The Impeachment Trial

[Mountain Man]

The question was "Is there any way for the Senate to render a fully informed verdict in this case without hearing the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, and the other key eyewitness or without seeing the relevant documentary evidence".

Right, and Shifty said no, meaning they don't have the overwhelming proof of guilty they claimed to have.

[Sam]

Right, and Shifty said no, meaning they don't have the overwhelming proof of guilty they claimed to have.

I understand the mental block here is an intentional one but what you think "fully informed" means? If Schiff answered "No, our case isn't sufficient" why is he explicitly arguing that the case made is sufficient?

You mischaracterized both the question and the answer. You were given the video and the transcript and you're still mischaracterizing the answer. That makes it intentional, that makes it malevolent.

--Sam

[JimL]

He's pretty much admitting that their "overwhelming case" is lacking

Then you'd certainly want to see the relevant and previously blocked evidence so you can be sure one way or the other, Right?

[JimL]

Because they have failed to move the needle very much at all with respect to OVERWHELMING support from the American people.

Well if you want to go by that metric, one thing they have overwhelming support from the American people for is witnesses and documentary evidence being admissable at trial.

By the way --- I am SO TIRED of BOTH SIDES so confidently declaring "but the American People want... blah blah blah....."

I wholeheartedly agree. Everytime I hear that, no matter from who, it makes my blood boil, so to speak. It's one thing if they say the overwhelming majority of the American people as confirmed by the polls... blah blah blah, which is occassionally the case, but not the usual. But to just assert what the american people think, as if they speak for everyone, really gets my goat.

[Cow Poke]

Well if you want to go by that metric, one thing they have overwhelming support from the American people for is witnesses and documentary evidence being admissable at trial.

Yeah, but it needs to be overwhelming enough to make enough - 2/3 - of the Senators vote to remove. Ain't happenin'.

I wholeheartedly agree. Everytime I hear that, no matter from who, it makes my blood boil, so to speak. It's one thing if they say the overwhelming majority of the American people as confirmed by the polls... blah blah blah, which is occassionally the case, but not the usual. But to just assert what the american people think, as if they speak for everyone, really gets my goat.

Well, there's ONE MORE thing on which we agree!

[Mountain Man]

If Schiff answered "No, our case isn't sufficient" why is he explicitly arguing that the case made is sufficient?

"Our case is overwhelming, but we need it to be overwhelminger!"

[JimL]

Yeah, but it needs to be overwhelming enough to make enough - 2/3 - of the Senators vote to remove. Ain't happenin'.

I know, I just saw Senator Barrasso rep. of wyoming during a recess in the trial say. Why would the House go through all this trouble when they know the we're not going to convict. We, the democrats, know the fix is in, which is why we want the blocked evidence and witnesses admitted. Republicans, for the same reason, don't want the evidence admitted. And you, for the same reason as the Senate republicans, don't want the evidence admitted.

Well, there's ONE MORE thing on which we agree!

Hmmm, was there another? I'm sure there must have been some thing some when.

[Cow Poke]

Well if you want to go by that metric, one thing they have overwhelming support from the American people for is witnesses and documentary evidence being admissable at trial....

about that....

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

I wonder how "overwhelming" the public support would be if the liberal media wasn't so incredibly biased.

[Cow Poke]

...And you, for the same reason as the Senate republicans, don't want the evidence admitted....

Please don't tell me what I want, Jim, or why I would or would not want it. I honestly don't care, because if the vote is no, this whole sham would be over sooner.... but if the vote is yes, it could drag on and on and on.... and I suspect it would backfire on the Dems.

I really think (and I'm not declaring that I know) that most Americans are tired of this and just want it over. Bring on the SUPER BOWL!!!!!

[Mountain Man]

Please don't tell me what I want, Jim, or why I would or would not want it. I honestly don't care, because if the vote is no, this whole sham would be over sooner.... but if the vote is yes, it could drag on and on and on.... and I suspect it would backfire on the Dems.

I really think (and I'm not declaring that I know) that most Americans are tired of this and just want it over. Bring on the SUPER BOWL!!!!!

If Trump is acquitted on Friday, then the NFL should invite him to sing the national anthem at the game on Sunday.

[Sam]

That ratio looks about in line with the total speaking times of the prosecution and defense over their allotted three days. One would need to see a day-by-day breakdown.

--Sam

about that....

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

I wonder how "overwhelming" the public support would be if the liberal media wasn't so incredibly biased.

[oxmixmudd]

about that....

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

I wonder how "overwhelming" the public support would be if the liberal media wasn't so incredibly biased.

It is silly to characterize the coverage this way. What is important is how factual the coverage is. I guarantee factual coverage of a mass murderer will also be very negative coverage ofvthst same person as well. And we would ge very concerned about any media outlet trying to paper over his crime and complaining about how 'biased' the other media are against him.

[Tassman]

about that....

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

I wonder how "overwhelming" the public support would be if the liberal media wasn't so incredibly biased.

Newsbusters - really!

There's no great bias here, the House Management arguments are much longer than those of the Trump lawyers (presumably because the latter don't actually have valid arguments) and therefore they get more airtime.

[firstfloor]

WaPo

[rogue06]

Then you'd certainly want to see the relevant and previously blocked evidence so you can be sure one way or the other, Right?

As I have previously expressed that I'd like to see Bolton testify -- along with Schiff, Ciaramella (the non-whistleblower), and to a much lesser extent, the Bidens.

But it wasn't me who kept insisting that the case was overwhelming and as my lawyer told me during lunch a couple weeks ago

Had breakfast with my lawyer about a week ago. His firm is handling a lawsuit for me though he himself is one of the top criminal lawyers in the region^[1]. He's no fan of Trump's calling him President Oompa-Loompa but did remark on the Democrat's demands for witnesses to testify now that they weren't all that interested in testifying before the House.

As he put it, if the Democrats really thought that they had an "overwhelming" case the last thing they would want to do was call more witnesses since they would be wildcards that would far more likely weaken their case than bolster it. If the case was truly "overwhelming" as they claim you would be a fool to tamper with it, but if OTOH you realize that it is full of holes then and only then would you bring in folks who you do not know what they'll say when they testify.

It all goes back to the old adage about only an imprudent lawyer asks questions of a witness that the lawyer doesn't already know the answers to.





1. We've been friends since the 80s and he's always said I was one of his favorite clients because I never did anything that made his job harder. The last time I required his services was over 25 years ago and I had to ask for a continuance because he was busy with a murder case in another county that day (mine was a pretty minor misdemeanor). When I was applying for it with the prosecutor and a court clerk they asked for the name of my attorney and their shocked reaction was priceless when I gave it to them. They were expecting one of the ambulance chasers that were handling everyone's else minor cases not a top flight lawyer. All of a sudden they started treating me with respect as a result