WATCH LIVE: Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump (Day Six)

Any of those proven in a court of law before he was impeached?

 

I watched a live stream, so I don't have a time stamp for you.

 

Dersch's closing is so epic. He basically asks this country to do what I WANTED this country to do for this entire term. Look at the merits, not the individual. Had we done this, I think we could've gotten even more done.

 

Dershowitz explicitly acknowledge that his opinion on impeachment is a minority view and conflicts with the consensus of most Comstitutional law scholars.

Doesnt necessarily mean he is wrong, but it doesnt make a lot of sense to me to make your anchor for the evening the guy who has to argue for a novel and minority supported position of impeachment.

Especially since trump is already impeached.

 

And you will probably get what you wish for with every president getting impeach merely over policy matters with vague charges just to try and influence the next election by making them an impeached President having nothing to do with removing him. And of course the Senate will have to waste it's time with an unnecessary trail to nowhere.

Have you bothered to listen to Dershowitz tonight, he totally buried your position historically, legally and constitutionally.

 

That's why I said later

 

It was brilliant, straight to the law, the history and the Constitution. There is no basis in any of those for this impeachment.

 

Omg! Its cippilone! He lives!!!

 

...while acknowledging that he flip-flopped on his legal theory and that he now advocates a minority view which is rejected by a majority of Constitutional Law Professors.

 

And does not change the law, the history or the Constitution.

 

I find it to be a much stronger argument than the majority, for the simple reason that we are not a British Paralimentary system. Now, we can vote to amend that if that's what we want. We have that power through State Conventions or through an Amendments process through the House.

But that's not who we are right now. So no matter how many on the majority of scholars want it to be that way, it's simply not there.

Numbers do not equate to accuracy. That's the majority mob, so rightfully feared. For the record, I do support a no confidence vote because that'd allow me to put Nancy Pelosi in her place. You can certainly see that all of the weaknesses of the case are HER fault.

 

We are done for the night. Worth noting that the Defense team is saying they will continue their defense tomorrow.

There was some reporting that the Defense team might be finished by this evening.

 

I like how it's stretched out personally. No need for 24 hours, etc. The Defense is more responsible than that of the House Managers.

 

I watched all of Dersowitz (sp) and was underwhelmed with his presentation and his argument. He shrouded not much with a lot of historical verbiage. Did no-one tell US Lawyers that brevity is the soul of wit? I reckon his argument (such as it was) is so easily rebutted with this....if what Trump did, using US Taxpayer money as a lever to gain a personal political advantage (particularly involving a foreign power) is not impeachable, I am stuffed if I know what is. If that is not akin to treason, I don't know what is.

I once saw a Barrister (you call them Counsellor) get up to present his final submissions to a Jury. I knew he was hungover but even that did not prepare me for what he said which was..."Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, if you can't work this one out without hearing from me, we are in real trouble,.' and he sat down! Jury took half an hour to acquit.

 

One thing this does though is to make it less likely that the trial was concluded before the State of the Union.

Although that schedule was never going to happen if the subpoena of John Bolton (or others) happens.

 

So like Lawrence Tribes flip flop only going the other way

 

The Washington Post livestream played that clip again. He said "the NY times reporting of the manuscript."

It is really interesting to me that the trump legal team decided to not address the John Bolton report, but for that one specific reference by Dershowitz.

To me, it screams a lack of a coherent argument or strategy for how to address it.

 

I don’t know why they are even giving an open statement. They should just rest their case. Nobody is watching and nobody cares. Because the outcome is decided.

 

"personal political advantage (particularly involving a foreign power) is not impeachable"


Precedent from the 2016 election says it warrants nothing..... The democrat administration tasked their FBI to surveil the opposing party's candidate during an election using foreign help, the investigation that then was found to have committed 17 errors and netted zero indictments on their initial premise for opening said investigation and there were zero repercussions for that....

 

Thought so?

So, they are just guessing.

Like personal opinions, presumptions and hearsay?

Got it!

 

His duty is to the Constitution. He was not the WB. No one gave him an order not to testify. He testified based on what he knew and saw. Why are you angry at Vidman?

 

They testified to what they saw and heard. When they were asked their opinions, which they found themselves competent to answer, they did so.

 

Dunno what that has to do with Trump.

 

It's a trial, not a popularity contest.

 

Precedent

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent