-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Impeachment |OT|
- Thread starter Kaitos
- Start date
Their argument is that Trump wouldn't ask a question of a foreign leader about corrupt or criminal activity they might be involved in. Yet we have Trump repeatedly asking Putin whether he interfered in the 2016 election and taking Putin at his word.
Philbin, I think. He went on and on about how Giuliani, as Trump's personal lawyer, was pursuing this stuff for a year before the aid stuff came up.
Schiff replying with R quotes on it is pretty sweet though.
Is there any site out there that has a good recording/transcription of the questions asked and maybe a fair summary of the responses (if not the full response)?
lol Roberts glanced at the President's counsel and smirked when he read "one party" in that adverse inference question
That Collins / Murk question was so good that Republicans basically asked that question twice hoping the Defense could clean it up. The follow-up question was "When did the US government learn of Burisma's corruption with Biden". And Trump's lawyer could only give the same answer, "Umm, Rudy told the government about it in May 2019". So basically the US government was being informed by a corrupt source. and there has never been a formal effort or discussion about Burisma/Biden prior to May 2019.
Phew if I have to listen to another pundit saying, "The danger is that the GOP will set a precedent that XYZ is acceptable"
No they won't. In fact this very trial is proof positive that they have no intention whatsoever of treating Dems the same way as this orange fart cloud and will simply do what they're doing now and say the opposite of what they said last time without even a hint of shame.
No they won't. In fact this very trial is proof positive that they have no intention whatsoever of treating Dems the same way as this orange fart cloud and will simply do what they're doing now and say the opposite of what they said last time without even a hint of shame.
This shit is just infuriating. "They filed subpoenas without authorization!" he says. The fucking House committees for Intelligence and Judiciary don't need "authorization" to file a subpoena... it's fully within their scope and powers.
Guys, Am i insane? These guys are straight up being asked if an inference can be drawn since they wont show the evidence? And there argument is that no, we have executive privileged, so you canNOT make a conclusion.
LIKE THAT DOES NOT ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
IM DONE
oh and now he's saying, (and i'm paraphrasing) if you do not ask for it nicely, i do not have to give it to you
WTF
Am i insane.
LIKE THAT DOES NOT ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
IM DONE
oh and now he's saying, (and i'm paraphrasing) if you do not ask for it nicely, i do not have to give it to you
WTF
Am i insane.
1984 is an instruction manual to Republicans at this point.
So you're telling me we'd get our witnesses and help Warren and Bernie by hurting Biden? Well hotdog, giddyup!
Well the Trump team response was based on how the question would be litigated in courts where rules of evidence and other considerations would apply. I think he is probably right that a fact finder in typical litigation is not going to be permitted to draw an adverse inference if some document or testimony is withheld pursuant to a valid claim of privilege. That would in some ways defeat the privilege, like allowing a jury in a criminal trial to draw an adverse inference when a defendant exercises his or her right not to testify. Ultimately, though, the impeachment trial isn't actually conducted pursuant to such rules (I think), so the senators can choose to draw whatever inferences they want in reality.
its so weird to say they need to impeach "beyond a reasonable doubt" but then block witnesses and evidence. legit makes no sense.
Posting this because I didn't see anyone else do it. Good fucking lord the GOP's stupidity knows no bounds.
It was a bit of a fleeting moment, so my quote was anecdotal, but I think essentially in the context of why aid to Ukraine was stopped, Schiff was sarcastically remarking how it could be that the acts of one person, Hunter Biden, were so immensely profound that they could lead to Trump wanting to stop aid to the whole country. Somehow gin joints got into his remarks, if I heard correctly.
How is Hunter Biden being overpaid or bad at his job have to do with anything?
Had to get in their Hunter Biden smear for the boss. Heads on Pike.
Had to get in their Hunter Biden smear for the boss. Heads on Pike.
Ask why they care about this but none of the shit Trump does with his kids and foreign countries.
This is why they don't want witnesses. They'll get shit out of Biden.
Which is my point. I'm not arguing about the technicalities of asking for evidence rather that them failing to show the evidence and yet at the same time arguing that that said evidence proves the president did nothing wrong (example: Emails between state department and ukraine on USaid) is trying to have your cake and eat it too. A senator/general public without any bias would most likely draw the conclusion that what you are not showing is bad for you.
That was a Casablanca reference, when Rick says of Elsa, "of all the gin joints in all the world, she had to walk into mine," which is to say that she causes problems wherever she goes, but in this instance it's him that needs to deal with the fall out.
Asslicker Cruz really trying to gain daddy Trump points by begging for more details on the whistleblower.
Was reading how the senate could do a secret ballot.
I was not aware of this. I assumed it was required to know how your senator voted. Impeachment should be a non partisan issue but its clear in this day and age it is not possible to do that. All the talk of votes boil down to "well they are in an election year, it would be risky, he might want to vote this way but can't risk losing his seat etc"
The trump base is powerful but we already know these same senators who hated trump during the primary are magically in love with him now. Secret ballot might cause many to flip.
I was not aware of this. I assumed it was required to know how your senator voted. Impeachment should be a non partisan issue but its clear in this day and age it is not possible to do that. All the talk of votes boil down to "well they are in an election year, it would be risky, he might want to vote this way but can't risk losing his seat etc"
The trump base is powerful but we already know these same senators who hated trump during the primary are magically in love with him now. Secret ballot might cause many to flip.
So, he's saying that in 5 years he might argue something completely different because he's just constantly learning all the time!
Dershowitz is the biggest pile of garbage on that stage.
Dershowitz is the biggest pile of garbage on that stage.
If the Removal vote was in secret, I reckon we'd definitely get GoP turn on Trump. It wouldnt solve the problem because they'd probably all want to step in his shoes, but let's deal with one bastard at a time.