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

For those interested in watching arguably the single best 100 seconds from Day One, I suggest watching the following: https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1219807852698722304

For those interested in reviewing the biggest takeaway from Day Two, I suggest reading the following:
Cable News Pundits Fawn Over Adam Schiff’s ‘Amazing’ Impeachment Speech: ‘Very Powerful and Forceful’

For those Interested in reviewing some of the biggest takeaways from Day Three, I humbly offer my take here: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...in-senate-day-3.567196/page-6#post-1071368071

For those interested in some of the big takeaways from Schiff's closing, I suggest reading the following: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...continues-in-senate-day-4.567230/page-8#post-

For those interested in some of the big takeaways from the first day of Trump's legal team presentation, I suggest reading the following: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...eam-offers-brisk-opening-defense-of-president

For those interested in a summary with the big takeaways from the second day of Trump's legal team presentation (the TL;DR is "John Bolton Who?"), I suggest reading the following: https://www.axios.com/trump-impeach...ues-bc0e7bc8-bc26-46c3-9c93-fc8704fba7de.html . Interestingly enough, the Axios summary does not even bother to summarize Hirschmann - probably because his presentation was ****.

For those interested in a summary with the big takeaways from the final day of Trump's legal team presentation, I suggest reading the following: https://www.axios.com/trump-impeach...ose-faf7a5bf-27ae-431f-a47c-618522f85a7c.html

This is a thread for those watching the Eighth Day of the Impeachment Trial of Trump before the Senate. This will include the first of two days (or 16 hours total) for Senators to submit questions and to receive answers from either side. Both sides are coordinating internally to ensure that questions do not get repeated and each team has been instructed to try and keep their answers to less than five minutes. If you are commenting, please provide enough information for those who are unable to watch to make their own decision regarding your opinion or to at least find the segment in the video for themselves.

You can watch the Live Link here from the Washington Post:

 

For those interested, here is a copy of the form that Senators must use to submit their questions:



And this is a report from CNN on expected questions:

 

We are now under way with the first question from Collins, Murkowski, and Romney. Directed to the Defense Team.

Essentially, how should the Senate assess when there is evidence for multiple motives for Trump's behavior

 

The response is essentially, "He did not commit an impeachable offense even if he had a singular motive that was purely political interest. In the situation where there is multiple motives, it is even more impossible for it to be an impeachable offense."

 

"Mixed motives?" He broke the law. He had an obligation to notify Congress of his withholding of aid, regardless of motivation.

 

The next question is from Schumer and is directed towards the House Managers.

It is a question about John Bolton's manuscript - Is it possible to render a fully formed decision without seeing his testimony (and that of Mulvaney) along with the underlying documents?

 

Ah...the witness question. I'm confused about this process...it's the "debate phase?" But, seems there is no opportunity for a rebuttal from each side?
As to the question...no. If new evidence comes up DURING a trial, and is relevant, it should be admitted, as long as both sides are equally informed and time is given for each side to incorporate the evidence into their arguments.

 

Lol a question from Schumer to Schiff aka a softball. Then Schiff decides he's gonna answer the previous question that wasn't given to him lol

 

The response, of course, is a yes.

And thus Schiff takes the extra time to address the previous question by saying if his improper motive was a causal factor, then it is an abuse of power. And if you have any doubt in your mind about whether Trump had that motive in mind, there is a very obvious witness just a subpoena away.

He is now addressing some of the facts already presented to help prove their allegation.

 

It's a smart use of his time, isn't it? The question was an obvious Yes, so why not take the time and address the previous Q&A in the context of the current question?

 

And he answered it poorly, given Schiff's legal theory. A: He gets to impune Trump's motives, B: And therefore, that details his guilt. No lawyer would argue that, and any lawyer who would argue that would get a solid objection.

 

The third question is a question from John Thune, for the Defense Team:

Would you respond to what the House Managers just said? ROFL

 

In the grand scheme of international relations, that’s not even worthy of a parking ticket. He deserves a frown face emoji ☹️ on his report card.

 

I don't really follow. Are you talking about some sort of speculation objection? That applies to witnesses. Lawyers - especially in their closing arguments - are perfectly within their right to take the evidence and argue motive or intent.

 

Philbin continuing to knock it out in comparison to Schiff. This was Pelosi's responsibility, this is her fault.

 

Let me put it this way: You can use circumstantial evidence to build a case of intent(as you well know), but an argument of intent without circumstantial evidence, is exactly the kind of argument Adam Schiff is bringing forth. "Well, let's not consider a mixed motive because we feel that it's debunked, etc."

Such a claim, would not stand. They have to SHOW that even if a mixed motive existed, that Trump acted to abuse his power. Schiff doesn't come close to doing that, because he lacks even circumstantial evidence.

 

He lays out some specific facts that support Trump's argument of a non-biased motive.

Then he addresses whether Bolton should be called. He repeats the lie about House never trying to get his testimony. And then goes on to talk about the precedent of the Senate seeking testimony because if there will be one witness, there will be others.

 

Schiff, that's because these are two separate cases therefore, two separate arguments. In the second place, federal courts lack jurdisction relating to foreign policy cases. That's been established by the rules governing federal courts.

You really suck at this argument stuff.

 

You are acknowledging that he broke the law, which attacked the Congressional power of the purse, but it wasn't that important? Hahahaha. Try again.

 

The fourth question is from Markey to the House Managers and asks them to correct the record about whether the House sought the testimony from Bolton (which is really pertinent given that Philbin just repeated the lie).

Schiff responds by noting that they actually did, of course and explains the court process. He also brought up the DOJ argument in court that the federal courts can never seek to enforce these subpoenas.

He responds to the precedent argument from Philbin by asking the Senate to consider the precedent of having a trial with no witnesses.

Schiff is using nearly all of his allotted time and has been warned about the 5 minute barrier twice now.

 

Ukraine isn't an 'ally' in war, and phrasing it that way is extraordinarily dangerous because the Russians could(unlike the Germans in WWII) decide that since the US is giving lethal military aid, that it's a combatant in the Ukrainian war.

This is why you're a mere representative, and not in charge of our foreign policy.

 

The fifth question comes from the Republicans Marshall, Loeffler, Lee, Kramer, and McSally. Intended for the defense team.

Is the standard for impeachment in the House lower than the Standard for Removal in the Senate? Has the House met their burden?

 

Philbin by answers that the standards are definitely lower in the House. He says that the House vote is merely an accusation based on a clear and convincing standard and that the Senate has to evaluate based on the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard.

Then he lays out summary of some the facts for why the beyond a reasonable doubt standard has not been met.

 

My answer to that would be: Technically, there is no 'standard' for impeachment in the House.(That is, if the House does not abide by High crimes and misdemeanors, there's no other regulatory guide.) And that in fact is one of the biggest problems. Theoretically, this could happen again and in fact, the House has so argued in litigation that they intend to take this course. So you could be hearing slightly different versions of these arguments, indefinitely so long as the Senate continues to acquit the President.

Because there is technically no burden to meet, you could say they met it. But the question to ask yourselves, is if that behavior is acceptable? And I submit to you, it isn't. It gives an undue burden to the Senate that's neither required nor ideal.