|
Thom12255 posted:https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1359238199802028035 I'm shocked that the Republicans would be making easily refuted bad faith arguments. It's so unlike them.
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Why... why does that matter? I was under the impression the Senate could just... order people to testify? They're not making any arguments. They know their defense doesn't matter and Republicans will acquit regardless. They're just filling time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
The problem is that there is no "heart of the defense teams argument." It's all just blather.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Today's show has started: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508741-1/impeachment-trial
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:This is all really good evidence that the attack on the capital actually happened. They've made that connection multiple times. Trump planned, encouraged, and praised them start to finish. For example, there was originally a rally planned for Jan. 22, which was changed to Jan. 6 at Trump's request.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:I know, I just genuinely don't think it's being hammered enough Their defense will be "nuh uh" regardless of what the Democrats present.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
I had to have this muted for the last 10 minutes or so. I can see Mike Lee was really pissed about something and Leahy set him straight and now they're calling the roll to get a quorum. What was Lee going on about?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:He's denying that the statements the managers attributed to him about a Trump phone call were true. But won't clarify exactly what is untrue about them. CNN reported the Mike Lee thing and he's saying CNN is lying. The phone calls have been public record for a long time. It's odd that he just happened to object to them now. Somebody is cutting a little too close the the bone, I suspect.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:Wait, Lee's compaining that he didn't literally say "This isn't Tommy" when Trump called his phone? Lee is angry that Lee is being cited as a witness for the prosecution.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I thought senators were not allowed to talk? Lee should be removed from the process and if he has something to say come back as a witness subject to cross examination under penalty of perjury. They were about to adjourn for the day, so no one really wanted to argue about it. Schumer said they'll take it up first thing tomorrow if necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:Is tomorrow the Democrats again or will Trumps clowns be up? Democrats again tomorrow, then two days of Trump defense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
dp
Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I have a question: are the managers allowed to address specific Senators by name? Or is that, like, not within their purview because the Senators couldn't respond? I suspect they would have to be called as witnesses to be directly questioned and cross-examined.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Well I don't mean necessarily that it would be a dialogue. I mean is Raskin allowed to say "Mr. Cruz you said such and such on this date"? They've quoted other Senators (notably Mike Lee) based on press accounts. "Mr. Cruz, I'm told you said..." is hearsay and not admissible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
Murgos posted:This isn't a court of law and doesn't have any legal threshold for evidence. Yes, but it would start a shitshow. Said Senator would object and they'd have to hash it out. We saw last night when Lee objected, they just withdrew the evidence. Polarizing the opposition and solidifying their defiance isn't a good strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I'm sure it's been discussed and I missed it ,but... I'm sure the QAnon folks would be completely persuaded if Trump were convicted on a secret ballot. I don't really see the point of a secret ballot. It would undermine accountability and transparency. No one would admit to voting to convict. A huge conspiracy theory would erupt around Pat Leahy as if he were the only one who knew the outcome. Given the current narrative of a corrupt bureaucracy stealing the election, I see nothing positive coming from it at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
Trump lawyers expected to present short defense as Senate impeachment trial nears endquote:Former president Donald Trump’s lawyers are expected to present a relatively short defense in his Senate impeachment trial on Friday, arguing that his speech was protected by the First Amendment and that House managers failed to show he was responsible for the Jan. 6 violent attack on the Capitol. The lawyers have been allotted 16 hours but say they will use only a fraction of that time. As expected, they're not even going to try. Don't bother watching, it will just infuriate you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
I guess we're going to need some witnesses to verify the truthfulness of the tweets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Not surprisingly, looking up the cases he's citing shows they don't actually support the point he's trying to make.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:How much longer is the trial officially sanctioned for? The defense has up to 16 hours, but they won't use more than 4 of them. Then there's questions and a vote whether or not to call witnesses.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:How is this remotely allowed? Whose job would it be to enforce it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Police officers, lawyers, judge and jury are all under the same law they work to enforce. In the scenario of being able to actually fix this hot mess of a system, the same should be true for members of Congress. If one of them breaks a law a legal trial (not a political one like this gong show) is held, and must work the same as any other legal trial. Senators can still be the jury, but the legal process should function the same as it does for anyone else otherwise. Requiring a bad actor to break a law before they can be removed from office seems like a really huge loophole that will be ripe for abuse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Medullah posted:I don't know why I listen to the callers on Cspan. The Trump ones are just so goddamn delusional. The Republican callers are certainly plants, reading from scripts of talking points. The Democratic ones probably are, too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
generic one posted:*pounding desk* WITNESSES Yeah, the defense counsel is making a pretty good case for more investigation and witnesses.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
Chuck Bartowski posted:I imagine that will come up a few more times as people begin to realize that this isn't actually going to go anywhere. That's been obvious from the start. No one needs to realize it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
generic one posted:So, when does the vote for witnesses happen? Is that tomorrow? Probably.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
Today's session is starting: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508959-1/impeachment-trial
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
eke out posted:a meaningless answer, you can do whatever you want he can be compelled to testify, he just can't be compelled to answer any particular question. 5th Amendment right has to be invoked on a question by question basis. Not everything he could testify to would necessarily be self-incriminating.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
eke out posted:yes, and this is such a huge pain in the rear end and waste of time that it's widely understood there is no point doing this, especially considering he would refuse and we'd spend weeks and then months in contempt proceedings They already brought up the negative inference rule, so Trump's refusal to answer any questions could be useful to them. Calling him knowing it would be a shitshow of him trying to dodge testifying would be the whole point of it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
eke out posted:all of the whining is definitely proof it was the right choice lol They've already said they'd suspend the trial, do depositions by Zoom, and reconvene when they were ready. Senate business would proceed as normal in the meantime. It's what they did with Clinton - paused the trial for evidence gathering. So calling Trump would be exclusively for the spectacle of it with no other downside. The jury here is posterity, not the Republican party. They may decide it's not worth it, but shutting down the Senate in the meantime is not a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:So what is so significant about this congresswoman being called as a witness? Why her? All they need is one to open the process to as many as they want. They don't have to specify all of them up front. She apparently was a witness to McCarthy's phone call with Trump which seems to be a significant issue with Rs at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Why the gently caress did they bail on calling the witness? What deal could republicans have possibly thrown on the table to get them to take the offer? Two hours of debate about the relevance of each witness. Republicans were threatening to call hundreds of frivolous witnesses just to gum up the works and be assholes. Democrats are trying to be serious about governing and government and decided turning impeachment into a carnival was counterproductive. Trump was going to walk regardless of witnesses, so discretion was the better part of valor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:Now, this I don’t get it. Mitch clearly believes that Trump sucks. They were 10 votes shy of getting impeachment done, 9 if McConnell votes for it. Surely this guy could have whipped 9 votes to get it done so they could bar him from office? He certainly could have. The fact that he didn't and wouldn't should tell you a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Mitch is a really bad man and surely hypocritical about stuff but I always feel like people really personify the fact he's the one that speaks for the party in the senate as being him specifically personally doing everything. He goes to meetings and this stuff gets decided, it's not like this is just specifically this guy saying things and it being a thing he came up with himself. Yeah, Mitch's "genius" is in knowing his caucus. He'll go whatever direction they want to. He leads by following, not convincing anyone of anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2021 17:48
|
|