WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day Eight)

"We know there's no other reason" LOL, at least this House Manager is more blunt than Schiff in making the same flawed argument. No, you don't know that because you haven't cross examined Donald J Trump.

 

At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, there was no federal criminal code. The code draws its authority from the Constitution. "High crimes and misdemeanors" refers to crime against the political process itself and the electorate who supports that process.

 

The next question comes from Dianne Feinstein and is intended for the House Managers.

The counsel said there is "no evidence that Trump ever said a link exists between military assistance and the announced investigations."

This is now the first time that someone other than Schiff or Philbin is responding and it comes from Jason Crow.

As should be obvious, he of course disputes whether there is direct evidence and ends by calling on the senate to further review if they have any doubt by asking for Bolton to be subpoenaed.

 

House manager just said sonland said that trump asked if zelinsky is going to a microphone and announce investigation. 100% lie. The president said no quid pro quo, no nothing I want him to do what he ran on. Wow what a bunch f’ing liars can’t believe they are allowed to misquote direct statements from their witnesses.

 

As Cippulone argued however, the President will continue to exert executive privilege and other arguments in litigation. Moving it to another chamber, doesn't really make a difference. I want to expand on that: Because it makes no difference, why should the Senate be the one to carry the burden? The House managers are shifting the burden of trying the case from themselves, to you. And that's not acceptable.

 

Senator Lee asks of the Defense Team whether isn't it the Trump's perogative to set foreign policy. And that is a softball, obviously.

Philbin responds, of course, by saying that the Presidents sets foreign policy and not the career diplomat (within certain constraints set by the House).

Yea...one of those constraints is to impeach him if he is trying to purely pursue a policy of trying to cheat in his own election.

 

lol ok

 

John Roberts has the authority to make rulings on those objections, right then and there.

That is one of the reasons laid out in the Bolton letter saying that he would appear if issued a subpoena by the Senate.

 

Note: If it's the President's "policy" to pursue his personal interests by breaking the law and challenging the Congressional constitutional power of the purse, it may be an impeachable offense, upon which the Senate could convict.

 

Yeap and senate’s job to acquit based on absurdity

 

First of all, several of those things haven't happened, thus aren't germane and are incredibly leading questions. That's for starters. Second of all, even if I were to address the question on its face: Suspending habeus corpous as one example is a violation of constitutional law, and thus should actually be impeached.

There is no constitutional law, nor stipulation or even a sentence surrounding 'indiscriminate' investigations. With that, that's the only attention needed to this ridiculous question.

 

Glad you agree...my comments are trying to follow the real time debate.

 

Ahh a new one if the house decides public’s trust is lost they can impeach lol! Ok

 

sorry yes they said that and it’s a dumb argument.

 

The next question comes from Senator Shaheen and is intended for the House Managers.

She effectively wants to know whether it is not possible to impeach a President for a series of offenses (and she listed several) even though none are statutory crimes.

The response comes from Sylvia Garcia who is now directly pushing back against Dershowitz's argument and notes that Impeachment and Crimes must be addressed separately. A strong majority of the impeachments since 1789 has charged at least one offense that did not include a statutory criminal act.

 

If that's the case, then why are the House Managers wasting precious time in arguing for witnesses? Shouldn't that time instead be spent on building the case for impeachment, and letting witnesses be decided by vote and then by Roberts? Clearly, a vote for witnesses will be had and therefore litigating the issue before votes is a waste of time.

You can dislike the rules McConnell established, but those are the rules.

 

You do know that Trump spoke to Sondland multiple times, right?

 

You're confusing two calls...the first call was with Ambassador Taylor and Sondland, when Taylor complained. Sondland called the President who then told Sondland "No quid pro quo." The second call was Sondland's to the President following the tel-con on July 25th, in the Kiev restaurant, wherein the President asked if the Ukrainians had agreed to announce the investigations publicly.

 

you know he never said that right?

 

This is a cute argument that's basically saying "Well, everyone did it wrong!" Yeah, and? It's still wrong. An error doesn't become correct, because everyone's doing it.

 

Know what's interesting? I can watch the video that you provide here on the forum....but I go directly to YouTube and all I get is a spinning circle. I can watch every single other video or livestream just fine. But when it comes to this impeachment trial? I can only watch it here.

 

Jefferies, you yourself determined the truth. You said so yourselves that it was 'incontrovertible', now, not so much? Make up your mind, because that makes your argument weak.

 

I like this 'split' question, lol... Blanket Defiance "notion" lets see how many times he repeats "notion"... ROTFL

 

oh then not sonland’s testimony the testimony of the guy who over heard through the phone 10’ away at a restaurant that said trump said it! Lol. I then remember the cnn reenactment on a quiet set and the other anchor couldn’t hear it even though the dude was holding it in front of him!

 

Why do you think so?