Schumer wants to perpetuate the farce -- the Democrats have had their day, and the ankle-biters in the House have failed to capture the public sentiment. Nobody but the media is interested in prolonging this circus.

^^^^^^. Just watch Chuckie squeal like a stuck pig as soon as he is told no. He knows he will get rejected and will be in front of the pre called pressser saying how unfair the Republicans are.

The press will eat it up and the last 3 weeks will never be brought up for comparison.

Schumer is the personification of a gutless, sleazy, slimy, underhanded political hack. Normally I make judgments of people based solely upon facts that I know. This guy on the other hand stirs a visceral reaction of anger and aversion every time I see him or hear him on TV. I suspect he affects millions of others the same way as well. Keep talking, Chuck.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
Schumer is the personification of a gutless, sleazy, slimy, underhanded political hack. Normally I make judgments of people based solely upon facts that I know. This guy on the other hand stirs a visceral reaction of anger and aversion every time I see him or hear him on TV. I suspect he affects millions of others the same way as well. Keep talking, Chuck.

But apparently not to those who count: The people who keep re-electing him.

I agree with you, personally. I call him Upchuck Schumer because every time I see his face or hear his voice I want to puke.

What was it Obama said about his opinion of gay marriage? He was against it but his thinking has "evolved" to now be in favor of it. Well my opinion has "evolved" on this impeachment farce. I now feel it's time to end it. No trial, just end it. Why has my thinking evolved on this? I read E Donald Elliott's report in The American Spectator. I do not trust Chief Justice John Roberts. Not one bit. Not at all. Ever. However much I am disturbed to pattern anything after Obama I have to do a 180 on this.

From the American Spectator:


Chief Justice Roberts May Decide the Next Election
What evidence he admits will mold the public’s view of impeachment.

Whatever its legal merit or lack thereof, the upcoming impeachment trial in the Senate is a political show trial that is intended to affect the upcoming presidential election for sure. So let’s consider the political implications, not the legal merits.

The latest news is that the Republican leadership is thinking about trying to vote to acquit President Trump without a trial or hearing any witnesses. That has never been done, but it would be a smart move politically. Despite the president’s statements that he wants a full trial in the Senate, an impeachment trial is unlikely to help President Trump win reelection. How a Senate trial will come across to the public will depend on which evidence Chief Justice John Roberts allows and which he excludes. Most of the evidence that the Democrats want to admit could probably be presented, but a lot of the most important evidence that the Republicans want to present probably would not be allowed. Those who think that the Republicans can turn the tables on the Democrats and put Hunter Biden and FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign on trial in the Senate are probably sadly mistaken.

Article I, Section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution provides that the chief justice of the United States shall preside during an impeachment trial of the president, but the Constitution does not specify what rules govern what may be admitted into evidence. In one precedent, the impeachment trial of Federal Judge James Peck in 1831, the Senate decided that the same strict rules of evidence that are used in criminal trials in court should also apply in impeachments, and in particular that any evidence must be “relevant” to the charges alleged as the basis for impeachment.

Chief Justice Roberts never served as a trial judge, so there is no track record on which to base predictions as to how he will rule. It isn’t even certain what law he will apply. Until relatively recently, what evidence could be introduced in court was governed by the common law, which means judges apply and reinterpret precedents as they go along. But in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted to govern trials in federal trial courts. Technically, they do not apply to impeachment trials in the Senate, but it is a good bet that Chief Justice Roberts will turn to them for guidance anyway. If he does, that’s generally good for the Democrats and bad for the Republicans. The Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted when it was fashionable to do away with “technicalities”; their general philosophy is to allow evidence to be admitted for whatever weight it deserves, but only if it is “relevant” to the issues.

The Republicans have been arguing that much of the evidence against the president is “hearsay,” which means that the people testifying did not observe something directly but only heard about it secondhand.

Historically, hearsay was generally not admissible for the truth of its contents because it was felt to be unreliable and because the person who actually heard or saw the events in question was not subject to cross-examination. Today, however, the rule against admitting hearsay is “riddled with exceptions,” as Stanford Law Professor David Alan Sklansky rightly observes.

