Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[DivineOb]

Lev Parnas is trying to turn over more documents to Congress which are "essential for impeachment".

The attorney representing Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas is requesting permission from a federal judge to turn over more materials to Congress for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Attorney Joseph Bondy wrote to Judge J. Paul Oetken requesting a modification of a protective order governing the use of evidence collected as part of the criminal prosecution of Parnas.

Bondy requested that a digital copy of all the information on two iPhones and a Samsun phone be turned over to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Doubtless the Trump supporters on here will fully support this move. In the interest of transparency, of course :).

[Mountain Man]

What difference will ANY argument make when the Senate leaders have already publicly stated they will NOT honor their Constitutional oath of impartiality? McConnell said: "I'm not an impartial juror" - "No chance Trump will be removed from office".

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/p...ent/index.html

McConnell, to his credit, admitted he wasn't impartial, but he never said the trail wouldn't be fair. As I've explained several times already, they're using the exact same rules that were in place for Clinton's trial, where the prosecution will be given an opportunity to present its best case; then the defense will offer its rebuttal; then there will be a motion to continue the trial and hear additional evidence and witnesses. If the vote fails, then the Senate will move to acquit. I don't see what's unfair about that. If the prosecution knocks it out of the park and is able to convince two or three Republicans that the trial should move forward, then they're golden. The only reason Democrats don't like this scenario is because they are under no illusions about just how weak their case really is.

[Mountain Man]

Lev Parnas is trying to turn over more documents to Congress which are "essential for impeachment".

The attorney representing Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas is requesting permission from a federal judge to turn over more materials to Congress for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Attorney Joseph Bondy wrote to Judge J. Paul Oetken requesting a modification of a protective order governing the use of evidence collected as part of the criminal prosecution of Parnas.

Bondy requested that a digital copy of all the information on two iPhones and a Samsun phone be turned over to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Doubtless the Trump supporters on here will fully support this move. In the interest of transparency, of course :).

Any idea what this evidence supposedly is? Is it more "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy" hearsay?

[oxmixmudd]

What the Senate should do is follow the procedure put in place by the founding fathers. Namely: The Congress investigates...The House of Representatives passes, by a simple majority, articles of impeachment which constitute the formal allegation or allegations...Then the Senate tries the accused.

If the president is innocent of wrongdoing then the trial will exonerate him. What do Trump and his supporters have to fear?

What do they have to fear? Interesting question. But it would appear Trump has nothing to fear no matter what he does, because the one thing that was not anticipated by the founding fathers has happened. Two branches of our government have become so corrupted that they are effectively conspiring to make the president above the law, and nearly half the country is ok with that.

[oxmixmudd]

Any idea what this evidence supposedly is? Is it more "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy" hearsay?

To bad you have no conscience.

[DivineOb]

Any idea what this evidence supposedly is? Is it more "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy" hearsay?

I'm not expecting a smoking gun which implicates Trump if that's what you mean.

It's certain to be more than hearsay since Lev and Rudy have been working together on this stuff for a while. Had you heard that Lev was caught with $1M (Fox News) in his wife's bank account which had been traced back to Russia? I hope at minimum we can nail smug Devin Nunes.

Sorry, wish I knew more about this but there hasn't been much on the Twitter feeds I follow.

[Tassman]

McConnell, to his credit, admitted he wasn't impartial, but he never said the trail wouldn't be fair.

So, you think it to McConnell’s “credit” that he openly states not impartial ? How can this allow for a fair trial?

As I've explained several times already, they're using the exact same rules that were in place for Clinton's trial,

I don’t recall Senate officials coordinating with Clinton’s lawyers as McConnell freely says he has been doing with Trump’s lawyers.

The only reason Democrats don't like this scenario is because they are under no illusions about just how weak their case really is.

The reverse is true. The “only reason” Trump Senators don’t want a fair trial is because Trump is clearly guilty of soliciting foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election – as numerous House witnesses testified. In short, it was an 'abuse of power' as per the impeachment.

