Senate Impeachment Hearings

[learning all i can]

14 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I agree with the Dems lie, cheat and steal to win an election comment....the only difference between them and team Trump is Trump's willingness to seek help from a foreign government to accomplish the same thing.  And that's a funny typo, "Hungary", not too far from Ukraine, or Russi for that matter.   lol.  

 

GO RV, then BV

Okay, I think I understand.  If my stomach is growling it means I'm hungry?  But if I go to Ukraine then I'll be pretty close to Hungary?  Right?  Thanks Shabb, it is always such joy to hear from you and now I can even count on Geography lessons or would that be History lessons?....always a joy.  Have a good day.  

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[coorslite21]

@bostonangler

Stated:

"You've learn well grasshopper... Name calling just like your fearless leader... I don't get why you are angry"

 

now I'll be you.....

 

"hey.....can't you take a joke? I was just kidding....don't be so serious"

 

And a little more humor from me......if you venture into DC there is a new craze in bumper stickers and apparel....the slogan is....

 

"Schiff for Brains"

 

google it......you can even buy them on line.....

CL

 

[CSM (R) Thack]

1 hour ago, coorslite21 said:

"Schiff for Brains"

Classic!!!👍🇺🇸...😂🤣😂🤣

[caddieman]

3 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

@bostonangler

Stated:

"You've learn well grasshopper... Name calling just like your fearless leader... I don't get why you are angry"

 

now I'll be you.....

 

"hey.....can't you take a joke? I was just kidding....don't be so serious"

 

And a little more humor from me......if you venture into DC there is a new craze in bumper stickers and apparel....the slogan is....

 

"Schiff for Brains"

 

google it......you can even buy them on line.....

CL

 

[coorslite21]

A CNN opinion piece.....CL 

 

McConnell just ate Pelosi and Schumer's lunch

By Scott Jennings

 

Updated 1624 GMT (0024 HKT) January 8, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Play Video

 

 

Avlon: Trump lawyers turned his tweets into legalese

These are the strict rules for the impeachment .

 

 

 

 

McConnell: There will be no haggling over Senate procedure

Catching up? Key moments from the first day

Toobin: Senate is staging a sham of a trial

Mitt Romney: Democrats are making a mistake

Schumer: McConnell proposing an 'Alice in Wonderland' 

 

 

Scott Jennings, a CNN contributor, is a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and a former campaign adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell. He is a partner at RunSwitch Public Relations in Louisville, Kentucky. Follow him on Twitter @ScottJenningsKY. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles on CNN.

(CNN)House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer have been bested by Mitch McConnell yet again. The two Democrats attempted to create impeachment leverage where none existed by withholding the Articles of Impeachment passed last month against President Donald Trump.

But like your Aunt Frieda threatening not to bring her awful fruitcake to Christmas Dinner, their plan didn't work. Nobody wanted it in the first place.

 

Scott Jennings

McConnell won this round against his Keystone Cops opposition because he has something Schumer and Pelosi don't: a reasonable argument.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

The Senate majority leader has insisted from the beginning that if the House were to impeach Trump, the Senate should treat him the same way it treated Bill Clinton in 1998.

 

So, McConnell has steadfastly argued for the same rules package that passed the Senate 100-0 in the Clinton iteration. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" makes a pretty sensible argument.

 

The Democrats have raged against his position. This is different, they say. They are right -- this is different. The articles of impeachment against Clinton were bipartisan, and the ones against Trump aren't.

 

Given the hyper partisan nature of this impeachment against Trump, McConnell's offer for the Clinton rules should have been greeted by Democrats with open arms. But instead they have demanded to treat a Republican president different from the way a Democratic president was treated not so long ago under the guise of producing a fair trial.

 

This is the bombshell Trump's team didn't want revealed

It's the height of hypocrisy for Schumer to lead this charge.

 

He used his impeachment vote in his 1998 Senate campaign as a political weapon, promising donors and voters that supporting him would lead to Clinton's acquittal. In fact, some might even call what Schumer did a quid pro quo -- you support me, and I'll vote to acquit your president. Today, he tears into McConnell on a near daily basis for not being an impartial juror. What a joke. Schumer voted for the Clinton rules package back then and opposes it now because, well ... I guess opposing Donald Trump is a helluva drug.

