The Impeachment Thread

[Rasputin_Vol]

(Allen Iverson voice): We're talking about Ukraine...

 

[vols40]

For clarity it's 18. ICIG Atkinson testified in the bunker but for some reason Schifty won't release transcripts of that

 

[Orange defense]

I thought the answer to any question to the house managers is "we need more witnesses.... relevant witnesses not the irrelevant smear witnesses the WH wants to call"... or "I am very protective of my staff and nobody knows nothin' 'bout the whistleblower!"

They’ve already had 17 witnesses, and blocked the whistleblower, should’ve been 18, so Jim Jordan could’ve caught him in a bunch of lies.

 

[vols40]

Should we start a new thread for the next impeachment hearings or just keep this one open?

At the very least thread title should be changed

 

[MontyPython]

Curious. Pelosi expressed some interesting thoughts today that got me thinking. Could the democrats claim a mistrial should the Senate reject all witnesses and evidence?

 

[volfanhill]

Curious. Pelosi expressed some interesting thoughts today that got me thinking. Could the democrats claim a mistrial should the Senate reject all witnesses and evidence?

No. I mean they can claim whatever they want but it won’t be accurate.

 

[vols40]

It's funny how quick the right is to admit their guys are douche bags, once they turn against their dear leader. Where were the attacks on John Bolton's character while he was still serving as National Security Adviser? (cue the sound of crickets chirping in a forest)

I'd rather go by what John Bolton is on video tape saying about the warm and cordial calls to President Zelensky. Not the NY SLIMES dissertation of a manuscript they are yet to see.

 

[MontyPython]

No. I mean they can claim whatever they want but it won’t be accurate.

Hmmm. Ever heard of a trial with no witnesses and no evidence admitted to the record?

 

[1972 Grad]

Curious. Pelosi expressed some interesting thoughts today that got me thinking. Could the democrats claim a mistrial should the Senate reject all witnesses and evidence?

Sure she could. That and a couple of bucks will get her a medium coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

 

[0nelilreb]

Hmmm. Ever heard of a trial with no witnesses and no evidence admitted to the record?

It’s not a trial by law , it’s a trial by majority vote .

 

[volfanjustin]

Hmmm. Ever heard of a trial with no witnesses and no evidence admitted to the record?

There were witnesses and any of those witnesses would be allowed to testify in the Senate

 

[volfanhill]

Hmmm. Ever heard of a trial with no witnesses and no evidence admitted to the record?

It’s not a typical court trial. They vote and it’s over. That’s it. Pelosi can’t appeal the decision. It’s squadeuche.

 

[volfanjustin]

Listening to Tim Scott seems at this sham will likely be over tomorrow night, he said he thinks vote will be 51-49 to not call witnesses

 

[C-south]

Curious. Pelosi expressed some interesting thoughts today that got me thinking. Could the democrats claim a mistrial should the Senate reject all witnesses and evidence?

They can start the process all over from the beginning and keep getting the same result. That kinda fits a certain definition of something.

 

[0nelilreb]

That can start the process all over from the beginning and keep getting the same result. That kinda fits a certain definition of something.

If Pelosi is already talking damage control and calling it a “mistrial “, she already knows it’s over and all that’s left is the vote .

 

[volfanjustin]

Curious. Pelosi expressed some interesting thoughts today that got me thinking. Could the democrats claim a mistrial should the Senate reject all witnesses and evidence?

If polident Pelosi expresses some interesting thoughts today, that would be a first

 

[volfanjustin]

If Pelosi is already talking damage control and calling it a “mistrial “, she already knows it’s over and all that’s left is the vote .

Funny how the very ones who ran a sham impeachment hearing in the House want to criticize how the Senate conducts the trial

 

[RavinDave]

It will be interesting to see what Roberts does if the vote for witnesses comes in 50-50. Will he break the tie or abstain?

I heard it stated yesterday that if the vote is 50-50 it will be chalked up to the R's.

Not sure what was the basis for that.

Usually it's the VP (currently Pence), as I'm sure you know, who would cast the last vote in case of a deadlock but that may not apply in impeachment proceedings and if it's up to Roberts nobody knows how he would vote.

 

[Mick]

If Pelosi is already talking damage control and calling it a “mistrial “, she already knows it’s over and all that’s left is the vote .

Is it "over" after they dismiss the articles? You and the rest of the Trumpers will be claiming victory and screeching that they're still investigating , fake news, Shifty schiff, overthrow a duly elected President, coup, hoax, witch hunt, no collusion. It's not going to be the political victory you had hoped for.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I'd rather go by what John Bolton is on video tape saying about the warm and cordial calls to President Zelensky. Not the NY SLIMES dissertation of a manuscript they are yet to see.

You continue to hold out hope that John Bolton's book wont be corroborating the allegations made under Article I: Abuse of Power from the Articles of Impeachment. If what The New York Times had reported was false information, don't you think that either John Bolton or a member of Bolton's legal team, or even the publisher, would have corrected the record by now? This report is a week old now. And who do you think leaked the contents of Bolton's book to The New York Times in the first place?

 

[RavinDave]

You continue to hold out hope that John Bolton's book wont be corroborating the allegations made under Article I: Abuse of Power from the Articles of Impeachment. If what The New York Times had reported was false information, don't you think that either John Bolton or a member of Bolton's legal team, or even the publisher, would have corrected the record by now? This report is a week old now. And who do you think leaked the contents of Bolton's book to The New York Times in the first place?

Bolton of course.

 

[0nelilreb]

Is it "over" after they dismiss the articles? You and the rest of the Trumpers will be claiming victory and screeching that they're still investigating , fake news, Shifty schiff, overthrow a duly elected President, coup, hoax, witch hunt, no collusion. It's not going to be the political victory you had hoped for.

We were talking about the Senate trial part will be over . Not one person here thinks the left will stop trying to remove Trump . Your party isn’t smart enough for that . They will keep on until they cost themselves seats in the House and Senate . Then ... it will be “ OVER” .

 

[BowlBrother85]

Bolton of course.

That would be my guess too.

 

[Mick]

You continue to hold out hope that John Bolton's book wont be corroborating the allegations made under Article I: Abuse of Power from the Articles of Impeachment. If what The New York Times had reported was false information, don't you think that either John Bolton or a member of Bolton's legal team, or even the publisher, would have corrected the record by now? This report is a week old now. And who do you think leaked the contents of Bolton's book to The New York Times in the first place?

There's probably a witness to Trump telling Bolton that.

 

[Orange defense]

Now you have to worry about this-When McConnell goes to vote on the articles, crying Chick Schumer can delay it by wanting to move to vote on this witness, or other things. When he does that he can make it hard prolonging this thing as long as he wants. Every motion that he makes, can be debated up to one hour. Chuck Schumer could make this thing go all the way to to November if he wants, that pos, will try to prolong this thing as long as he wants. Now, the only other way to stop this crap, would be McConnell to go to nuclear, and stop it. I think that is going to have to be done here.