My oh my how I'm enjoying this, whoever thought this was a good idea and an easy way of getting rid of Trump...wow how the table has turned...

To Joe Biden: drop out of the race, bro, you're done.

To mainstream media: do you even watch cspan? Where are you getting your "facts" from?

Anyone else watching this fluff show????

It is great. Bolton should shut his mouth and do as he's told.

No, I want him on the witness stand!

I've been watching yeah. I havent turned in for the question and answer much because i work doubles on Wednesday and Thursday but i caught about 10 hours of each side's opening statements.

It is a bit of a circus tho and takes an awful lot of patience haha. I'd have beers with Hakeem Jeffries and I'd do some blow with Sekulow. First observations. Haha

I think John Bolton turning the trial into a book tour because 2020 might be the most 2020 thing ever. Otherwise it's nothing really earthshaking. One side saying it was perfect and the other side saying it's criminal. Kinda been that way all along.

I'm mostly tuned in for the debates on article 2 tho so a lot of it is extremely boring to me. But I'm curious if the legislative branch will forgo its powers of oversight in favor of executive privilege because i think that affects the future. Assuming they do subpeona documents and witnesses, I think Trump people will clog them up in the courts and stuff like that. So it will not seemingly affect this administration at all.

But still, going forward I'd like to see congress have a strengthened ability to conduct oversight. So I'm just sorta interested where the debate is on that and that's sorta the point you see some GOP waver on.

In the event we were to elect a ruthless evil criminal person, it'd be good to know they aren't insulated by executive privilege from congressional oversight. But again, i think it's a debate that has little to no impact on this administration. It's just for the future really

You already had nixon.

You know, in 6 years, the US will celebrate 250 years. I think there should be a march on Washington on July 4th 2026 with the intention that if the Government doesn't unfluff itself by then, "The People" will do the job for them.

Bread and circuses man. As long as the people are divided they'll never overcome each other to do such a thing. They just infight. That's why powerful people all over the world invest so heavily on keeping us divided. And we've never bought it more than right meow.

I haven't seen any of it

Not even a YouTube clip

But I do not live in the USA

But I did watch several months of the OJ Simpson trial on CNN

How does this compare?

can you link some of the highlights on youtube or whatever?

so far all i saw was Justice Roberts denying rand pauls question....which was so egregious and hilarious...what a scam

C-SPAN Google it.

KoH: there is still no evidence the bidens committed any crime. Trump's defence has not actually addressed the charges against him, simply gone "LOOK OVER THERE!!!".
Here's the deal. If the Republicans have actual evidence of wrongdoing, then impeach Joe and indict Hunter. (which they won't do because they don't. Their whole Burisma conspiracy theory has been refuted time and again).

At the end of the day, Trump has simply turned even his very trial into a smear campaign, rather than simply defending the charges. And the reason is that he knows that no matter what the evidence, they could have a literal recording of the call with him clearly demanding a quid pro quo, they could have direct witnesses saying he did it, they HAVE a direct admission on the withholding evidence on camera from trump himself gloating about it, and the republicans STILL would not convict.

LMFAO funniest thing I've read in a while considering the fact that Joe even admitted to screwing over the Ukraine during one of his fund raisers,...

10/10 Drow!

Continue watching CNN!

I mean really, you don't need to watch the mainstream media's spin and scripted talking points with the tools we have today to get the truth, unless of course you need to feel good about your puppet masters, all you have to do is watch the unedited testimony from BOTH SIDES and use the internet to fact check...it's really not difficult!

Joe was caught gloating on camera vs Trump who was the lyrics to a song "i heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who..."

So how do you see joe as not being guilty when it's on tape? Cgi?

Maybe we do need to bring back civics test to vote.

CNN said so!

But YOU rooted for CNN and Mainstream media during campaign period! What a hypocrite. lol.

The new one starting to brew is some lady from NY coming out to say trump raped her in 95 or 96.

I dont even think a soldier that was deployed for 15 months would have touched her yet the guy who buys pornstars apparently did.

KoH is correct...

Hmm, I honestly don't remember rooting for an organization that flat out lies to the public, please show me this, surely if I did it you are putting it out of context.

My sports team is the best sports team, we score all the goals, win all the championships and take home all the trophies.