Democrats have repeatedly made their feelings on Trump known. Just Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren said: "I am willing to listen to the Trump administration put on a defense ... (but) I don't see how it's possible not to vote for an impeachment."

 

She's not alone, of course, but her words are just the latest gut punch to Schumer's claims that the Senate should turn into some episode of Perry Mason. Even Schumer himself said back in 1998 that the Senate is "not like a jury."

 

The days of Pelosi being hailed as some next-level genius impeachment strategist I guess will have to come to an end for the liberal pundit industry. Her plan to withhold the articles of impeachment to create that "leverage" over McConnell failed spectacularly. No Republicans were harmed, pressured, or otherwise inconvenienced in the making of this sad, sad film.

 

John Bolton's statement should scare Trump

 

Under the rules pushed by McConnell, same as for Clinton, the US Senate will begin the impeachment trial by listening to presentations from the House managers and the President's lawyers. Then there will be a question and answer period for senators to get information from the presenters.

 

And then the Senate can decide what it wants to do about witnesses. Maybe they will want to hear from some. Maybe they won't. Even if they do, don't bet on a quick resolution. No matter what former National Security Adviser John Bolton says about being willing to testify under subpoena from the Senate, it is likely the White House would invoke executive privilege to try to prevent his testimony.

 

What's more, if he's so interested in telling his story now, why does he need to wait for a subpoena? Bolton could simply write down everything he knows and send it to Congress right now if he wanted. But he hasn't done that, I suspect because he wants the appearance of looking like he wants to talk without the actual responsibility of doing it.

 

Is America entitled to a Trump impeachment trial?

Bolton's announcement won't change McConnell's thinking on how to process this impeachment, and underscores what a blunder it was for Pelosi and Adam Schiff to have failed to subpoena Bolton in the first place.

And now McConnell has exposed them for what they are -- desperate partisans who aren't interested in using impeachment the way the founders intended, but rather as just another tactic to be deployed in the hopes of trapping some Republican senator in a vote that can be used in an attack ad.

 

They failed to convince a single Republican in the House that impeachment was necessary. They failed to pressure Mitch McConnell's conference to do their homework for them.

Get our free weekly newsletter

Sign up for CNN Opinion's new newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

 

And they will fail to remove President Trump from office when all is said and done, instead delivering him to a perch of exoneration from which he will bludgeon them for weeks.

This could not have gone more poorly if the Democrats had tried. Any Republican senator on the ballot this year knows it would be suicide to join Pelosi or Schumer's hapless crusade now. Better to let the people decide Trump's fate in November than allow the Washington partisans to try in January.

 

 

 

• 

• PAID CONTENT

  •  
    Mohena Kumari Singh gives it back to troll who criticised her for 
   
  •  
    Deine Farm für unterwegs! Jetzt kostenlos downloadenJetzt bei Google Play

   

 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by coorslite21

[Shabibilicious]

The Dems have no leverage at all in this trial......However, I think it's smart for Schumer to keep putting transparency issues up for a vote.  Every time Moscow Mitch and the Repubs vote it down, it exposes more and more of their stonewalling to the American public.  Innocent men have nothing to hide.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

HuffPost

Fed-Up John Roberts Delivers A Stark Warning To Both Sides Of Impeachment

Ed Mazza

January 22, 2020, 5:05 AM EST

 

 

Fed-Up John Roberts Delivers A Stark Warning To Both Sides Of Impeachment

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned the attorneys for President Donald Trump and the House impeachment managers to watch their tone as the first day of the proceedings wound down. 

Roberts told both sides to “remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body”:

One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.

His comments came after some late-night fireworks between Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is one of the House impeachment managers, and Trump attorney Pat Cipollone. 

Nadler called Trump’s legal strategy “embarrassing” and took the Senate to task after a series of party-line votes that will not allow for witnesses or new evidence:

The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror?

“So far, I’m sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote,” Nadler said. He also called it a “vote against the United States.”

Cipollone fired back: “The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you. For the way you addressed this body. This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here.”

