quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
This is just a show for the American people. Everyone already knows the outcome. Nothing about this process has been sincere including this latest puppet show.

My issue is that I don't want people watching this to be left with the impression that the President is getting off on a legal technicality.

Just earlier, President 's council had to spend time "clarifying" Dershowitz's argument.

Yep, this is all simply about trying to damage him heading into the next election. They tried their best to make his entire first term about how he colluded with Russia to get elected in 2016 and now they're trying to make the whole next term about how he colluded with Ukraine to get elected in 2020. If it somehow makes a difference in their favor, they're willing to go all-in to try to win. But I strongly suspect they know they're going to lose this next election, this is all about launching yet another investigation and another impeachment hearing and trial to try and remove him in his second term. "First President to be impeached twice" will be a headline sometime in the coming years. And it will still be bullshit.

Schiff refuses to answer a question similar to Rand Paul's question.



https://twitter.com/i/status/1223002193005031425

from

https://www.powerlineblog.com/...d-and-unanswered.php

I believe that Senator Ron Johnson rephrased the question Senator Paul submitted to Chief Justice Roberts as set forth in the adjacent post. Chief Justice Robert having declined to read the question, Senator Johnson gave it another go. The question alludes to the RCP columm by Paul Sperry that we also published last week in “Whistleblower overheard.” Not surprisingly, Chief House impeachment manager and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff declines to answer the question.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
The compact among the states that would force that to happen does not yet take hold,

flashguy

Thanks, I didn't realize that they were all doing this as a part of a compact.



.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Schiff refuses to answer a question similar to Rand Paul's question.



https://twitter.com/i/status/1223002193005031425

from

https://www.powerlineblog.com/...d-and-unanswered.php

I believe that Senator Ron Johnson rephrased the question Senator Paul submitted to Chief Justice Roberts as set forth in the adjacent post. Chief Justice Robert having declined to read the question, Senator Johnson gave it another go. The question alludes to the RCP columm by Paul Sperry that we also published last week in “Whistleblower overheard.” Not surprisingly, Chief House impeachment manager and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff declines to answer the question.

We really need to return to colonial times, and make personal dueling legal under the law. Then someone could challenge Schiff to a duel and remove this POS from the human race permanently. Sometimes the old ways are actually the best ways.

The supremely talented Tom Shillue may be sad to see the Schiff Show come to an end.

Lamar Alexander

says he will vote against witnesses

https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...n-witnesses-n1127056

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a key impeachment swing vote, announced Thursday that he will not join Democrats in voting to call witnesses in President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial, suggesting that there may not be enough GOP votes for the trial to advance to that next stage.

"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense," he said.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Susan Collins has said she would support calling witnesses

Romney ??

Murkowski - Murkowski said late Thursday that she had not made a decision. After Thursday's session adjourned, she told reporters that "I am going to go reflect on what I have heard, re-read my notes and decide whether I need to hear more."


I may not have this right, but if Romney, Collins, and Murkowski vote for witnesses, there would be a 50-50 tie

It is possible that John Roberts might step in and cast the deciding vote

This is a very cloudy situation

xxxxxxxxxxxx


update The prick Romney says he wants more witnesses

Murkowski still undecided


https://theconservativetreehou...p-on-it/#more-182306

There were four key republican quisling senators who were possibilities on voting to continue the Senate impeachment trial and ask for witnesses: Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander.

Susan Collins “Yes”, she wants witnesses

♦ Mitt Romney “Yes”, he wants witnesses.

♦ Lisa Murkowski “Undecided” wants to sleep on it

♦ Lamar Alexander “No”, he does not want witnesses

This tentatively puts the current whip vote for possible witnesses at 49 yea and 5o nea – with one undecided. A 50/50 split should fail in the Senate (but there will be massive narrative manipulation of the rules by MSM). We won’t know until actual votes on a motion to hear from witnesses are cast.

However, that said, Collins decision has almost guaranteed a loss for her Senate seat. In response to this vote the MAGA base will likely not support her. Therefore it’s a gift to her opponent. An unfortunate 2020 Senate seat loss for the GOP.


Romney - the new McCain

thought this might elicit a giggle or two

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...AxDo-o&feature=share

https://twitchy.com/brettt-313...se-it-was-purchased/


Republicans scored a point with their last question. They asked if the Steele dossier would count as foreign election interference

DEM Hakeem Jeffries says no because it’s opposition research that was purchased.

Sekulow immediately poucing. “If you purchase it I guess it’s ok."

xxxxxxxxxxx


TOTAL DISASTER: Hakeem Jeffries answering "Is the Steele dossier foreign interference in an election" literally says the Steele dossier is okay because it was "purchased."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1223025835155894275


video at link of Jeffries

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This captures just one aspect of why this impeachment is so hypocritical/dumb. The same camp hyperventilating about "foreign interference in our democracy" paid for a fictional foreign dossier that fueled surveillance of a campaign & 3 years of all-consuming conspiracy theories.

