Might wear out my mute button, though.

Because I am not watching this sh*tshow of a defense. I'll read what is posted here.

Skipped the Repubs entirely last week, but today am gonna see how much I can stand with the sound off.

How Many Trump Crimes Will His Lawyers Confess To Today? (Impeachment Trial Liveblog, Day Whatever!) - Wonkette

I took the fastest shower otw to the impeachment thread.

I always fold my stuff before I bring it up but not this time. Am now folding it in front of the tv!

The Republican team is silent and looking rather morose.

Oh, look, there's Nora O'Donnell back from partying with the oligarch gangsters!

BUT, I DO want to tip my hat and extend my thanks for those with more fortitude who sacrifice themselves to report back. I'm sorry I'm shirking my own "responsibility," but... THANKS!!!!

And I’m not religious

Today's hit the mail squarely on the head. I'm sure it was lost on all the fake christians sitting on the GOP side of the aisle, though.

There’s no doubt who that was directed at

Appreciate your updates.

i kept adding grammatically correct variations of "with lies" or "because we're lying"

it got me thru it and made each statement of his far more accurate

They couldn't even fill two hours last week?

Your links make it easy to access the various broadcasts

because it didn't say what they wanted it to say.

1. Bollocks (that didn't take long!)
2. No actual transcript was provided, only a memorandum

eta: all Sek. is doing is tearing down Democrats for supposedly blocking the Congress from getting work done (another lie, see Moscow Mitch and legislative logjam) and saying they are endangering the Republic/the Constitution over policy differences. The doublespeak is out in force.

yeah that's it

what a fucking moron, that thinks everybody else is a fucking moron

CC shows that Sucky is talking about everything except the facts and charges.

CC is great. Sucky has nothing.

- Called the nation a constitutional republic. Why can they not call it a democratic republic? Because that slights the House’s role and leaves out the the word, democrat? Are they done with democracy?

- Managed to give starr’s bio without saying the word impeachment - independent counsel, yes, but zero use of ‘impeachment’. Is this a tip that they will diminish the precedents and norms for comparison from the Clinton impeachment (the nauseating reason why starr has a household name)?

It's gonna be a long, smarmy day.

porn starr

i can't get the idea out of my head that he has a pair of "panties" in his pocket in order to touch them once in awhile and feel emboldened

puke is right!

I may listen to this, instead: https://weta.org/fm/playlists

(they are going to fall asleep shortly)



His idiotic argument about the Senate "taking an oath" with respect to impeachment and the House not doing so, is like way out in left field. The House is not "trying the case".

Convenient.

"...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" - supposed to be more than just words.

Whoa, Scalia is suddenly on the screen. MY EYES!

Hell - ALL federal employees take that oath and sign the form with it too! I know when I had first started working for the federal government (like 35 years ago - am retired now) my soon-to-be-coworkers all told me to go find the District Director so he could "swear me in".

It appears they want to bore people into forgetting about Bolton; to calm the (likely) big audience today following the bomb-drop of news.

This may cause people who wouldn't normally do so, to call the Senate and demand Bolton.

WTF?

Very weird

is just like filler material.

It has no effect or bearing on this trial outside of the House correctly proceeding with fact-finding on its own through its committees without having that Independent Counsel-style investigation that took place with the Clinton impeachment.

For forcing him to report to the House. Am I hearing him right?

Gah what a bore

Seems to be his argument right now.

"Maybe it is in the Constitution. But we should act like it's not.

have to do with this? Does he want a constitutional amendment?

So? We are not part of Britain any more.

Now he's pretending we shouldn't use impeachment because we'll wear it out...

More obfuscation.

I can't think that this will help Trump's ratings demand.

Starr is only proving that the defense has nothing to offer.

Imagine Trump sitting around listening to this. His head will explode because he has the attention span of a gnat.

as well as some of the media pundits.

unfortunately a lot of people now have a short attention span.

Ken Starrr is now standing up in the Senate gallery, in front of the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court, and the nation and is arguing that we should no longer have impeachment as a remedy for wrongdoing.

And he is speaking in the most earnest voice he can muster.

Is this a parody? Am I watching the cold open on SNL?

OFFS. And he's

is disingenuous given the political climate and level of partisanship today is vastly different from then.

Says the man who did everything in his power to cause it to happen.

Now he's just a passive survivor.

They knew a crook when they saw one. Today’s republicans are as much crooks as the pResident they’re protecting. Amirite, Moscow Mitch?

They may have shot themselves in the foot with that argument.

A. Whiny voice, sounds like a kid trying to convince mom that he didn't do the thing she just saw him do.

B. The Clinton impeachment? I don't get how this somehow makes Trump less guilty.

Blame the GOP house and executive obstruction instead, Starfish.....

It SHOULD be bipartisan, but the repubs have their heads stuck up trumps butt.

Link to tweet

(when historians will tell you over and over and over that there were no "criminal statues" when that power was written into the Constitution).

And then later someone will argue that a President cannot be "indicted" or charged with a crime while in office, which would make "impeachment" completely moot if you believe Starr's bullshit.

It was some president of Columbia Law School, who's entitled to his opinion but that's in no way a precedent. Then he manages to argue that even though law professors don't agree with that opinion, the senate trial doesn't have to reply on academic opinions or court precedents.

in Michael's crime for which he's now spent a year in jail with 2 more to go.

"...return to our country's tradition when presidential impeachment was truly a measure of last resort"


like if a president lies about a BJ?

the f-ing gall of this

and impeachment. Does he think for a moment that he won't get called out HARD for that? This is bizarre.

seriously

overrules the impeachment clause of the constitution?

Damn what a lying bore.

He reminds me of Carl Rove with a little more hair.

They are both canned hams with glasses.

I don't like canned ham.

requiring studious attention to the Constitution, blablabla. What about studious attention to the evidence, Kenny?

Amazing.

Pay no attention to academics.

Only courts know what the Constitution means.

This is going to spoil a lot of legal arguments (including judicial opinions). Cuz lawyers and judges tend to cite and rely on academics really quite a bit.

He is sadly mistaken.

He sure is interjecting his creepy little smile a lot.

Even if a crime was committed....

Starr is arguing that as a precedential rule.

Problem is, we're in a situation where one party has taken leave of its senses and contact with reality.

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2020, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

To the waste and destruction that he’s brought upon the country.

If Ollie North and co. weren't such lying liars who lie, things might have been different. What Ken is saying is that he wants this to all go away, just like Iran Contra did. Little dustup, little brouhaha in the news, and let's move on.

Nope.

eta and given Bill Barr's role in the Iran Contra goings-on, was it really such a good idea to bring it up?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pajdb9/william-barrs-been-accused-of-a-presidential-cover-up-before

He's not arguing evidence. He's just said, let the people decide.

Well, we did! We decided to impeach the MFer, before he completely destroys our country. Except for every last one of us voting ALL of them out of office, this is all we've got to save our democracy in a peaceful manner.

Okay, so far we've got: shouldn't impeach ever because Britain outlawed it;

Process now--wait for it, unfair to Spanky!

Can you imagine taking a class from this guy? Yawn...and he isn't saying anything that we don't already know that they are going to say--because they can't argue the evidence.

....putting me to sleep...

They want everyone to get bored and wander away.

That'll get attention.

Was not exactly a HIGH COURT of IMPEACHMENT, that's the SENATE, rather, was like a GRAND JURY!

Looking forward to Dems (and scholars' rebuttal.)

*drumroll* and the Magna Carta.

Wow. Apparently the Democrats reached way back to disrespect the whole process. Bad Dems, bad.

But let me drone on and on about the one I was involved in, folks! We knew how to do it back in the day!

Jesus, when you've got NUTHIN'.

going up on the screen.

Ukraine did not know about hold until one month after call

None of Dem's witnesses say Trump linked investigations to sec assistance or meeting

No Ukraine investigation but they still received assistance and 'a meeting' [Note: assistance let go only after they were caught, still no WHITE HOUSE meeting]

Trump strengthened US support for Ukraine [with Javelins they can't use on the Russians?]

Wow, that was stunning.

no less - the *prez so called lawyers - distraction, and contrived.. (words of SCOTUS Roberts in the final decision re census question) - oh, and the same CJ Roberts presiding.....

Deflect, yell unfair process, deflect again.