Irish oddsmaker gives 33% chance Trump will be impeached

[Labster]

Actually Labster, the time to get evidence was back when the house was having their inquiry, you know, before the impeachment vote, they voted to impeach with what they had, so bring what you've got, you don't get a do over

OMG, if that’s true then every episode of Matlock I ever watched was a lie!

[Labster]

Matrix, the Schiff panel was a partisan hack job that should have been laughed out, except, Orange man bad. That was where Trump's legal team and himself should have been allowed to counter and question, but they were denied that. The judiciary committee "allowing" their entry was a joke to try and lend some semblance of authority to the Schiff show and rightfully he didn't play along.

Right, allowing Trump's legal team to participate would have made a total mockery of the legal process.  In this case, the House acted as the grand jury, responsible for handing down an indictment.  Defense attorneys never participate in grand juries.  Perhaps it's more like a preliminary hearing where defense would participate, but hey, grand juries are part of the U.S. Constitution.

second, as per the congressional subpoenas, Executive Privilege is something to be protected by every person to sit in that office, don't believe me, ask Adam Schiff circa 2012, when he was defending Barack Obama's denial of subpoenas over Fast and Furious, you know, that little debacle of Eric Holder's that got him held in both civil and criminal contempt of congress.

Agreed 100%.  However, Donald Trump has never invoked executive privilege.  Not even once.  So while it's an interesting point it's not really relevant to the situation.

The house made it's rules, and now the senate has made it's that again, echo the Clinton impeachment trial, meaning what was good for the Democrats is good for the Republicans. They do not get to try again because they got impatient and didn't bother to even try to get the courts to back up their subpoenas

Look, we had evidence of a crime in process.  Trump was caught trying to rig the next election.  Should we have waited until after the election to try to stop the crime?  The Ukraine thing was a total rig job.

Actually Labster, the time to get evidence was back when the house was having their inquiry, you know, before the impeachment vote, they voted to impeach with what they had, so bring what you've got, you don't get a do over

OK replying seriously this time.  The rule that you can't introduce new evidence into an ongoing trial doesn't exist.  It has never existed in any democratic jurisdiction.

The willingness of the right to invent new rules specially for Trump, and then get people to accept them, has me seriously worried.  The president doesn't just get to decide which laws he wants to enforce.  His job is literally enforcing all the laws.  The president doesn't get to ignore subpoenas, this is called obstruction of justice.  The president doesn't get to tell people that they can't testify or risk losing their jobs, this is called witness tampering.  The president doesn't get to solicit things of personal value from foreign countries in exchange for official actions, this is called bribery.

The President's lawyers have argued in court that the president has absolute immunity from prosecution.  Under questioning, the attorneys argued that yes, the claim that "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and not get arrested" was literally true.  They argued, in front of an actual federal judge, that it would be illegal for the police to even investigate the crime, because the President would be the prime suspect.

Like, this is literally true of Elizabeth Windsor in her realm.  She is the source of justice of the crown; no one may judge the sovereign save God.  But like, I thought America was supposed to be a republic, man.

[robkelk]

Actually Labster, the time to get evidence was back when the house was having their inquiry, you know, before the impeachment vote, they voted to impeach with what they had, so bring what you've got, you don't get a do over

If so, then why are GOP senators complaining that they aren't hearing anything new? That sound to me like they want to see new evidence.

OMG, if that’s true then every episode of Matlock I ever watched was a lie!

Er...

[Bob Schroeck]

[Comment based on misattribution deleted, with an apology to Rajvik.]

[DHBirr]

Actually Labster, the time to get evidence was back when the house was having their inquiry, you know, before the impeachment vote, they voted to impeach with what they had, so bring what you've got, you don't get a do over

If so, then why are GOP senators complaining that they aren't hearing anything new? That sound to me like they want to see new evidence.

OMG, if that’s true then every episode of Matlock I ever watched was a lie!

Er...

Ummm, looking up at the original posts, it seems to me as if your quotes are misattributed.  It was Labster who made that remark about Matlock (I sincerely hope tongue-in-cheek), and the post you've attributed to Labster was written by Rajvik.

-----
“We’ve had our differences, but he’s seen the light … and I made sure he moved toward it, instead of coming back.”

[robkelk]

Yeah, I've been halfway asleep all day today. Fixed. Thanks.

[Rajvik]

Agreed 100%.  However, Donald Trump has never invoked executive privilege.  Not even once.  So while it's an interesting point it's not really relevant to the situation.

Yes, Labster, he did, after the Mueller investigation was over and the house continued to investigate he invoked Executive privilege and basically said, NO MORE

Look, we had evidence of a crime in process.  Trump was caught trying to rig the next election.  Should we have waited until after the election to try to stop the crime?  The Ukraine thing was a total rig job.

pardon me while i say horse shit, i've already posted the transcript of of the phone call earlier in this thread or one of the corresponding threads, the two FACT witnesses that the house called in its investigation said that nothing illegal occurred.

i'll come back to this tomorrow, it's to late for me to argue coherently right now.
edit: Sorry for not coming back yesterday, i spent most of it asleep due to the flu, now to continue:

If so, then why are GOP senators complaining that they aren't hearing anything new? That sound to me like they want to see new evidence.

what they actually want to see Rob, is actual evidence. Going off of Schiff's 24 hours of rehashing and rehashing his opening statement he's trying to tie this all back to the already debunked Russian Collusion. There were 18 witnesses called behind closed doors, you know the auditions for the seven or so that we actually got to see, and the released transcripts of 17 of them all seem to be conjecture, disagreement on policy and disagreement on HOW to perform said policy, including the ambassador to the Ukraine, (who was NOT brought back because she wouldn't play ball, her own testimony said that she was due for reassignment, and got her choice of assignments) Sondlin, the EU ambassador, (who when questioned said that Trump specifically told him "No quid-pro-quo") and Vindman, (who was on the telephone call and was part of the group that wrote the transcript when asked had to admit that there was nothing illegal said or asked in the phone call)

you know, i really wonder what that 18th witness had to say, it happens to have been Inspector General Michael Atkinson's testimony, and while he's not allowed to actually say what Atkinson told them, what Representative Ratcliffe (R-Tx) had to say about it this morning was rather interesting.

What the senators want Rob, is they want Joe and Hunter Biiden on the stand so that they can crucify the both of them and possibly get them to admit to bribery, accepting of bribes, money laundering and a whole host of other crimes that it is very apparent that they committed. They want the so called "Whistleblower" who by the statute IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER (to fall under the whistleblower statute you MUST DIRECTLY OBSERVE the crime being committed) to go on the stand and force him to tell him who it was on the phone call that leaked the call to him, and they want to get Adam Schiff and his lackey up there to find out how much actual collaboration the Schiff team had with the "Whistleblower" in writing his complaint to start this whole ball rolling. In short, they are ready to tar and feather the lot of them, and personally, as i have already said, i hope they do.

Now, back to Labster:

Right, allowing Trump's legal team to participate would have made a total mockery of the legal process. In this case, the House acted as the grand jury, responsible for handing down an indictment. Defense attorneys never participate in grand juries. Perhaps it's more like a preliminary hearing where defense would participate, but hey, grand juries are part of the U.S. Constitution.

No Labster, they were NOT a Grand Jury, and they are not meant to be one for this purpose. The house is supposed to hear both sides, just as they did with Clinton, the accused is supposed to be able to face his accuser, just like happened with Clinton, in short, every smidge of procedure and precedent that was awarded to Clinton, was denied to Trump, and then to boot, the ONE hearing that he is told, "Hey yeah, you can come in and question these witnesses," it was "if we get to approve the questions first," and "Only if you give us the questions in advance" No, as i said before, he was right to not lend any hint of propriety to that farce of a judicial committee hearing, especially considering that NONE of the "Witnesses" were pertinent to the phone call in question.

The president doesn't get to ignore subpoenas

no but he does get to call into question the validity of the subpoenas, that is why the judicial branch is supposed to be the arbiter in that aspect, the democrats where in such a damn rush to do this that they didn't even bother to TRY AND FIGHT IT IN COURT

The president doesn't get to tell people that they can't testify or risk losing their jobs

Yes, actually he does, this specifically falls under executive privilege until such time as the supreme court tells him that privilege does not apply, try again.
addendum, this is EXACTLY what happened with Eric Holder/Barrack Obama

