Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[TragicMonkey]

Yep. And the worst part of it is how many people think Clinton getting a rusty trombone from the chubby Jewish chicks that brought the mail means no evil deed a President ever does again can be punished.

I swear if we start a national drinking game based on how many times Clinton's goddamn blowjob is gonna get mentioned in some "whatabouta" way during the proceedings the entire country would be dead of cirrhosis of the liver by next Friday, tops.

Seriously just go get Bill Clinton and just literally crucify him for that goddamn blowjob. Just hammer and nails, right up on the goddamn steps of the Capitol. Just so we can goddamn move on as a country and hold the psycho manchild in power accountable.

1. Not every mention of Clinton's impeachment is an attempt to equate Clinton's actions to Trump's. Impeachment doesn't happen very often, it's natural that the most recent one will evoke some mention of the one immediately prior. You might save yourself some typing if instead of blowing up in a rage all the time you actually read the posts people write and only what they actually write, not adding suppositions and drawing connections out of your own head and attributing them to other people.

2. There's no evidence suggesting Bill Clinton has a crucifixion fetish. Frankly it would be difficult for him, what with the excess weight. What he did with Monica was more vanilla than kinky, to anyone other than a total prude, anyway.

 

[quadraginta]

Abuse of power is not impeachable! Let the voter decide! Otherwise, how will produce future statesmen like Nixon?

Not a thing I have ever envisioned myself saying during the last four decades or so (even though I voted for the guy), but we could use a statesman like Nixon in the White House right now.

The improvement would be vast. Orders of magnitude vast.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/julietsirkin/status/1219393204291764225

NEW: From the resolution just released by McConnell -

“If the Senate agrees to allow either the House of Representatives or the President to subpoena witnesses, the witnesses shall first be deposed and the Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify.”

No explicit Motion to Dismiss like in ‘99 BUT —> “The President and the House of Representatives shall have until 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2020, to file any motions permitted under the rules of impeachment with the exception of motions to subpoena witnesses or docs...”

https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1219399260715855874

Key differences between Trump and Clinton trial rules:

1) Each side has up to 24 hours for arguments but has to squeeze them into two days.

2) The Senate will not automatically accept the House record but will vote on it.

3) White House can move to dismiss from the start.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1219390991813283841

It's official: McConnell's organizing resolution obtained by the @washingtonpost allows for 24 hours of opening arguments for each side, in "two session days," to begin 1 p.m. Wednesday

https://twitter.com/julietsirkin/status/1219397353825763329

Schumer unhappy with this, writing in new statement: “Furthermore, Senator McConnell’s resolution stipulates that key facts be delivered in the wee hours of the night simply because he doesn’t want the American people to hear them.”

 

[Chanakya]

Yep. And the worst part of it is how many people think Clinton getting a rusty trombone from the chubby Jewish chicks that brought the mail means no evil deed a President ever does again can be punished.

I swear if we start a national drinking game based on how many times Clinton's goddamn blowjob is gonna get mentioned in some "whatabouta" way during the proceedings the entire country would be dead of cirrhosis of the liver by next Friday, tops.

Seriously just go get Bill Clinton and just literally crucify him for that goddamn blowjob. Just hammer and nails, right up on the goddamn steps of the Capitol. Just so we can goddamn move on as a country and hold the psycho manchild in power accountable.

Very, very valid POV. Thanks to wasapi for nominating this, and so bringing it to our notice.

While Trump, and his partisan supporters-come-what-may everywhere, have a lot to answer for, the fact is this whataboutism is, when you think about it, perfectly valid.

If one lowlife can get away with abuse of power of one kind, no matter how cringe-makingly petty; if another lowlife can get away with lifelong pandering to abuse of power of one kind in order to further their personal career calculations; then you cannot suddenly criticize other lowlifes of other stripes for abuse of power without sounding like ... partisan hypocrites.

Oh what a tangled web ... !

Agreed, somehow if we could lock up the sleazeball Prez who got away, then ... not lock up, but somehow punish the shameless pander that faciliitated sleazeball asshattery, then ... then one would be in much better position to stop this clown from destroying the country and the fragile world order. Yet that's no more than wishful thinking, the former two cannot be done; which makes it doobtful the latter will. Whataboutism ... is sometimes a valid defence. Not legally, but ... morally, if that word has any meaning in a world peopled and ruled by Clinton and Clinton and this current orange monstrosity.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Alright, it's time to call gaslighting, gaslighting.

Federal Criminal Offenses and the Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

Trump and his minions are so ******* good at gas-lighting it becomes convincingly believable that maybe they have a debatable argument. No, they don't. It's a lie disguised as a legit POV.

Introduction: The Problem of Missing Witnesses and Documents for the Conviction of Donald J. Trump
Andrew Weissmann

Campaign Finance Law
Paul Ryan

Bribery
Randall Eliason

Honest Services Fraud
Barbara McQuade

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Susan Simpson

Hatch Act
Gary Stein

Contempt of Congress
Michael Stern

Impoundment Act (non-criminal law)
Sam Berger

 

[Cain]

Democrats can't handle the truth: Trump's legally allowed to do whatever he wants.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

1. Not every mention of Clinton's impeachment is an attempt to equate Clinton's actions to Trump's. Impeachment doesn't happen very often, it's natural that the most recent one will evoke some mention of the one immediately prior. You might save yourself some typing if instead of blowing up in a rage all the time you actually read the posts people write and only what they actually write, not adding suppositions and drawing connections out of your own head and attributing them to other people.

