It was quite the day yesterday. Adam Schiff bored the living hell out of the Senate and the country. He went on spewing lie and lie after lie, noted on CNN
Schiff’s mendacity is noted even by Chris Wallace
Jerry Nadler essentially accused GOP Senators of treason, alienating the jury. It was so bad that Justice John Roberts told them to dial it back.
The democrat circus is to go on for two more days. Schiff began repeating himself endlessly after a while. It was so bad he had to reach back for his Russian collusion fantasy. He offered nothing new. He did at one point seem to lose his mind when he warned that the Russians could attack and invade US soil.
“As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here,” Schiff said, drawing rebukes from commentators across the political spectrum.
SMH. Ukraine is so vital that obama withheld lethal aid for three years and left it to Trump to actually send anti-tank missiles.
This impeachment is based entirely on innuendo and smear. It’s a Kavanaugh redux. Dems find “evidence” and “witnesses” they for some reason could not find previously.
Anyway, after this torture has ended, the GOP impeachment managers and lawyers take over. IMO what they should do is dissect each and every lie uttered by Schiff and his cohorts.
The Senate operates on rules of evidence, unlike the House. No hearsay.
The GOP should strip away every extraneous nonfactual bit including all of the testimony from other than fact witnesses and then boil this down to what it is.
Trump facing two articles of impeachment- one is for his seeking relief from the courts and the other is for exerting executive privilege. Neither is a crime.
Both articles are unconstitutional. The GOP lawyers should right then and there demand a summary judgment to dismiss and this nonsense should end. Period.
Then McConnell should suggest that if dems are still unhappy, they should start another impeachment process and try to get the witnesses they claim to so desperately want. They had their opportunity to have all the witnesses they wanted and they chose not to pursue it. It is not the responsibility of the Senate to correct their failures.
It is said that at least 75% are going to be unpersuaded by this charade.
In what has to be one of the most frightening things I’ve seen in a long time, Adam Schiff asserted that democrats will attempt to deny Americans their right to vote. (And I thought he was already crazy)
“For precisely this reason, the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box,”
Yet I do remember someone saying something like this:
democrats have done literally nothing for the country over the last three years. Let them continue on that path. Let the democrats begin anew and see how much appetite the country has for more of their idiocy.
Now let’s see what’s really going on.
This is democrats’ last, best chance to undo an election. For the country’s and future Presidents’ sake, you best hope they fail.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Greg: Im sure if anything illegal has happened it has been shared. No network or cable brand can be trusted to not edit what he has to reveal.
Trying to discredit Americas Mayor before he makes his presentation is going over like a lead balloon.
Accusing the Senate of being complicit in a crime if they dont let Schiff run things isnt going to get Schiff his way.
Unable to get any enthusiasm for any of your candidates, is this some kind of plan to energize Democrats and distract them from the accomplishments of this administration? Good luck with that, as it seems its all you got.
Watch out getting too close to Ward he sounds like a Bernie antifa facist threatening a war a bit off his rocker.(see comment 1)
Gosh, I go out on a very nice date with a very attractive lady and greggie and RJ paint themselves back into a corner again. Kitt, I had hoped you would be a better sitter than that!
@Greg: What all the evidence shows is that you Democrats, not Trump, is doing all the lying.
@Deplorable Me: Schiff has mountains of evidence it is so secret he hasn’t even made it up yet.
@kitt: Yeah, Trump is Satan himself yet Democrats are doing all the lying. Funny.
@kitt: Well, you should know that a 1 year old takes much less attention as a baby sitter than greggie and RJ.
@Randy: She helped gramma dust and vacuum and prepare dinner, if you count me chasing her down for the baking pan she managed to grab off the table and began make off with.
Our pet trolls would’nt be so helpful or allowed in the kitchen.
@retire05, #100:
You asked a question and got a factual answer to it in #97 You can’t deal with facts. That’s your problem, not mine.
Republican members were present at every closed committee meeting the House held in connection with the impeachment investigation. The only representatives denied entrance were the republicans who are not committee members, and tried to crash them as a media stunt. They know the rules. They were exploiting the fact that Trump’s supporters generally don’t.
Transcripts of closed sessions of the House House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are most often not made available for public inspection, because the Committee routinely deals with classified information.
Trump’s counsel was invited to participate in the House impeachment hearings, and declined to do so. They weren’t locked out of the process, as is being falsely claimed. (In other words, that’s one more thing they’re lying about.)