The Federal Rules of Evidence are particularly weak on excluding hearsay. Rule 803(8)(a)(ii) provides a broad exception for “public records,” which are defined as “a record or statement of a public office if … it sets out … a matter observed while under a legal duty to report.” This almost certainly will be interpreted to allow the memorandum of conversation, a.k.a. the “transcript,” of President Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine to be admitted; query, however, whether or not it might not also be interpreted to allow into evidence various other memos and notes sent by officials to one another interpreting what the president’s intentions and motivations were in asking the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens.

Even if that exception does not apply, the Federal Rules of Evidence also include a very broad “residual exception” that allows hearsay to be admitted even if it doesn’t come within one of the recognized exceptions if

the statement is supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness — after considering the totality of circumstances under which it was made and evidence, if any, corroborating the statement; and it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.

That’s broad enough that it could conceivably cover almost everything that the Democrats want to get in about how to interpret the call with the president of Ukraine, depending upon how Chief Justice Roberts applies vague concepts such as “sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness” and “corroborating” circumstances.

On the other hand, the Federal Rules of Evidence are relatively strict on the materials that the Republicans want to get into evidence, such as the history of Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma or the FBI surveillance aka “spying” on the 2016 Trump campaign. The general philosophy of the Federal Rules of Evidence is that litigants should not be allowed to waste the court’s time on matters that are not strictly “relevant” to the issues being tried. The general definition of relevant evidence in the Federal Rules of Evidence is anything that “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” The Democrats will undoubtedly argue, as they did successfully in the intelligence committee hearings, that testimony about the Bidens is not “of consequence in determining the action” of whether or not to impeach the president and should therefore be excluded. That ruling would also arguably be supported by the 1831 Senate precedent in Judge Peck’s case, which also held that, to be admitted, evidence had to be relevant to the grounds alleged for impeachment. Moreover, even if evidence is deemed marginally relevant, it can also be excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence for “confusing the issues, … undue delay, [or] wasting time.”

The impeachment of a president is not a criminal trial, and if I were presiding, I’d allow latitude to explore the president’s mental state and reasons for uttering these words in his call with the Ukrainian president:

There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it.

Rightly or wrongly, what was in the president’s mind when he uttered those fateful few words is the key issue in the impeachment charges as framed by the House. Was his motivation to “dig up dirt” on a political opponent, a legitimate request to enforce the law and weed out corruption, or both? The president and his supporters deserve every opportunity to put his words in context and to explain what he intended. But how Chief Justice Roberts will rule on that remains a mystery, and whether his rulings will be upheld or overturned by a majority of the Senate is also unclear.

The chief justice will rule in the first instance on objections to testimony or documents offered in evidence, but his rulings may be overruled by a majority of the Senate, where the Republicans hold a slim 53-47 majority. This means that the Republicans can only lose two votes and still overrule the chief justice’s evidentiary rulings. Unless they pick up some votes from Democratic senators, which seems unlikely, losing two votes results in a 51-49 majority, which would overrule the chief justice’s ruling. But lose one more, and a 50-50 tie vote would mean that the chief justice’s ruling stands. Unlike ordinary legislation, on which Vice President Mike Pence can vote to break a tie in the Senate, the vice president plays no role in the impeachment of a president.

The Republicans cannot count on getting 51 votes to overrule the chief justice’s evidentiary rulings. Whoever heard of a legal issue on which 51 out of 53 lawyers agree? Plus, even if the Republicans could muster enough votes to overrule the chief justice, wouldn’t the public be skeptical of politicians overruling the chief justice on a technical point of law, particularly on a party-line vote?

The Republicans’ vote margin is much wider on removing the president from office. On that, two-thirds of the Senate, 67 votes, are required. This supermajority vote requirement for removal means that the legal result of an impeachment trial is not in doubt; barring any major unforeseen developments, the president is certain to be acquitted by the Senate and to remain in office. The political result of the impeachment trial, and its effect on the November elections, is far less certain, however, and will depend on how Chief Justice Roberts rules on objections to admitting certain kinds of evidence and whether or not a majority of the Senate overrules him.

If I were advising the president, I would counsel him to listen to Mitch McConnell and opt for a summary acquittal rather than take the risk of a Senate trial with Chief Justice Roberts presiding, which will affect the election.