2. There's no evidence suggesting Bill Clinton has a crucifixion fetish. Frankly it would be difficult for him, what with the excess weight. What he did with Monica was more vanilla than kinky, to anyone other than a total prude, anyway.

Haven't you seen a recent picture of him? He dropped a lot of weight a decade ago for health problems.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Haven't you seen a recent picture of him? He dropped a lot of weight a decade ago for health problems.

No, I haven't seen a picture of Bill Clinton in years. His wife was in a news a little bit three years ago, I forget why, but he didn't seem to be around much. I suppose they did like most old people and settled down, spending cozy evenings watching Midsomer Murders.

 

[acbytesla]

Haven't you seen a recent picture of him? He dropped a lot of weight a decade ago for health problems.

No, I haven't seen a picture of Bill Clinton in years. His wife was in a news a little bit three years ago, I forget why, but he didn't seem to be around much. I suppose they did like most old people and settled down, spending cozy evenings watching Midsomer Murders.

Yeah, he looks too thin these days.

 

[Meadmaker]

Haven't you seen a recent picture of him? He dropped a lot of weight a decade ago for health problems.

So, we can crucify him after all?

 

[acbytesla]

So, we can crucify him after all?

For a blowjob?

 

[thaiboxerken]

For a blowjob?

No, for lying about it. No president should ever lie to congress or special council, in writing or orally, unless that president is Trump.

 

[Minoosh]

rI still wonder what Team Trump will do to counter the House manager's opening statement. They've got 24 hours to say things like "the evidence shows their was a concerted effort to pressure the Ukrainian President to investigate a political opponent, an effort to cover up that fact and a smear campaign against a U.S. ambassador (and on and on ...) But the defenders can't say squat about the evidence because they're not going to introduce any.

They can critique the "unfairness" of the process and whine about Schiff's characterization and lament the lack of first-hand witnesses, but they can't say anything like, "You will hear first-hand witnesses exonerate the president," because they aren't going to testify. They literally have no defense. They have 24 hours to say the House was mean to Trump and to say that the Articles are improper ... though they're not going to get experts to testify to that. But literally no substantive defense because they refuse to call witnesses or accept documents. It's going to look very, very thin, IMO.

Am I understanding this right? If each side has 24 hours over 2 days, we will have 4 days with 12-hour sessions, 1 p.m. to 1 a.m. EST? That's how I read one of the links in this thread but it sounds crazy so maybe I misread it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure I'm following correctly but it looks to me like Moscow Mitch wants to get the opening statements before the vote on witnesses.

There should be rules developed and then voted on. McConnell knows there are likely 4 defectors in his party who could vote to have witnesses. So he's still doing everything he can to shove as much under the rug as he can before calling for a vote on the rules.

Claiming people need to hear opening statements before they know if witnesses are needed is McConnell manipulation. He thinks he can bury this. He might be right.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm not sure I'm following correctly but it looks to me like Moscow Mitch wants to get the opening statements before the vote on witnesses.

Four days of filibusters could put everyone get desperate to finish this thing off. Maybe that's the strategy. But the House probably has 24 hours worth of material even if all they can do is read testimony into the record. But defenders aren't going to have any evidence. All they can do then is argue that the House probe was illegitimate. I suppose they can stretch this to 24 hours.

It seems nuts to me to do it this way and I'm not even sure what makes it a trial. But I'm assuming the House will be able to read testimony into the record. The Senate has NO testimony obtained under oath.

I wondered if Roberts has any say in this.

Anyway, IMO everyone should be urging their senators to push for a real trial. Like, timorrow! And the House should probably be considering another article.

Hope McConnell gets some pushback on this terrible plan.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/CBHessick/status/1219339226195615744

Reading through the President's memo to the Senate regarding impeachment, and I'm baffled by this statement that, by including the terms "treason and bribery" in the Constitution, the Framers were stating that impeachment can only occur when there is a violation of settled law...

At the time the Constitution was written (and for some time after), there was no federal statute criminalizing bribery.

So the only plausible way to read this segment of the memo is as a concession that the violation of a common law crime can be enough for impeachment.

Why does that matter? Because as @nikobowie points out, abuse of power was a common law crime.

So, in trying to argue that the articles of impeachment are insufficient, the President's lawyers said something that is either false, or helps the other side.

Documents embedded in tweets.

 

[Meadmaker]

rI still wonder what Team Trump will do to counter the House manager's opening statement. They've got 24 hours to say things like "the evidence shows their was a concerted effort to pressure the Ukrainian President to investigate a political opponent, an effort to cover up that fact and a smear campaign against a U.S. ambassador (and on and on ...) But the defenders can't say squat about the evidence because they're not going to introduce any.

Keep in mind that they already know the outcome of the trial, and everyone on the "jury" already is aware of all the evidence. Team Trump won't actually be launching a defense in any meaningful sense of the word. This is a campaign commercial, on both sides.

My guess is that they will talk as much as possible about Ukranian corruption, the need to investigate it, and they will say the name "Biden" as much as possible.

I would be stunned if Trump's team used anywhere near their allotted 24 hours.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I would be stunned if Trump's team used anywhere near their allotted 24 hours.

That depends on how many takes they have to do to get the perfect soundbites.
Keep in mind that half their time will be spend on Dersh and Ken trying to outshine each other.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1219623339628679170

JUST IN: The House says Trump's top impeachment lawyer, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, is a "material fact witness" and must disclose evidence before the start of the trial.

Documents embedded in tweets.