with the head of a foreign government?

a total binfull!

For idk, his second day of this crap

Every question is a loaded one! And the senators can choose which side gets to answer it? What a fricking joke.
The format is wrong! All questions by republicans should be answered only by the House managers, and vice versa.

North Korea does a better job at justice.

🙏

legitimacy of the role of the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court?

CJ presides, the Senate tries and decides - he doesn't want to let the Senate Repubs off the hook.

"Oh, my god, we can't hear what John Bolton has to say!"

Right matters, a fair trial matters, and the American people deserve it. If they don't get it, that will just contribute to the corrosive cynicism prevalent.

the cynicism of the public, that is corrosive.

the McDonnell v. U.S. case regarding bribery?

(note that case was regarding the GOP governor of VA)

So does this make it legal for a President to invite other countries like Russia and China, etc., to dig up damaging info on political opponents?

Video starts with the reading of the question - approx 1.5 mins from the end is especially good, imo:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4851027/user-clip-schiff-answering-bribery

on defining how the House does it charges. WH's convoluted legal arguments do not address the fact that the President violated multiple acts including bribery, whistleblower act, Impoundment control act, etc, and abused his power.

no they don't

be considered fair?

Last edited Thu Jan 30, 2020, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Sekulow needs help with the unfwairness of needing to call witnesses and documents to run a real trial. Oh, and I think he said he’s tainted, or something.

maybe what he sees in a mirror?

Is a walking perineum infection.

oh god, we don't have time to find out the truth

*flop sweat* It's hard work!

jaysus.

Even one more would be just too many!

when specific processes were followed to do this - including a required notification to Congress about a hold and/or any changes. No one knew why it happened.

The one who could shed light on this - Mr. Bolton - is being blocked.

You managed the question and a paragraph about the answer in 2 posts, while I got a 1-line summary of the answer in 1 post.

If doing his job - and a fair trial here is included in that - if doing his job is too much danged trouble for him, he should go home and let a real American step up to do it for him. "Oh, it would go on and on, and how would we ever get to the end of it?" That question is not just rhetorical, buddy. And you know it.

Nothing but CTs. It's hard to keep count.

(....while ignoring Ghouliani )

and Steele worked for Fusion GPS?

when they dropped out -

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2017/10/28/marco-rubio-backers-money-initially-funded-anti-trump-research/

The WH tried to make it sound like Clinton hired Steele (British) directly and that somehow is in the same ballpark as what Trump has done. Uh, nope.

Thanks, BumRushDaShow!

I swear to god I’d be in jail for murder by now.

was classified.

(you mean the one that was sent out to people as the "transcript" that was high classification and only a remnant was sent out?)

Now going after Pence claiming he knew nothing. But the "transcript" referenced was Pence's call.

Congressional members were able to go read it in a SCIF somewhere or something? But were not allowed to divulge its contents.

IIRC one congresscritter later came out and said there was no reason for it to be classified.

NEWS: Jennifer Williams, the Pence aide who testified to House impeachment investigators, is leaving the VP's office,
@NatashaBertrand and @dlippman report.

She’s leaving early, her detail was supposed to end in two months.

Link to tweet

Her last day is Monday.

She's had another job lined up for months apparently.

Hadn’t seen that news, and is curious.

and it only became "bipartisan" after all the facts came out.

For Clinton impeachment - start partisan and ended partisan. But had nothing to do with a Presidential function. I.e., for Clinton - never had a high crime or misdemeanor.

for the Senate.

(not open ended)

Proposal being made to opposing counsel is reasonable accommodation as the Constitution allows.

If any disputes over whether witnesses are material or documents were privileged, the CJ could rule.

Boom. All whiny Repub objections are shown to be whiny whines.

impeachments.

(despite the fact that the President announced that he could do anything he wanted)

would want their own witness. So does the President havea witness who can address the charges? (split question)

Includes question:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4851038/user-clip-schiffs-response-coons

and laughing at how they were calling the witnesses the House wants "your witnesses" ignoring that they are the President's men!

Schiff points out that the president's witness list doesn't include Mulvaney or Pompeo or OMB head (Mulvaney; Duffey is Assoc Dir and the guy who signed the hold) because their honest testimony under oath would incriminate him.

eta and now WH whiney whine whine "But we want to call the Bidens! It's not fair!" Yikes.

despite the fact those witnesses ARE WH staff!!

"You know, we can just let CJ Roberts make a ruling on whether a witness is material to the case."

I didn't hear WH counsel touching that point.

I couldn't keep up -- questions, answers, who and wwhat.

and still have been rewinding my cable feed every once in awhile to get the gist of the questions before I could even post them.

Really appreciate the work!
Been watching just about ALL of it (sound muted on the farce squad mostly) but grateful to see what other DUers are saying.
We're from Wisconsin: our Senator Baldwin has asked some good questions. As for RoJo, we apologize on behalf of the whole state.

Are the concerns well founded?

is the most partisan of all, and it's the Republicans who are being partisan.

1. Check out the video posted for Crow’s presentation of Evolution in Solicitation (from the first live thread for 1/30/20)


https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4850929/user-clip-evolution-solicitation


2. Consider this clip of graham (@ 2 mins in) dated June 13, 2019:

Would they be willing to have the Chief Justice decide on the relevancy?