Link

I have no faith Chief Justice Roberts will do the right thing or even the lawful thing.

Sad, but his ruling on obamacare branded him. Like FBI Dir Wray, the perception of reputation is more important to Roberts than making hard decisions that go with his job.

^^^^^
Pretty good photoshop...

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
^^^^^
Pretty good photoshop...

Why ya say photoshop? He’s at the Army Navy game.

You can tell the difference in pixilation/focus between the midshipmen surrounding the President's head/hat. Plus the fact NO ONE is concentrating on the President. And if I were one of the guys directly behind him, I would have been trying to see "around" Pres. Trump's head...especially the dude over the President's right shoulder. JMHO...

Yup...watched the game and enjoyed seeing Mr. President in attendance!!

Dow gains 10,000th point since Trump's election
Market surge heightens stakes in 2020

By Jonathan GarberFOXBusiness

FOX BUSINESS NEWS > https://www.foxbusiness.com/ma...ince-trumps-election
The stock market has been unstoppable under the influence of President Trump.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average crossed 28,332.74 on Monday, meaning it has rallied 10,000 points, or more than 54 percent, since Trump’s election victory on November 8, 2016. The benchmark S&P 500 has gained more than 46 percent.

“The rally has been driven by pro-growth measures, de-escalation of trade tensions, huge liquidity injections by central banks and a FOMO approach by investors worried about missing out on a remarkable U.S. market outperformance that has set one record high after the other.” Mohamed El-Arian, chief economic adviser at Allianz, told FOX Business."
......MORE
"

Black voter support for Trump at ‘highest levels,’ could seal 2020 win

https://www.washingtonexaminer...-could-seal-2020-win

Kanye West isn’t the only one anymore.

A growing number of polls show that President Trump is gaining the support of black voters above what any Republican president has ever received. Both Emerson Polling and Rasmussen Reports have it at about 34%, a stunning number.

And a new Zogby Analytics survey found that African American support is at the “highest levels of the year,” driven by a strong economy, historically low black unemployment, and Trump’s agenda to support minority small businesses, historically black colleges and universities, and passage of criminal justice reform.

“Not surprisingly, all African Americans do not hate Trump!” pollster Jonathan Zogby said in sharing his data with us.

But Trump critics don’t buy it. Democratic and Barack Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is one. He rejected the reasoning that black support is growing and suggested that the polls are wrong.

“Those reasons would assume that it’s real, which it isn’t. To have a conversation about the reason is giving it credibility,” he said.

“I’m not going to bad mouth anyone’s polling here, but particularly with small subsamples, you get blips. When you look across the data and even look back to see what the trend is, it’s pretty apparent that numbers like that are outliers,” added Belcher, the founder of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies.

To answer those concerns, Zogby “oversampled” black voters in his latest survey and found that the support was 27%, but he also measured support in head-to-head matchups with 2020 Democratic candidates to put that support to an election test.

In all cases, while black support for Trump dropped when an alternative was offered, it was higher than the 8% he received in 2016 and maybe enough to push him across the finish line first in 2020.

Against Joe Biden, Trump receives 12% of the black vote. Against Sen. Bernie Sanders, it was 14%. And against Sen. Elizabeth Warren, it was 17%.

While he had a 5% margin of error, Zogby said the trend is clear. “If Trump is able to up his numbers over 10% or near 15%, and with a lower turnout among African Americans because they are not excited by the field of candidates or turned off by D.C., Trump could really benefit from this scenario in the 2020 general election,” he told us.


hey are cautious with their confidence, believing that the polls are just starting to capture a pro-Trump black voter trend that they want to continue.

“The only story here is that the support is increasing,” said senior campaign official Katrina Pierson. “It’s on the rise. It’s not decreasing. It’s going in the right direction,” she said.

Pierson recalled that long before running for president, Trump was respected in the black community, a friend of celebrities, such as Don King, and politicians, including Jesse Jackson.

But when he ran for the presidency, the Democratic playbook demanded that he be smeared as a “racist,” and that took root, and it has taken time to overcome.

“He couldn't understand it at first, and it’s very frustrating. But it came with the baggage of running as a Republican,” said Pierson, a longtime political aide to Trump.