[rogue06]

Says the guy that argued the president shouldn't receive Due Process, or have the right to face his accusers.

I did tell you so - being fair in the House inquiry would give you credibility if the Senate wasn't equally scrupulous. Instead, the House pulled every kangaroo court shinanigan in the book. You literally have no rational basis to demand the Senate do what the House would not.

It looks like they even wrote a few new chapters.

[Mountain Man]

So, you think it to McConnell’s “credit” that he openly states not impartial ? How can this allow for a fair trial?



I don’t recall Senate officials coordinating with Clinton’s lawyers as McConnell freely says he has been doing with Trump’s lawyers.



The reverse is true. The “only reason” Trump Senators don’t want a fair trial is because Trump is clearly guilty of soliciting foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election – as numerous House witnesses testified. In short, it was an 'abuse of power' as per the impeachment.

You failed to address this part:

"...the prosecution will be given an opportunity to present its best case; then the defense will offer its rebuttal; then there will be a motion to continue the trial and hear additional evidence and witnesses. If the vote fails, then the Senate will move to acquit. I don't see what's unfair about that."

It seems uou're saying that you're not confident in the Democrat party's ability to present a compelling enough opening argument to convince a majority of Senators that the trial should go forward.

[JimL]

The follow-up question, then, is why do you suppose the Democrats didn't wait until they had enough evidence before voting to impeach? The excuse at the time was that the President represented an "imminent threat" to the country and had to be removed from office as soon as possible, but of course Pelosi's delay put the lie to that claim, and she only agreed to deliver them now because of the Senate's ultimatum to hand them over or they'll dismiss.

My own theory, based on things I've read and know about the process, is that the Democrats knew they didn't have a case, and they knew they lacked the legal sufficiency to penetrate the firewall of executive privilege that separates the President from Congress, and they knew that Senate Republicans would never agree to do the heavy lifting for the House, so they rushed the impeachment inquiry through the House and then tried to cover the weakness of their case by attempting to manufacture a "scandal" in the Senate. Except the plan didn't work.

Why? Because Moscow Mitch, Lindsey Graham et al hadn't yet gone around boasting about how they are intending to work with the accused to put on a sham trial. Now, why aren't you demanding to hear all the evidence, what are you afraid of?

[rogue06]

Funny how those now demanding some sort of purity test for impartiality had absolutely no trouble with the majority of the Democrats on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees publicly stating that they want Trump impeached long before they ever had their circus.

Is that a car door I hear? >:)

[Mountain Man]

If there's a case to be made then let the House make it.

[Mountain Man]

On Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week,” Washington Post congressional reporter Rachael Bade said congressional Democrats privately say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) holding onto the articles of impeachment was a “failed strategy.”

Bade said, “She was clearly putting a positive spin on what a lot of Democrats have privately said was a failed strategy. I mean she and Chuck Schumer, the minority leader in the Senate, set out to number one, try to get a commitment from McConnell on witnesses, firsthand witnesses to testify in a Senate trial. She said she wanted to see a resolution about, you know, how the whole proceedings would be governed. She got neither of those.”

She added, “I know her team has sort of said, look, she was able to hold out, there was a bunch of new revelations that happened over the holiday break. Bolton came out and said he’s willing to testify. She was holding the articles the whole time. Those things probably would have happened regardless of whether she was holding them. And, in fact, there might have even been more news focused on those things if everybody wasn’t asking what is Nancy Pelosi doing for the articles.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...iled-strategy/

[seanD]

Seems they're going to block Bolton's testimony now too, which still leaves the mystery of why the House didn't do it.

[JimL]

Funny how those now demanding some sort of purity test for impartiality had absolutely no trouble with the majority of the Democrats on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees publicly stating that they want Trump impeached long before they ever had their circus.

Is that a car door I hear? >:)

They wanted the impeachment process, i.e. they wanted an investigation, which was well warranted. So, why don't the likes of you, MM, et al on the complicit side want to hear all the relevant evidence? Seriously, what are you guys afraid of?