Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[firstfloor]

That's apparently how Bolton described it, and he's welcome to his opinion, but it doesn't prove a crime.

The crime is bribery. The evidence is crystal clear, but it is true that you need an expert to explain it. If you listen to the trial, you will hear that case made, so that you will understand it.

[Mountain Man]

The crime is bribery.

At least that's what tested well in the focus groups, although curiously, the Democrats failed to include it in the articles of impeachment.

[Mountain Man]

MM, what evidence short of Trump admitting "Yes, I did criming" would convince you? Ask me what would convince me of X/Y/Z and I can probably give you some sort of answer. Why won't you answer that question?

I told you exactly why:

You're asking me to idly speculate about evidence that has not been presented and may never be presented. I consider that a waste of mental energy.

[DivineOb]

I told you exactly why:

You're asking me to idly speculate about evidence that has not been presented and may never be presented. I consider that a waste of mental energy.

You're spending your days trolling multiple message boards. You've got the time and energy.

[Mountain Man]

You're spending your days trolling multiple message boards. You've got the time and energy.

Because that doesn't require much mental energy. I've mentioned before that the Trump presidency is a rich field for thoughtful discussion, but his critics would rather chase after Russian geese and Ukrainian rabbit trails while chanting "Orange man bad!" rather than discuss anything substantive.

[firstfloor]

At least that's what tested well in the focus groups, although curiously, the Democrats failed to include it in the articles of impeachment.

[Mountain Man]

Right...

"We could totally prove Trump is guilty if only we had the evidence to prove it!"

[oxmixmudd]

Right...

"We could totally prove Trump is guilty if only we had the evidence to prove it!"
We have already shown Trump is guilty, but need the first hand evidence Trump is hiding to force the GOP's hand on the issue.

Fixed if for you NC.

[firstfloor]

Right...

"We could totally prove Trump is guilty if only we had the evidence to prove it!"

[Mountain Man]

Nah, it doesn't work that way. The problem is, the Democrats couldn't even say which specific crime it was they were supposed to be investigating. They started with the presumption that the President must be guilty of something, and they went on a fishing expedition to see what they could reel in. That's why they lacked the legal sufficiency to penetrate the executive privilege firewall, because they couldn't go before a judge and say, "This is the crime we're investigating, and this is why this witness is relevant."

[JimL]

Nah, it doesn't work that way. The problem is, the Democrats couldn't even say which specific crime it was they were supposed to be investigating. They started with the presumption that the President must be guilty of something, and they went on a fishing expedition to see what they could reel in. That's why they lacked the legal sufficiency to penetrate the executive privilege firewall, because they couldn't go before a judge and say, "This is the crime we're investigating, and this is why this witness is relevant."

Yeah, it does work that way, MM. You're no different than the Senate Repubs. You know the story too, and you're pretending the proofs don't exist, and like them, you don't want to hear the witnesses like in a normal trial. Right now we have a corrupt Administration, a corrupt Attorney General, and a cowardly and complicit Republican party who are all violating their oath to the Constitution. And you are right there in their corner my friend, suaving their wounds and cheering them on in their dirty fight. You must be so proud!

[firstfloor]

WaPo

[Tassman]

Nah, it doesn't work that way. The problem is, the Democrats couldn't even say which specific crime it was they were supposed to be investigating.

They started with the presumption that the President must be guilty of something, and they went on a fishing expedition to see what they could reel in. That's why they lacked the legal sufficiency to penetrate the executive privilege firewall, because they couldn't go before a judge and say, "This is the crime we're investigating, and this is why this witness is relevant."

Not so. The House has consistently said that it was investing the whistle-blower report that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine via extortion into providing damaging information about 2020 presidential primary candidate Joe Biden. A report that was corroborated by numerous witnesses during the House investigation.

As for a "fishing expedition", you mean like how the Clinton impeachment started off with the alleged Whitewater scandal, which came to nothing, and ended up with a tacky sex scandal which by comparison with Trump's sordid sexual history, makes Clinton's efforts look positively virginal?

[firstfloor]

New Trump lawyers:
WaPo

[NorrinRadd]

New Trump lawyers:

WaPo

Yes, a definite blow to Fox News, since they'll be losing several of their major expert contributors for the duration of the trial. And in the event that the Senate decides to allow witnesses, that could be several months by the time the Court evaluates and rules on all the Executive Privilege claims.