Tue
Jan 21 2020
12:06 pm
By: bizgrrl

The DJT impeachment trial begins today at 1pm.

As of now, each party will have 24 hours in two days for opening arguments. Long days. There may be efforts to change the times/days.

I heard the House doesn't think Pat Cipollone should be on the defense team. There are thoughts he may be too involved in DJT's activities (material witness) of which are impeachable.

Rachel's picture

Rules have changed to 24

Rules have changed to 24 hours in three days. Guess McConnell decided the optics of the original proposal were just too bad.

fischbobber's picture

His coalition showed cracks.

The rules still suck.

The House must present the same case they presented today in order to decide whether or not they get to use the power of subpoena. They're not being denied a trial, they're just looking to push said subpoenas down the road. This will give McConnell the advantage of weighing public opinion. He will try to take what he thinks he can get. It's a bullshit way to run a trial, and he knows it, but that's what he'll do until he gets caught worse than he already is.

A few observations:

I don't see a plan B for the republicans.

Trump's taken the world's leading power, and run it like the frat house that was fixing to get kicked off campus.

Trump's clearly both guilty and incompetent.

Schumer made McConnell his bitch today. (If you didn't hear it live, look for and edited version, it was like listening to a day long cat-fight.)

Tomorrow is a new day, could be a good thing, could be a bad thing.

I don't know what to think about the legal theory "Okay, look, we'll just concede that he's guilty and go from there. You can cut me a break guys and I'll take care of you down the line." It looks like it's working, but, Jesus Christ, is this where we're at?

The current over/under guilty/not guilty is 51.5.

There's no double jeopardy clause for impeachment proceedings. It's looking like , worst case scenario, the Senate will throw the ball back to the house. In which case, the House subpoena testimony would likely drag all the way through November. Sometimes a loss isn't really a loss.

Thanks for the great observation, by the way. And I might add, that old guy gets grouchy when he gets hungry. Him and Roberts got a little testy about lunch break. This is going to get interesting.

Bolton's got a book coming out with all this shit in it, supposedly.

bizgrrl's picture

Lamar Alexander voted with

Lamar Alexander voted with Senate Republicans to defeat an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday to subpoena the White House for Ukraine documents.

calloway1972's picture

I thought the House had a

I thought the House had a marvelously crafted impeachment drawn up ? You folks saying it was 1/2 assed ?

Dems don't want witnesses. They could have worked that out. They want haters and complainers to suck up news cycles for the ten people still paying attention. Most tuned out well before Mueller Time and the folks here that arent terminally afflicted with election 2016 PTSD knew that months ago.

bizgrrl's picture

Ha, ha, ha!

Ha, ha, ha!

fischbobber's picture

Lamar. The jury's out.

There was a crack in McConnell's coalition early. The report I heard was that "well more" than four Senators were threatening to switch sides. That could mean six, it could mean twenty-six. Or it may have been a ruse.

I was considering that Lamar might be the leader of a coalition that was determined to act in a constitutional manner. I see cause for hope.

I'd bet money that his votes later in the day were traded for concessions earlier in the day. Hopefully, all the documents and witnesses called today will make their way to the trial floor. Lamar had several "ayes" (which is really a no vote, the explanation of which was really interesting the first two times it happened, then it started being a pain in the ass) and no "nays".

R. Neal's picture

Actually, Calloway is sadly

Actually, Calloway is sadly correct, most likely.

Trump supporters have long ago tuned out truth, justice, equality, morality, and anything else that promotes a civil, functioning society. My only fear is that there are still enough of these reprobates, along with just enough working class people who see a little bump in their 401k, and mistakenly believe that Trump did that and cares about them, to get him reelected.

The joke's on them, and Trump will be laughing not with them but at them. All the way to the bank with his wealthy, corrupt pals.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its pants." (Various disputed attributions.)

fischbobber's picture

Tomorrow / Wed.

Roberts is hearing a case in the morning, so the proceedings are supposed to start in the early afternoon. That was from MNBC. Around 1:00 it should be on again. It's worth switching from a music station to listen to. It's fascinating and it will determine history. It's an interesting time to be paying attention.

bizgrrl's picture

So impressed with the

So impressed with the Democratic House managers and their arguments. Appreciate the efforts to save our country from the worst president ever.

fischbobber's picture

Agreed.

They proved a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt. I think there's a very good chance the majority of the Senators vote to convict. It's still a long way to 67 though.

