The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[Admiral Yi]

Do you know any Trump supporters personally Raz?

[Maladict]

Black Dragon hasn't posted here in quite a while though.

ussdefiant hasn't logged in since 2009. 

[Tamas]

Black Dragon hasn't posted here in quite a while though.

ussdefiant hasn't logged in since 2009. 

[Josephus]

GOP seems to be moving towards "Yes, he did it, but that's not impeachable."  If this isn't impeachable, what is?  What other recourse is there?  This is very frustrating.

There is no other recourse...well the Supreme Court could declare something he did unconstitutional but that takes awhile.

LOL

[Razgovory]

Do you know any Trump supporters personally Raz?

Sure.

[Razgovory]

So now a Quid Pro Quo is not impeachable because re-electing Trump is in the best interests of the country.  I figured we would get to this point.

[viper37]

So now a Quid Pro Quo is not impeachable because re-electing Trump is in the best interests of the country.  I figured we would get to this point.

The King can do no wrong.

[grumbler]

The King can do no wrong.

That's pretty much the final argument of the Trump defense team:  that, since Trump believes that his re-election is on the national interest, he can use the official power of the executive to ensure his re-election.  Even when what he does is expressly illegal.

I wonder why the issue of hiding the transcript and tape of the conversation by declaring it SCI never came up.  That was the original complaint of the whistle blower.

[Admiral Yi]

Jay Sekulow and Jason Schwartzman, separated at birth?

[grumbler]

Jay Sekulow and Jason Schwartzman, separated at birth?

Separated even before birth.

[The Minsky Moment]

Jay Sekulow and Jason Schwartzman, separated at birth?

Both of them could fit at the same time into the suit Sekulow was wearing yesterday.

[Admiral Yi]

I let out a little gasp when I saw Roberts refuse to read Rand's question.  Hope Rand tells us what the question was.

I was watching on CBS in a car dealership waiting room (oil change) and the other three people there seemed monumentally indifferent to the procedings.  Take that for what you will.

I am furious with the Democrats for refusing to address the Hunter Biden/corruption narrative.  The were given the perfect chance to explain that Joe was leaning on Ukraine to oust the Attorney General who was *impeding* corruption investigation into Burisma, after Roberts gave their side 2 1/2 minutes to respond to the defense's answer to a question (was this another case of Roberts leaning into the Democrats side), but instead of debunking they just trotted out the canned speech about any focus on Hunter distracting from the main focus.  I just don't get it.  They've done what I consider to be questionable moves during the inquiry and impeachment process, but this one just boggles my mind.  They're acting just like people who have something to hide.

[HVC]

I let out a little gasp when I saw Roberts refuse to read Rand's question.  Hope Rand tells us what the question was.

I heard it wasn't read because it named the whistle blower. true?

[Admiral Yi]

I heard it wasn't read because it named the whistle blower. true?

You've got more of the skinny than I do.  That would make sense though.

[Admiral Yi]

There are questions addressed to both sides but only answered by one.  Is that Roberts throwing his weight around?  One side (usually/always?) defense ducking the question and Roberts letting it go?

Roberts has shut down Schiff a couple times.  Seems to be when he switches from arguing the case to preaching.

I'd love to see someone bring a motion to overrule Roberts.