Senate Impeachment Trial: Did you watch it all so far?

Trump's lawyer - Cippolone, is making his opening statement now.

He's speaking very simply & plainly - and making VERY good points.

At the end of the day - there has been NO IMPEACHABLE offense committed - by the rule of law and a reading of the US Constitution.

None.

This is a joke and a giant waste of my tax dollars/money. I am a taxpayer and have been one for 30 years.

If you don't like Trump that's fine. Absent a crime being committed, we have a very effective way for you to voice that dislike. It's called an election. Dems ought to look that one up.

BTW - I'm not a huge Trump fan - I didn't even vote for him. But unlike others, I am willing to keep an open mind and give a man credit when credit is due. And Trump has accomplished more things that are good for me & my family than any President since Reagan.

Just yesterday, Trump & his administration successfully changed the rules/laws such that hospitals must now disclose their costs to patients upfront. Just like everyone else.

I'm disgusted that these politicians in the House would try and remove a duly elected and sitting President for such petty, crybaby reasons.

Asshats...

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Scepticaldem

My team?

I refer back to Arnie's post, I am one of those "ignorant foreigners".

I have the luxury of not having to pick a side because it really has no impact on my life whether a democrat or a republican occupies the Whitehouse. What I do find is that the case that has been presented over the last three days has merit and I am really curious to see how it is going to be defended.

A judge should hear both sides objectively...since this is your president it would seem every American is a judge in this and you owe it to the constitution to put your bias aside and pay attention.

Peace

The beauty in this post is that we too have the luxury of not having to educate you on American politics, since you have no horse in this race, you're opinions and views isn't of any real value, not to say that it isn't respected, all opinions are in civil discourse, however considering the complexity that politics can be, haveing some weight in the value of your perspective goes along way to understanding some basic issues like "biases" because if you say, "you owe it to the constitution to put your biases aside and pay attention", then you haven't been following this partisan biased impeachment at all.

In all honesty, you don't like Trump, no need to beat around the bush.
You hold water for the left, no need for excuses on that perspective.
Furthermore, while you proclaim luxury in picking no side, you continually exhibit a lack of understanding by trying to appeal to a fair trial, while ignoring the basis of said biased investigation.

The House -Investigates, votes on impeachment.

To impeach means to stand accused.

The Senate -Hears case from *Complete House investigation through presented Articles. Votes on Removal or Acquittal.

I know I love it when you get all patriotty....you sexy you.

Peace

originally posted by: operation mindcrime

originally posted by: DanDanDat

1) in most trails the accused is not a participating member in their prosecution. In fact some of the highest laws in our land protect their right not to be force into participating in their own prosecution.

It is one of those high bars that is aimed to protect the innocent. The prosecution is expected to build their case on their own with out the aid of the accused; if they can't than they simply have no case.

You can't compare apple to oranges here. The President did not refuse to aid, he is said to have obstructed the prosecution from gathering evidence.

2) In this particular case; where the president invoked executive privilege in a political attempt to block the prosecution from gathering some evidence that might incriminate him; there is a very clear and straightforward method of remedy that does not require the protections of our system of jurisprudence be turned on its head. The prosecution could have taken their grievance to the court; the court could have than decided if the president is compelled to turn over that evidence or if executive privelage does indeed hold in this case. The prosecution chose not to go down that path to gather the evidence they think they needed to prosecute their case. They instead forced their way into trial and unfortunately for them they are now left prosecuting a case with only sercomstantal evidence and hearsay.

Fair enough...but I thought it made sense that (as they pointed out with other cases) that could take years before you get evidence or witnesses to comply. Since the conduct of the president brought forth in the impeachment is such a danger it holds reason to not wait that long.

Peace

You might be willing to allow the state to decide what dangers are and are not grave enough to bypass its own established rules of protection. To me that is tantamount to authoritarian rule.

It doesn't matter how long it would take for the prosecution to gather the required evidence they are always and forever bound to take that time. Anything short is a shame trial.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Scepticaldem

My team?

I refer back to Arnie's post, I am one of those "ignorant foreigners".

I have the luxury of not having to pick a side because it really has no impact on my life whether a democrat or a republican occupies the Whitehouse. What I do find is that the case that has been presented over the last three days has merit and I am really curious to see how it is going to be defended.

A judge should hear both sides objectively...since this is your president it would seem every American is a judge in this and you owe it to the constitution to put your bias aside and pay attention.

Peace

The beauty in this post is that we too have the luxury of not having to educate you on American politics, since you have no horse in this race, you're opinions and views isn't of any real value, not to say that it isn't respected, all opinions are in civil discourse, however considering the complexity that politics can be, haveing some weight in the value of your perspective goes along way to understanding some basic issues like "biases" because if you say, "you owe it to the constitution to put your biases aside and pay attention", then you haven't been following this partisan biased impeachment at all.