The president doesn't get to solicit things of personal value from foreign countries in exchange for official actions,

this is where you are actually the most right, but still so wrong. Just because DOING HIS JOB might benefit him, doesn't make it bribery. Joe Biden is LITERALLY on tape bragging about blackmailing a foreign nations government with American money to have a foreign prosecutor fired. in the aftermath of that coming to light, he's claiming that it was because a bunch of different people including the IMF and other different foreign governments wanted the prosecutor out of there. Sorry, i don't quite buy it. when your son is getting paid $50K A MONTH with absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE on the subject matter, it sounds a little hinky, and when you then go and threaten to withhold a loan guarantee from the US government to have a prosecutor fired for looking into the corrupt business practices of that company, that sounds even more hinky. My question is, who among the IMF and those other governments were pocketing money from this deal, we know Hunter was, and have reason to believe that he was feeding said money into a hedge fund that his father was earning money off of.

As chief executive he has the DUTY to ensure that if an american breaks american laws in a foreign country, that said american is charged with that crime. Furthermore, there is an existing treaty between the US and Ukraine that allows the Attorney General, or persons he designates to perform investigations into such acts. This is an investigator that does not have to sit the rigors of a senatorial hearing for confirmation, they are basically the lackey of the attorney general of the united states, or as the language calls it, a special envoy. that means, that the sending of Rudy Gulliani to Ukraine to investigate the actions of the Bidens was completely legitimate.

The President's lawyers have argued in court that the president has absolute immunity from prosecution. Under questioning, the attorneys argued that yes, the claim that "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and not get arrested" was literally true. They argued, in front of an actual federal judge, that it would be illegal for the police to even investigate the crime, because the President would be the prime suspect.

Ah the abandonment of CONTEXT what a marvelous thing. that was in relation to, wait for it...crimes committed personally not relating to the presidency, and to further expound on this, what it actually means is that to try one Donald J. Trump in a standard court of law, say, southern district of NY for example, first he has to be impeached and removed from the presidency and therefor be a common citizen again. or be out of office as per the end of his term, WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE they would have to impeach and remove him first before trying him for anything else. There are actually TWO DOJ memorandum of the subject, one from the Nixon "Watergate Scandal" and the other from Clinton's '99 impeachment where he ended up cutting a deal and getting disbarred as a lawyer in the state of Arkansas. so quite frankly, don't care if you don't like it, but deal.

[robkelk]

CBC Analysis: Impeachment outcome is a foregone conclusion, but how Trump's defence tackles Biden could sway voters

Not going to do a tl;dr on this one - it's too complex. Go read the entire thing.

[Matrix Dragon]

You know what I continue to find fascinating? One side of this mess act like professionals as much as possible. The other side acts like a screaming thirteen year old, throwing around constant insults and slurs at rallies and on twitter, lies constantly, usually contradicting their own bullshit every five seconds, issues direct threats towards individuals on the other side, and is generally as racist and insulting as possible after years of committing and encouraging horrible acts and reducing your country to a global laughing stock, seen as more untrustworthy and incompetent than ever before.

And not only do people continue to worship at the altar of the second group, they love to scream about how they're actually the ones being oppressed. It's fascinating to watch, in a gore movie sort of way.

[robkelk]

... they love to scream about how they're actually the ones being oppressed. ....

As was mentioned in this thread, they do it because it works.

If people were to look at politics critically (instead of cynically or unquestioningly), it wouldn't work as often.

[Labster]

Well, tonight's closing argument was that Trump shouldn't be impeached, Obama is the one who should really be impeached. So there's that. Earlier in the day they concentrated on how there wasn't enough evidence to impeach, which Democrats think is a good supporting argument to call witnesses. One attorney said it was a perfect phone call, another said it was an "almost-perfect phone call". Let's see if the defense can manage to do better tomorrow.

Oh, and John Bolton's new book says Trump totally did it.

[classicdrogn]

Man, what even is a "perfect" phone call? One where you don't have to spend half an hour working through an automated answering system so you can spend another hour on hold waiting for an operator? One where you don't get a bunch of static drowning you out because someone's running the microwave right beside the base station? Can't be one where you don't say anything that might get you in trouble if the feds are listening in, obviously.

[hazard]

Obama can't be impeached because Obama isn't president. If they wanted to impeach Obama they should've done it, what, 4 years ago now, or earlier.

That doesn't mean they can't take legal action of course, but they notably haven't done that either for... any reason.

