Jump to content

The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

Just got out of an arbitration and am just now coming up for air.  Was wondering if the summary below (c&p from elsewhere) is accurate.  Please advise.

 

ALL THE WITNESSES: Ok we all agree. This is what happened.

REPUBLICANS: None of you were in the room!

BOLTON: *raises hand* Well I was in the...

REPUBLICANS: Who asked you?! Shut up! You’re a liberal pawn!

BOLTON: Um... I’m actually I’m a lifelong Republican and I was literally Trump’s national security advi...

REPUBLICANS: Shut your mustache! Somebody bring back the first national security advisor.

FLYNN: *in orange jumpsuit* Hey sorry guys I’m in jail lol.

REPUBLICANS: What? Why?

FLYNN: For lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation.

REPUBLICANS: Well what idiot told you to do that?!

FLYNN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! No one believes either of you!

KELLY: *raises hand* I believe them. And I was Trump’s Chief of sta...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Let’s talk to the current chief of staff. Who is he?

MULVANEY: *raises hand* It’s me. Sort of. Well, I'm the act...

REPUBLICANS: Shit. Never mind.

PARNAS: *raises hand* I was also in the room. In fact, here’s a cell phone video of the President saying that...

REPUBLICANS: Wait what?! How in hell did you sneak a cell phone into a meeting with the President?

PARNAS: It was easy I just walked right in and...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! You’re a criminal!

PARNAS: Correct. So I just walked right into...

TRUMP: I don’t know him.

PARNAS: And here’s 500 pictures of me with the President because we’re besties.

REPUBLICANS: Wait... What idiot introduced you to the President??

PARNAS: His personal lawyer.

REPUBLICANS: Cohen??

COHEN: *also in orange jumpsuit* Hey no sorry guys I’m in jail too. Oops.

REPUBLICANS: Why?

COHEN: For campaign finance violations.

REPUBLICANS: Whose campaign?

COHEN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Who was the campaign chair??

MANAFORT: *also in orange jumpsuit* Yeah. Me. Also in jail. Heyyyy.

REPUBLICANS: IS EVERYBODY IN JAIL?!?

PARNAS: It was Giuliani.

YOVANOVITCH: Giuliani! That’s the guy who had me fired from my job!

REPUBLICANS: Who are you??

YOVANOVITCH: I was the ambassador to Ukraine.

REPUBLICANS: Wait, you had her fired? Do you work for the government??

GIULIANI: Nope. But I figured no one really follows any rules around here so...

REPUBLICANS: Well who is the ambassador to the European Union??

SONDLAND: *raises hand* It's me. I was also in the roo...

REPUBLICANS: F@$&!!!

PUTIN: *rubs his bare chest*

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would also be reasonable to suggest that the founders thought there was some functional reason to have the top judge involved in the most important “trial” for more than just decorum. Just because the VP presided in a certain way, doesn’t mean that was what the founders intended.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carl Spackler said:

Just got out of an arbitration and am just now coming up for air.  Was wondering if the summary below (c&p from elsewhere) is accurate.  Please advise.

 

ALL THE WITNESSES: Ok we all agree. This is what happened.

REPUBLICANS: None of you were in the room!

BOLTON: *raises hand* Well I was in the...

REPUBLICANS: Who asked you?! Shut up! You’re a liberal pawn!

BOLTON: Um... I’m actually I’m a lifelong Republican and I was literally Trump’s national security advi...

REPUBLICANS: Shut your mustache! Somebody bring back the first national security advisor.

FLYNN: *in orange jumpsuit* Hey sorry guys I’m in jail lol.

REPUBLICANS: What? Why?

FLYNN: For lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation.

REPUBLICANS: Well what idiot told you to do that?!

FLYNN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! No one believes either of you!

KELLY: *raises hand* I believe them. And I was Trump’s Chief of sta...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Let’s talk to the current chief of staff. Who is he?

MULVANEY: *raises hand* It’s me. Sort of. Well, I'm the act...

REPUBLICANS: Shit. Never mind.

PARNAS: *raises hand* I was also in the room. In fact, here’s a cell phone video of the President saying that...

REPUBLICANS: Wait what?! How in hell did you sneak a cell phone into a meeting with the President?

PARNAS: It was easy I just walked right in and...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! You’re a criminal!

PARNAS: Correct. So I just walked right into...

TRUMP: I don’t know him.

PARNAS: And here’s 500 pictures of me with the President because we’re besties.

REPUBLICANS: Wait... What idiot introduced you to the President??

PARNAS: His personal lawyer.

REPUBLICANS: Cohen??

COHEN: *also in orange jumpsuit* Hey no sorry guys I’m in jail too. Oops.

REPUBLICANS: Why?

COHEN: For campaign finance violations.

REPUBLICANS: Whose campaign?

COHEN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Who was the campaign chair??

MANAFORT: *also in orange jumpsuit* Yeah. Me. Also in jail. Heyyyy.

REPUBLICANS: IS EVERYBODY IN JAIL?!?

PARNAS: It was Giuliani.

YOVANOVITCH: Giuliani! That’s the guy who had me fired from my job!

REPUBLICANS: Who are you??

YOVANOVITCH: I was the ambassador to Ukraine.

REPUBLICANS: Wait, you had her fired? Do you work for the government??

GIULIANI: Nope. But I figured no one really follows any rules around here so...

REPUBLICANS: Well who is the ambassador to the European Union??

