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

That's precisely what impeachment and removal from office on impeachment is for. To prevent further "service" by a corrupt President. Of course, it's to keep Trump out of the White House, not just as a result of the November election , but ASAP. Republicans seem to be saying..."well...let's wait the book and the election." Maybe after the book comes out, not will be: "But we haven't seen the movie yet!"

 

I disagree strongly with the prosecution's argument. We now know of the emails, revealed by the UK newsletter that showed the OMB detailing and outlining financial information regarding the Ukrainian aid, and what was being done with it. These reviews, were done under official channels.

So the idea that official channels were never used, is a weak argument at best. And a distortion at worst. Secondly, even if we accepted that official channels weren't used, this gets back to the central point: They were not elected, they are not the "point men" of policies. In fact, one of the President's contention is that the former ambassador to Ukraine refused to give the documents to the DOJ for review. Given this, it's clear that the NSC opposed the President's looking into these matters.

The argument that the NSC should determine and act upon foreign policy, has been a menace since Kennedy. And their overreach has now resulted in the public sphere being aware of it.

 

Hmmm...isn't that an assertion that he wants to EXPAND the power of executive privilege for future Presidents?

 

LOL, Schiff, I wouldn't make that statement if I were you: Crossfire Hurricane. We had one such investigation. What did President Obama know, when did he know it? You opened the doors there.

 

The next question comes from Schatz and Feinstein and directed to the House Managers: If Trump were pursuing national security interest, would there be documents and witnesses who could establish such?

Answer from Crow: Yes, ask the NSC (they said it wasn't) and ask Bolton (he said it wasn't). But if the Trump team has exonerating evidence, then they should present it.

 

Hmmm...BREAKING NEWS...the WH has just attempted to block publication of the Bolton book, asserting that it contains a great deal of "classified material," that must be first removed.

 

1. Why are these questions going to the House Managers? This question should've gone to the defense team.

 

The next question comes from Graham and Cruz and is directed to the House Managers (uh oh). The question attempts to tie the previous hypothetical that Schiff raised about Obama asking Medvedev to investigate Romney by saying, "What if Obama also had evidence that Romney's son had been getting $1 million a year and Romney was in charge of Russia at the time?"

Schiff responds by saying that it is always going to be corrupt for a President to ask his own domestic investigative agencies to prosecute his political rivals and it is wrong to ask a foreign power to investigate his political rivals. And it is even more egregious when there is no rational basis for the investigation and he only wants an announcement of the investigation.

I think he crushed Graham and Cruz here. I wondered how often the Senators would direct questions to the other side. This will probably act as a lesson on how not to do it.

 

The revolutionary war was not to overthrow the King of England. *facepalm* Get your very BASIC history right. Though I am glad to revisit that, because impeachment does factor into the revolutionary war. As she noted, the King did in fact abuse the American colonies. And if you asked the Framers, impeachment articles would look very similarly to the articles drafted against the King.

It was those 'abuses', such as sitting congresspersons in a hot room without conditioning, that would be tantamount. Or stealing money to serve the private interests(Derchowitz), that would follow the historical map of the actions our framers took.

 

The next question comes from Senator Peters and is directed to the House Managers: Does Impeachment require a violation of the criminal code?

Lofgren gives another history lesson to say that No, Impeachment does not require a violation of criminal code. She then goes on to explain why Abuse of Power is an impeachable offense based on that history lesson.

 

I realize you're kind of behind the livestream.

 

The next question comes from Murkowski and someone (no idea who) and is directed to the Trump Defense team: Asks them to address the theory that House Subpoenas are invalid because they were issued before the House voted on impeachment.

Philbin (again) responds by noting that Subpoena power belongs to the power of the House. He argues that an authorizing rule or regulation must take place before Committees can issue a subpoena.

 

OMFG. LMFAO. "You can't challenge whether or not we follow our own rules", that's RICH Nadler. And by rich, I mean the worst argument you could've made to rebut the defense.

