The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[DGuller]

One pragmatic way out of this situation would be to strike a deal , where Republicans agree to remove Trump and maybe his most toxis cronies, in return for Democrats not exposing the rest of GOP as a Quisling party.  It would suck to let the enablers escape responsibility, but sometimes you have to strike such deals.

[Legbiter]

I get CNN international and CNBC.

But I haven't really watched it or the Korean news channels for the past few days. Been on the net 24/7

Yikes.

[Razgovory]

One pragmatic way out of this situation would be to strike a deal , where Republicans agree to remove Trump and maybe his most toxis cronies, in return for Democrats not exposing the rest of GOP as a Quisling party.  It would suck to let the enablers escape responsibility, but sometimes you have to strike such deals.

If we could get some kind of guarantee that Trump won't try to use abuse his office to get his political enemies thrown in jail, I would be satisfied.  I don't know of anything that could do that though.

[The Brain]

One pragmatic way out of this situation would be to strike a deal , where Republicans agree to remove Trump and maybe his most toxis cronies, in return for Democrats not exposing the rest of GOP as a Quisling party.  It would suck to let the enablers escape responsibility, but sometimes you have to strike such deals.

The Republicans have exposed themselves completely for years, so it should be easy for the Democrats to hold up their part of the bargain.

[Josephus]

There are no happy ways out of this.  Only ugly, uglier and oh well we had a good run.

I don't know. I see the Dems trying to impeach. The whole thing gets blocked by the senate. Trump plays his Victim Vindicated card. Wins next election.
And here's the thing, if the Dems play their Impeach card now and fail, it's unlikely they'll try it again. This may be there only chance.

[ulmont]

The latest talking point from the Idiot Party is that it's not a real whistleblower complaint it's "hearsay."  Of course a whistleblower complaint can be based on information learned from others.  "Hearsay" is a set of rules governing how and in what form evidence is admitted into court, it's not an insult or attack on credibility.

1. "Hearsay" is completely an attack on credibility, or you wouldn't have FRE 807.
2. If anyone thinks a statement is inadmissible hearsay, they just haven't looked hard enough for an exception yet.

[jimmy olsen]

The hearsay defense is so weak. The whistleblower left a trail of names and documents that have first hand accounts. Once congress talks to them and gets those documents that defense is blown up.

[jimmy olsen]

Seems Mueller never knew about Trump telling the Russians he didn't care about their election meddling

https://mobile.twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1177922126243721216

Shortly after the story broke, I received a message from a person directly involved with the FBI's decision to open a counterintelligence and obstruction investigation of President Trump in the immediate aftermath of the firing of FBI Director James Comey. To say this person, who had clearly learned about the matter for the first time from the Post, was angered by the story would be to understate the matter.

The message read in relevant part: "None of us had any idea. Multiple people had opportunity and patriotic reason to tell us. Instead, silence."

[Admiral Yi]

Not a good week for The Donald.

[Oexmelin]

Lock him up.

[DGuller]

Not a good week for The Donald.

Not a good week for Mueller either.  Just how diligent was he in hindsight?

[The Minsky Moment]

1. "Hearsay" is completely an attack on credibility, or you wouldn't have FRE 807.

It's not an attack on credibility, it's a mixed bag of a rather confused set of judgments about the mental apparatus of jurors mediated through centuries of common law.

FRE 807 is notorious for its near irrelevance and the rarity of its invocation - it's pending for amendment but no one seems to care.

the implication of FRE 807 either originally or as per the proposed amendment is not that hearsay lacks credibility but arguably opposite - that hearsay can be so credible and significant that it should come in even in the absence of an exception.

[Syt]

[Valmy]

Just a few years ago such a statement by the President would be a shock.

But it is Donald Trump. He is full of shit and everybody knows it.

[The Brain]

Is the US at war?