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

Trumps lawyers use law house managers cite innuendo and hyperbole constantly. This is like a 1st graders arguing with the supreme courts.

 

Opinion

 

We have a measure for that. It's called censure. And if censure had happened based on the WP reports, I would have agreed 100% on censuring the President.

Also, there's a difference between the now-claimed theory of 'Obstruction of Congress', as opposed to Obstruction of Justice. Wherein the Obstruction of Justice is to delay, deny, or destroy evidence relating to a prosecution or a soon-to-be prosecuting case. Here, Congress is claiming Obstruction because it doesn't want to litigate the court cases.

Contrast to Nixon, where the cases went to the Supreme Court. This is me admittedly rehashing some of Philbin's argument but I hold it philosophically correct.

The RIGHT action, would be for the House to withdraw the articles for the time being and continue to litigate, issue new subpoena's now that you have voted on the inquiry.

 

The next question comes from Senator Grassley to the Defense team. Does the failure to litigate their subpoenas in the court render the obstruction of congress "unprecedented?"

It is an odd phrasing because Trump's resistance was also unprecedented, but anyways.

Philbin (again and I am noticing that he has nearly answered all of these questions) responds by explaining the legal reasons for the resistance and saying that yes, it is unprecedented.

 

Stabenow sent a question to the House Managers and asks if they would like to correct the record on any portion of the Trump legal team opening argument. Lofgren responds by saying that all "six uncontested facts" from the Trump legal team is not correct.

I will have to look up the 6 points later, but she is basically going point by point on how each fact is in dispute.

 

Most of those are Jim Jordan's statements: Aid was delivered, the meeting in the UN, no quid pro quo, etc. And frankly, the House is wrong. These facts are borne out. And this is where a subpoena for Mulaveney would actually be crushing for the prosecution. If the OMB can explain the timeline of events, it would be very helpful to the defense.

I don't know why people think that just calling democratic preferred witnesses, think that the witness is adverse to the defense necessarily lol. This isn't a cops-n-robbers show.

 

Uh? Funny thing. The State Dept released the Aid, so Trump had to announce it before the Press found out.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-freed-ukraine-money-before-trump-says-he-did

 

They are litigating McGahns though. I think that the fact that his has gone so slowly is one of the reasons behind Pelosis' push. Delay only helps Trump. Politically: best to keep it fresh in peoples heads.

 

By impeaching before 2nd term your taking power away from the people

 

Toomey, Blackburn, McSally, Kennedy, Boozeman and Cotton to the Trump legal team: Did the House pursue litigation during the month that they held up the articles.

No, they did not pursue litigation after the articles were passed but Philbin again addresses the lack of court pursuit, but he does reference and admit that the Trump legal team has argued the Courts have no role in the enforcement of Congressional subpoenas against the Executive Branch.

 

Well Schiff, if you paid attention to Derchowitz, that argument was had and given what the House has done, I'm now on the side of the Framers who wanted no impeachment clause. To be frank, impeachment allows a lower rung to literally drag down the presidency to the masses. And that we haven't had a political contention like this up until now, shows the sanctity of the system before this present Congress took hold.

Impeachment was meant to be a last resort, a tool to basically engage in the same manner in which the Framers engaged King George. Where all remedies were tried and failed. What remedies has the House taken, prior to impeachment? None.

 

Senator Heinrich (might have been Udall, not sure) sent a question to House Managers and asked them to respond to the assertion that they are taking away from the voters by impeaching.

Schiff is responding by saying that if their logic held, we would never have impeachment in the Congress. And if you can't impeach before they are re-elected, then you are saying that you can't impeach until their second term. He also argues that the reason for the "rush" is because they are trying to protect the next election.

 

Does it make any sense to argue that impeachment can only happen in the 2nd term?

 

Schiff is all bs never argues anything but his conspiracy theories, it’s crazy.

 

There's no such damage because US Foreign and domestic policy does not surround the survival of the Ukrainian State, any more than the survival of Kurdistan. Just because it's something that you and your advisors may want, mean that it's inherently good for the nation.

(Andrew McCarthy had a column on this about the Iraqi war, to justify to the citizens why we should engage.). To me personally, and this is wholly a political argument at this point: I don't want to spend money on Ukraine or anyone. I don't want to send hot firepower into a war zone, as though that's a solution.

As Hillary admitted in her book 'hard choices', it's not a solution.

 

The next question comes from Ohio (Portman?) and is directed to the Trump legal team: Given that impeachment proceedings are privileged in the Senate, please address the implication of the House presenting an incomplete case and asking the Senate to hear from witnesses that were not heard from in the House.

Philbin (again) notes that doing such runs contrary to how ordinary cases are conducted and that it would encourage future Houses to rush through impeachment and would hinder Senate work. He also says that is not just a question of one witness because the President would need to hear witnesses as a matter of fairness and thus the Senate would be locked down for months.

As an aside, the fact that this question comes from Portman is a strong signal that he is unlikely to vote for witnesses.

 

I think the point tryin g to be made now by the President's lawyers is: The Senate simply doesn't have the time to accept new evidence.

 

*Rolls eyes* No, it's not incontroverted. If it were incontroverted, you already would have a call to convict the President. You can call your own 'evidence' that, ALL you want. But you have to prove it.

 

Setup questions prepared answers......more Schiff lies.........yawn

 

Senator from Delaware for the House Managers: Some have claimed subpoening would prolong this trial. Isn't it true that depositions in the Clinton trial were done in one day and that the Chief Justice is authorized to make rulings.

It is really interesting how these questions are directly responding to each other.

Jeffries responds by saying that is true and notes that the House was able to take upward of 5 depositions in the course of a week - several involving witnesses who arguably possessed very classified information. He also notes that every single impeachment trial before the Senate included witness testimony collected during the trial. He asks why should this President be held to a lower standard?

 

That's been the precedent(accidentally or not), and it actually makes sense. Because the people want to make that decision for themselves. The people want to have the power to pull the lever. That's why the polls are what they are today. For all those who are #orangemanbad, yes they want to see this happen. But there's the other half of us that's basically split: Some of us are: Yes, but let us pull the trigger on removing the President. Others of us are: We don't think he's guilty, we want to vote for him.

Given this reality, the idea of 100 senators taking into their hands, the power that belongs to the Republic is untenable. Regardless of the current or future occupant.

 

Who is making that explicit argument? Or is that an embellishment of the other sides argument?

The bar for impeachment should be higher in the first term than the second so that the peoples power to elect doesn't get diluted

 

I agree 100%. In a second term, the president can't run anymore so impeaching/removing him has ZERO effect on the next election. But in the first term, it would affect the upcoming elections like it or not. The prosecution cannot ignore the consequences of the action of removal, to justify the removal.

 

So...you are in favor of calling relevant witnesses and releasing the relevant documentation?

 

Cornyn asks a question of the Trump legal team: What are the consequences for the Presidency if the Senate seeks to revolve questions of executive privilege without involving the federal courts.

Philbin (again) responds: Executive Privilege is a thing and explains why it is a thing. He also says that the reason why Trump is so expansive in his assertion of privilege is because he wants to protect future Presidents.