P.S. Thanks for observing and commenting on something positive. I've been ashamed for our state, and angry at one of our Senators. At the risk of offending everyone on here, I keep thinking, "That's what we get for voting a white trash trollop from Mississippi, who stumbled into money into office."after that stunt she pulled today. Roberts should have thrown her ass in jail and let her think about it overnight and then made her sit through the days session in yesterdays clothes, with no makeup, on time and present. What an embarrassment that white trash trollop from Mississippi was to the Great State of Tennessee today. We can elect better people than this.

P.P.S. I'm sorry to all I've offended. Sometimes the truth as I see it gets ugly. One cultivates an image. I like to think I try to view all equally, but Marsha is that one in a million person that gets on my last nerve. Incompetent and in your face obnoxious is a bad combination.

fischbobber's picture

This comment was banned from Facebook as hate speech.

Is that fair? I'm asking as a real question. Because I should be getting the same relative respect from her that I'm being demanded. And it ain't happening.

Can you believe that white trash trollop from Mississippi? She snuck out of the impeachment hearings to do a T.V. interview? Chief Justice Roberts should have thrown her ass in the Capitol Jail , hauled her out 20 minutes before she was due on the floor, given her a cup of coffee and a sausage biscuit, sat her ass down in yesterdays clothes and no make-up and admonished her in front of the nation. She is a disgrace to the Senate.

I posted it to the White House Facebook page.

fischbobber's picture

The thought that keeps coming back.

I've never doubted John Bolton's integrity nor his dedication to our nation. In the past I never got past questioning his sanity. How odd that he may indeed be the man that saves this nation.

Alex_Falk's picture

lmao

john bolton is a bloodthirsty ghoul.

stop rehabilitating these butchers.

fischbobber's picture

As I said,

I never got past questioning his sanity.

He's just in a different role than I would have pictured him in 15 years ago. I never figured that his professional integrity, nor his personal etiquette standards, nor his professionalism in the workplace would ever be questioned.

I had always limited my differences to the various policies we disagreed on. That kept me pretty busy.

My step-dad used to work around these guys. The regional philosophy in the theatre John Bolton was an expert in was "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Donald Trump crossed a line and his defense is that he didn't know where that line was. Bullshit. John Bolton worked for him , and knew the answer. And Bolton has never been afraid to speak truth to power. John Bolton is an amoral pragmatist who has risen to the top of his profession due to his work ethic, proficiency, and professional integrity. With all the issues I ever had with John Bolton, as a student of history, I would have never guessed this would put his name in history books. In the course of everything else Donald Trump has done within the past year, he assailed John Bolton's character. I think that will prove to be a mistake.

Alex_Falk's picture

blood of countless human beings

he is a gleeful planner and executor of mass murder, despite all those words you just typed

just go pop your special corn and get back to your impeachment stories on the cable TV

fischbobber's picture

Looks like you get your wish......

Alexander appears to agree with you and has announced that he will vote against allowing witnesses.

He had a chance to be this generation's Tennessee Howard Baker.

He chose to be this generation's Ray Blanton.

I'm ashamed to be a Tennessean. I'm ashamed to call myself an American.

Alex_Falk's picture

eh

i dont know where you get that i agree with alexander, you appear to be confusing cynical assessments of the motives of those in power & the value of consuming the spectacle with alignment with those forces. the opposite is true.

tennessee is a fascist state in an evil, decaying empire so certainly it makes sense to feel shame!

fischbobber's picture

Derschowitz

I listened to the Derschowitz speech today. It was the first argument I ever heard him present. It was brilliant. He made relevant arguments on many more than one avenue in which impeachment might have been deemed unconstitutional. I spend regular and probably more than average time reading and thinking about the constitution. Derschowitz was playing "pick-an-alibi" in the event the Republican coalition falls apart. His arguments won't hold. It will buy time.

fischbobber's picture

Time

A day, anyway.

Midori Barstow's picture

from iLAMAR!

Thanks for getting in touch with me and sharing your thoughts regarding the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

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 United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.

There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.

The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.

Sincerely,
Lamar

LA/nt
#ICEBA7f74a74c84ba4697a379c9942b34a966CDCCRM

bizgrrl's picture

Wow!

Wow! I just noticed I received the same response. Cannot believe he is so oblivious. But, then he is out of there soon.

jbr's picture

Senate holds Trump impeachment trial vote

jbr's picture

Trump Supporters: Who Won the Impeachment Fight?

jbr's picture

Al Franken on Trump, Health Care & Impeachment

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Upcoming events:

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives