio from the floor of the Senate. On a split screen they're interviewing all their favorite Right-wingers saying things like we really do need witnesses, like Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and the people from Crowdstrike so that we can finally learn about the Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections as this will prove the corruption that Trump was trying to expose. Also, the whistleblower needs to be forced to testify, because America needs to see this person's face and learn his name once and for all.

I suspect that when Trump's lawyers are making their defense effort, they'll cover that word-for-word.

OCU

#407 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-22 09:00 PM | Reply

The only thing that impressed me was the phone call testimony to the Ukraine... Trump is guilty as hell of trying to hire a foreign country to implicate his opponent running for president.. He absoluty set that schitt up. the rest is debatable in my opinion. The senate has to be ok with that from here on out. but that transcript was awful for Trump in my opinion. Republicans better be careful in what they call "OK" because this is a precedent setting....

#408 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-01-22 09:17 PM | Reply

#407 | POSTED BY OCUSER AT 2020-01-22 09:00 PM | FLAG:

It doesn't matter FOX aired a clip of a journalist asking Trump what he expected after his phone call with Zelenski. Trump responded "an investigation into the Bidens" Terrible move in my opinion.

#409 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-01-22 09:20 PM | Reply

Eberly.
Not to step on your point, but, "I'm watching folks personally attack others."
Same as it ever was.
I've been on the DR since 2008 and the only consistent thing has been people personally attacking each other.

Yes, but this consistency goes back before 2008, all the way back to the beginning of the Retort.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

#410 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-22 09:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The GOP Senators aren't even pretending to listen or to care. No cameras means voters don't get to see this:

southpaw @nycsouthpaw

Sen. Menendez appearing on CNN says some Republican Senators are getting up and leaving the chamber for extended periods during the presentation.

Bobby Kogan @BBKogan

I sat in the gallery for an hour today. At any given time, roughly 12 GOP Senators were gone, and at one point 17 were gone.

#411 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-22 09:38 PM | Reply

Michael McAuliff @mmcauliff

Just counted 21 empty seats on the GOP side of the Senate, 2 on the Dem side, a couple hours into Schiff's presentation. Some are just stretching their legs, but most are not in the chamber. Some of them have been out of there for a while.

Karen Walker for VP @VicePresOfFun

explains why he was restricting the cameras.. PLEASE someone post their names

When they go on TV to spout about fairness we can remind them they weren't in the room!!

#412 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-22 09:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Among those absent from the action "for a long time" were Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Bill Cassidy (R-La), and Jim Risch (R-Idaho).

#413 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-22 10:04 PM | Reply

How is it acceptable that members of a jury walk out on a prosecutor's arguments?

#414 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-22 10:07 PM | Reply

"How is it acceptable that members of a jury walk out on a prosecutor's arguments?"

In Texas, jurors can fall asleep and still convict you.

#415 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 10:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not to step on your point, but, "I'm watching folks personally attack others."

Same as it ever was.

I've been on the DR since 2008 and the only consistent thing has been people personally attacking each other."

I see your point. I think what I see now that's different is that the attack's are being fueled by true anger and frustration.

In the past.....and I'll recall posters such as -----------, 101 on a more consistent basis, spud, etc....those guys were picking on others more than being truly pissed at them.

Having fun at their expense. Yes, it got rough but it was fun.

People like JPW calling everyone a POS schitheap....that's just different to me.

Maybe it's not and I'm not seeing it right.

#416 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-22 10:30 PM | Reply

How are we ever going to be able to talk to other countries about good government and the rule of law, something we used to do quite a bit

#417 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2020-01-22 11:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And now we have Faux News' Tucker Carlson trying to protect 18 year olds from the 'pornographic' comments being made by various news commentators when describing the performance of Adam Schiff during today's presentations by the House Managers:

drudge.com

OCU

#418 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-23 01:38 AM | Reply

War is war and hell is hell and between the two War is worse.
youtu.be

#399 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Great M*A*S*H reference. I recognized what it was without even clicking your link.

#419 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-23 07:07 AM | Reply

Maybe it's not and I'm not seeing it right.

#416 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I think you are seeing something we all are seeing and experiencing.

We have moved to the next level.

But at least we are still talking. Even if it is past and over each other.

Because the next level where the country moves toward more violence is not that far away.

This President has divided this nation like no President before. We are headed back towards civil unrest. Which could turn violent with the tiniest spark.

And we have a President who is throwing hand grenades into our Democratic institutions and who is actively attempting to normalize foreign interference in our elections.

There will be a morning after the senate impeachment vote.

And I think Senate Republicans are beginning to at least sense that it will not be all chocolate cake and flowers if they let Trump off the hook and let him him completely get away with his goal of normalizing corruption in the executive branch of our government.

#420 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-23 11:39 AM | Reply

This President has divided this nation like no President before

That's intentional, and it's exactly what Putin wants.

A divided America is a weak America.

When Americans no longer trust their democracy or its institutions, the country is weak and vulnerable.

Thanks Republicans!

#421 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-23 12:06 PM | Reply

Because the House could have gone to great legal lengths to fight for each subpoena in Court and enforce the law, the President is not guilty of Obstruction for ordering people not to testify?

#405 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I figured I wouldn't get an answer on this.

#422 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-23 12:55 PM | Reply

What exactly does Putin gain from a politically divided USA?

#423 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-23 01:22 PM | Reply

What exactly does Putin gain from a politically divided USA?

#423 | POSTED BY EBERLY

A weak, distracted US that doesn't look at what he is doing around the world and a US President that purposefully ignores what he is doing around the world.

#424 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-23 02:32 PM | Reply

Will Sanders and Warren have to recuse themselves as they've both made prejudicial statements and have a conflict of interest in removing the president they intend to run against?

#425 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-01-23 02:39 PM | Reply

What exactly does Putin gain from a politically divided USA?
#423 | POSTED BYEBERLY

Power and influence, but you framed the question wrong.
It's not so much that the USA is politically divided.
It's specifically that the USA has a President who is Putin's lackey.

#426 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-23 03:29 PM | Reply

"A weak, distracted US that doesn't look at what he is doing around the world and a US President that purposefully ignores what he is doing around the world."

Really? Putin has a bigger spotlight on everything he does now than he would have without Trump in power.

Thoughts? Multiple intelligence agencies and the military aren't watching him?

#427 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-23 03:52 PM | Reply

"Putin has a bigger spotlight on everything he does now than he would have without Trump in power."

What good is the spotlight.
It just lets you see better how America retreats and Russia advances.
You saw Russia annex Crimea, yeah?

"Multiple intelligence agencies and the military aren't watching him?"

Multiple intelligence agencies were watching OBL too.
That's why nothing happened on 9/11.

#428 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-23 04:10 PM | Reply

What exactly does Putin gain from a politically divided USA?

Come on man. Are you seriously this uninformed or do you just like making people waste their time explaining obvious ---- to you?

#429 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-23 04:33 PM | Reply

429

Explain away or STFU.

I honestly don't think you have any idea what Putin gains.

All you do here is stand behind people and yell "Yeah, What he said!"

#430 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-23 04:56 PM | Reply

Putin gains the most from a president that wants to slash US fossil fuel production. That means anti-frackers, i.e., Democrats.

#431 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-23 05:06 PM | Reply

"That means anti-frackers, i.e., Democrats."

And folks who live in Oklahoma...those darned Democrats.
www.businessinsider.com

#432 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-23 05:09 PM | Reply

Explain away or STFU.

So it's the second thing. Got it.

#433 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-23 05:49 PM | Reply

Eberly,

Have you checked out this thread yet?

https://drudge.com/news/238825/bankruptcy-prone-dotard-purchased-russia

www.inquisitr.com

#434 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-23 06:08 PM | Reply

drudge.com

#435 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-23 06:08 PM | Reply

No I haven't, Clown.

I'll check it out later.

Thanks.

Joe, see?

Of course not.

How are your kids?

LOL

#436 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-23 06:14 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort