A truncated defense would likely reflect a decision not to contest facts or defend Trump point by point, but rather to try to diminish the legitimacy of Democrats' overall case and end the trial as quickly as possible.How many "points" are there? Seems to me — and I'm listening to precious little of the proceedings — that the Democrats have been repeating themselves quite a bit.
You can respond on every point in MUCH less time than the Democrats have consumed laying out their case, and I think it's better to be confident and pithy, not to pad and elongate. It makes me think of all the exams I have graded in my life. I usually had a page limit, but students who wrote to the page limit usually seemed to have less to say and to be trying to cover that up by making it LOOK like they had material. I was MUCH happier to see something shorter, where every sentence had strong material and there was no repetition.
Less is more.
Posts
387 comments:
1 – 200 of 387 Newer› Newest»One thing I think everyone will agree on, no matter when this trial ends, the effort to de-legitimize Trump's presidency and remove him from office will continue through the election and into his next term if there is one.
That's one reason it's not gripping the attention of most people. Everyone knows this effort began shortly after he was elected (get state electors to switch their votes!) and has continued unabated since. It's background noise to most.
The OJ trial comes to mind.
One point I overheard while walking by the TV is that Trump's withholding of $$ from Ukraine came at a time of heightened danger such that Ukraine was in some sort of imminent peril.
I guess that would be a good point if Trump refused to defend one of the 50 states from some sort of imminent military peril.
But what, ultimately, is Ukraine to us? It's not a state. Is it a colony?? Do we always have to drop everything and make sure Ukraine is always safe and sound?
I don't remember ever agreeing to this.
I wish Trump's team would make this point...
You have one offhanded remark from sekulow, but its tricky there are so many lies in the house presentation.
Yancey, I was reminded of My Cousin Vinny:
Vinny Gambini : [opening statements] Uh... everything that guy just said is bullshit... Thank you.
D.A. Jim Trotter : Objection. Counsel's entire opening statement is argumentative.
Judge Chamberlain Haller : Sustained. Counselor's entire opening statement... with the exception of "thank you"... will be stricken from the record.
Well that may have been true in 2014, but not 2019, its being a sitzkrieg for the next three years
You should have watched the case against Trump. Then you might better understand what those points were.
This embarrassing post from you was inevitable, Althouse. — you don’t know exactly what the House Managers said, but whatever it was, was unconvincing — I just didn’t expect it this soon.
As a solid lawprof, I recall posts from you, rightly questioning the emphatic opinions of persons who were not at a trial, about some controversial verdict. And here you are falling into the same rhetorical trap.
Ah no ted stryker
Chuck is an idiot, of course,
Pretty good interview of Ted Cruz by Hugh Hewitt.
Some probable strategy discussed.
TC: So I agree with you on that. I actually spent a fair amount of time last night after the trial talking with the President’s lawyers and urging them, number one, focus on substance more and process less. Don’t, there are all sorts of process concerns. Those are real. As lawyers, it’s easy to focus on them. Focus on what matters, which is the substance. Lay out the case why President Trump is innocent, and the reason he is innocent. And I told them look, nothing matters more than the facts on Burisma. Yesterday, the House managers spent over an hour arguing there’s no reason to investigate Burisma. They built their entire case on this house of cards.
I would say that suggests not repeating arguments like the House guys have done.
Strongly recommend the Steve Bannon podcats on WarRoom Impeachment . They break it all down clean and good.
Yes, less is more. The Dems are trying to magnify a phone call by our President to the Ukranian President into something huge, when it's not. It's nothing.
The Left is wetting its panties over how well Adam Schiff did. He would get torn up in cross-examination. But, the Trump team has to attack his credibility, and ding him up. He's the whole case! The Dems have no other competent attorneys! But on substance, of the "damages' here is that foreign aid was delayed for 2 months. Big fucking deal.
It's a Tour de Farce!
Trump just tweeted a picture of Obama scaling Trump tower and peeking through windows with binoculars.
They could spend 24 hours easily on the treasonous shitheads pushing the impeachment.
I appeal to pro-removal commenters, and I note Chuck is a frequenter commenter who favors removal, to explain to me what Trump has done that many (most? all?) other Presidents have not done. It can't be "talking to a foreign leader". It can't be "talking to a foreign leader and requesting an action that would benefit the President politically." I don't want to put words into the pro-removal mouths, so I'll stop here without listing more bad arguments for removal. If you tell me, "if you had only listened to, followed, all the previous proceedings, you would know the answer to this," I will conclude that you cannot state succinctly the argument for removal.
Q: Would Trump lawyers consult with him at all about what kind of defense to put up?
or is that covered by only an asshole defends himself on his own!
Watch out for those Republican tricksters! Sources close to the defense team warn they may keep their arguments concise and on point.
Les Moore would agree.
Psota said...
One point I overheard while walking by the TV is that Trump's withholding of $$ from Ukraine came at a time of heightened danger such that Ukraine was in some sort of imminent peril.
Trump delayed aid that Obama refused to ever send.
These people are so obviously just traitorous shit heads.
Just look at Chuck and his drooling idiocy above.
Trump should save his big rebuttal to Monday. Then just give back time on Tuesday.
One point I overheard while walking by the TV is that Trump's withholding of $$ from Ukraine came at a time of heightened danger such that Ukraine was in some sort of imminent peril.
I guess that would be a good point if Trump refused to defend one of the 50 states from some sort of imminent military peril.
Actually, the point the House Managers were making is even weaker than you surmised. The aid Trump withheld was intended to replenish Ukraine's inventory of weapons. Ukraine was NOT without these weapons and would not have run out of them for several months had the aid not been released. So, the temporary hold on aid had NO effect on Ukraine's ability to defend itself. The temporary hold resulted in NO increase in battlefield casualties.
Of course, the House Managers don't acknowledge that the temporary hold had no effect on Ukraine's then current military capability. They'd much rather have the rubes believe the brave Ukraine army was out of bullets and were fighting Russian tanks with nothing more than sticks and stones, but it's not the truth. Nor did the Democrats seem too upset when Obama refused Ukraine ANY lethal military aid. No, they'd much rather pretend any battlefield deaths in Ukraine are Trump's fault. Like most of what they've been saying, they know it's untrue.
I dubbed him ted stryker, for those long monologues that prompted self immolation.
It seems Rudy's "Friend" Igor Furman was taping Trump when he fired Ambassador Yankleblob. It's incredible that people in 2008 were supporting Rudy for POTUS. The guy comes off as a total clown. I guess less is more when it comes to Rudy.
The hack press licked Schitt's dick all day long yesterday. Like a long sex session with a gray alien.
In fact, never trumper traitors were taping everything in the Ukraine. No comey's were needed. Trump sure can pick them.
Here's the main point: Joe Biden's family members get wealthy off of his public service. He admitted threatening Ukraine with the withholding of funds if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the company that put his deadbeat unqualified son on its board and pay him tons of money. Asking for Ukraine's help in investigating that corruption is not only NOT an impeachable offense, it's the President's job, even if he stands to benefit politically from it. There's probably a lot of that type of graft going on in Washington and Trump is hated mostly because he threatens to expose it all.
The Dems are taking advantage of the full, 24 hours because it translates to free political advertising. The process of psychological manipulation is known as Gaslighting.
Schiff is boring as schiff on a white bread shingle. He's weird looking too. Between him and Jerry "Jabba the hutt" Nadler, and spooking looking Pelois the D's have a perfect storm of House weirdos.
Be great if he got Otter and Hoover to do their two-minute defense then they all just walked out.
That’s what this bullshit deserves.
Every time I stop in for a listen, I hear somebody say something I heard before if it’s substantive at all or I hear padding and histrionics like Trump thinks he’s a king or we need to be on the side of the good. Huge waste of time. I didn’t have to put up with that to have an opinion. Pay me $1,000 an hour and I would do it, but only because the is a 6 day limit.
Blogger Chuck said...
You should have watched the case against Trump. Then you might better understand what those points were.
All we've ever had thus far is the democrats case against Trump.
For months. Over and over and over.
The put on their entire case in the Senate during the debate over amendments.
All this time, which seems like years, we've heard nothing but democrats, and have yet to hear anything in defense of the President.
So fuck off.
...students who wrote to the page limit usually seemed to have less to say and to be trying to cover that up by making it LOOK like they had material...
Correctamundo. This was precisely my approach. I did not want to spend weeks and months actually studying, which would have seriously got in the way of other matters that I felt were more important. So I had to make a trade - virtually no work before the exam, in exchange for having to produce a lot of writing during the exam.
I prepared by acquiring a small collection of facts, well understood, and then I would attempt to use them all, appropriately seeded in each answer, whatever those questions turned out to be. Obviously the same facts judiciously juggled and reworded appeared in several answers. The same fact might be used to support contrary positions in different answers. You use what you've got.
In an exam where you had to pick, say, five questions from nine, and score 50% to pass, you could usually count on your small pile of facts being vaguely relevant to a couple of the questions. So with a decent write up, and much parsing of the question, you had a good chance of picking up at least 30 of the required 50 marks from just two questions.
Leaving you to scrabble for just 20 marks from three remaining questions, or 7 out of 20 from each. If you fill three pages with coherent English, sprinkling even barely relevant facts in here and there, and spend some time defining down the question to its "essential point" - ie the point you think might bear a tangential relationship with the few facts you have at your dispoaal, it takes a hard hearted marker to give you a score of less than 7 out of 20.
I never failed an exam.
Moreover this approach came in very handy in corporate life, when the pernicious notion of "self-evaluation" was invented. You could be very confident that a reviewer would quickly tire of ten pages of self praise, so that a very small dribble of achievements, including those "borrowed" from other people, could be spread over a large canvas, to create at least a passing grade.
The D's are taking the full 24 hours, but no one is listening, except their base.
Why doesn't Trump just run "Trump for President" videos or read out his tweets for the last 8 hours?
"Every time I stop in for a listen, I hear somebody say something I heard before'
I've dipped in and out and never last more than one minute. Talk about dull. Its an impeachment show about nothing. hat-tip Seinfeld.
@McCullough,
Be great if he got Otter and Hoover to do their two-minute defense then they all just walked out.
The Trump's newest trial attorney -- Eric "Otter" Stratton, Esq.
Pete and Repeat totally. A decent defense counsel likely only needs an hour to rebut what the other side has taken three days to build.
"But what, ultimately, is Ukraine to us?"
Didn't Trump swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend Ukraine?
Is this the media narrative/excuse used so they can ignore this side of it?
Trump sure can pick them.
Why do you think he depends so much on family ? DC is a swamp that hates him with a passion. He is learning but he went in there alone with snakes everywhere. The Republicans that were recommended were no better then Democrats. They took out Flynn early because Trump could trust him. The National Security Council had 25 staff members before Obama. Now it is hundreds and they were all picked by Obama and his people, like Ciamarelli.
Someone please watch CNN and MSDNC to see if they even present the other side at all.
My guess is - they will not.
It is impossible to prove a negative unless you have an alibi. As a Jew once said when he was told that the Jews had murdered Christ,"Really I didn't do it. I have an alibi. I was in Philadelphia."
I would have Trump's lawyers Cipollone and Sekulow stand up each on one side of the room and read the Transcripts out very loud alternating sentence by sentence with the second repeating the first one's sentence with his cadence until each transcript is read. Then repeat that six more times.
Fletcher Pratt (IIRC) in one of his breezy Napoleonic histories, describes how William Pitt handled a long attack on his policies by an opponent in the Commons--he had a pad of paper and a pen, and when the MP had finished his diatribe, Pitt nonchalantly tossed his notes onto the floor . . .
Them was the days.
Narr
Vague but true is a high standard too
You can pay me $1000 an hour, Althouse, and I will summarize for you the devastatingly effective case against Trump. Then, whenever you write about impeachment, it won’t be so ignorant on the substance of the actual case against Trump.
You are writing about a trial that you have openly declared that you’re watching only occasionally and randomly at that.
Why don’t you point to errors in the claims or mistakes in discretely asserted facts? That is sort of what the Trump defense team will have a chance to do, and what they are seemingly preparing to AVOID doing.
The interesting thing here is the Democrats/GOPe have all of this planned out. They have more than 50 votes to force McConnell to deal with witnesses. Romney, Murkowski, Burr etc. all have skin in the corruption game. They are 100% on team uniparty. They are not independent actors.
Collins I believe actually still retains her soul which is interesting.
They have the votes to bar defense witnesses and allow democrats to parade all sorts of deep state traitors up to the podium.
They could keep this going forever.
Watch what they actually do through this prism.
Super smart.
Trump has the better lawyers. They know their audience.
They should tweet the defense.
When it comes to arguments I'm a big believer in concision. Even around here I much prefer when people qyickly get to the point rather than write giant walls of text. Especially since more often than not those posters are just repeating themselves in different ways or going off on unnecessary digressions. If you want to persuade me, don't bore me.
Why do we not have the answer to this simple question:
At the time of the second Zelensky call, was Hunter or Joe Biden the target of a preliminary or full investigation by the DOJ, FBI, or other agency into dealings with Ukrainian entities, such as Burisma or the Ukrainian government?
I don’t believe this question was asked in any of the House hearings and it’s not been brought up yet in the Senate trial. But, this is the most critical missing fact and my decision to either convict or not convict the president rests solely on the answer to this question.
More on Nadler's big mistake.
I had missed this.
The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn't just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover up. He said they had committed treason: "So far, I'm sad to say, I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup. Voting to deny witnesses and obviously a treacherous vote. A vote against honest consideration of the evidence against the president. A vote against an honest trial. A vote against the United States."
I wonder if he ever appeared in a court? Nope.
While attending evening courses at the Fordham University School of Law, Nadler was first elected to the New York Assembly in 1976. He completed his J.D. at Fordham in 1978.
"You can pay me $1000 an hour, Althouse, and I will summarize for you the devastatingly effective case against Trump. Then, whenever you write about impeachment, it won’t be so ignorant on the substance of the actual case against Trump."
Chuck, just tell us something we wouldn't know from the House proceedings last Fall and the media coverage during that time. Anything at all.
It is impossible to prove a negative
Impossible will not always be a negation!
I gather from European and British detective shows that standards of proof are different there. You're legitimately convicted if you have motive and opportunity.
Chuck said...
You can pay me $1000 an hour, Althouse, and I will summarize for you the devastatingly effective case against Trump. Then, whenever you write about impeachment, it won’t be so ignorant on the substance of the actual case against Trump.
You are writing about a trial that you have openly declared that you’re watching only occasionally and randomly at that.
Why don’t you point to errors in the claims or mistakes in discretely asserted facts? That is sort of what the Trump defense team will have a chance to do, and what they are seemingly preparing to AVOID doing.
Thank you for what you do Chuck. Never stop.
Don't ever let people forget how douchey, traitorous, and absurd the cuck wing of the democrat party is.
It's more important that ten corrupt presidents be acquitted than one innocent one be impeached.
One point I overheard while walking by the TV is that Trump's withholding of $$ from Ukraine came at a time of heightened danger such that Ukraine was in some sort of imminent peril.
It was not money. It was Javelin anti-tank misses that Trump had already provided to Ukraine. The delayed shipment was a resupply. And there is this ...
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) told reporters during a break in the Senate trial of President Donald Trump on Thursday that several of the House Democrat impeachment managers had voted against bills providing “lethal aid” to Ukraine.
Tom said...
Why do we not have the answer to this simple question:
At the time of the second Zelensky call, was Hunter or Joe Biden the target of a preliminary or full investigation by the DOJ, FBI, or other agency into dealings with Ukrainian entities, such as Burisma or the Ukrainian government?
You mean the same FBI/DOJ that has now been forced to admit they fraudulently sought permission to spy on Carter Page in order to surveil the Trump campaign and actively sought to frame Obama/Biden's political opponents as Russian agents?
You can't be that silly.
Article of Impeachment No. 2 -- Obstruction of Congress -- is easy to defeat.
1. Bicameralism -- Congress is both chambers: the House and Senate. There is no claim or evidence of "obstructing" the Senate, ergo there is no obstruction of Congress.
2. Separation of Powers -- Objecting to Subpoenas by asserting Executive Privilege is a valid and lawful exercise of the President. Nixon did it (US v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); Clinton did it (See Lewinsky case); Obama did it with respect to documents withheld by AG Eric Holder.
The question is whether a Court adjudicates and REJECTS the presidential claim of Executive Privilege. If the Prez disobeys the Court order, then, he might be impeached.
Didn't happen here. The Dems chickened out on enforcing Congressional subpoenas, and did NOT get a court order directing the Prez to comply or be subject to contempt. Game. Set. Match.
Doesn't matter what Shifty Schiff says about this AOI. He can wax eloquent for another 24 hours -- this one is done!
I think the present day Democratic Party has just managed to make themselves look ridiculous to their own base.
But these people are politicians and lawyers on both sides. Even Trump will not be able to stop his defenders from talking when their turn comes.
Francisco D said...
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) told reporters during a break in the Senate trial of President Donald Trump on Thursday that several of the House Democrat impeachment managers had voted against bills providing “lethal aid” to Ukraine.
Democrats voting to block that aid Obama never allowing it to be sent is different than Trump delaying it for a few weeks.
The difference is this impeachment is a spoiling attack meant to blunt the revelations that Washington DC is an Army of Paul Manaforts soaking up foreign aid being kicked back to them as consultants whose job was to lubricate the path for more foreign aid.
Our friend Chuck sez:
You can pay me $1000 an hour, Althouse, and I will summarize for you the devastatingly effective case against Trump.
I'll pay you a $1000 an hour if you don't. Please clap.
They could keep this going forever.
I think that is the Democrat plan.
They hope to vote for Bolton and Mulvaney to appear, so Trump invokes executive privilege. Then it goes to court and takes months to work its way through.
McConnell will push the incomplete impeachment back to the House to take care of the details that are required of them. That is the Constitutional approach.
It's always good to remember how we got here. If you surround yourself with hysterical idiots predictable results ensue.
Rudy Giuliani claims he is going to release 'evidence' against Joe and Hunter Biden and repeats claims he can prove they made 'millions'
You can pay me $1000 an hour, Althouse, and I will summarize for you the devastatingly effective case against Trump.
That would be $990.00 an hour more than Chuckles has ever earned.
Who do you think you are Chuckles? Hunter Biden?
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
It's always good to remember how we got here. If you surround yourself with hysterical idiots predictable results ensue.
Rudy Giuliani claims he is going to release 'evidence' against Joe and Hunter Biden and repeats claims he can prove they made 'millions'
Are you actually defending the rapists and deadbeats and corrupt traitors?
It sure seems like you are upset Trump wants to investigate these ticks that have been sucking the life blood out of our country.
Meanwhile with Trump as president the lowest income brackets are increasing their earnings faster than the rich.
I think we know what really makes democratics angry.
Finally got blocked by one of my leftie friends on Facebook after loudly declaring that the democrats will fail in the Senate but they will make the republicans "pay a price" and vulnerable senators will fall. I responded with an article from 2012 about all teh republicans that were going to "pay a price" for voting against Obamacare. I think we all know what happened next don't we?
I am seeing signs on the Kubler-Ross scale we are finally moving away from Anger and groping towards Bargaining. At least that's healthy.
Rudy said that he went there looking into 2016 election interference, which was widely documented in the media, as was the Democrats role in it, and was faced with all of this other garbage regarding the Democrats that Ukrainians were getting off their chests.
will summarize for you the devastatingly effective case against Trump.
Reads like fraud to me, yet it also suggests no other witnesses are necessary and the Democrats spent too much time talking.
I had to block a guy I like very much IRL, and it hasn’t affected our IRL friendship. If anything, it’s improved it.
Ah a law professor who likes exam papers that are short and to the point. The bar exam (in most states, and in California to my direct knowledge) back in the day (1968) was an exercise in issue spotting. If you knew there was an issue there--that was good for about 70% of the grade. If you knew the majority rule on the issue, that was good for another 20%, and if you showed that you also knew the minority rule--hey babe, you aced the test. I've graded a few law school exams (my students had to suffer through me as an adjunct professor). Having someone demonstrate all that knowledge in two or three pages was a blessing--not often received.
As for the stultifying House managers speeches: everybody gets to play, which means that even the weakest link in that crew gets a star turn of sorts. I've listened to snatches on the radio, and most of their argument runs to "discredited" "debunked" claims concerning things they disagree with. The Scots verdict "not proven" comes to mind when I hear that.
The Biden’s need a special prosecutor.
Barr can appoint Mueller and then provide him with Trey Gowdy as his deputy and Trey can hire the rest of the staff
I’ve watched or listened to at least 75% of the inquiries and now the impeachment. I bet that’s more than anybody else here and I can safely say as a regular a schmoe/voter kinda guy that the democrats are gambling it all that enough people are morons/ Or don’t believe they (the democrats) are not complete scumbags. They are wrong.
Francisco D said...
They could keep this going forever.
I think that is the Democrat plan.
You shouldn't call it the Democrat plan. There are more than a few Republicans in on this.
I think this is right.
This impeachment has to be continuing when Durham starts dropping indictments in June. There are thousands of "Consultants" and "Lobbyists" in DC that make a living off this gravy train. There are dozens of people in the FBI/DOJ/CIA/State Department who have corrupt side deals going down and who were involved in spying on political opponents.
They have at least 20 republican senators that will get all squishy in the pants when "advisers" and "staff" of theirs start getting deposed and questioned about their foreign "consulting" gigs.
Washington DC is getting wealthy soaking up our tax money.
Talk radio and cable news are repeat, repeat, repeat. Surprised if client does not want long defense.
That seems above and beyond the call of duty.
"That is sort of what the Trump defense team will have a chance to do, and what they are seemingly preparing to AVOID doing.”
Have we heard from them yet? This. will be the first time an alternate point of view will be heard not limited by the heavy thumb of Schiff, so this should be interesting. Will Trump’s lawyers avoid the facts? If they do, that will be points for Chuck.
Remember Chuck, not everyone here a Trumpist. Go, go, go.
The democrats can only keep impeachments up in the second term if they hold the house.
There aren't going to be witnesses. There could be witnesses if the Democrats don't fight against defense witnesses, but the Democrats have made it clear the only witnesses they will agree to having called are the ones they want- no one else. It is just the repeat of the House hearings where the only witness the Republicans got approved was Jonathan Turley in the judiciary hearing with the other two lefty law professors.
I think the Republicans will stand firm and united on this- both sides get their witnesses called, or neither one does.
1. The president, not the NSC, is in charge of foreign policy.
2. In what non-Democrat universe is blatant corruption something NOT to ask about?
3. If Democrats wanted witnesses, there is a process for that, which they chose not to follow.
Thank you for your time, I suggest we move to vote on the articles.
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.
Democrats are pounding the table with all their might.
It is funny, Chuck vanishes like a fart in the wind when I ask him to tell us one thing the House prosecution team revealed that wasn't already known publicly- just one thing to justify his attack against Althouse for not watching the Senate trial.
"Remember Chuck, not everyone here a Trumpist. Go, go, go.”
You mean you are persuaded by his constant repetition of discredited arguments and his refusal to acknowledge holes in his arguments or to rebut them because, well, he doesn’t need to, he’s Chuck? No wonder you guys are Democrats. I assume he doesn’t rebut holes in his arguments because he is blind to them. Democrats assume that if they don’t acknowledge them, the holes go away.
Trumps lawyers are much better looking than Schiff and Nadler.
The Dems have the sorriest-looking white guys.
Chuck said...You can pay me $1000 an hour, Althouse, and I will summarize for you the devastatingly effective case against Trump.
Really? So all these posts you've been making about the case against Trump...they are...what?
You've been holding back? For what purpose? And why continue to post if you're not willing to actually make the argument you are so desperately pretending to be making?
Schiff is back at the Lecturn! He has the Con! (short for Control, not Confidence). But he has nothing new to say. "Of necessity, there will be some repetition........"
What an unctuous little, Tool. Someone really needs to give him a well-deserved wedgie.
Senator Thom Tillis wasn't impressed with the Dems testimony, describing it as "continuous loop" of "Impeachment by repetition". And I agree. We haven't heard anything new and I can't imagine a lengthy trial would reveal anything truly novel either. This farce needs to be ended sooner rather than later. At this point continuing further is only entertaining the delusions of the mentally unwell.
If you don’t look, does that make Schiff not a serial liar?
Achilles said...
Are you actually defending the rapists and deadbeats and corrupt traitors?
Defending Trump, his children, and McConnell and his wife - not really my beat.
Schiff has passed the baton to that little Homunculus, Jerry Nadler.
"The Act of Solicitation" constitutes an abuse of power, he avers. Yawn.
"entertaining the delusions of the mentally unwell.”
Who have been politically weaponized. Democrats learned this from the way ISIS has weaponized the mentally ill. Of course that Trump hater who killed his boss with a trowel for supporting Trump seems to indicate that the weaponization is more than political, same as the guy who attacked the Republican softball practice repeating the mantra of “traitors” that he heard on Maddow’s show.
Like dr. Arkanes protege that turned feral.
Aunty Trump said...
"Remember Chuck, not everyone here a Trumpist. Go, go, go.”
You mean you are persuaded by his constant repetition of discredited arguments and his refusal to acknowledge holes in his arguments or to rebut them because, well, he doesn’t need to, he’s Chuck?
Back before he let his Trump hatred push him over the edge, Patterico had a very smart post about the trajectory of an argument with a liberal:
1) Lib asserts A.
2) Con cites facts and logic showing that A is incorrect.
3) Lib completely ignores Cons points and asserts B
4) Con cites facts and logic showing that B is incorrect.
5) Lib completely ignores Cons points and asserts C
6) Con cites facts and logic showing that C is incorrect.
5) Lib asserts A.
ARM: Squirrel!
You know shit isn’t going well for him when he changes the subject.
I think the odds favor Aunty Trump being the sockpuppet of Drago - but I am open to other suggestions.
Patterico had ARM nailed.
Yancey Ward: "Chuck, just tell us something we wouldn't know from the House proceedings last Fall and the media coverage during that time. Anything at all."
I hear that this "devastatingly effective case against Trump" includes disinterring "Russia collusion" (including citing the joke about getting the Russians to hack Hillary's emails). Is the rest of the case as novel and devastating as that, Chuck? A "yes" or "no" would suffice; not asking for "premium content Chuck".
Not to mention that ARM believes that the universe of people who disagree with him is so tiny that we must be cloning ourselves. That is some primo delusionality right there.
The democrats can only keep impeachments up in the second term if they hold the house.
More valuable than a billion dollars in Bloomberg ads.
"I think the odds favor Aunty Trump being the sockpuppet of Drago - but I am open to other suggestions."
Only if you are a moron.
Nadler doesn't look so good physically. I just saw him on HD and his complexion looks greyish/green like he's not getting enough oxygen. It would be sad if he is using his last moments on earth for this fool's errand.
"Schiff is himself a material fact witness to this entire impeachment imbroglio, beginning with his office’s coordination with the whistleblower."
You can pay me $1000 an hour, Althouse, and I will summarize for you the devastatingly effective case against Trump. ...
Chuck -- If I were Althouse, I'd take you up on the offer, provided you would agree to pay me $1,000 for each hour of my time if I found your summary of the House Manager's case to be less than "devastatingly effective". I have been paying attention. So far, I don't find the case to be persuasive. To my view, the House Managers have yet to make a prima facie case that Trump corruptly pressured Ukraine to provide political dirt on Biden.
They've made a prima facie showing that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Burisma and Hunter Biden. That's only one element of the alleged high crime or misdemeanor. The missing element is Trump's intention. Accepting the House Manager's theory (that Trump's pressuring Ukraine would be impeachable if he did it for personal political gain), the House hasn't begun to demonstrate that Trump thought he'd gain any political advantage.
As you've pointed out numerous times, Trump has a huge ego. Given his ego, I cannot fathom him viewing Biden as an electoral threat. Trump may be wrong in this view. Biden may eventually prove to be a significant opponent in the upcoming election. That's NOT the question. The question is did Trump view Biden as a threat and FOR THAT REASON try to pressure Ukraine into investigating Hunter Biden. So far, the House Managers have offered no evidence that Trump viewed Biden as a threat. Absent such evidence, their case falls apart. Trump's explanation that he was concerned with corruption in Ukraine is more persuasive than the claim that he was motivated out of an electoral threat from someone Trump views as a non-entity.
You might view things differently. You might believe Trump was very concerned with Biden. Fine. My point is only that the House has the burden of demonstrating this 'fact'. So far, they have offered no evidence on this essential fact question. As such, they have yet to make a prima facie showing.
If Ex-VP Biden were not running for office against Trump, would Democrats have only been able to bring one article of impeachment?
It seems that in order to prove their first article of impeachment, Democrats would have to prove Trump's intent. It seems like Democrats should have, to be consistent, investigated Mr. Biden and his son's actions prior to this because if there was no wrong-doing, they could easily prove Mr. Trump's intent. Without proving the Bidens' innocence from wrong-doing, they make it impossible to prove his intent.
Also, they repeat themselves so much about so little, that I believe that they are damaging their case and their brand.
You prefer no repetition??
President Trump must drive you crazy.
Allegations, ARM. The Avanetti left have allegations, doncha know.
Ask Julie Swetnik.
readering said...
Talk radio and cable news are repeat, repeat, repeat. Surprised if client does not want long defense.
The Democrats' audience is the TV watchers. TV networks are going to soap operas and regular programming.
The Republican's audience is the Senate. Very few arguments to refute. Senators know the law.
No need to gaslight. Surprised if you don't know this. Maybe you do and are just BSing.
Your Honor, the prosecution will establish that due diligence, fiduciary responsibility, and mitigating progress, are impeachable offenses. We rest our case.
Biden's international corruption (Like Hillary's and Pelosi family for that matter) is a threat to our democracy.
ARM seems to be reaching for distraction. His love for Iran and Shia Islam is overwhelming his common sense. Oh wait. What common sense?
If you don’t follow Trump through the reporting of the lefty media, he sounds fine. If the only view I had of him was through late nite comedy, MSNBC, and CNN, I might feel different. That’s why he has Twitter. To cut those guys out.
Aunty Trump said...
some primo delusionality
Come on, tell me this isn't Drago.
Aunty Trump popped up when Drago started to get more push back from some here for cluttering up the threads with his incessant nonsense. Coincidence? I think not.
Biden is not a threat because his plan for the industrial midwest is to kill their current jobs and give them new ones that will almost certainly pay less if they every actually appear.
“Let that bird in the hand go! There’s two in the bushes!” - Joe Biden’s pitch to PA.
I think the present day Democratic Party has just managed to make themselves look ridiculous to their own base.
On the contrary, Chuck’s riveted.
Nothing to see here:
Donald Trump has been caught on tape appearing to order the firing of then-Ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
A tape reviewed by ABC News appears to show Trump giving the order
'Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it,' a voice believed to be the president's is saying
The audio was made at a fundraising dinner for Trump's 2020 campaign on April 30, 2018 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman - the two indicted sidekicks of Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani - were at the dinner
Fruman allegedly made the recordings, which is in the hands of feds
All this repetition is just glitches in the Matrix.
It’s the simulation’s version of Lorem ipsum.
Umm, Trump, like any president, is allowed to fire ambassadors.
Nothing to see here
You're right. There isn't. Ambassadors serve at the president's pleasure.
They really do have nothing.
"Umm, Trump, like any president, is allowed to fire ambassadors.”
But they have it on tape!
“What an unctuous little, Tool.”
He’s a greasy Schiff.
I agree with ARM, there's nothing to a President firing an Ambassador.
Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Nothing to see here:
I agree.
Not even when he tells some Ukrainian thugs to get it done?
It's really hard to listen to Nadler drone on and on about the Founders. He and his ilk have zero fidelity to the Founders or the Constitution. Heck, they'd be ripping down the statues of the Founders if they could.
They like the parts they like, they dislike the parts they dislike. Electoral College? Unfair -- count every vote! Executive authority of President? Don't you dare fire Comey or Mueller or Ambassadors.
The chubby little fellow is simply reading what his Lawfare minions have wrote.
Shiff is playing videos now? Good grief.
Is this where we beg for money from Althouse? I want in on that!
Just to be clear, because sometimes I can't believe what I am hearing. In your considered opinion, it is OK for the President of the United States to ask some Ukrainian thugs to remove a US ambassador.
Is this a fair understanding of the consensus here?
Especially a corrupt ambassador who was running interference for the corruption.
Trump was doing his job by demanding the corrupt hack fired.
Do Ukrainian thugs have the authority to fire a US ambassador? Is it cheaper to outsource that job overseas? Did that happen?
"Pay me $1,000 an hour and I would do it, but only because the is a 6 day limit."
Hmmm, after taxes, I don't know.. It's not enough.
On a related issue. Is it credible for Trump to repeatedly claim that he doesn't 'know' Lev Parnas And Igor Fruman when he was apparently sufficiently comfortable with them to tell them to 'Take her out' in reference to a US ambassador.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Just to be clear, because sometimes I can't believe what I am hearing. In your considered opinion, it is OK for the President of the United States to ask some Ukrainian thugs to remove a US ambassador.
Is this a fair understanding of the consensus here?
No you dumb piece of shit.
He told the state department to fire someone who serves directly under him.
Just like Obama and bush and Clinton and every other president in history has done.
You can’t really be this stupid and obtuse.
“1. Bicameralism -- Congress is both chambers: the House and Senate. There is no claim or evidence of "obstructing" the Senate, ergo there is no obstruction of Congress.”
I don’t that is really relevant.
“2. Separation of Powers -- Objecting to Subpoenas by asserting Executive Privilege is a valid and lawful exercise of the President. Nixon did it (US v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); Clinton did it (See Lewinsky case); Obama did it with respect to documents withheld by AG Eric Holder.”
The first President to assert Executive Immunity to protect a President’s conversations was George Washington. Can’t get much earlier than that. That means that the House is attempting to override almost 230 years of precedent.
“The question is whether a Court adjudicates and REJECTS the presidential claim of Executive Privilege. If the Prez disobeys the Court order, then, he might be impeached.”
Of course, the President was never given a chance to assert either Executive Immunity or Privilege, because his attorneys were never allowed to attend hearings.
“Didn't happen here. The Dems chickened out on enforcing Congressional subpoenas, and did NOT get a court order directing the Prez to comply or be subject to contempt. Game. Set. Match.”
The Dems didn’t have valid Congressional subpoenas for Trump and his people to violate, since at the time that the fake subpoenas were issued, Neither Schifty nor Wadler had been delegated subpoena power by the entire House (and Congressional subpoena power is only Constitutionally granted to the two houses of Congress in their entirety). And there was most of 200 years of court precedent that Congressional committees could only issue valid subpoenas if that power of the entire House (or Senate) has been properly delegated to the committees issuing the subpoenas, by a vote of the entire House (or Senate). House committees have been delegated subpoena power by House rules in their official area of A1S1 oversight, but neither of their two committees have oversight responsibility and authority over foreign relations, and the House doesn’t have oversight power over the Presidency because it was not created by Congress, but rather by Article II of the same Constitution from which they derive the totality of their own power. That leaves their A1S2 impeachment power. And impeachment subpoena power has never been delegated by the House rules. Never in more than 230 years. Rather, for every impeachment investigation, whether of a judge, cabinet member, or President, subpoena power, when needed, has been specifically delegated to the committee doing the investigation by a vote of the entire House. That had not happened at the time that the fake subpoenas were issued.
Anyone trying to claim that Trump ignored Congressional subpoenas is either lying, or is ignorant. They weren’t legal subpoenas, but rather documents that demanded compliance, or Trump would be held in Contempt of Congress. Those aren’t subpoenas, but rather a power grab by the House, trying to steal power from the other two branches of our government.
"Just to be clear, because sometimes I can't believe what I am hearing. In your considered opinion, it is OK for the President of the United States to ask some Ukrainian thugs to remove a US ambassador.
Is this a fair understanding of the consensus here?"
I don't understand what you're claiming; that Trump was ordering a hit on her?
Hilarious. This is their big secret weapon? If I remember correctly Yovanovitch was planning on leaving anyway before Trump pushed her out a couple of weeks early. This is their big get? No wonder the senate is bored out of their skulls.
BTW, I've discovered Schiff is a lot easier to take with the sound off.
It's no wonder that the House Dems spoke for so long. They had so little to say ...
Top comment on Reddit:
Remember, the most charitable interpretation of this is that an unregistered foreign agent successfully convinced the President to fire a career State Department diplomat, and did so in an environment so insecure he could record it on his phone.
That's the best-case scenario.
Ambassador Yavanovitch wasn't fired until a year later.
It's a pity Trump did fire EVERY Obama hold-over.
Remember, the most charitable interpretation of this is that an unregistered foreign agent successfully convinced the President to fire a career State Department diplomat,
You really are a riot, ARM. Have you considered a career in stand up comedy?
Top comment on another Reddit thread:
Man, I feel like a lot of gangster movies would have gone differently if the hitman had just realized "take em out" just meant have HR file the paperwork and schedule the exit interview for employment termination.
this is why they pillow covering over the Rosemont Seneca records,
I'm pretty sure Ambassador Yavanovitch still hasn't been assassinated by Ukrainian thugs.
So do people really believe that Donald Trump actually ordered a "hit" on a person he could just fire? Really?
“You can respond on every point in MUCH less time than the Democrats have consumed laying out their case, and I think it's better to be confident and pithy, not to pad and elongate. It makes me think of all the exams I have graded in my life. I usually had a page limit, but students who wrote to the page limit usually seemed to have less to say and to be trying to cover that up by making it LOOK like they had material. I was MUCH happier to see something shorter, where every sentence had strong material and there was no repetition.”
My experience in LS, was that a lot of tests were graded based on issue spotting. Then bonus points for maybe majority view, minority view, or in the case of my Contracts class, the case parties, jurisdiction, and year of the decision. In that Contracts case, the prof gave credit even when the case cited was only Peripherally related to the exam questions. The result then was often students throwing a lot of stuff up against the wall and seeing if any of it stuck, and was what the prof wanted. Which of course, was horrible training in becoming a lawyer. There were only a few of my profs who actually counted off for including irrelevant chaff in their exam answers (worst was my brother’s Contract prof who threw out any answers that mentioned the UCC, despite its obviously relevance to a question, and those parts of the UCC having been taught in the class, based on a high level instruction not to look to the UCC, unless specifically requested in a specific question).
Yovanovitch still works for the State Department. Just not an ambassador.
She was covering for the Biden’s corruption. So she was removed from her post.
She’s now The Ambassador to Georgetown University
Schiff is now claiming Trump "Endangered our Elections"?????
How could you confuse Donald Trump with John Brennan?
Solemani was taken out.
Yovanovitch was reassigned.
Snowflakes are ignorant
"Blogger Original Mike said...
Shiff is playing videos now? Good grief."
Next up: Schiff plays his KiLLeR mIXtapE for his beloved Susan, who still won't go out with him.
Interesting how the Ukraine Experts from the Deep State have no opinion on Bidens corruption.
Follow the money.
Seriously, he's still screaming RUSSIANS!!!!
Democrats are at the throwing linguini against the wall phase now. I think I just heard that criticizing Greta Thunburg is an impeachable offense.
Joe Biden rooted out corruption in Ukraine by getting his kid a million a year no show gig on a Ukraine oil company.
Schiff is spending a lot of time trying to convince himself this didn’t happen.
So far, he isn’t believing his own bullshit.
The Dems need to pass the hat and pay child support to Cokehead’s Baby Mama.
Adam Schitt is totally corrupt. He spent 3 years on MSDNC and CNn spreading lies about Russian Collusion. Now this.
How is this guy still in congress? It's beyond a joke.
“Remember, the most charitable interpretation of this is that an unregistered foreign agent successfully convinced the President to fire a career State Department diplomat, and did so in an environment so insecure he could record it on his phone.”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the President firing an ambassador for any reason whatsoever. Sure, the bureaucrats who are acting as ambassadors likely have some sort of job protection, but that is only to have a federal job, and not as an ambassador. He has to be able to fire ambassadors at will, because it is Constitutionally his foreign policy that they are implementing, and not theirs. They have two legal and ethical choices - implement the President’s foreign policy, or resign. This ambassador was actively sabotaging the President’s foreign policy preferences in regard to the Ukraine. She had to go. I don’t think that an ethical or Constitutional argument to the contrary can be made.
Schiff: "I don't think there's ever been a greater success of Russian intelligence"
Even greater than the atomic bomb secrets!
Yovanovitch was removed for covering for the Biden’s corruption.
She’s now carrying the cheese tray at the Georgetown cocktail parties. Pay is the same.
Alger Hiss. Aldrich Ames. Robert Hansen. Much bigger success for Russian intelligence than Facebook bots and Podesta’s emails.
Obama’s policies were very beneficial to Putin.
Trump’s are not.
Schiff can’t convince himself.
Democrats are at the throwing linguini against the wall phase now
What do mean by "now", Kemosabe?
Where’s the pallet of cash Obama said he sent to Iran?
Follow the money.
Democrats never intend to be corrupt.
“ Chuck is an idiot, of course,”
I dare say he’s on par with Dustin Farapuss.
from 50 down to 13 years,
While in prison, Miller trained to become a computer technician.[2] On May 6, 1994, he was released from prison following the reduction of his sentence to 13 years by a federal judge. Svetlana Ogorodnikova was released the same year.[2]
this is Schiff's big starring role, and he used this scam prosecution, in order to challenge james rogan,
dustin will 'never get over macho grande' will he, I thought I understood him, even after the whole Delaware unpleasantness,
but I've dubbed our Michigander 'ted stryker' from air plane,
Yavonovitch wasn't fired until 13 months after the allege phone call directing a subordinate to "get rid of her".
