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

And if that's the result, then that's the result. This is exactly the reason why I said, courts resolving political disputes(in general, not simply this case) is untenable. A free society cannot be governed by a man in a robe, or a few select citizens called a jury. This is a mess, as Thomas Jefferson once noted about the supreme court.

We cannot have an overruling court, and a free people. It must be one, or the other. The court's encroachment on a free society(See: the Immigration cases), ruins the political existence of the country.

 

Agreed...this was a backdoor mob deal.

 

As per Bolton...a drug deal.

 

This reflects once again on the arguments Schiff is making regarding this case: You cannot impune motive and opportunity.(I mean, you could it would just be intellectually lazy and never accepted in any court.) The "Low threshold" that IG Horowitz accepted, would never win any court decision. Ever.

Let me repeat that: If the FBI were honest, and had honestly tried to make that claim. There wouldn't have been a FISA warrant. No judge would accept that low threshold as acceptable.

So, no, you cannot infer motive and opportunity you have to SHOW motive and opportunity(which you obviously couldn't, or the evidence and facts of the case would have been totally different.) Crossfire Hurricane is the scandal that it is, because there was no motive or opportunity or evidence. Not even circumstantial evidence.

Now, because of that fact could Trump ask the DOJ to investigate with no basis and it's not impeachable? Of course not, then I'd have no basis to complain about Crossfire Hurricane. However, if we accept the "low threshold" standard for Crossfire Hurricane, the bar has been more than met with Joe Biden.

He was VP, he bragged about the extortion effort and his son was on boards with which he wasn't qualified and earned a substantial amount of sum. That begets at least a preliminary investigation. Now, as far as the "announcement". No one said(or proved) that he said "announce you're investigating Joe Biden." You could argue, and the evidence shows that an "investigation into burisma" would undoubtedly cover those factors and thus be sufficient.

And at any rate, before any announcements were made the aid was sent.

 

So you agree you don’t need an actual criminal act to impeach?

 

Love Schiff's last answer, First he LIES AGAIN and said a judge said "your not a king". Then he goes on to explain why the House gets to play king and shouldn't have allowed a President to argue his points against subpoenas in the judicial branch. This guy is an f'ing lunatic and I'm serious. I wish the CJ would have stopped the trial and said you don't get to make up what judges quotes. This guy is the craziest of all the lefties...

 

Yup... and yet not refuted in any way by anybody at any time..

 

I'm not watching today, but I'm sure I'd love his answer too.. he's one smart cookie...

 

Do you think the President should be able to ignore the Congressional "power of the purse" and withhold appropriated funding without cause and/or notice to Congress?

 

In a real court, four U.S. Senators would not be able to participate as jurors out of conflict of interest. They are trying to throw out of office the guy who is running against them for that office.

 

That's all fine, but you need to draw a firm line between statements made before Trump was made aware of the WB complaint and after..

Anything after, like his 'I want nothing' call with Gordie, dont count for much in my book..

 

Withhold? Hell he can deposit directly into his own bank account and claim he’s holding it temporarily.

 

To protect and preserve it for future administrations.

 

I haven't heard that at all there is plenty of basis to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma.

 

I addressed this a bit earlier in discussions with Mrtlegal: Technically yes, politically and socially NO. It would just be disastrous. As Philbin correctly argued, I'll use my own words: Why shouldn't I impeach Elizabeth Warren? I HATE Medicare for All, I think it would financially distress the United States.

Given manager's arguments, that's more than sufficient. I can even argue her policy desire is of a corrupt motive, in that it's a policy she wants to set in her vision, not the vision of the nation.

 

But even with no basis at all, it still wouldn’t be impeachable unless you can cite a specific law against it. Right?

 

This entire questioning is a waste of time. The questions are all setups and there is no rebuttal from the other side.

 

So while on break, a couple of big takeaways that I have (and by the way, I want to apologize for not responding to folks because I am trying to keep the feed updated as it happens).

1) Almost all of these questions thus far as pretty scripted and safe questions directed from Republicans to Trump Legal Team or Democrats to House Managers. It will be very interesting to see if that adjusts going forward.

2) We have heard a lot of theoretical legal arguments and very few delving into the specific facts. Hopefully that changes going forward.

3) The news that Trump has threatened to stop the publication of Bolton's book means that one of the biggest and most repeated topic of conversation - i.e. the subpoeaning of Bolton - will continue to be a very big topic.

4) The House Managers need a better method for managing or recognizing their time allotment (not a big deal), just something I noticed.

 

Not legally.

 

Your not addressing the point that the bar should be higher during a 1st term, being careful not to dilute the people voice/power to elect

 

That’s an idiotic example, unless someone thinks she’s going to implement Medicare for all with executive order.
So technically you agree no crime is needed to impeach.

 

Cite the criminal law

 

What page of the constitution is that on?

 

Here's a question, we all agree that a president can abuse power so can the house majority abuse their power?

 

That should have happened so that it did means what? Normally former wh officials have to have their books vetted by the WH for classified or executive privilege material.