Senators Questions - Impeachment Trial

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrad25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mrad25

Guest
What would you ask, what do you think about the questions being asked? Just thought this could be a fun but also good thread to have as well to discuss the questions.

I’ve seen some pretty good ones suggested, as well as some funny ones.

Question: Mr. Schiff, we’ve all heard the tape of you talking on the phone with Russians whom you thought had naked pictures of Trump. You encouraged them to be in touch with your office. Question: should you be impeached for trying to use Russians to “get” something on Trump? It doesn’t matter that you were pranked, because hurting Trump was what was “going through your mind” and we know that’s the important thing.
 
Last edited:
I think the questions are really instructive.

The Democrats are asking constitutional or process questions, and the Republicans are asking political and other non-pertinant questions.

My question to the President’s lawyers would be:

Given that there have only been three other impeachments in history, and each of them is endlessly dissected and people’s motives examined, do you think your decision to fight having any witnesses will be judged well by historians?
 
Ummm, it completely matters which side of the aisle you are on. You obviously agree with Cooper, and thought it funny. I disagree with her premise and found it insulting and dumb.

To each his own.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
Ummm, it completely matters which side of the aisle you are on. You obviously agree with Cooper, and thought it funny. I disagree with her premise and found it insulting and dumb.
Click to expand...
I think you are overly sensitive. If you notice, the D’s offered no proof that Cookie Monster actually ate any cookies.

There is something for both sides there.
 
I think you don’t need to catch cookie eating on video. Common sense
 
BannedinBoston said:
Left out of the analogy is whether or not eating the cookies is actually an impeachable offense…If eating the cookies isn’t a crime, why should anybody but the Cookie Monsters nutritionist care?
Click to expand...
Well, that’s true . The Cookie Monster’s lawyers are arguing that if it’s in Sesame Street’s interest for the Cookie Monster to have cookies, he can steal them from anyone and there is nothing they can do.

 
Last edited:
The Impeachment trial of Johnson has many witnesses not called in the House.
That’s a:
Let’s say something as if it is a rule, then say," look he violated it."
Truth was Bolton went from challenging his house depo to agreeing to Senate testimony.
 
Because " crime" as you use the term, is not a HIGH CRIME ETC. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. THAT is the simple answer.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Because " crime" as you use the term, is not a HIGH CRIME ETC. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. THAT is the simple answer.
Click to expand...
Good point.
BannedinBoston said:
There’s nothing in the analogy that says the cookies were stolen. That would seem to be an important bit of information in a trial…
Click to expand...
Well, if they were his cookies we wouldn’t be here…
BannedinBoston said:
Getting Bolton to testify in the Senate is going to run into the same White House opposition as getting him to testify in the House would have been. He’s still covered under “executive privilege”.
Click to expand...
Only if the President exerts it, and only on specific facts or documents.
 
There is no executive privilege.
By Tweet, Trump disclosed the entire conversation to the world. Bolton would nearly give his version. A version Trump says is perjury. You can waive privilege any more than that.
And including Trump there were two other impeached president’s. Clinton and JOHNSON.
If you want to argue precedent," they should have done it this way…because," Johnson is the precedent.
 
Bolton knows it. So he testifies. Trump would need a court order to stop him. And he won’t get one.
 
Last edited:
Unless one is unfamiliar with the habits of the cookie monster, or the fact that he is named after that which he cannot help but consume, I’d say it was not something for both sides, and I suspect those who think the impeachment is nonsense would agree. Oh well.
 
I will tell you why he is credible.
Rudy said he is there as a personal lawyer to dig up dirt on Biden’s.
Mulvany testified to quid pro quo.
Sondland testified to quid pro quo.
Bolton will testify to quid pro quo.
Consistent among Trump’s inner circle. His political appointees. Not Democrats.
Add a Chief of Staff! Kelly says he believes Bolton.
That’s the sound of Truth crying out from. The wilderness
 
BannedinBoston said:
Getting Bolton to testify in the Senate is going to run into the same White House opposition as getting him to testify in the House would have been.
Click to expand...
If I were a Trump supporter I’d push for letting Bolton testify now rather than having him spill the beans 11 days before the election. Just sayin.
 
Maximus1 said:
I will tell you why he is credible.
Rudy said he is there as a personal lawyer to dig up dirt on Biden’s.
Mulvany testified to quid pro quo.
Sondland testified to quid pro quo.
Bolton will testify to quid pro quo.
Consistent among Trump’s inner circle. His political appointees. Not Democrats.
Add a Chief of Staff! Kelly says he believes Bolton.
That’s the sound of Truth crying out from. The wilderness
Click to expand...
So much incorrect as usual.

Sondland testified he was told no quid pro quo, but despite this, felt his assumption was that it was. And you want to remove a sitting President for Sondland’s impressions?

When did Mulvaney testify?

Bolton may not testify at all, nothing has been actually quoted from his book (written for sales, not as evidence in court), and is on record saying the phone call was great and proper.

Kelly has not testified. Why are you including people not part of the trial? There are reams of people who believe Trump. Should we count them too in this decision.

Enjoy seeing him on the ticket in November. You are setting yourself up for major disappointment.
 
Last edited:
Sondland gave Trump a million bucks. He knew he would be hurt financially if he told the truth. He is Trump’s own political appointee.
So when he testifies to quid pro quo, all of that makes him credible.
He heard the quid pro quo about the meeting first hand and with common sense surmised the rest.
His hearing from the president on the 26th,( or last call) just tell him to do the phone interview( Zelinski) made it clear.
But you don’t take his in isolation. Suggestions, false witness, can be made for one man.
Mulvany spoke to the nation as TRUMPS CHIEF OF STAFF.( no civics lesson necessary I trust).
Mulvany was consistent. Quid pro quo. His lawyers denials are not him and not under oath. The inference denying Democrats the right to hear his testimony is quid pro quo because the presumption is you hide it if it is bad.
There must be 25 articles including audio tape on Rudy as private lawyer " digging up dirt" on the Biden’s. Now we know that is a metaphor he isn’t actually digging in dirt. But it is a heading of many news sources. Is it an outlyer?
No!
It is consistent with the other inner Trump circle.
Then we get to Bolton.
Let’s not waste time. Consistent.
This is how credibility works in a courtroom.
Add the other 16 witnesses and all consistent.
Add a CHIEF OF STAFF bolstering Bolton( General Kelly).
It is really credibility sapping to try to deny the avelanche
 
Last edited:
BannedinBoston said:
Bolton can’t “spill the beans” on his professional discussions with the President without either, getting his permission, or violating various NDAs and opening himself up to criminal prosecution. He can bad mouth him all he wants personally, but he can’t discuss matters from his conversations as a national security adviser.
Click to expand...
It seems he 's a little scared now too if you look at his attorney’s letter they just sent to the WH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top