SONDLAND: *raises hand* It's me. I was also in the roo...

REPUBLICANS: F@$&!!!

PUTIN: *rubs his bare chest*

Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

I think it would also be reasonable to suggest that the founders thought there was some functional reason to have the top judge involved in the most important “trial” for more than just decorum. Just because the VP presided in a certain way, doesn’t mean that was what the founders intended.

Possibly.  Contemplating it, the President's out, for obvious reasons, can't likely put the Speaker of the House in charge of the Senate.  The question then boils down to VP or CJ as a high government official?  Is it an arbitrary choice of a high government official, or intended to impose a judicial role?  If it's intended to impose a judicial role, why do other impeachment proceedings take place without a judicial officer?  Also, why is the VP disqualified?  Given that the VP may have a conflict of interest given succession upon removal, seems fairly likely that it's the last high government official standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

All bullshit aside, to this layman, it looks like Schiff is the best lawyer in the room by a mile.   Do you lawyers see it that way?

Yeah. Pretty much.

Also with respect to Chief Justice Roberts, it seems clear to me that “presiding” over an impeachment trial doesn’t just mean sitting there with a thumb up your ass listening to assholes like Rand Paul spewing out total bullshit. 

It actually means doing something and making decisions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly.  Contemplating it, the President's out, for obvious reasons, can't likely put the Speaker of the House in charge of the Senate.  The question then boils down to VP or CJ as a high government official?  Is it an arbitrary choice of a high government official, or intended to impose a judicial role?  If it's intended to impose a judicial role, why do other impeachment proceedings take place without a judicial officer?  Also, why is the VP disqualified?  Given that the VP may have a conflict of interest given succession upon removal, seems fairly likely that it's the last high government official standing.

I could see the VP presiding during the legislative functions because he is involved in the execution of the laws. He is boss signs the laws. It make sense an almost top notch rep from the exec presides during the creation of them. But when it comes to trial time -the most important trial for the survival of this government you are just inventing- you’d want the top judge in the land to preside in a fairly active manner. Particularly considering the Senators were not mostly all lawyers or well staffed with lawyers. If I was (naively) inventing a government, that’s how I might imagine it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that may have played with her base, but that was a disingenuous piece of business right there.  She knows better.
I am disappoint.


Gotta disagree. It’s the reality of the situation. We have three branches of government. We are watching one branch actively arguing for their own nullification. And in doing so, they are potentially dragging the judiciary down with them
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Why does this gif from you in response come as zero surprise? 

If you think that Warren's tactic to call into question the credibility of the CJ was a smart move to effect the political end of removal from office by endearing the CJ to her position, I guess you are free to think that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

All bullshit aside, to this layman, it looks like Schiff is the best lawyer in the room by a mile.   Do you lawyers see it that way?

I don't know if he's the best lawyer in the room, but he's by far the most eloquent and adept at the lectern.  He's obviously not a dumbass.  I'd say Philbin is the closest from the defense, although his tone of voice (not his fault) is annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tuco said:


I could see the VP presiding during the legislative functions because he is involved in the execution of the laws. He is boss signs the laws. It make sense an almost top notch rep from the exec presides during the creation of them. But when it comes to trial time -the most important trial for the survival of this government you are just inventing- you’d want the top judge in the land to preside in a fairly active manner. Particularly considering the Senators were not mostly all lawyers or well staffed with lawyers. If I was (naively) inventing a government, that’s how I might imagine it.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is actually given a lot of power in an impeachment trial. It’s not recognized because it’s happened so rarely and the judicial branch has always been supposed to be number 3 when it comes to power after the executive and the congress. Roberts is so far being a pussy in my opinion. 
 

The framers intended it that way that the courts were number 3 but we’re supposed to have power over impeachment.

Marbury v. Madison, however, was the ultimate court power grab and for some strange reason it worked. 
 

It’s the senate that’s relinquishing it’s power here to emperor trump. That’s because Moscow Mitch is an amoral power hungry asshole. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is actually given a lot of power in an impeachment trial. It’s not recognized because it’s happened so rarely and the judicial branch has always been supposed to be number 3 when it comes to power after the executive and the congress. Roberts is so far being a pussy in my opinion. 
 

The framers intended it that way that the courts were number 3 but we’re supposed to have power over impeachment.

Marbury v. Madison, however, was the ultimate court power grab and for some strange reason it worked. 
 

It’s the senate that’s relinquishing it’s power here to emperor trump. That’s because Moscow Mitch is an amoral power hungry asshole. 

So, for example, does CJ have the power to sanction Rand Paul for attempting to out the whistleblower?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If you think that Warren's tactic to call into question the credibility of the CJ was a smart move to effect the political end of removal from office by endearing the CJ to her position, I guess you are free to think that. 

Dude. The question wasn’t designed to kiss his ass. It was designed to point out to him explicitly the mess he has made and his ability to at least try to clean it up. I don’t expect you to understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

So, for example, does CJ have the power to sanction Rand Paul for attempting to out the whistleblower?

Yes. 

The senate could vote to override him if they wanted to. Not bloody likely. 
 

The point is he has that power if he wants to use it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Dude. The question wasn’t designed to kiss his ass. It was designed to point out to him explicitly the mess he has made and his ability to at least try to clean it up. I don’t expect you to understand. 

I am sure that it takes the mind of a great trial lawyer such as yourself to understand.  Or do you you just push paper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...