of a criminal statute.

Garcia noting that previous impeachments have NOT required "criminality" be required.

and had her slide up too!!

They just ended her presentation.

Having his running commentary would've been enlightening, especially during Dersch's fanciful explanation of Constitutional Law.

House Managers first.

Why didn't the House bring up Executive privilege?

I think I'm going to bring up MSNBC on tunein and go on a long walk with the dog...

no witnesses and no documents - not a single shred of evidence. So there was no "Executive Privilege". Nothing cited to justify the doctrine of "absolute immunity" - and every court has rejected this concept.

There just isn't

... guy to lie without impunity then this becomes more of a farce.

giving up their nukes and how we left them to die on the front line.

in order for the REST of the money to be able to be spent because of the hold.

"There was harm and there was foul and don't forget that they are not an enemy but are a friend"

Really? REALLY?

So NOW they are insisting YES there was a quid pro quo.

"It didn't happen."
"Well, it did happen, but there was no quid pro quo."
"Well, there was quid pro quo, but everybody does it..."

personal interest.

Dirtywitch's explanation of quid pro quo vs. the action being taken.

Do they have padded cells in the building? They may be needed soon.

This ain't that

FOR ANY QUID PRO QUO

IDIOT

somebody tie his hands down

damn..that dude has some strange body language going on.

...as long as he thinks he's a good President?

He has lost his mind.

is a great lawyer.

There, I said it

RW radio and tv have made his name into Pavlov's bell -- they foam and swell up and screech at the mention of Obama's full name. Schiff invokes it while doing the "other shoe" analogy so as to maximize their anger while considering Trump's actions.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Thank goodness Schiff came back with something that was valid and on track.

The “nobody is without conflict” argument is why ethics rules exist.

He knows what’s going on, on both sides.

nt

Dr appts all day..yuyuck.


Thanks everyone for their play by play! Im trying to catch up.

I can't type fast enough for the plays.

Did House attempt to litigate Executive privilege issues.

Remember StarfishSaver pointing out the reasons the House was being so meticulous on these points? Remember all the DU lawyers pointing out, over and over, why it was important to follow through each agonizingly slow appeal level?

then that would help to expedite through the courts. Otherwise the courts would send it back and said - well did you do x, y, and z first?

... plainly are not true.

off until the election (I think question from Heinrich D-NM)

Go Adam!

This trial is being conducted "upside down" and yet WH wants to blame the House for doing it.

There was no special prosecutor gathering evidence to present to the House, because the DoJ is part of the corruption. The House couldn't get all the evidence because, see Article 2 in the impeachment.

WTF? Turtle is sitting on 400 bills from the House that they REFUSE to work on.

is work on impeachment trials...except that most president's aren't utterly and completely corrupt.

convict the MF on the obvious evidence now and get back to work - easy! no need to have witnesses at all! wow I can agree with the morons.

And wasn't it true it only took 1 day each for depositions under the Clinton impeachment?

Does he actually think the Senators are buying this $hit?

Or is he aiming his answers at Trump supporters?

He is full of crap.

(including mention of Sondland having given $1 million for the inauguration )

THIS IS A TRIAL! Involves witnesses, and documents, and evidence. There have been 15 different impeachment trials. Every one had witnesses and documents.

but only for first time in Senate.

Let's call John Bolton, Mulvaney and other witnesses.

Article III decision.

(BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE HERE - WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THERE IS NO "BLANKET IMMUNITY" )

actions done for "national interest".

Let's hear from the witnesses and see the documents that show this (including Bolton).

$1 million from a foreign country then wouldn't Obama ask to investigate?

what total assholes.

And how it would lower the bar if the pResident is allowed to ask a foreign government to investigate his political rivals.
___
I thought he expertly batted down their snarky question.

Now he's completely messing up and confusing 3 different CTs....

Drumpf said that based on Article II, he can do anything he wants. How can we be sure that a President is not above the law?

We have had a shifting series of rationals and explanations...

First that subpoenas before the resolution aren't valid and then subpoenas after the resolution are not valid.

but the House can't because they are being blocked to them.