It's a shame there are no goals, championships or trophies and all the players in the league are corrupt war criminals

10/10

So... watching Adam Schiff spew fluff out of his mouth, it seems we have a new narrative, "Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in order to help him cheat in the election"... I mean...what the flying fluff????, How does that even work???, I'm officially dumbfounded... WOW, we went from Russia collusion to holding aid from Ukraine in order to win, how does that even work in an equation, wait wait, uhm....no, no,....hmmm ugh, yeah I'm speechless now, I need to try and digest this new development and see if it even has an outside chance of getting traction... withheld aid in order to cheat....wut!

If trump expected biden to win the dems candidacy then having a 'dossier' on him and his sons dealings in the ukraine might be an unfair, banana Republic way of politics come 2020.

That being said it is a legitimate concern of a sitting president if a top level murcan has a son doing blow in the usn and then works for shady Europeans. (I know that is redundant.)

Crenshaw 2024.

Like i said, I'm curious about the precedent of executive privilege going forward, but i highly doubt Trump or for that matter Biden get like found guilty of something. That'd be really counterintuitive to the criminal enterprise up top that likes us nice and divided.

KoH, don't 10/10 sin and immediately post a one sided rant about the dems. Were all tired of it and know for a fact they're all criminals.

If you need me to print the constitution separation of powers i will, but that's you know. Gonna make me seem like i align with those other criminals. Since i don't you know. Curious about executive privilege. That's all haha.

As i read the ole paper, defying a Congressional subpeona is already obstruction of congress for the executive branch. That plainly in and of itself is a crime. HOWEVER, this Congress could give the power to the executive branch to say it's not. But regardless everything else will be jammed up in the courts. So it's literally a going forward type debate. We'll see Haha

Does executive privilege work retroactively?
Can Barry come out and say the bidens were doing the bidding of the us on his behest as the ruler of the free world and are exempt?

Hashtag scandalfreepresidency

Actually, I haven't been following CNN. AP and Politico, both of whom are more or less generally own the centre. Also, the ABC here in Aus, which is generally fairly down the centre as well.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
The impeachment was on two counts.
The first was over the call which was brought to the world's attentio by the whistleblower, in which it is alleged, and pretty well backed up, that Trump withheld congressionally approved funds from the Ukraine, specifically in return for the Ukraine announcing a fresh investigation specifically into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. (Just as a side note, this is all occuring right after Russia annexed the crimean peninsula from the Ukraine.) This would benefit Trump directly, and effectively be a foreign interference in the election, by effectively smearing a candidate externally, even if it came out that there was no evidence of wrongdoing, which every investigation into their behaviours so far has found.
the pressure to fire the prosecutor, who was recognised globally as being corrupt as fluff, was not applied until well after the investigation into Burisma had closed, meaning that, if anything, Biden would have been putting himself at increased risk if he had done anything shady, via a fresh prosecutor re opening the case.

For the record, if the Bidens HAVE committed a crime, then by all means, impeach Joe, and indict Hunter. Charge and convict them. I'm not opposed to those abusing the powers of their offices being nailed for it.

Lastly, just remember, that the precedent being set here in this trial, is that the behaviour that Trump is exhibiting, WILL be acceptable for all future presidents, whether they are democrat, republican, or by some kind of a miracle, independent.
Just keep that in mind.

Compare Trump's actions in gagging all evidence to congress to both Nixon (who didn't get impeached, but would have been if he hadn't resigned) and Clinton. Both of whom freely and voluntarily handed over all evidence and documents requested by the house.
if my (admittedly partially faulty) memory serves, the same thing happened in Andrew Jackson's impeachment trial.

Now imagine going to court, and having the Jury tell you that you aren't allowed to call any witnesses to testify to your case, and that you should have gotten better evidence initially. That's currently McConnell's attitude.


The second charge, which Trump has boasted about on national television is one of obstruction of justice, by deliberately withholding evidence and preventing witnesses from speaking.

Mulvaney admitted to the first charge on Trump's behalf on national television. Derschowitz has literally tried to argue the exact opposite of his arguments back in 1998 in regard's to Clinton's impeachent, and the whole time, they have not actually addressed the charges against Trump.