@Greg:
Trump has released classified information to prove his innocence. Democrats hold secrets. That pretty much tells the tale.
Trump’s representation was invited to attend the session where they discussed the application of impeachment, not the evidence gathering and debates. Not that the Democrat’s conclusions were already formed BEFORE they started this circus, but all the testimony had been heard and the conclusion already made (by the majority).
There is no substance to this impeachment. You can rant, whine, bellyache all you want about how you hate Trump, but that is not an impeachable offence (that is more of YOUR personal problem). This is happened for one reason; the Democrats had the majority and the power to do it. The adage of just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD comes to bear. Democrats did this because they have no way to defeat Trump in an election with the sorry selection of candidates they have, so they are not trying to remove Trump; they know impeachment on the weak basis they have put forth is impossible. They seek merely to weaken Trump by the taint of impeachment and having the liberal media endlessly promote their lies they throw out. Nothing but a political gambit to try to affect the 2020 election. That is real scumbaggery. No one but Democrats would carry out such a coup.
But they’ve lost and have actually strengthened Trump. Just another Democrat failure. Lies and failure; all the Democrats can offer.
@Greg:
Yes they were, and it’s “stunt” to pretend that they weren’t.
Doesn’t matter though. In 2 hours the WH counsel debunked the entire basis of the impeachment, and all while using the Dems own evidence.
How embarrassing for them.
@Greg:
Hahahaha…that’s a reality created by the media, entertainment, and educational institutions….now backfiring. Good.
And now it comes out that the impeachment mangers voted against the aid package they want to impeach Trump over. You can’t make this stuff up.
@another vet: Calling the impeachment effort a clown show does dis-service to clowns everywhere!
@Randy: The Bolsheviks are out of control! They need to be crushed in November and never allowed anywhere near power in this country again. They should do us all a favor and move to country more suited to their belief system like Cuba, Venezuela, or China since their good old USSR is no longer around.
@Nathan Blue:
The dysfunctional clown-criminal you and Vladimir Putin helped to put in office is a former reality TV show host, bucko. He’s the same insufferable jackass now that he was then, and he appeals to the same audiences.
@Greg: If he is so criminal why are there no crimes named in the impeachment articles. It should have been a slam dunk to come up with like 1.
Maybe they can end this quickly so your clowns can make up some more shit, Obstruction of Coup, Catching our Spies, Tie too long, Fire codes at Rallys for too many people.
Abuse of power of office for personal gain and obstruction are statutory crimes. So is extortion. But it has been proclaimed that a president cannot be charged with crimes under statutory law while in office. High crimes and misdemeanors are another matter.
@another vet: I have to say that I don’t see it important if they voted for the aid or not, unless they whine and moaned and pretended to care about the Ukrainians trying to defend themselves. What they are supposed to be interested in is that the President follows the law.
THAT being said, they’ve made no case that Trump committed ANY impeachable act.
@Greg: I’ve asked you before to provide the first bit of evidence that showed Putin supported Trump or that there was any support that actually helped Trump. You’ve NEVER done it, which is understandable since there ISN’T any. So, why do you keep LYING about that? Are you just so frustrated and pissed watching those lying idiots fail so miserably that you lash out with your phony accusations like a petulant child? Pretty pathetic.
Why is Schiff trying to hid Michael Atkinson’s testimony? He won’t let ANYONE see it, even Trump’s defense team. COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP!
What’s Schiff trying to hide? What’s he so afraid of? Why is he a goddamn liar?
It was Joe Biden that abused his power for personal gain and committed extortion. We know Trump didn’t because Democrats could find no evidence he did and everything they have presented PROVES they have no evidence. If they HAD evidence, they would be lying.
@Greg: Abuse of power is in the minds of those who lost! Show us where abuse of power is a crime greggie after it is defined. You are grasping at the last straws as the lefty ship sinks. It looks like there will even be Democrat senators voting for Trump because they have not lost their sense of smell. The case really smells.
@Greg:
Uh, there’s a difference between being just a host and owning the show, little guy….as well as building a fair percentage of Manhattan as a real estate mogul. But yeah, pretend Trump isn’t 1000% more qualified to be the President than Obama was, and every other candidate running today. Seems the majority of voters disagree.
…unless a Democrat does it. Then it’s ok. Seems Trump was uncovering all the money laundering in the Ukraine, and that’s what the impeachment is about, like a caught squid inking itself.