[Rajvik]

Well, tonight's closing argument was that Trump shouldn't be impeached, Obama is the one who should really be impeached.  So there's that.  Earlier in the day they concentrated on how there wasn't enough evidence to impeach, which Democrats think is a good supporting argument to call witnesses.  One attorney said it was a perfect phone call, another said it was an "almost-perfect phone call".  Let's see if the defense can manage to do better tomorrow.

Oh, and John Bolton's new book says Trump totally did it.

i do believe you are taking what was said out of context again Labster, what the argument was was that if anyone SHOULD have been impeached by these low standards that the democrats have set, it should have been Obama

As to Bolton's book, what we have are leaks from a NSC reviewer, not actual quotes from the book, no context what-so-ever, and all from an "anonymous source" you would think that after being stabbed in the back by all their anonymous sources that the NY Times would learn, but no, it is forever "Orange Mad Bad" maybe they should have been the ones at the women's march this year singing "We won't live with a fascist tangerine"

[robkelk]

Well, tonight's closing argument was that Trump shouldn't be impeached, Obama is the one who should really be impeached.  So there's that.  Earlier in the day they concentrated on how there wasn't enough evidence to impeach, which Democrats think is a good supporting argument to call witnesses.  One attorney said it was a perfect phone call, another said it was an "almost-perfect phone call".  Let's see if the defense can manage to do better tomorrow.

Oh, and John Bolton's new book says Trump totally did it.

i do believe you are taking what was said out of context again Labster, what the argument was was that if anyone SHOULD have been impeached by these low standards that the democrats have set, it should have been Obama

Either way, it's a deflection tactic and a logical fallacy, and would have been ruled inadmissible in an impartial court of law.

If that's the best the GOP is going to bother offering, then they're making it obvious that the fix is in.

As to Bolton's book, what we have are leaks from a NSC reviewer, not actual quotes from the book, no context what-so-ever, and all from an "anonymous source" you would think that after being stabbed in the back by all their anonymous sources that the NY Times would learn, but no, it is forever "Orange Mad Bad" maybe they should have been the ones at the women's march this year singing "We won't live with a fascist tangerine"

It's enough to get Mitt Ronmey talking about getting Bolton to testify in front of the Senate.

[Rajvik]

Rob, Mitt is, frankly Romney is still pissed that he didn't get "HIS TURN" and he feels jilted, you notice he had to go halfway across the country to get elected when his liberal policies were supposedly so good for Massachusetts. He won't win his next election, though the question stands whether a blue dog or a different republican will take his seat.

Love how Hakeem Jefferies (sorry if i spelled that wrong) is saying that it only has to be "Akin to a crime" to qualify for impeachment. so the next time a president takes his pen and his phone and does something that is completely illegal, and that he has publicly stated that it is illegal to do and does it, then we can impeach him?

[classicdrogn]

Sure. Though it's very clear that either side not only won't if he's also a member of the same party but will defend it with as much focus and vigour as the other party decries it.

[robkelk]

... his liberal policies ...

Are we talking about the same person here? Senator from Utah, millionaire, so conservative he followed Trump's lead in not endorsing the person who got the nomination instead of him?

Or is there another Mitt Romney in the Senate?

[Rajvik]

no rob, same person that brought, among other things government run/mandated healthcare to Massachusetts, has been a tax and spend big government type, and seems to think that the people are a bunch of idiots, (this specifically for not voting for him in 2012/2016

[Matrix Dragon]

Well, yes. People voted for Trump instead. So is he really that wrong?

[classicdrogn]

Well, better tax and spend than borrow and spend, but do remember that Raj likes the Glorious Leader of Trumpistan.

[Rajvik]

and while i didn't particularly like Romney, i would have voted for him over Obama, who i liked even less. Sometimes it's not so much about liking one candidate, its about which one you hate less

[Matrix Dragon]

Well, yes. Voting isn't marriage, it's public transport. It's about which one gets you the closest to where you want to go. All those 'not voting out of spite because my waifu isn't there' idiots need to learn that.

[Labster]

Well, I just heard the President's attorney argue, in the last question of the night, that what Donald Trump did in Ukraine is not impeachable, but what Joe Biden has done would certainly be impeachable.

[Matrix Dragon]

Well, I just heard the President's attorney argue, in the last question of the night, that what Donald Trump did in Ukraine is not impeachable, but what Joe Biden has done would certainly be impeachable.

That's pretty much their entire plan. "No You!"