Sounds kind of flimsy to me.
If Pelosi is the brains of the Dem Party and Schiff is her top boy, this is what you get.
The Snowflake Base has grown. It’s probably 40% of the party now.
Impeachment was meant to Unite the Left.
It’s not going to work. The Socialists are not Democrats. They are not going to vote for Biden.
They don’t care about impeachment. They want Bernie and might settle for Warren.
Nothing Pelosi can do now.
miller's story is like something from 'burn after reading' he threw himself at a sparrow, in a failed recruitment pitch, (well that's what he tells himself,
’Then, whenever you write about impeachment, it won’t be so ignorant on the substance of the actual case against Trump.’
Start your own blog, you little pussy.
Schiff is now yapping -- again, about James Madison and the Founders.
The Dems citing US Constitution, Federalist Papers or Founders = Devil citing scripture.
Schiff is droning on to prevent Sanders and Warren from campaigning. Same reason Pelosi sat on the impeachment.
The Socialists are stupid but not that stupid.
They realize this.
If Bernie isn’t the nominee they are going to revolt against The Pelosi Party.
Biden can’t beat Trump without Bernie’s followers.
instead of relying on sean bean or Stephen byrne, although steele was more of cumberbatch
https://twitter.com/JPMediaBoss/status/1220787157142360064
The OJ trial comes to mind.
Except they had, you know, an actual crime in that one.
“ You [Tom] can't be that silly.”
Embrace the positive power of “can”...
for those who are two lazy to look, steele was communicating with jonathan winer, at state, who was in turn representing uranium one for apco, that's who isikoff went to get confirmation,
Can Trump's team do a "brief" morning and afternoon session on each of the allotted days to optimize its messaging, or is the the time allotted more in the nature of a continuous filibuster?
Ukraine is where children of democrats go to get rich.
Trump is a criminal for asking.
now steele was burned like in the opening of skyfall, by a gruntled ex mi6 operative Tomlinson, who used to be sas, along with 150 of his colleagues, that meant he was like Michael Weston in burned notice, he couldn't operate in any western capitol, this is why they sent him to afganistan in 2003, when he came back his former asset Litvinenko was dead, because of the Russian tea room, but mostly the polonium, because putin saw him hanging out with chechen exiles, in London, oh and he had converted to islam,
yes they left out that plot thread in Hamilton,
https://twitter.com/caitlinacarroll/status/1220768237178277894?s=20
Can Trump's team do a "brief" morning and afternoon session on each of the allotted days to optimize its messaging, or is the the time allotted more in the nature of a continuous filibuster?
I assume they can use their time, or choose to not use it how they will. At any rate, I don't think it would be wise for them to blather on and on repeating the same points like them Dems have been doing for 3 days straight.
They need to establish a contrast. Don't be boring. Don't drag things out. Emphasize facts and minimize opinions. It shouldn't be that difficult really.
I wonder if there's a way the public could measure just how "devastatingly effective" the House's presentation has been. For me, it wold need to be some combination of results related to Trumps re-election, and the majorities in Congress.
Given that the immediate expectation is that the impeachment will be defeated, Chuck, do you have some other measurement in mind?
Caught another windbag on the radio just now--going on about Trump standing next to Putin and using "Russian talking points" and that was the greatest intelligence coup the Russkis ever had. Has this clown heard of Aldrich Ames?
That said the fellow went on to talk about "discredited this" and "discredited that". Listening to him, I heard one of my old Texas lawyer friends make his favorite observation.
"You kin put feathers on a dog, but that don't mean it kin fly." There seems to be a pack fo feathered dogs coming on to the Senate floor--out of the mouths of morons.
Oops--that's a "pack of feathered dogs".
I remember in college I had a History professor who would criticize my essay exam answers by saying you need more meat on them bones. I guess I was guilty of what you pointed out about your students.
I suspect that we will be hearing in the news media the leaking of the documents that aren’t being allowed to be presented and testimony from witnesses that aren’t being allowed to testify. The truth has a way of surfacing one way or another. Trump won’t be found guilty by the Senate, we all know this, but the 2020 political ads are being written and there will be a majority of voters who will not be able to pull the lever for a thug. The history books will not be kind to Trump or to those who supported him and made excuses for him.
Why is Yovanovitch still alive?
"Why is Yovanovitch still alive?"
Worst gangster ever!
the fisa warrant on carter page is a govt document, its utter garbage, as the journal noted in an inside page, the ft hood whitewash that William webster signed off on likewise,
you think it's easy to get a hitman like Samuel Jackson in the 'devil's bodyguard',
Trump will be re-elected.
Impeachment is the last gasp of the Dem Establishment.
They are Decadent and Mediocre and Corrupt.
The Socialists aren’t voting for the Dem Establishment candidate.
So they will lose. Retreat to their Wine Caves and live out their days.
https://twitter.com/Doc_0/status/1220721393345626114?s=20
the 2020 political ads are being written and there will be a majority of voters who will not be able to pull the lever for a thug.
I agree but Biden will not be the nominee.
Right Inga - did you hear that on Maddow? Mueller is also just about to spill the beans. Trump colluded with Russia!
“By the numbers: Polling out Friday from ABC News and the Washington Post shows 66% of Americans want the Senate to call new witnesses. Several other polls this week returned with similar approval for witnesses:
57%, according to Morning Consult/Politico
69%, from CNN conducted by SSRS
About 70%, from the AP/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research
72%, from Reuters/Ipsos polling
66%, from Quinnipiac National Poll said they want Bolton to testify”
Axios
A brief recitation of the prosecution's main points:
1.
2.
3.
...
It appears to us that all these actions were taken within the President's powers as stated in the Constitution as Amended and there is nothing here to defend against.
Can we have a summary judgement, please?
Igna points out, that...
66% of Americans want the Senate to call new witnesses
LOOK People! Igna and I AGREE on something!
We BOTH agree (along with TWO THIRDS OF AMERICA) That the Senate should Call Hunter Biden!!
The Dems made two points. Both are BS.
The Dems supplied no direct evidence, so their BS is baseless.
The Dems used an absurdly partisan process, so their BS stinks..
The end.
Post a Comment