No one has ever thought this was an easy way of getting rid of Trump.
In fact, it was pretty much agreed by all even before the impeachment proceedings began, that Trump would get off, because he controls the Republican Party, and they have the majority, and there's zero chance, even if he were to literally shoot someone in the street in cold blood, of 20 Republicans crossing the floor to vote guilty with EVERY democrat AND independent to get the 67 votes required for a conviction if it actually went to a full hearing.
At this point, the Republicans are, as they were once the articles were written up, intending to run as fast as they can through the remaining question time, then casually vote to dismiss without actually deliberating on the evidence, or completing the hearing process.

As long as we are on the same page. Congress has set the new norm for starting the impeachment process. The left should not get upset when a partisan impeachment of a leftist president takes place in the future.


"Now imagine going to court, and having the Jury tell you that you aren't allowed to call any witnesses to testify to your case, and that you should have gotten better evidence initially. That's currently McConnell's attitude."

Did that not already happen in congress? In America you have the right to face your accusers. Trump was never given this liberty and anyone who watched the process in Congress can see when the right was silenced by the left.

Well to be fair, the Left makes the rules, new rule, you get no defense.

So in other words, this is just a smear campaign by the left because they can't stand the fact that a former Democrat donor ran as a Republican and beat US version of Evita Perón, first the Russia collusion and went nowhere and in fact was founded on a dosier paid for by the democrats with the intention to derail Trump's presidency, and now this "whistleblower" that heard from a friend of a friend sparks an impeachment hearing in Congress with no ability for the defense to even think about defending themselves because that CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT was stripped, then moves on to the Senate where their job is to review the evidence...but there is no evidence that holds water, so now we demand more time and more investigations.....yeah seems legit.

Carry on.

Im actually kind of hoping the appeals in the case (i.e. Don Mcgahn) eventually reach the supreme court and the high court supports the constitution in that defying a congressional subpeona citing executive privilege is in and of itself obstruction of congress. But the way those are jammed up in the courts, i don't think the high court will make a blanket ruling so it will have a trickle effect.

Considering guys like that have gotten removed from their roles in a lot of cases, congress won't have a case for impeachment against anyone, and things will seemingly work themselves out in courts sorta after the fact.

Best case scenario is I think for any FUTURE president not to be able to defy a congressional subpeona, as is built into our constitution, but that people make their decision on trump in November.

I do have some faith that a good judicial precedent comes out of these dark and divisive times that shields us from a tyrannical ruler in the future. In this case, i think Lamar Alexander is right. It's improper but maybe doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. But on article 2, congress seems unwillong to protect its rights which is a dangerous precedent. That said, something must be ruled in the courts eventually to protect congress's duty of oversight. And it seems like that will be the case.

Historically America has to have an ugly moment to change. I think both sides being criminal makes a strong case for transparency across the board, and i think court decisions forthcoming will reflect that.

How about his right for a defense? That is a constitutional right that was violated by Congress, no? We now get to pick and choose what to violate/enforce depending on who runs what show?

I don't think that was violated, no. He literally has defense lawyers currently presenting a case and in the house they're really just supposed to collect evidence. In that regard, they attempted to and their subpeonas were defied. That's not how it's supposed to work.

Trump isn't supposed to present a defense to the house tho. That's pretrail fluff. His defense is supposed to be in senate which has absolutely happened.

Trumps defense now has an opportunity to address those witnesses, and is choosing to push for them not to speak, and for the trial to end hastily. If he wanted his lawyers to have a chance to speak to the house managers witnesses, like any trial, it happens at the trial. Not in some shakedown. Not during collection of evidence. That's literally not how a trial works.

So yes to my question, we pick and choose what to violate/enforce, got it, carry on.

I mean, in theory, you're spot on.

A president could be totally corrupted and compromised by every enemy government in the world, however, if he has a supermajority in congress, it's likely he won't even get investigated.

That's pretty much just a fact. Yeah.

I know I'm right and you should be appalled by it because if you get accused of something you wouldn't like to not have a chance to present your case, that is straight out of North Korea, bro.

Hard disagree. Senate is his jury. When someone makes a case against someone in any court, they make the case to the jury.

During fazes of submitting subpeonas and collecting evidence and witnesses, there's not a case to present to anyone. Both sides be just collecting evidence for a trial where they display it to a jury i.e. senate. Trumps lawyers and house managers have had equal time to present to the jury. That's like.....how to trial for idiots.

If you're in jail for murder, having your lawyer present their case to the cops that arrested you doesn't do fluff. You must have him present to the jury which has happened.

