skews13

Yep. The first thing everyone watching will see, is Republicans voting to deny documents being allowed. They do know this is being seen on national television right?

White House counsel is lame. Dotard better hope they get better as this goes on.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), in the face of strong criticism from Democrats, is backing off his proposed requirement that House impeachment managers and President Trump’s lawyers each fit their opening arguments into two-day windows. McConnell amended his organizing resolution for Trump's impeachment trial at the last minute to give each side three days to make their opening arguments, which can last for up to 24 hours, the same amount of time given to the prosecution and defense during the 1999 impeachment trial of President Clinton. The GOP leader made another significant amendment to his resolution by allowing the House impeachment inquiry to be entered into the Senate’s official trial record — subject to hearsay objections — something McConnell declined to greenlight in his initial proposal. The resolution also allows each side to choose how many people may make those arguments. A copy of the resolution provided to the press showed the changes added in a handwritten scrawl on the printed document. McConnell had gotten pushback from some Republican colleagues on his draft during a lunch meeting held immediately before the trial started Tuesday shortly after 1 p.m. The GOP leader changed his resolution to give prosecutors more time after moderate senators including Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is up for reelection this year, pushed for some last-minute changes. “Senator Collins and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in two days and the admission of the House transcript in the record. Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement,” said Annie Clark, a spokeswoman for Collins. The draft McConnell circulated Monday night would have granted both sides only two days each to make their case, meaning that if they used all of their 24 hours of allotted time, they would have been speaking on the floor until past midnight over several days. His initial draft also did not allow for information gathered during the House inquiry to be formally admitted into evidence until after the Senate voted at the end of phase one of the trial to subpoena additional witnesses. A senior Republican leadership aide argued this restriction was put in place because the president’s lawyers didn’t have a chance to cross-examine witnesses during the House hearings. Had McConnell stuck to his more aggressive timeline, the Senate could have wrapped up the trial by the middle of next week if lawmakers voted against calling additional witnesses and documents. Now it looks the trial may overlap with Trump’s State of the Union address scheduled for Feb. 4. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and others slammed the initial proposal for forcing House impeachment managers to make their arguments late at night when fewer people — including sleepy senators — would be paying attention. “Sen. McConnell’s resolution stipulates that key facts be delivered in the wee hours of the night simply because he doesn’t want the American people to hear from them,” he said in a statement Monday. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) complained Tuesday that compressing the opening arguments into such a short time frame would make it tougher to present the case against Trump. “As a trial lawyer, I can tell you [that] you need a certain amount of time with the full attention and concentration of a jury without going into the early morning hours. Also the American people deserve to see and hear in real time,” he said. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479197-mcconnell-drops-two-day-limit-on-opening-arguments

Yes, he lied. It's been proven beyond any doubt he lied. Nobody is defending Bush for the lie. Except losers on NHB. And no WMD's were ever found. Only a fool is still putting that meme forward. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7634313/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/cias-final-report-no-wmd-found-iraq/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/ https://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12123022/george-w-bush-lies-iraq-war Even Trump says there were no WMD's. You calling him a liar? https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/yes-trump-said-bush-lied/

Cross examination? For what? What would his "examination" be about? Biden can't be called as a witness. Stop and think about what the word witness means. Does Biden have any relevant information on Trumps guilt or innocence? Then he can't be called as a witness. You would have to prove first, that he has any information relevant to the case. Nobody can be called as a witness that does not have information, or relevant testimony that is specifically related to the case for, or against the impeachment of Trump. Who is the only one on trial.

Moot point. Bush did lie about WMD's. The fact that Sanders wasn't an easily led fool like everyone else, is a moot point as well. Moral of the story. Not everyone is a easily led fool, that believes anything that comes out of a Republicans mouth. What Sanders did or did not say means anything. The lie that Bush told that led to the deaths of 4000 American military is. Those are some interesting priorities you have there.

Want to hear the professor give the exact opposite answer on the same issue in 98'? https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/20/alan-dershowitz-1998-doesnt-have-to-be-crime-to-impeach.cnn Fuk Dershowitz. He's a pedophile and a tool.

This isn’t Trump rally Chuck. Projection doesn’t work here. We already saw who was out for blood in Charlottesville Chuck. That would be your klan. And we dealt with them. We also noticed how you hero’s have no problem killing unarmed women. We’re surprised you didn’t kill any children on your way out of town.

The Senate trial of Donald Trump's Articles of Impeachment is set to begin on Tuesday. In advance of that, the Democrats released a 111 page brief on how they intend to prosecute the case against Trump. It's a detailed and comprehensive outline of the high crimes and misdemeanors that justify Trump's conviction and removal from office. On the other side of the aisle, Trump's motley crew of Fox News lawyers released a shallow and lie-riddled response that hardly touches on the specific allegations against Trump. In fact, Trump's official answer to the Articles of Impeachment is an emotional seven page rant that repetitiously makes a single point: that "the Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid" because they "fail to allege any crime or violation of the law." It further states that it is "a lawless process that violated basic due process," and that its consideration would be "subverting the will of the American people." Every bit of that is utterly false and has no legal basis as a defense. The charge that there is no crime alleged is false because Trump's efforts to coerce the Ukrainian president into aiding his scheme to smear Joe Biden is, in fact, a crime. So is withholding military aid allocated by Congress and signed by the President. So is ignoring Congressional subpoenas for documents and ordering his subordinates not to cooperate. But even if those weren't crimes, it wouldn't matter because the Constitution doesn't require violations of criminal statutes. For one thing, there weren't any criminal statutes at the time the Constitution was written. As for due process, that is a right granted in courts of law conducting criminal prosecutions. Due process doesn't apply here because impeachment is a political process conducted in the Congress. Even so, Trump was permitted to present his witnesses and defense, but he declined to do so. He even refused after complaining about not having such an opportunity. And he's still refusing to allow witnesses and documents that he says are exculpatory. The claim that impeachment "subverts" the will of the people is bizarre on its face. Was it subverting the will of the people when Clinton was impeached? How could any impeachment - which is, of course, in the Constitution - be pursued without the prospect of removing an elected president? To suggest, as Trump's response does, that impeachment is "a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President," is to assert that the Framers were out of their minds for including impeachment in the Constitution in the first place. And Trump probably shouldn't raise the issue of "the will of the people" to "freely choose their President," when he lost the election by 3,000,000 votes. To bolster his argument that impeachment is invalid, Trump assigned the newest member of Fox News legal team, Alan Dershowitz, the task of presenting his case to the media. Dershowitz was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos where he offered up this preposterous legal theory: Stephanopoulos: Is it your position that President Trump should not be impeached even if all the evidence and arguments laid out by the House are accepted as fact? Dershowitz: That's right. The foundation of Dershowitz's argument is that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress do not meet the criteria for impeachment under the Constitution. So he isn't arguing that Trump isn't guilty of abuse of power or obstruction of Congress, only that, in his view, the Constitution allows him to do so. Think about that. Dershowitz, as well as Trump's defenders in Congress and the press, believe that a president may abuse power and obstruct Congress without ever having to worry about being held accountable. They can collude with adversarial foreign governments to interfere with an election. They can publish stolen emails and other private documents to smear their opponents. They can withhold critical funds in order to coerce foreign leaders to do their bidding on personal matters. And they can refuse to disclose such behaviors, and even lie about them to the American people. That's the crazy vision that Trump and the Republican Party are offering to the nation. That's their depraved interpretation of the Constitution. And that's the legal basis for which they believe Trump should be exonerated. They know that they cannot defend Trump as innocent, so they're embracing his guilt as acceptable. That's how far Trump and the GOP have fallen. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/19/1912590/-Trump-s-Perverse-Impeachment-Defense-He-Should-Not-Be-Impeached-Even-If-He-s-Guilty

You have a real problem with losing elections don't you? The people of Virginia exercised their freedom to vote for representatives that would enact gun laws in their state. And modest gun laws as compared to other states. So when are you taking your traveling circus on the road to California, to protest that states citizens, who exercised their freedom to vote for gun laws in their state. Do stay in touch, and let us know how it's working out for you.

There's a black woman attorney general in New York, just waiting for Trump to be out of office. So she can give him a nice birthday present.

The Democrats won handily in the midterms, as well as both off year elections, winning seats in some of the reddest districts in the country. Of course elections ebb and flow depending on the popularity of candidates, and especially in presidential elections. The momentum seems to be in the Democrats favor for now, but that can change as time goes on, and anyone would be remiss to make predictions. Women seem to be the biggest factor in the last elections, and especially in the white suburbs, that used to favor Republicans. Considering the outcome of elections since 2016, it doesn't take a political science degree, to see that Trump apparently turns off most of the women in America. I wouldn't assume that even when whites are only 50% of the country in another 20 years or so, that it will mean anything other than women will make up more of the elected government nationally, and in the states. Minority representation will still be growing more or less at the same pace it is now.

You wouldn't know what tyranny was if it bitch slapped the taste out of your mouth son. If you don't live or vote in Virginia, you have no say in the matter. Now you're just getting into other peoples business. Bad things happen to people that stick their noses in other peoples business. The people of Virginia voted for their representatives, based upon the issues in their state. Gun laws being one of those issues. In America, we call that Representative government. In the wasteland that is that empty space between your ears, you can consider it anything you want. Just make sure you do it in your own state. In Virginia the gun nuts lost. Elections have consequences. And if you bring your punk ass to Virginia, just make sure you understand people get lost in the Department of Corrections here, many never heard from again. Like the last couple of punks who now have to fight for their lives every day in one of our nicer facilities. Poor little nazi boys. They know what tyranny looks like now.

If you're not from Virginia, nobody gives a rats ass what your grievances are. Stay in your own back yard.

And the majority of women. Which by itself is going to cost a lot of Republicans their seats up and down the ballot. Throw in the majority of Hispanics, and Asians, and it should look a lot like 2018.