 

Hilarious. Reminiscent of Peter Arnett's fabricated quote about Ben Tre in Vietnam: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

Here we have Schiff justifying government intrusion into the 2020 election: "It has become necessary for us to choose the winners of elections in order to insure they reflect the free expression of the will of the people."

What a **** show.

 

And the Trump crime family cannot produce official paperwork to back up his officially motivated request of asking a foreign nation to investigate an American citizen.

 

The next question comes from Bob Casey and asks the House Managers to broadly address how Trump violated the abuse of public trust set out in Federalist Paper 65.

Representative Nadler explains why Trump's conduct is impeachable, but he also directly responds to the previous analysis of the subpoenas being invalid from the previous question. He notes that Congress broadly provided that subpoena power more recently which did not exist at the time of the Court cases cited by legal defense team.

He also addresses the theory of privilege is trump asserted absolute immunity (which is bogus) and that Trump has waived his ability to claim executive privilege as soon as he called Bolton a liar.

 

LMAO, Mr. Sekulow taking the exact tact I was going to when Schiff gave his "owned" answer. He just opened the door again to Crossfire Hurricane. We investigated a rumor, for TWO years. With no evidentiary basis for even thinking it was possible.

 

The next question comes from Senator Roberts and is addressed to the Trump legal defense team and asks them to respond to the previous arguments from House Managers.

We finally get to hear from Sekulow. He starts by addressing Clinton Impeachment and says those new witnesses were not new because they had given testimony before other investigatory agencies. He also disputes the notion that the chief justice can immediately rule on things like waiver and he basically says "that's quite a step" and then he raises the question of what would happen if Schiff were called as a witness.

He addresses Graham's hypothetical by noting that the Department of Justice and the FBI did Crossfire Hurricane and alleges that is precisely the situation that Schiff said was wrong (Yea...go impeach Obama if you want to make that case).

Now it's an address on the idea of calling another witness means that the Trump legal team would call witnesses as well. As if witness reciprocity were an actual thing.

 

Leave it to Harris to improperly quote and take the President out of context surrounding Article II. If I were defense, I would ask to be allowed to object to her improper questioning.

 

exactly

 

Schiff, you had a strong minute there until you said "above the law". He's not above the law if he's using the courts. Tedious, yes. Good faith? Maybe, maybe not depends on your view of it. But he's not violating the law.

 

The next question from Harris to the House Managers and quotes Trump repeatedly arguing that he is above the law or has the ability to do anything, how would that undermine the integrity of the justice system?

Schiff responds by noting that Trump's legal team of defenses might be rationale if Trump had asserted privileges selectively. Instead, they asserted a blanket defense and said absolute immunity protects every current and former employee. If they were operating in any good faith, they would not have turned over documents to the FOIA lawsuits while holding back those exact same documents from Congress.

If you accept the argument that the President can just tell you to pound sand whenever you try to investigate his wrongdoing, then no future subpoenas from this body will have any effect.

 

He was forced into the courts and then argued that the courts had zero ability to rule. If he is deemed correct a total of two more times, then federal courts will never be allowed to intervene.

 

They turned them over under FOIA, because they were due to by law. Perhaps the same lawful judgment(if we deem the House's argument to be correct), had the House decided to litigate these issues. They did not make that determination. And no matter what reasons they give to try and justify their decisions not to litigate, it doesn't eliminate the reality that they didn't litigate it.

From the beginning, to now, the House Managers ask you to decide and deliberate something they were unprepared to litigate in a court of law. As well as the right court, instead of a federal court that can't hear foreign policy cases(Federal Courts don't hear federal policy cases.)

Now, you may choose to do so. But it's our posiiton that it would be excusing the House Managers from their lack of responsibility in sending these articles of impeachment before the Senate. The right thing to do, we submit would be to tell the House Managers to withdraw the articles, continue to litigate and then send them back once they've obtained all of the information they could.

 

Except for motive and opportunity....
But you’re here arguing that the president can tell the DOJ to investigate anyone he doesn’t like, with no basis, and it’s not impeachable....right?