Finally some resolution. Have trump write a check to the Ukraine and we can move on.

When Collins loses her seat this fall she'll know exactly when, where, and why it happened. I never thought she was very bright, but her move here was spectacularly stupid. If Murkowski votes for witnesses, the GOP Senate Election Committee needs to promote a primary challenge against her and that POS Romney. The message needs to be, stab your party and supporters in the back and you're toast.

quote:

The prick Romney says he wants more witnesses.

The new McCain. Asshole for the sake of his own ego.

As far as I am concerned, roberts (intentionally did not capitalize it!) stepped in the crap and showed his true, swamp colors when he declared Obamacare to be a tax. He was paying somebody off.

If any impeachment is to take place, it should start with him!

And his personal selection of questions to be asked is just more of the same crap.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

The prick Romney says he wants more witnesses.

The new McCain. Asshole for the sake of his own ego.

IANAL but I think sdy touched on it.If there is a tie it should fail as there isnt a simple majority vote.roberts is an appointed judge not an elected official nor a Senator and has no business casting a vote.

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:
IANAL but I think sdy touched on it.If there is a tie it should fail as there isnt a simple majority vote.roberts is an appointed judge not an elected official nor a Senator and has no business casting a vote.

Is not the role of the Vice President to break ties in the Senate?

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Schiff refuses to answer a question similar to Rand Paul's question.



https://twitter.com/i/status/1223002193005031425

from

https://www.powerlineblog.com/...d-and-unanswered.php

I believe that Senator Ron Johnson rephrased the question Senator Paul submitted to Chief Justice Roberts as set forth in the adjacent post. Chief Justice Robert having declined to read the question, Senator Johnson gave it another go. The question alludes to the RCP columm by Paul Sperry that we also published last week in “Whistleblower overheard.” Not surprisingly, Chief House impeachment manager and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff declines to answer the question.

We really need to return to colonial times, and make personal dueling legal under the law. Then someone could challenge Schiff to a duel and remove this POS from the human race permanently. Sometimes the old ways are actually the best ways.

Too bad Bob Munden has passed.

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:
IANAL but I think sdy touched on it.If there is a tie it should fail as there isnt a simple majority vote.roberts is an appointed judge not an elected official nor a Senator and has no business casting a vote.

Is not the role of the Vice President to break ties in the Senate?

Yes, and the Constitution tasks the Senate to vote on the trial following impeachment. It does not grant tie-breaking to third parties, regardless of the color of their robes or the matter before the Senate.

Then there is this-When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

quote:

Is not the role of the Vice President to break ties in the Senate?

Exactly! Funny, the Dems seem to think it should be Roberts?

quote:

Watch Schiff's Hilarious Attempt to Stop Nadler From Delivering Closing Remarks

Rep. Jerry Nadler raced to the podium Thursday after Chief Justice John Roberts read the last question before adjourning for the evening, blowing past House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff who attempted to stop him.

"Could you please respond to the answer just given by the president's counsel and provide any other comments the Senate would benefit from hearing before we adjourn for the evening?" Roberts read from the card.

Townhall's Julio Rosas captured the viral moment Nadler is seen bolting from his chair, walking straight past Schiff.

"Jerry, Jerry, Jerry," Schiff said as he stepped toward his colleague.

“This is INCREDIBLE. Schiff tried to stop Nadler! You can hear him call him to stop. And then he showed why," National Republican Senate Committee senior advisor Matt Whitlock tweeted. "Dems ask for a closing statement on the night. Nadler, clearly fed up, jumps to his feet and scurries to the mic, ignoring audible protests of lead manager Schiff. Then Nadler gives a terrible lecturing close."

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell even commented on how quickly Nadler raced to the podium.

"Adam Schiff stood. He was ready to go to the podium. He only had to do about three steps to get there. Jerry Nadler had to do about 12. It's the fastest I've seen Jerry Nadler move, in the 25 years that I've known him," O'Donnell remarked.

Link to video:

https://twitter.com/mattdizwhi.../1223108133049888773

Link

History dictates Roberts would be tie breaker, if so I see him letting the witnesses come forward so that he's not hung with being the decision maker on Impeachment and hung out for history as the person that decided a POTUS fate.



Judges typically rule in favor of allowing relevant witnesses at trials and, although Roberts has offered no clues about how he would approach the situation, there is precedent for it.

In 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase cast two tie-breaking votes in President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial. Indeed, the current Senate rules for impeachment trials include a history section noting, "The chief justice has voted in the case of a tie." (The same section says that in the Johnson trial, the senators also voted to support the chief justice's conclusion that he could cast tie-breaking votes, noting "the Senate turned down each attempt to prevent the chief justice from voting.")

Link

Interesting Reading, some similarities to the situation in DC today...

History on Impeachment of Johnson