“It went through a couple of years, during the campaign, where Trump’s a racist, he hates brown people, but yet he’s doing all of these things that the first black president never did for black people, and so you kind of have this new perspective on who Donald Trump is," she said.

Along the way, he has picked up support from some notable minorities such as Kanye West, who joined Trump to help push Congress to OK criminal justice reform, long promised by Democrats but never achieved.

Still, Pierson doesn't sugarcoat the effort to win over more blacks. “We’ve got our work cut out for us," she said, adding with confidence, “I would guess that he’s going to get more than in the last election.”

How do you all think this impeachment BS is going to go this week? The Dems are sort of in a jam here as they try to rush to get this done before Christmas break but it looks like they may not have the votes. If they postpone until next year, there's going to be a large number of vulnerable Reps facing angry constituents over the break.

My prediction is this:

Pelosi calls for a vote on Thursday and it fails by 25-30 votes.

The Dems vow to come back next year and push it again but never do and it sort of fades away.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer started the Senate impeachment trial negotiations by sending Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a letter with an offer on the parameters, including a request for testimonies from former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

FAIL SCOTUS has agreed to review this issue, as such it is no longer a legislative branch issue. Next...

quote:

Schumer suggested that each side get to question witnesses for four hours each and added that Democrats would be open to testimony from anyone else with "direct knowledge" of the holdup of Ukraine aid.

FAIL So no whisteblower or Adam Shit given they don't have direct involvement in the Ukraine call of aid discussions.

quote:

The New York Democrat also proposed that the Senate issue subpoenas "for a limited set of documents that we believe will shed additional light on the administration's decision-making regarding the delay in security assistance funding to Ukraine and its requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine."

FAIL Presidential privilege applies there Chuckie. But nice try. Next...

quote:

“Senate Democrats believe strongly, and I trust Senate Republicans agree, that this trial must be one that is fair, that considers all of the relevant facts...“The trial must be one that not only hears all of the evidence and adjudicates the case fairly; it must also pass the fairness test with the American people.”

FAIL Why now? So far this has been nothing but a ridiculous Dem circle jerk. Again, nice try Chuckles. Next...

For God sake, just bring this BS to the floor of the Senate and vote it up or down on day one. No hearings, witnesses, additional doc, necessary. Why spend one more second on something the Dem's themselves on a totally partisan vote couldn't even get 100% of 'their' caucus to approve, and that one of the two articles of impeachment SCOTUS has already taken out of the equation.

quote:

Pelosi calls for a vote on Thursday and it fails by 25-30 votes.

It may fail, but she wouldn't call for the vote if there was that kind of margin against it.
But you can bet that the Dem Reps of the 31 districts Trump won are talking among themselves...
She needs 217 votes which means she can lose 18 I think.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I have no faith Chief Justice Roberts will do the right thing or even the lawful thing.

Sad, but his ruling on obamacare branded him. Like FBI Dir Wray, the perception of reputation is more important to Roberts than making hard decisions that go with his job.

I lost any respect for, or faith in Roberts a long time ago. He is just one more liberal disguised as something else. He was appointed when the republicans were rubber stamping appointments to the court system in this country, including the Supremes. How long did it take him to show his true colors? Not long, and his tortured" logic to defend/explain his decision was prime example of what we were facing. I have heard all the arguments for/against term limits including for SCOTUS. I understand the exposures, but having 90 year olds like Ginsburg sitting there for years and do nothing but take up space is not working any more.

Looks like the House will vote to impeach as soon as Wednesday.

Now you have this clown inserting himself into the process. Hey Chucky, BITE ME!

Chuck Schumer Issues List Of Democrat Demands For Senate Impeachment Trial, Gets Wrecked

The local ABC radio affiliate was going on and on about that this morning. Their spin (and I’m paraphrasing here) was that “Senate Republicans have effectively vowed to support the White House, and in so doing, will be breaking their oaths. Democrats are railing against this, demanding to be able to call important witnesses. Senator Schumer called on Senate Republicans to make this a fair and balanced bipartisan effort.” They said nothing about Schumer’s comments during the Clinton impeachment. That would be fair and balanced, and, well....

It’s so stupid. The talking points must have went out sometime mid last week. “Bipartisan” and the Republicans need to be “fair and balanced.”