Pretty much.

Honestly it seems like if trump's team wanted to address the witnesses and whatnot, they'd do it now, especially considering new evidence likely is unavailable. Would be a good setting for trumps lawyers to put the screws to some of these folks. It just doesn't seem worth the time because acquittal is almost certain and primaries start Monday.

They absolutely do have a system set up where, should they be in favor of it, they could interview any of the witnesses on national television like tomorrow. Haha. They're choosing not to, and not because anyone is obstructing them from it, but because it legitimately doesn not change anything or benefit anyone.

They should interview everyone involved, period, put it all out there.

Yeah. You and like 78% of americans think that. That's something almost everyone agrees on. It seems silly not to. But whaaaaatver. I think the GOP just doesn't want it to drag into the election process so they're like fluff it. Just get it over with. Haha

No KoH.
Or at least no completely.
The Dems do legitimately believe that what they are doing is in the good of the country. That Trump HAS blatantly and openly abused his power as president, and bluntly, from the evidence available, even from Republican witnesses (such as Volkers and Sondland) is that he DID do exactly that.

The second charge of Obstruction, he has most definitely done.

Like I say, he has set the precedent.



No Hawk. A few things here.

First, the House part is an investigation, just like the police investigating a murder, and the prosecution building their case. So no, of course Trump doesn't get to mount a defence there, that comes at the senate Trial.

Second, and just as importantly: The Dems actively invited Trump and his team to be ionvolved in the house process, and actively invited him to send a representative to the witness hearings etc, and the White House refused.

Third: Republican House members were actively involved in the House process, as both sides of the house have members on all committees, including those that were involved in the Trump investigation, and they were actively involved in Q&A and in the investigation process.

Lastly, the little stunt by certain Republican House members was exactly that, a stunt, designed to draw the victim card at Trump's request, when they blatantly KNEW, Just the same as with Clinton's impeachment investigation, that only the members on the committees were allowed to be in there listening. Indeed, the Rep[ublicans were very very big on secret testimony during Clinton's impeachment, so I guess it's one set of rules for them, and another set for everyone else.

(I'm not opposed to Clinton having been impeached either.)

Now, what I would REALLY like to see, is Clinton and Trump further investigated over Epstein. Both have huge ties to him, and both have been let go over them.

https://www.politico.com/...se-house-judiciary-074712


White House refused to participate.

Republicans have used their numbers, as expected, to refuse to hear further witnesses (including at least one direct eyewitness in Bolton.)

I would expect that they will now vote to dismiss, and leave it at that.
Hardly name clearing, but Trump will claim it as such anyway, jsut like he did after the Mueller report, which specifically said it couldn't clear the president.

BUT, it's a reminder that the modern GoP WILL actively allow illegal behaviour from the president so long as he is a republican.

And yes, by extension that the Dems will allow it from a Dem president.

Unfortunately, the Dems now have precedent to point back to, and the republicans can't defend against it.

LOL

Dude whatever you're smoking you need to share. Enjoy when reps control the house and want to impeach a dem president because they cannot win the election coming up.

Tell me why anyone would have wanted to walk in front of that firing squad investigation in the house. The cards were stacked against him. The only great thing to come out of it was the small bipartisan support not to impeach him.

How am I supposed to take you serious when you can't seem to comprehend basic language? "Refusal to participate in first hearing" does not mean they didn't want to present a defense, it simply means what it says, they refused to partake in the FIRST hearing.

Ugh SMH

OK, this is happy horsefluff at best, right here.

Drow, let me break it down for you then, since you have obviously had your leftist blinders on for far too long.

1. Hunter Biden has no (ZERO), (ZILCH), (ZIP point fluff) experience in ANY Energy company.
2. Joe Biden is the current vice-president of the US

(those are the preliminary circumstances

3. Hunter Biden gets hired by a Ukranian Energy Company (Burisma) for 83K a month out of the blue.
4. The Ukrainian government starts cracking down on corruption and an investigation is launched into the doings of Burisma.

5. Joe Biden demands that they cease that investigation and threatens to hold up a military aid package to the Ukraine if they don't fire the prosecutor that is investigating Burisma and his son.
6. Ukraine caves to the demand and Joe Biden is recorded crowing about it.
7. The leftists start blaming Donald Trump for it.

Need any more explanation of events?