The republicans are already screwing this thing up

ImRightYoureWrong · 2020-01-23T12:50:38.042Z

Camp:

Biden got sloppy and made the brag in a public forum.

Trump didn’t have to dig…Biden served it on a hard drive platter.

Weird how this wasn’t an issue until Biden began is run for President. Weird how Trump needed to tuck it under his personal attorney to “investigate” it by pressuring Ukraine with military aid.

Camp · 2020-01-23T12:50:51.141Z

You seem to want to force opinion.

I would rather force intestinal gas.

We are here to share opinion, not to pretend our POV is truth and others are a lie.

Camp · 2020-01-23T12:52:23.838Z

Biden made the video.

Maybe he was baiting Trump since he knew he was clean and a champion corruption fighter.

Consider all the angles.

adroit · 2020-01-23T12:52:28.123Z

Camp:

You seem to want to force opinion.

I would rather force intestinal gas.

We are here to share opinion, not to pretend our POV is truth and others are a lie.

You don’t want to hear the POV of key witnesses. I get why

Camp · 2020-01-23T12:55:16.522Z

I am fine with it.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think this will be anything more than pleading the 5th or no answer.

Neither side witnesses will say anything worth spending time on.

NebraskaFootball · 2020-01-23T13:45:23.915Z

WuWei:

ThinkVision:

Why do you refer to people with childish names?

■■■■ for brains is not childish. It’s a medical diagnosis.

The Experiment Has Failed

In case anybody ever asks why most people don’t try to have any kind of serious discussions on this forum anymore.

NebraskaFootball · 2020-01-23T13:46:13.376Z

Camp:

You must be under Schiff hypnosis.

EP has been claimed.

No it has not. Try again.

Samson_Corwell · 2020-01-23T13:48:47.741Z

altair1013:

They have given the democrats 24 hours for their opening statements. Good God almighty. Why, why, why? To discuss a phone call that we already have the transcripts for? 24 hours? This could be done in 24 minutes. Easily. After the House debacle, most Americans are barely hanging on. Rapidly losing interest. At this rate, they will end up drawing this out for two or three months. Two or three months discussing a two minute phone call. Ugh! What’s worse, is that everybody already knows what the outcome will be. The President will remain in office. It’s a forgone conclusion. A done deal. Did our politicians take an oath to bore us to death? Political freaks like us may be able to hang with it for a week or two. After that, I have little doubt that I will be too bored to pay attention. This is a super slow motion train wreck.

Incompetent Republicans? You don’t say.

Camp · 2020-01-23T14:51:12.291Z

You must be arguing semantics since we are not at this point yet…

An executive privilege claim would be fairly strong relating to Bolton, perhaps at its strongest among the potential witnesses that Democrats want called. A claim on Mick Mulvaney’s testimony might be as strong. Bolton and Mulvaney work or worked in entirely advisory capacities to the president within the White House itself, where there is no shared authority with the legislature (as opposed to the State Department, for instance, or other Cabinet agencies).

Courts have at least paid respect to the principle of executive privilege as necessary for the proper operation of the presidency, but within limits. One key limit is that a president cannot use executive privilege to shield conversations directly related to the commission of crimes. In this case, however, the House has not identified any statutory crimes, unlike in US v Nixon , which began with a burglary and later came to include a number of statutory crimes. Or for that matter the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which involved admitted perjury and obstruction of justice. The House and Senate are therefore not entitled to go on fishing expeditions by subpoenaing presidential advisers, not even if the witnesses bring their own fishing tackle, as Bolton seemed to offer.

hotair.com

WaPo: Trump's legal team plan to use executive-privilege claims on trial...

“He wants it done sooner rather than later.

H_Arendt · 2020-01-23T14:54:09.191Z

altair1013:

They have given the democrats 24 hours for their opening statements. Good God almighty. Why, why, why? To discuss a phone call that we already have the transcripts for? 24 hours? This could be done in 24 minutes. Easily. After the House debacle, most Americans are barely hanging on. Rapidly losing interest. At this rate, they will end up drawing this out for two or three months. Two or three months discussing a two minute phone call. Ugh! What’s worse, is that everybody already knows what the outcome will be. The President will remain in office. It’s a forgone conclusion. A done deal. Did our politicians take an oath to bore us to death? Political freaks like us may be able to hang with it for a week or two. After that, I have little doubt that I will be too bored to pay attention. This is a super slow motion train wreck.

McConnell was facing a revolt in the Senate from vulnerable Senators over his rules making this look too much like a cover-up. McConnell’s concession was to give the Democrats more time.

How should McConnell have played this, given that the did not have the votes in his caucus to do exactly what Trump wanted?

Blackwolf · 2020-01-23T14:56:55.059Z

altair1013:

Sorry about your luck. Victory will be ours. (This is the part where you tell us what baaad people we are)

Who’s “us?” Republicans?