Roberts told both of them to back off and warned others to do the same. He noted that during the 1905 impeachment trial of federal judge Charles Swayne, a senator objected to the use of the word “pettifogging” (which means “worrying too much about details that are minor or not important,” per Merriam-Webster).

“I don’t think we need to aspire to that high a standard,” Roberts said. “But I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

 

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/john-roberts-impeachment-warning-100501585.html

 

Ouch....SCJ Roberts keeping name calling and disrespectful rhetoric out of the proceedings will only hurt Trump's defense.  He's made his living on such tactics and made it mainstream fodder for his masses to latch onto as being an acceptable way to treat fellow human beings, while setting an example for future generations.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

4 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

The Dems have no leverage at all in this trial......However, I think it's smart for Schumer to keep putting transparency issues up for a vote.  Every time Moscow Mitch and the Repubs vote it down, it exposes more and more of their stonewalling to the American public.  Innocent men have nothing to hide.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

And.....in the US you are innocent until  proven guilty.....even in Congress.....and it should especially be so... in the MSM...

 

The 2 articles of impeachment are poorly designed.....and even in a non judicial event will be hard to sell....

 

If this was going down in a court room.....it would have been thrown out at the begining....

 

Let the voters decide in November........and let the Primary's for the Democrats be fair this time.....to me the gorilla in the back of the room is.... the old establishment is well aware the 2 socialists are tied up for a period of time.....giving their boy Biden an advantage.....for political  atvantage.....geez.....kind of like what they are accusing Trump of doing for himself.....

 

We need to impeach them too...😮    CL 

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

And.....in the US you are innocent until  proven guilty.....even in Congress.....and it should especially be so... in the MSM...

 

The 2 articles of impeachment are poorly designed.....and even in a non judicial event will be hard to sell....

 

If this was going down in a court room.....it would have been thrown out at the begining....

 

Let the voters decide in November........and let the Primary's for the Democrats be fair this time.....to me the gorilla in the back of the room is.... the old establishment is well aware the 2 socialists are tied up for a period of time.....giving their boy Biden an advantage.....for political  atvantage.....geez.....kind of like what they are accusing Trump of doing for himself.....

 

We need to impeach them too...😮    CL 

 

You are correct.  Let me put it in the proper context from now and going forward.....Innocent until proven guilty, though innocent men have nothing to hide.

 

And after this dog and pony farce is completed all that will be left is Trump's "impeachment" label in perpetuity.  I believe the voters will get their chance to decide in November.  Honestly, I'm more interested in seeing how the landscape changes in the House and Senate in November, than with the presidency.  Worst case scenario, Trump is around for another 4...congress however...

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

19 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

HuffPost

Fed-Up John Roberts Delivers A Stark Warning To Both Sides Of Impeachment

Ed Mazza

January 22, 2020, 5:05 AM EST

 

 

Fed-Up John Roberts Delivers A Stark Warning To Both Sides Of Impeachment

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned the attorneys for President Donald Trump and the House impeachment managers to watch their tone as the first day of the proceedings wound down. 

Roberts told both sides to “remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body”:

One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.

His comments came after some late-night fireworks between Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is one of the House impeachment managers, and Trump attorney Pat Cipollone. 

Nadler called Trump’s legal strategy “embarrassing” and took the Senate to task after a series of party-line votes that will not allow for witnesses or new evidence:

The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror?

“So far, I’m sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote,” Nadler said. He also called it a “vote against the United States.”

Cipollone fired back: “The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you. For the way you addressed this body. This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here.”

Roberts told both of them to back off and warned others to do the same. He noted that during the 1905 impeachment trial of federal judge Charles Swayne, a senator objected to the use of the word “pettifogging” (which means “worrying too much about details that are minor or not important,” per Merriam-Webster).

“I don’t think we need to aspire to that high a standard,” Roberts said. “But I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

 

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/john-roberts-impeachment-warning-100501585.html

 

Ouch....SCJ Roberts keeping name calling and disrespectful rhetoric out of the proceedings will only hurt Trump's defense.  He's made his living on such tactics and made it mainstream fodder for his masses to latch onto as being an acceptable way to treat fellow human beings, while setting an example for future generations.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Yes......the left is so honest and honorable.....try about 4 minutes in on this one.....this on the floor of Congress.....by the guy leading the precedings... 