See: Biden on tape illegally telling the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son, or they wouldn’t get a billion dollars…money that is still as of yet missing…or in the pockets of high-ranking Dem families.
Doing his job while beating you bastards is what he’s doing. You’re sunk.
Extortion isnt one of the articles.
Obstruction has to be defined here, obstruction by requesting the courts settle a difference of opinion between the executive and legislative branch.
HoR We demand all these witnesses that are top advisors of the President
HoR We demand documents loads of documents from the executive branch
If you dont agree we can demand these things you are obstructing, if you go to court in a case we will lose big time you are obstructing.
Everyone else in the USA can go to the courts to fight subpoenas .
Step 1. Preserve any documents requested by the subpoena. (do not bleachbit them)
Step 2. Retain an attorney who is familiar with the laws of evidence and who has experience…
Step 3. Ask your attorney to file a motion to “quash” the subpoena.
Step 4. Attend the hearing with your lawyer.
I thought Adam was a lawyer, they even hired Lawfare, on my dime.
Wheres witness 18? Where is transcript from witness 18? in hanger 18?
@kitt:
The HoR (Schiff) can call what he did a subpoena until the cows come home but he did not have Constitutional authority to issue a subpoena to anyone. Calling what was basically a “request” a subpoena does’t make it one.
@retire05: Why I called them demands not subpoenas, there were 2 but they dropped the case. Even after the court said they would expedite.
I’m confused. Jane Raskin is one of Trump’s defense attorneys? She just opened her argument with a disparaging description of legal tactics that a majority of viewers most likely thought referred to Team Trump.
@Greg: Yeah, you’re confused. That’s what comes of listening to liberal propaganda.
Alan Dershowitz speaks eloquently, and totally full of sh-t. His defense argument is that Abuse of power of office is not an impeachable offense.
This is utterly absurd. He’s asserting that once any U.S. president has taken the oath of office, he or she may then use and abuse the Constitutional powers that come with the office without fear of removal on that basis; that once you take the oath, you are no longer bound by it.
@Greg:
Clearly English is you second language. I would think such a legal scholar as yourself would have a better understanding of what Professor Dershowitz is saying.
@retire05, #126:
Alan Dershowitz’s fundamental principles apparently shift with the occasion he’s involved in. When republicans were pursuing the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1999 over the trivial matter of a mutually consensual sexual encounter with an adult White House aid, Dershowitz argued with the same enthusiasm that “you don’t need a technical crime” to impeach a president.
He attributes this complete, 180-degree reversal of position to “having done more research.” I attribute it to the fact that he’s functioning as a defense lawyer who’s paid job it is to get his client off, regardless of his own private opinion concerning innocence or guilt. This is what defense attorneys are paid to do. If it weren’t no accused person in their right mind would hire them.
I doubt if you have a second language, unless the language of bullshit counts. You certainly don’t have much of a grasp concerning what defense attorneys do in the context of our legal system.
From FOX News, yesterday: Dershowitz changes his mind on impeachment requirements, argues crime must be committed
He’ll change it again, the occasion demands.
@Greg:
You claim the Professor is paid. Cite your proof.
I know that as Americans, we still have the freedom to change our minds. You would deny that right to Professor Dershowitz but seen to have no problem with Democrats changing their minds from the stand they took in the Clinton impeachment. Why is that, Comrade Greggie?
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
@retire05, #128:
Are you claiming he’s another volunteer who works for Trump free of charge, like Rudy Giuliani?
Dershowitz is the same guy who helped get O. J. Simpson acquitted of murder. He got Claus von Bulow’s murder conviction overturned. He helped Jeffrey Epstein swing his inexplicably lenient plea agreement deal with federal prosecutors, while still under investigation for abusing underage girls in Florida. Do you think he does this stuff as a public service? He’s a criminal defense attorney, not a defender of the Constitution.
@Greg: Regardless of what you think or say you think, the Democrats have not presented a shred of evidence of any crime, much less any impeachable crime. Lie after Democrat lie has been exposed, but they simply lie again and again.
@Greg:
Why do you allow Democrats to change their minds but no one else?
Answer that, Comrade Greggie.
BTW, Dershowitz was correct on Von Bulow and OJ. Was I pleased with the outcome? No, but Constitutionally, Dershowitz was spot on.
And how would you know what defense attorneys think on the very document you crap on daily? Are you one?