NebraskaFootball · 2020-01-23T15:06:50.973Z

Camp:

You must be arguing semantics since we are not at this point yet…

An executive privilege claim would be fairly strong relating to Bolton, perhaps at its strongest among the potential witnesses that Democrats want called. A claim on Mick Mulvaney’s testimony might be as strong. Bolton and Mulvaney work or worked in entirely advisory capacities to the president within the White House itself, where there is no shared authority with the legislature (as opposed to the State Department, for instance, or other Cabinet agencies).

Courts have at least paid respect to the principle of executive privilege as necessary for the proper operation of the presidency, but within limits. One key limit is that a president cannot use executive privilege to shield conversations directly related to the commission of crimes. In this case, however, the House has not identified any statutory crimes, unlike in US v Nixon , which began with a burglary and later came to include a number of statutory crimes. Or for that matter the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which involved admitted perjury and obstruction of justice. The House and Senate are therefore not entitled to go on fishing expeditions by subpoenaing presidential advisers, not even if the witnesses bring their own fishing tackle, as Bolton seemed to offer.

WaPo: Trump's legal team plan to use executive-privilege claims on trial witnesses – HotAir

I’m not arguing semantics. I’m arguing that Trump* has not declared EP in any of their arguments before the courts. It is inaccurate to suggest that the House merely needed to let the EP debate transpire through the courts in seeking witnesses and documents, when that is NOT the defense being made by Trump* and his legal team. They’re arguing that Congress has no authority to ever even investigate a President. Hence the Obstruction of Congress article of impeachment.

*3rd Impeached President of the United States

Camp · 2020-01-23T15:14:22.775Z

Nope. Not what we have in these proceedings.

I am going to move on.

zantax · 2020-01-23T15:26:36.546Z

NebraskaFootball:

Camp:

You must be arguing semantics since we are not at this point yet…

An executive privilege claim would be fairly strong relating to Bolton, perhaps at its strongest among the potential witnesses that Democrats want called. A claim on Mick Mulvaney’s testimony might be as strong. Bolton and Mulvaney work or worked in entirely advisory capacities to the president within the White House itself, where there is no shared authority with the legislature (as opposed to the State Department, for instance, or other Cabinet agencies).

Courts have at least paid respect to the principle of executive privilege as necessary for the proper operation of the presidency, but within limits. One key limit is that a president cannot use executive privilege to shield conversations directly related to the commission of crimes. In this case, however, the House has not identified any statutory crimes, unlike in US v Nixon , which began with a burglary and later came to include a number of statutory crimes. Or for that matter the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which involved admitted perjury and obstruction of justice. The House and Senate are therefore not entitled to go on fishing expeditions by subpoenaing presidential advisers, not even if the witnesses bring their own fishing tackle, as Bolton seemed to offer.

WaPo: Trump's legal team plan to use executive-privilege claims on trial witnesses – HotAir

I’m not arguing semantics. I’m arguing that Trump* has not declared EP in any of their arguments before the courts. It is inaccurate to suggest that the House merely needed to let the EP debate transpire through the courts in seeking witnesses and documents, when that is NOT the defense being made by Trump* and his legal team. They’re arguing that Congress has no authority to ever even investigate a President. Hence the Obstruction of Congress article of impeachment.

*3rd Impeached President of the United States

No, that isn’t what they were arguing, they were arguing that congress didn’t get to exercise investigatory powers prior to actually starting the impeachment with a vote.

altair1013 · 2020-01-23T15:29:55.984Z

adroit:

To discuss a phone call that we already have the transcripts for?

If this is what you think is reality, they need much more than 24 hours.

You realize that the 24 hours is simply to allow Shifty and Nadler to repeat what they have already repeated ten times. Right? I don’t need 24 hours of redundant babbling. Why do you?

zantax · 2020-01-23T15:32:10.289Z

altair1013:

adroit:

To discuss a phone call that we already have the transcripts for?

If this is what you think is reality, they need much more than 24 hours.

You realize that the 24 hours is simply to allow Shifty and Nadler to repeat what they have already repeated ten times. Right? I don’t need 24 hours of redundant babbling. Why do you?

It’s this or they spend the time spending our money to buy votes.

Camp · 2020-01-23T15:32:19.800Z

A big part of brainwashing is reinforcement of propaganda.

Fortunately I inoculated myself with a MAGA cap.

Forcefield · 2020-01-23T15:34:28.459Z

altair1013:

You mean like Shifty? That’s the name that I use for Shifty Schiff. We do it because we’re conservatives. And we don’t take ourselves too seriously. That’s why we get invited to parties and such.

Oh yeah conservatives are well known for being super fun.

altair1013 · 2020-01-23T15:34:50.579Z

zantax:

It’s this or they spend the time spending our money to buy votes.

They’re going to do both. This trial certainly will not get in they way that.

adroit · 2020-01-23T15:35:00.210Z

altair1013:

You realize that the 24 hours is simply to allow Shifty and Nadler to repeat what they have already repeated ten times. Right? I don’t need 24 hours of redundant babbling. Why do you?

It seems you need much more as you think this is solely about a 30 minute (not two minutes as you said) phone call.