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

Except that Sondland came back to the Committee and testified that that was basically the substance of the second call. So, it's not only the testimony of the State Department officer who testified about overhearing g the call.

 

Blackburn, Cornyn, and Kennedy are now asking a question from BOTH sides. Why didn't the House challenge assertion of executive privilege.

The 5 minute allotment is apparently only going to evenly split.

House Managers (Jeffries) says the reason why is because Trump never (and this was confirmed by the Trump legal team during this trial) asserted executive privilege. Instead, he asserted "blanket defiance" and "absolute immunity." Every court to consider such a claim has rejected it out of hand.

Defense Counsel (again this is Philbin), says that the Subpoenas were invalid and that there were other legal reasons for the defiance. Blames the lack of a challenge on the rushed timeline.

 

Yes, Sondland has repeatedly lied which makes him an unreliable witness.

 

If i'm driving down a road, and every car is coming at me, the chances of my getting the 'one way street' direction wrong are a helluva lot higher then All of them.

 

They should've done this format from the beginning!

 

'Every court', there was ONE such court hearing. Not every court. There's still litigation according to President's counsel. So clearly, it's yet to be totally decided.

 

Except, again, there's no rules outlining impeachment(other than high crimes and misdemeanors). If one takes the liberty to assert non-crimes, that doesn't make it correct. That just means that's the way they wanted to proceed.

 

Senator from Vermont asks of the House Managers to address the claim that there was no harm from the military freeze because Trump released the aid eventually and because Trump provided lethal aid to Ukraine.

Val Demings gives the response by first referencing our burden to Ukraine based on the Nuclear deal signed in 2014 and noted the loss of Ukrainian lives. She then referenced that some of the aid never got delivered because of the delay and that Congress had to rectify that issue. She also discusses the signal being sent to Russia back of that lack of support.

There was harm and there was a foul.

 

that he didn’t remember but maybe but he couldn’t say that was correct or in correct. He testified that no person on the face of the earth told him aid was withheld until a meeting, phone call or investigation. That was his testimony when cross examined.

 

Ted Cruz... Does it even matter if there was a quid pro quo... Nope! & finally we get to hear from Dershowitz (I'm luvin this one)

 

Listening to Derch is truly philosophically beautiful.

 

If there is no rule, then their is no concept of 'correct' or 'incorrect'. Literally any pathway is the 'correct' one in the absence of what defines either term.

 

BOOM, MIC DROP.

 

Dershowitz is not arguing that the President's policy preferences outweigh the Congressional "power of the purse." And...now he's off on "intent." Neglects to mention that the legal concept of "inference" is largely used as a means to show intent logically, without a self-confession.
Yo...Schiff is explaining.

 

You're correct here. Except before Pelosi, the House would have NEVER blatantly abused what's not in there. You're starting to understand why I'm upset with Nancy Pelosi. Her actions here, have forever dampened impeachment and have, as Derchowitz stated to make the President serve Congress.

 

Not to mention the likely reason the aid was released in the first place...

C-A-U-G-H-T

 

Question from Cruz to the Defense Team. As a matter of law, does it matter whether there was a quid pro quo.

The response comes from Dershowitz...he starts by referencing the Middle East Peace Plan (the Public Relations plan). Dershowitz says the only way for QPQ to be illegal is if the quo was illegal. The "personal political benefit" is not illegal according to Dershowitz. It is only if there is a purely economic benefit to the elected official.

 

Yes, but it was very clear that she lost control of the House to the radicals in her party and did so months ago. At this point she is just along for the ride as what's left of her tattered political reputation continues to get shredded. I'd feel sorry for her if she hadn't repeatedly proved over the course of decades that she is a piece of garbage.

 

I find it amazing that Schiff was ever a lawyer, or even at that a politician. I would have absolutely crushed this guy in debate. Can he ever stick to substance? Once?

 

Not my recollection...cite your source for that portion of his testimony.

 

LMAO. You've yet to establish that the President has 'cheated' the election, or how these hypothetical actions are tantamount to cheating in an election. Your assertions are not a fact. Facts PROVING your assertion, becomes the truth.

 

What substance are you referencing? I believe he was also a prosecutor at one time.

 

Another question from Schumer, to the House Managers: Please respond to the last response from Dershowitz.

Two main points:

You need to evaluate the intent of every criminal conviction and it happens every day all over the country.

QPQs are either sometimes bad or they are all bad. We have proven the bad intent. But if all QPQs are copacetic (and he is ignoring the fact that Dershowitz left out the personal financial benefit), then let's address whether we want to set the precedent that it is OK for Presidents to ask a foreign government to investigate their political rival in exchange for the use of something like military aid.

 

Interesting. See, to me, She has been the only one pushing back against Trumps abuses of his office. In a better world, Mueller wouldn't have wiffled so friggen-hard on his report and he would have been impeached for his obstruction efforts on that, but between Muellers can-kicking and Barrs boot-licking, that ship sailed.

In a vacuum, I would say that this current affair was enough for the impeachment title, but not for removal.

Altogether, and I can understand why she pushed this, in the timing that she has (election year means it needs to be buttoned up before the Dems land on a singular candidate).

 

Again, though, that's an assertion. We don't know if that's a fact. Facts/assertions are very different, and have very different results upon a trial of facts. The prosecution can and will(see: Adam Schiff) make a bunch of assertions and presumptions, and they will sound absolutely damning.

The only problem? You hear this, before the defense rebuttal. In this case, it'd be easy to clear whether or not the President was 'caught' or not. I'd love to subpoena for the defense all documentary discussions between Trump, Giuliani, Mulaveney and Bolton during the relevant times.

I'd want to look for A: Examples actually showing 'caught', and on the defense I'd love to show: Exculpatory phone calls/texts, showing no quid pro quo.