In all honesty, you don't like Trump, no need to beat around the bush.
You hold water for the left, no need for excuses on that perspective.
Furthermore, while you proclaim luxury in picking no side, you continually exhibit a lack of understanding by trying to appeal to a fair trial, while ignoring the basis of said biased investigation.

The House -Investigates, votes on impeachment.

To impeach means to stand accused.

The Senate -Hears case from *Complete House investigation through presented Articles. Votes on Removal or Acquittal.

I know I love it when you get all patriotty....you sexy you.

Peace

You know me all too well Boo 😘

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Fair enough...but I thought it made sense that (as they pointed out with other cases) that could take years before you get evidence or witnesses to comply. Since the conduct of the president brought forth in the impeachment is such a danger it holds reason to not wait that long.

Do you see where they're putting cart before the horse?

Their own witnesses said there was no quid pro quo (which would be standard practice anyway and well within the president's authority). Since foreign policy is set by the President as stated in the Constitution.

Then they failed to do their own due diligence by not going to the courts to get whatever evidence of the non crime they thought they needed., that most of them voted against anyway, and all of their witnesses said didn't happen. And are now trying to remove the President for it.

a reply to: Goedhardt

I've watched most of it. And I have to say I now think the dems have a stronger case for removal.

I'm not convinced that he should be removed over this but it is clear that he abused his power and obstructed.
After watching the dems lay it all out like they did I am sure that some who were on the fence are now with the dems on this issue.

After the repubs speak I may feel differently.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: xuenchen

Nahhh...today is deathvalley day. Just an introduction of what we can expect on Monday/Tuesday...

Will watch though..

Peace

Nope. Democrat lies of ommission and direct lies have already been exposed.
If the country didn;t know that Schiff and co. were treasonous liars, they do now.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Goedhardt

I've watched most of it. And I have to say I now think the dems have a stronger case for removal.

I'm not convinced that he should be removed over this but it is clear that he abused his power and obstructed.
After watching the dems lay it all out like they did I am sure that some who were on the fence are now with the dems on this issue.

After the repubs speak I may feel differently.

Trump's legal team has already debunked much of the House Managers' case in just 2 hours !!😃

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: operation mindcrime

Are you retarded? Hearsay is not an opinion, you either have a first hand account or you don't...

Jaden

Come on, it's a bit too early for that, we're all just having a discussion.

There's a difference between blocking evidence, and leaning on the Judicial to resolve disputes between branches of government. That is the President's right and duty. There is nothing wrong with that. The issue is the House didn't want to wait, and even said so in their own words! They "couldn't wait for the Courts..."

There is also the issue that subpoenas to the Executive for an impeachment investigation didn't have a vote from the House when they were submitted, which was the primary reason the Executive refused to comply.

The President is not above the law, there are so many levers and switches in the system of government across the 3 branches that can and are used for many different reasons, and those give each branch different power. It was designed that way for a reason. He used the law, in the same way he used the tax laws, and Democrats don't like seeing the Executive branch use every means in its disposal to push back on the House's overreach for power. They are attempting to take away the power of the Executive, influence the Senate elections, influence the Presidential elections and want you to believe it's all in the pursuit of justice. If that was the case, why wouldn't they rely on the justice system and the Judicial branch of government to build their case satisfactorily enough to present a solid case? Why couldn't they wait? Why sit on the Articles as leverage? Why bully the Senate into calling witnesses that they had the power to call and withdrew their subpoenas for, like John Bolton? First they subpoena him, then they withdraw it, then come to the Senate and insist he is subpoenaed by the Senate?

Step back from that for a minute... that, on its face, is to push responsibility and accountability to the Senate to later say that they are culpable for obstructing and covering up. It's to have talking points during the election. How is that not obvious? It's all political, the entire thing. This is exactly what the Founders feared impeachment would be used for or become - a political instrument.

The evidence has been brought forward by the House. That is their job. The Senate hears it and makes a decision based on it. That's exactly what is happening now, and only if the Senate decides there is a need for more evidence, will they ask for it. Right now, there is no reason, and after the defense presents their evidence, that may be all that's needed to be heard.

~Namaste

originally posted by: operation mindcrime

originally posted by: DanDanDat

1) in most trails the accused is not a participating member in their prosecution. In fact some of the highest laws in our land protect their right not to be force into participating in their own prosecution.

It is one of those high bars that is aimed to protect the innocent. The prosecution is expected to build their case on their own with out the aid of the accused; if they can't than they simply have no case.