 

 

 

[coorslite21]

1 minute ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

You are correct.  Let me put it in the proper context from now and going forward.....Innocent until proven guilty, though innocent men have nothing to hide.

 

And after this dog and pony farce is completed all that will be left is Trump's "impeachment" label in perpetuity.  I believe the voters will get their chance to decide in November.  Honestly, I'm more interested in seeing how the landscape changes in the House and Senate in November, than with the presidency.  Worst case scenario, Trump is around for another 4...congress however...

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Correct again.....the House and the Senate.....that really is the focal point....    CL

[bostonangler]

17 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

And.....in the US you are innocent until  proven guilty

 

You've obviously have never gotten out of a speeding ticket... LOL

 

If you show up, you can get out of a ticket, if you don't you pay... In the real world, that's how it works.

 

B/A

[Shabibilicious]

Politics

Mitch McConnell’s Impeachment Witness Comments Come Back To Haunt Him

Ed Mazza

January 22, 2020, 12:39 AM EST

 

 

Yahoo News Video

Scroll back up to restore default view.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made every effort to block witnesses from the impeachment proceedings in the Senate to protect President Donald Trump. 

But newly resurfaced comments from the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton show that McConnell once favored calling witnesses.

“Had my vote prevailed, there would’ve been live witnesses,” he said in 1999 footage resurfaced by CNN.

andrew kaczynski

 

✔@KFILE

 

 

NEW: In a clip we found in the CNN archives, Mitch McConnell in Feb. 1999 said on Crossfire he supported "whatever the House managers wanted in terms of putting on their trial" including "live witnesses."

"I voted for live witnesses myself," he added.https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/mcconnell-1999-impeachment-kfile/index.html …

 

 

8,458

8:09 PM - Jan 21, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

5,783 people are talking about this

 

 

 

Making the footage even more awkward in retrospect, McConnell slammed Democrats by saying they had decided to clear Clinton before the proceedings even began. 

“There were no open minds on the Democratic side in this trial,” he said. 

But now, McConnell is guilty of doing just that himself. 

“I’m not an impartial juror,” he declared last month. 

McConnell also seemed quite deferential to the wishes of House impeachment managers in 1999, offering to give them what they wanted to put on the trial:  

andrew kaczynski

 

✔@KFILE

 · 13h

 

NEW: In a clip we found in the CNN archives, Mitch McConnell in Feb. 1999 said on Crossfire he supported "whatever the House managers wanted in terms of putting on their trial" including "live witnesses."

"I voted for live witnesses myself," he added.https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/mcconnell-1999-impeachment-kfile/index.html …

 

andrew kaczynski

 

✔@KFILE

 

"I would have been prepared to vote for whatever the House managers wanted in terms of putting on their trial," McConnell said..."My view was that we were entitled to witnesses."https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/mcconnell-1999-impeachment-kfile/index.html …

 

 

713

8:22 PM - Jan 21, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

459 people are talking about this

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-witnesses-clinton-053911184.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

7 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

You've obviously have never gotten out of a speeding ticket... LOL

 

If you show up, you can get out of a ticket, if you don't you pay... In the real world, that's how it works.

 

B/A

 

1 ticket....40 years ago....stop sign.....ice event......12 cars all bumped Into the back of the one in front......no injuries...no damage.....2 cops......the guy cop gave out nothing......the woman cop tickets for following to close or reckless driving.......I went to the court to plead my case.....the Judge asked if I hit the car in front me......I said yes.....spoke about the ice.....and the difference in the ticketing procedure.....he responded it wasn't his fault if the one cop wasn't doing his job....and asked why I was in his court room wasting his time.....

 

Yep.....just show up.....works every time...

 

So you see....I'm an old veteran when it comes to fairness in the judicial system.....

 

Hey........I even had a roommate picked up,  and prosecuted, for Drunk walking.......

 

CL 

[Synopsis]

Schifty Schiff read a made up mafioso script that has NO relevance to what The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump ACTUALLY SAID.
 

      

 

Fake News. False Narrative. Fake AND False Premises.

 

           

 

THIS "impeachment" "trial" IS DOA AND THE "pettifoggers" KNOW IT!!!

