The Trump Impeachment Thread

Quote: rxwine

a couple thoughts on the trial

All 100 senators must be there at all times. They
are not allowed to speak, this will drive most
of them insane. They are not even allowed to
speak to each other. No cell phones, no iPads,
no laptops. No communication is allowed to
the outside. They're just like jurors in a regular
trial. Jurors can't ask questions, jurors can't talk
on their cell phones. They just have to sit there
and listen to Adam Schitt and Fatboy Nadler
ramble on and on and on about nothing. lol

Quote: aceofspades

I am getting a bit worried about the impeachment trial

The usual RINO's:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/478444-senate-impeachment-trial-rules-call-for-vote-on-witnesses-but-no-motion-to-dismiss

and

Sen. Cruz
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cruz-floats-witness-reciprocity-to-get-biden-and-whistleblower-to-testify


The Reps always give in to the Dems demands, even after the Dems refused to allow the Reps to call any witnesses in the House proceedings - the Reps are getting "cucked"

I think that the Democrat managers absolutely should be allowed to call witnesses. If the Republican Senate majority objects to any witness the Chief Justice can make the final decision. Of course, the defense should be granted the same right. Give me Bolton and Parnas and Biden and the whistleblower. It would be extremely interesting if Bolton intermittently claims executive privilege in refusing to answer some questions, or all questions, how the Chief Justice handles that.

Quote: Evenbob

All 50 senators must be there at all times. They
are not allowed to speak, this will drive most
of them insane. They are not even allowed to
speak to each other. No cell phones, no iPads,
no laptops. No communication is allowed to
the outside. They're just like jurors in a regular
trial. Jurors can't ask questions, jurors can't talk
on their cell phones. They just have to sit there
and listen to Adam Schitt and Fatboy Nadler
ramble on and on and on about nothing. lol

Civics 101 lesson. The United States has 100 Senators. But I do agree 100% with your point. I wonder if they will even be allowed to discuss the trial with the press after each session. I would think not. They at least theoretically are impartial jurors. No real juror would ever be allowed to discuss the case mid-case with a member of the press.

Nancy Pelosi spoke about how solemn this impeachment process was but she showed her true colors on the issue of impeachment by publicly making a spectacle of the signing and making sure she had some souvenir pens to hand out. She was so solemn about it, she smiled as she signed.

Should she have signed it in public: Yes
Should she have used multiple pens: I don't have much of a problem with it; it is traditional.
Could she have handled it better: Yes. Perhaps sign it with all the pens behind the scenes and finish the signature in front of everyone (as long as that is legal). Perhaps by remaining solemn while signing it. Either of those two things, or both, would have been a better way to handle it.

Meanwhile, outside the Beltway, life goes on and we get to see snippets of the spectacle. I am glad I am away from that place...pretty much the only place where I talk about this stuff is here.

Quote: SOOPOO

Civics 101 lesson. The United States has 100 Senators.

I wrote that at 4:30 am as I
was going to bed after
drinking rum. Cut me some
slack.

As far as I have seen and read, there is no requirement that a senator must attend the impeachment trial.

Parnus says he only needs John Bolton to testify, and between the two of them they can fill in all the necessary info.

Quote: rxwine

Parnus says he only needs John Bolton to testify, and between the two of them they can fill in all the necessary info.

Here are ten key facts about Parnas’s “evidence,” as provided to Maddow:
1. This is the Michael Cohen playbook. We have seen this movie before. A year ago, Democrats staged a hearing with disgraced former Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen, who had already pleaded guilty on federal campaign finance charges. Cohen, who had also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress, provided nothing of value to Democrats in his testimony. They seem to hope this time will be different, once again using a desperate and dubious witness to fling dirt at the president.

2. Rachel Maddow has no credibility. Maddow’s reputation has never recovered from her years-long obsession with the “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory. In fact, she continues to obsess about it: last month, she tried to link Russia to Trump’s alleged effort to pressure Ukraine. In 2017, Maddow earned mockery from the left for releasing one of Trump’s tax returns, showing merely that he paid a lot of taxes. Parnas could not have chosen a worse forum if he wanted to be taken seriously.

3. Parnas claims he acted at Trump’s direction. The problem is that Parnas’s only evidence of that is that Ukrainian officials agreed to meet with him. “They have no reason to speak to me. … Who am I?” He offered no evidence of private or direct conversations with Trump. Though he claims Trump is lying about not knowing him, the best Parnas offered Maddow was conversations at “roundtables” — i.e. with many others present — and overhearing Giulaini talking to the president.

4. Parnas claims that Trump knew about Giuliani’s investigations, which were “never about corruption” in general. We already know, from the closed-door testimony of Catherine Croft (whom Democrats deliberately omitted from public hearings), that Trump had an independent concern about corruption in Ukraine, and raised it with the previous president. We also know that Giuliani’s task was preparing a legal defense for Trump, one Trump knew about. Nothing about that is new.

5. Parnas claims that he presented himself to Ukrainian officials as the president’s representative. Unfortunately for Maddow, he presented himself as working for the president’s personal attorney — something he said that Giuliani reiterated in every interaction with Ukrainian officials. Neither Parnas nor Giuliani ever presented themselves as representing the U.S. And as Trump’s personal attorney, Giuliani had an ethical obligation to investigate whatever he could to help his client.

6. Parnas claims that he conveyed a threat to Ukrainian official Sergei Shaffer. Parnas said that he told Shaffer, an aide to President Volodymyr Zelesnky, that all U.S. aid was at risk unless Ukraine announced an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden. The claim contrasts with claims by President Zelensky himself, who has said numerous times that he felt no pressure from the United States whatsoever, and that there was never any “quid pro quo” tied to U.S. assistance.

7. Parnas claims that Vice President Mike Pence stayed away from Zelensky’s inauguration to apply pressure. Pence flatly denied that on Wednesday. In addition, testimony by Pence aide Jennifer Williams suggested scheduling conflicts were an issue. (She also said she had heard Trump told Pence not to attend, but did not know why.) Parnas also said Trump did not cancel a Poland trip because of a hurricane — a dubious claim, given the political importance of hurricanes in the U.S.

8. Parnas actually shut down Maddow’s claims about “menacing” text messages about former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Democrats accused a former Republican congressional candidate, a man named Robert Hyde, of conducting mob-style surveillance on Yovanovitch. But Parnas said he never took Hyde’s texts seriously because he was “a weird character,” and “he was always drunk,” starting at 6:00 in the morning. “I’ve never seen him not drunk.”

9. Parnas claims Attorney General William Barr was “on the team” in Ukraine. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) referred to that claim in her press briefing Wednesday morning, saying Barr was “implicated.” But Parnas said he never spoke to Barr, and did not know whether Barr had ever spoken to any Ukrainian officials. President Trump had told Zelensky that Barr would work with him — which would be entirely legal, but which supposedly never happened anyway.

10. Maddox never asked Parnas about CNN’s claim about Devin Nunes going to Vienna. Recently, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) sued CNN for defamation for claiming he had gone to Vienna to meet with a former Ukrainian prosecutor. Parnas was allegedly CNN’s source, the lawsuit states. (Nunes says that he was in Benghazi, Libya at the time.) Maddow asked about Nunes, but not about that; Parnas said he did not know Nunes too well.

Yup, he definitely needs to testify, so all that probable spin you posted can actually be tested for veracity.

Quote: rxwine

Yup, he definitely needs to testify.

Never gonna happen, that part
is over.