@Deplorable Me: Greg has taken the position that Cigar man was impeached for a hummer.
Not the perjury, witness tampering, he committed 11 crimes, including multiple counts of lying under oath and obstructing justice.
Slamdunk but it didnt rise to the level of impeachable.
Every man knows a hummer isnt sex thats just a given.
Try that if the wife walks in with your drawers down.
My answer might be her hitting you with a #10 cast iron pan wasn’t assault.
We don’t know they think. We only know what they say, and that sometimes shifts with the needs of the moment. I tend to view inconsistency with a suspicious eye, when someone pretends to expound upon bedrock principles.
I consider abuse of power and oath breaking to be grounds for removal from high public office. Those who argue it isn’t are advocating for license to do so. Obviously. I can’t think of any sound reasoning that would lend to a different conclusion.
Bullshit quote of the day: “In this trial, in this moment, Mr. Giuliani is just a minor player. That shiny object designed to distract you.”
Right. How many times were how many people told by Donald Trump to “Call Rudy” or “Talk to Rudy”?
Here’s an idea: Let’s call him in to testify under oath.
@Greg:
You still haven’t answered my question. Why are you avoiding answering?
@Greg:
You’re diverting again, Comrade Greggie.
Answer my question.
@Greg: If we dont know what they think how can the house managers claim to know what was in the mind of Trump?
I dont want this to turn into a Biden trial those issues need to have their own courtroom.
@retire05, #136:
I’m not going to waste my time. You throw out your “Answer my question” demand anytime you can’t think of an intelligent response. If you want an answer, look it up for yourself.
@Greg:
COWARD
@Greg:
Answer that, Comrade Greggie.
Where can we look it up?
The Clinton trial began with sexual harassment not the intern with her dress.
Jones vs Clinton.
Impeachment is dead.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-defense-hunter-biden-john-bolton-senate?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20foxnews%2Fpolitics%20%28Internal%20-%20Politics%20-%20Text%29
I agree with Dep—-Lets bring in Bolton—-Young Biden as well
American people want it 69%—it’s called an investigation
Nothing to hide or is there?
Bloomberg beats Trump—-still love Tulsi in 2024 or 2028
@Richard Wheeler: The investigation is done this is the trial. I would hope the Senate isnt foolish enough to get suckered into Schiffs trap. Where the House makes accusations and expects the Senate to make their case for them.
The houses SOLE power and with power comes responsibility.
@retire05: greggie is not a coward. He would have to store some knowledge between his ears and it is quite evident that there is only air between his ears.
@Randy:
Most useful idiots are cowards. That’s why they try to make sure the alligator eats them last.
But the way he blathers on makes me think he’s been committed to some psych ward. Maybe that’s why he seems to show up pretty much the same time every day.
Or he’s in an out of country time zone.
@kitt: Trial you say—-without witnesses and testimony and documents?
That would be a sham—no?
@Richard Wheeler: What the house delivered is a sham so deal with it.
Call the same witnesses that they found in the house if the judge allows hearsay.
They were warned over and over and cried that Mitch wouldnt consider their irrefutable case.
The House of Representatives has the “sole Power” to impeach, while the Senate has the sole power to try those impeachments.
@Richard Wheeler: And Joe Biden, Schiff, the Vindman twins, Atkinson and Ciaramella. If we are going witnesses, even though Democrats crowed that they had all the evidence they needed, and the “facts” were undeniable, let’s call those that will show the corruption that Trump was actually concerned with. But, Democrats want to have the same power in the Senate that their majority allowed them to have in the House; block all witnesses except those that sing the same tune… THEIR tune. (only problem was every verse was opinion, hearsay and presumption)
That was the House responsibility. So we agree again; the Democrats presented NO evidence, no valid testimony, no valid witnesses and no incriminating documents to support their sham impeachment articles. Wow, we’re on a streak.
By the way, Tulsi is a Russian asset. We know this because Hillary said so and no Democrats came to Tulsi’s defense; they just abandoned her and hung her out to dry, and supporting Bernie the communist didn’t help her any, either.
@retire05, #139:
I realize you’re only satisfied if one of your angry insults is the last word of any exchange, so I thought I’d punch that particular button by making the observation. I’m curious if you have enough self control to refrain from demonstrating that I’m correct.
FOX News op ed, January 28, 2020 — Adam Goodman: Six GOP Senators who hold the cards in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial
Six? I thought there were only four that Mitch was concerned about.