 

pet·ti·fog·ger

/ˈpedēfôɡər/

Learn to pronounce

noun

ARCHAIC

 

1. an inferior legal practitioner, especially one who deals with petty cases or employs dubious practices.

    

   pettifogger

    noun

   Save Word

   To save this word, you'll need to log in.

   Log In

    

   pet·ti·fog·ger | \ ˈpe-tē-ˌfȯ-gər  , -ˌfä- \

   Definition of pettifogger

    

   1: a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable : SHYSTER

   2: one given to quibbling over trifles

    

   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pettifogger

    

   AMAZING THEE "pettifoggers" "pettifogging" DAILY HERE AT DinarVets ESPECIALLY WITH THEIR PSBS!!!

    

         

    

              

[Pitcher]

6 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Mitch McConnell’s Impeachment Witness Comments Come Back To Haunt Him

 

They are all hypocrites Shabbs.  I could throw quotes from Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and Schumer from 20 years ago that shows their flip on impeachment

[bostonangler]

20 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

1 ticket....40 years ago....stop sign.....ice event......12 cars all bumped Into the back of the one in front......no injuries...no damage.....2 cops......the guy cop gave out nothing......the woman cop tickets for following to close or reckless driving.......I went to the court to plead my case.....the Judge asked if I hit the car in front me......I said yes.....spoke about the ice.....and the difference in the ticketing procedure.....he responded it wasn't his fault if the one cop wasn't doing his job....and asked why I was in his court room wasting his time.....

 

Yep.....just show up.....works every time...

 

So you see....I'm an old veteran when it comes to fairness in the judicial system.....

 

Hey........I even had a roommate picked up,  and prosecuted, for Drunk walking.......

 

CL 

 

Now I didn't say it works every time… I said if you show up you can (sometimes) get out of a ticket... If you don't then you have no chance at proving your innocence... Just like our president, he had a chance but passed... I won't be surprised when this is over, the majority of the public will think he should go... If he had let his people testify and handed over documents, he could have ended it...

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

16 minutes ago, Pitcher said:

 

They are all hypocrites Shabbs.  I could throw quotes from Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and Schumer from 20 years ago that shows their flip on impeachment

 

You are correct... 20 years ago on both sides they all said the opposite... They are flip flopping con-men... 

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

20 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

Schifty Schiff read a made up mafioso script that has NO relevance to what The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump ACTUALLY SAID.
 

      

 

Fake News. False Narrative. Fake AND False Premises.

 

           

 

THIS "impeachment" "trial" IS DOA AND THE "pettifoggers" KNOW IT!!!

 

pet·ti·fog·ger

/ˈpedēfôɡər/

Learn to pronounce

noun

ARCHAIC

 

1. an inferior legal practitioner, especially one who deals with petty cases or employs dubious practices.

    

   pettifogger

    noun

   Save Word

   To save this word, you'll need to log in.

   Log In

    

   pet·ti·fog·ger | \ ˈpe-tē-ˌfȯ-gər  , -ˌfä- \

   Definition of pettifogger

    

   1: a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable : SHYSTER

   2: one given to quibbling over trifles

    

   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pettifogger

    

   AMAZING THEE "pettifoggers" "pettifogging" DAILY HERE AT DinarVets ESPECIALLY WITH THEIR PSBS!!!

    

         

    

              

 

This adds nothing and demonstrates blind faith... You sound like a Jim Jones worshipper... No one is perfect, not even your false prophet...

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

28 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Politics

Mitch McConnell’s Impeachment Witness Comments Come Back To Haunt Him

Ed Mazza

January 22, 2020, 12:39 AM EST

 

 

Yahoo News Video

Scroll back up to restore default view.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made every effort to block witnesses from the impeachment proceedings in the Senate to protect President Donald Trump. 

But newly resurfaced comments from the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton show that McConnell once favored calling witnesses.

“Had my vote prevailed, there would’ve been live witnesses,” he said in 1999 footage resurfaced by CNN.

andrew kaczynski

 

✔@KFILE

 

 

NEW: In a clip we found in the CNN archives, Mitch McConnell in Feb. 1999 said on Crossfire he supported "whatever the House managers wanted in terms of putting on their trial" including "live witnesses."

"I voted for live witnesses myself," he added.https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/mcconnell-1999-impeachment-kfile/index.html …

 

 

8,458

8:09 PM - Jan 21, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

5,783 people are talking about this

 

 

 

Making the footage even more awkward in retrospect, McConnell slammed Democrats by saying they had decided to clear Clinton before the proceedings even began. 

“There were no open minds on the Democratic side in this trial,” he said. 

But now, McConnell is guilty of doing just that himself. 

“I’m not an impartial juror,” he declared last month. 

McConnell also seemed quite deferential to the wishes of House impeachment managers in 1999, offering to give them what they wanted to put on the trial:  

andrew kaczynski

 

✔@KFILE

 · 13h

 

NEW: In a clip we found in the CNN archives, Mitch McConnell in Feb. 1999 said on Crossfire he supported "whatever the House managers wanted in terms of putting on their trial" including "live witnesses."

"I voted for live witnesses myself," he added.https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/mcconnell-1999-impeachment-kfile/index.html …

 

andrew kaczynski

 

✔@KFILE

 

"I would have been prepared to vote for whatever the House managers wanted in terms of putting on their trial," McConnell said..."My view was that we were entitled to witnesses."https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/mcconnell-1999-impeachment-kfile/index.html …

 

 

713

8:22 PM - Jan 21, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

459 people are talking about this

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-witnesses-clinton-053911184.html

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Sadly, as pitcher has said you can find the other side doing the same flip flop...

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

Barr Once Contradicted Trump's Claim That Abuse of Power Is Not Impeachable

WASHINGTON — Scholars have roundly rejected a central argument of President Donald Trump’s lawyers that abuse of power is not by itself an impeachable offense. But it turns out that another important legal figure has contradicted that idea: Trump’s attorney general and close ally, William Barr.

In summer 2018, when he was still in private practice, Barr wrote a confidential memo for the Justice Department and Trump’s legal team to help the president get out of a problem. The special counsel, Robert Mueller, was pressuring him to answer questions about whether he had illegally impeded the Russia investigation.

Trump should not talk to investigators about his actions as president, even under a subpoena, Barr wrote in his 19-page memo, which became public during his confirmation. Barr based his advice 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.

But Barr tempered his theory with a reassurance. Even without the possibility of criminal penalties, he wrote, a check is in place on presidents who abuse their discretionary power to control the executive branch of government — impeachment.

The fact that the president “is answerable for any abuses of discretion and is ultimately subject to the judgment of Congress through the impeachment process means that the president is not the judge in his own cause,” he wrote.

He added, “The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that the president remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office,” quoting from a 1982 Supreme Court case.

Barr has long embraced a maximalist philosophy of executive power. But in espousing the view that abuse of power can be an impeachable offense, he put himself squarely in the mainstream of legal thinking. Most constitutional scholars broadly agree that the constitutional term “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which an official may be impeached includes abuse of power.

But in a 110-page brief Monday, Trump’s impeachment team — led by Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel and a former aide to Barr in the first Bush administration, and Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow — portrayed the article of impeachment claiming that Trump abused his power in the Ukraine affair as unconstitutional because he was not accused of an ordinary crime.

“House Democrats’ novel conception of ‘abuse of power’ as a supposedly impeachable offense is constitutionally defective,” they wrote. “It supplants the framers’ standard of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ with a made-up theory that the president can be impeached and removed from office under an amorphous and undefined standard of ‘abuse of power.’ ”

Contrary to what Barr wrote 20 months ago, the Trump defense team also insisted that the framers did not want Congress to judge whether presidents abused their discretion and made decisions based on improper motives.

“House Democrats’ conception of ‘abuse of power’ is especially dangerous because it rests on the even more radical claim that a president can be impeached and removed from office solely for doing something he is allowed to do, if he did it for the ‘wrong’ subjective reasons,” the Trump team wrote.

A spokeswoman for Barr declined to comment. A spokesman for Trump’s impeachment defense team did not respond to a request for comment about the tensions.

But Barr’s view was no passing thought. His 2018 memo emphasized that presidents who misuse their authority by acting with an improper motive are politically accountable, not just in elections but also via impeachment.