You can't compare apple to oranges here. The President did not refuse to aid, he is said to have obstructed the prosecution from gathering evidence.

2) In this particular case; where the president invoked executive privilege in a political attempt to block the prosecution from gathering some evidence that might incriminate him; there is a very clear and straightforward method of remedy that does not require the protections of our system of jurisprudence be turned on its head. The prosecution could have taken their grievance to the court; the court could have than decided if the president is compelled to turn over that evidence or if executive privelage does indeed hold in this case. The prosecution chose not to go down that path to gather the evidence they think they needed to prosecute their case. They instead forced their way into trial and unfortunately for them they are now left prosecuting a case with only sercomstantal evidence and hearsay.

Fair enough...but I thought it made sense that (as they pointed out with other cases) that could take years before you get evidence or witnesses to comply. Since the conduct of the president brought forth in the impeachment is such a danger it holds reason to not wait that long.

Peace

The Clinton impeachment took 5 years... Nixon took years... why didn't they bypass the Judicial then? Why was it ok to resolve disputes with the Courts and the Judicial back then, but not now? Why didn't they have secret hearings and depositions then? Why didn't they wait and only give Clinton 8 days at the end of the investigation to bring in witnesses and cross-examine? Why did they have an independent investigator then but not now? Why did they deliberate Articles of Impeachment for months and months back then, and only 80 days now? It was because those weren't political... the difference you ask?

Elections.

~Namaste

a reply to: Goedhardt

I watched a good portion of it. The shear repetativeness of their case made it unwatchable. I saw the same video clip played FOUR separate times and I wasn't even watching the 3rd day.

The Democrats didn't move the ball one inch. If anything they pissed off 2 potential Republican swing votes by the House Managers words. Way to try and influence them, Nadler and Schiff.

That and the Amt of time the Dems devoted to Biden actions in Ukraine were the major head scratchers. They helped the President's case with those stupid ploys.

a reply to: watchitburn

Even more...when Bolton asked a judge to rule on his subpoena vs executive privilege, they withdrew. They obstructed their own case by backing away when a ruling was imminent.

Here's some crazy for you....


link

a reply to: pavil

I must admit the Defense team's short approach today was a marvelous decision! Keep it short and simple. Don't repeat the same things over and over. I was able to easily enjoy replaying this livestream afterwards to make sure I didn't miss anything.

More Americans will more than likely replay this stream this weekend since they only have to devote a couple of hours. Smart play by the Defense for sure. More will be able to compare what they actually hear and compare to how the Dems and media report too.

Looking forward to Monday now.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime

Yeah...why bother with content.

Peace

Lack of... Pretty bad as the Defense destroys 21 hours in less than 3 using only the facts that the House managers gathered, but failed to present to the Senate at any point during their three days.

A lot of people on both sides just wished Schiff would just stop, PLEASE!! As he droned along with nothing new to add.

Who was obstructed? Congress? ROFLMAO why on earth would you waste anyone's time with that nonsense. His staff had more important things to do than to participate in a diabolical attempt by one branch to ursurp power over another. They had to Keep America Great.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Pyle

In watching the house Managers the past few days, it became obvious by their own repititive cries, that this is all about the election. They fear Trump will win, so they cannot let America choose him again. He needs to go now!

If anyone was attacking an opponent in an election year, it is definitely the Dems as a whole. They collectively respond as an opponent.

This has gone so far beyond just attacking an opponent. As far as I'm concerned, they're attacking America and we the people. They've decided they're the only people smart enough to vote in an election.

originally posted by: Goedhardt
So the Dems tried to convince the senate of all the anti-Trump conspiracies they believe are true. In general, I love watching debates and hearings. But this time I got so extremely bored and fed up of all the opinions, hearsay, mind-reading and spin. And the repetition... And the repetition... And the repetition...

Did you watch all of it? Could anyone actually do this to him or herself?

I noticed that there were no real bombshells or actual breaking news on this so far. Just some mainstream media cheerleaders, cheering for their team.

I think I might be right for one time: it was actually dull...

I am going to watch the rebuttal of the President’s team. It is nice to finally see they have an official opportunity to state their case. It is actually insane, this is the first time they have this possibility, but we all know what due process looks like in the Democrat world...

Are you going to watch? What do you expect from it? Any breaking news or bombshells?

Personally, I hope they take the time to expose all the lies and spin and half-truths that Shifft and his minions made in the last 3 days.
It is time they are rebuked!

Perhaps some don't know; Schiftty in his spare time, which no doubt he has a lot of is a screenwriter for Hollywood...He has also been working on becoming an actor...Thus, his Hollywood performance in the Senate...