Between elections, “the people’s representatives stand watch and have the tools to oversee, discipline, and, if they deem appropriate, remove the president from office,” he wrote. “Under the framers’ plan, the determination whether the president is making decisions based on ‘improper’ motives or whether he is ‘faithfully’ discharging his responsibilities is left to the people, through the election process, and the Congress, through the impeachment process.”

The result of Barr’s main argument in 2018 and the Trump team’s theory in 2020 is identical: Both posited that facts were immaterial, both in a way that was convenient to counter the threat Trump faced at that moment.

If Barr’s obstruction of justice theory is correct — and many legal scholars reject it — then Mueller had no basis to scrutinize Trump’s actions that interfered with the Russia investigation.

Similarly, if the Trump impeachment team’s theory is correct, the Senate has no basis to subpoena documents or call witnesses. The lawyers are implying that even if Trump did abuse his power to conduct foreign policy by trying to coerce Ukraine into announcing investigations that could help him in the 2020 election, the Senate should acquit Trump anyway.

Another member of Trump’s legal team, Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and criminal defense lawyer, is expected to make a presentation to the Senate trial this week laying out in detail the theory that abuses of power are not impeachable without an ordinary criminal violation.

Critics of Dershowitz’s arguments have pointed to the seeming tension with comments he made in 1998, when he did not have a client facing impeachment for abuse of power: “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.”

In an interview this week, Dershowitz argued that his position now was not inconsistent with what he said in 1998, pointing to his use then of the phrase “technical crime” and saying that he is arguing today that impeachment requires “crimelike” conduct.

Dershowitz went further Tuesday, saying on Twitter that he had not thoroughly researched the question in 1998 but recently has done so. “To the extent therefore that my 1998 off-the-cuff interview statement suggested the opposite,” he wrote, “I retract it.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/barr-once-contradicted-trumps-claim-130649668.html

 

 

 

Maybe we do need a revolution... I can't find one honest person in this entire show.

B/A

[Shabibilicious]

26 minutes ago, Pitcher said:

 

They are all hypocrites Shabbs.  I could throw quotes from Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and Schumer from 20 years ago that shows their flip on impeachment

 

6 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Sadly, as pitcher has said you can find the other side doing the same flip flop...

 

B/A

 

And I agree with both of you.....I just would like to hear others from the Right, besides you Pitcher and CL, admit to it.   You both push for equal justice from both sides...a rarity 'round these parts.

 

GO RV, then BV 

[caddieman]

1 hour ago, coorslite21 said:

 

And.....in the US you are innocent until  proven guilty.....even in Congress.....and it should especially be so... in the MSM...

 

The 2 articles of impeachment are poorly designed.....and even in a non judicial event will be hard to sell....

 

If this was going down in a court room.....it would have been thrown out at the begining....

 

Let the voters decide in November........and let the Primary's for the Democrats be fair this time.....to me the gorilla in the back of the room is.... the old establishment is well aware the 2 socialists are tied up for a period of time.....giving their boy Biden an advantage.....for political  atvantage.....geez.....kind of like what they are accusing Trump of doing for himself.....

 

We need to impeach them too...😮    CL 

One thing you left out CL. If this was going down in a courtroom it would not have been thrown out. Bolton. Mulvaney, etc would’ve been compelled to testify. And anyone who blocks that testimony(Trump) would have been charged with obstruction of justice! Which is a felony!

[coorslite21]

9 minutes ago, caddieman said:

One thing you left out CL. If this was going down in a courtroom it would not have been thrown out. Bolton. Mulvaney, etc would’ve been compelled to testify. And anyone who blocks that testimony(Trump) would have been charged with obstruction of justice! Which is a felony!

 

In a court room you would have to have more specific charges.......and evidence that was opinion, hearsay or 2nd, 3rd hand would not be allowed...

 

With foundational charges and supporting evidence.....you are correct......Trump would be in trouble.

 

These charges......not so much

 

"endangered the security of the US.".......Great.....prove to everyone how........

 

"Looked to gain advantage over a political opponent".....

Again......you have to prove that was the intent......could have been......but how do you approve it?

 

Obsruction.........there are previous rulings from the Supreme Court on Exective Privilege........they are favorable to the Presidency......the office....not just Trump.

 

CL