Impeachment Hearings

blondy28 wrote:Wednesdays are my late day at work...don't start until 2:00...so I'm able to watch this morning's hearings live.  Although I know the answer, I still wonder...why is this held like a trial, where the party of the accused puts up a defense?  Are they obligated to defend the grifter?  Seems like when the grifter is blatantly guilty that they shouldn't be required to defend him.

GOP interrupted opening comments about a minute into Schiff's comments with a "point of order".  I expect that's their plan...to disrupt the process.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:Wednesdays are my late day at work...don't start until 2:00...so I'm able to watch this morning's hearings live.  Although I know the answer, I still wonder...why is this held like a trial, where the party of the accused puts up a defense?  Are they obligated to defend the grifter?  Seems like when the grifter is blatantly guilty that they shouldn't be required to defend him.

GOP interrupted opening comments about a minute into Schiff's comments with a "point of order".  I expect that's their plan...to disrupt the process.

Strangely, it appears it was actually a legitimate question about the upcoming process.  Schiff gave a simple answer and they were done.  I was a bit surprised.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:Wednesdays are my late day at work...don't start until 2:00...so I'm able to watch this morning's hearings live.  Although I know the answer, I still wonder...why is this held like a trial, where the party of the accused puts up a defense?  Are they obligated to defend the grifter?  Seems like when the grifter is blatantly guilty that they shouldn't be required to defend him.

GOP interrupted opening comments about a minute into Schiff's comments with a "point of order".  I expect that's their plan...to disrupt the process.

Strangely, it appears it was actually a legitimate question about the upcoming process.  Schiff gave a simple answer and they were done.  I was a bit surprised.

The interruptions continued after the ranking members' statements.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:Wednesdays are my late day at work...don't start until 2:00...so I'm able to watch this morning's hearings live.  Although I know the answer, I still wonder...why is this held like a trial, where the party of the accused puts up a defense?  Are they obligated to defend the grifter?  Seems like when the grifter is blatantly guilty that they shouldn't be required to defend him.

GOP interrupted opening comments about a minute into Schiff's comments with a "point of order".  I expect that's their plan...to disrupt the process.

Strangely, it appears it was actually a legitimate question about the upcoming process.  Schiff gave a simple answer and they were done.  I was a bit surprised.

The interruptions continued after the ranking members' statements.

This baloney is all fully expected.  Honestly, so far it's been lighter than the circus I expected.  It still has plenty of time to go sideways, but if that's all they've got in terms of sending in the dancing bears, then I'm surprised it wasn't more of that kind of thing.

blondy28 wrote:Anxious for the hearings to start back up again tomorrow.  Love it that two different people actually heard Trump because he talks too loud (as a side note, this is a man thing...my husband is the biggest loud talker).  In spite of the GOP going after the former ambassador to Ukraine, she was a great witness.  At what point does the right decide that ruining people's lives like they're doing just to give Trump a victory is not the kind of people they want to be?  And being the old white man's club that they are, they make it the responsibility of the only woman on their committee to make absurd comments throughout, and now her opponent has raised over $1 million in two days.  Does anybody actually believe that the delay in releasing the funding was because Trump wanted to make sure that the Ukrainians were legit, and once he knew that, the money was released?  I mean, I understand the Trump fans believe it (seriously, how they can be that dumb boggles the mind), but it's the most absurd defense I've ever seen.  

And in other unrelated news, Trump pardons war criminals, and his cult followers think that's just dandy.  It's like they don't understand that these war criminals were deemed so by other military people.  This is the same phenomenon, I suppose, as the right embracing Russia and hating the FBI and CIA and law enforcement.  For what...a lying cheating grifter?

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:Anxious for the hearings to start back up again tomorrow.  Love it that two different people actually heard Trump because he talks too loud (as a side note, this is a man thing...my husband is the biggest loud talker).  In spite of the GOP going after the former ambassador to Ukraine, she was a great witness.  At what point does the right decide that ruining people's lives like they're doing just to give Trump a victory is not the kind of people they want to be?  And being the old white man's club that they are, they make it the responsibility of the only woman on their committee to make absurd comments throughout, and now her opponent has raised over $1 million in two days.  Does anybody actually believe that the delay in releasing the funding was because Trump wanted to make sure that the Ukrainians were legit, and once he knew that, the money was released?  I mean, I understand the Trump fans believe it (seriously, how they can be that dumb boggles the mind), but it's the most absurd defense I've ever seen.  

And in other unrelated news, Trump pardons war criminals, and his cult followers think that's just dandy.  It's like they don't understand that these war criminals were deemed so by other military people.  This is the same phenomenon, I suppose, as the right embracing Russia and hating the FBI and CIA and law enforcement.  For what...a lying cheating grifter?

While you wonder how they could ruin the lives of some and ponder whether they'll ever decide that's not what they want to be known for, I suspect that if they could quietly and anonymously kill her to make this go away, they'd do it in a heartbeat.  Maybe I'm wrong about this.  Maybe I'm not.  But it's pretty sad for them as a party than I believe they'd disappear her and anyone else.

alohafri wrote:Hannity is being called out in testimony...again.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:Hannity is being called out in testimony...again.

Hannity is the true Chief of Staff of the Trump administration.  I don't say that in jest, either.  He really is.

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:Hannity is being called out in testimony...again.

Hannity is the true Chief of Staff of the Trump administration.  I don't say that in jest, either.  He really is.

Speaking of Trump, has he been seen in public since Saturday?

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:Hannity is being called out in testimony...again.

Hannity is the true Chief of Staff of the Trump administration.  I don't say that in jest, either.  He really is.

Speaking of Trump, has he been seen in public since Saturday?

No.  Meetings that ordinarily occur elsewhere have been held in the residence, so he didn't need to travel or go anywhere.  Haven't heard much tweeting either.

I've heard rumors and suggestions that behind the scenes, there's a push from some of the GOP to get him to willingly resign, so that the GOP isn't forced to have to vote to acquit in the impeachment trial, only to have those votes be used hard against them in the campaigns coming up to the 2020 voting day.  Now, I'm not saying I believe this kind of talk or suggestion.  I'm not saying it's legit.  Just saying I can kind of see that line of reasoning.  There are some folks I'm sure don't want to make a public acquittal vote and have that on their record.  Romney, Sasse, Corker, Murkowski, Gardner, McSally, Collins....maybe a couple others.  Those are people that will have a tricky time explaining an acquittal vote.  Some of them are on the ticket in their states for reelection.  Easy to see how some of these senators might want to form a coalition to convince Trump to walk away in favor of a president Pence.  Again, I'm not saying I BUY this notion, but I can see how this might become a discussion point.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:Hannity is being called out in testimony...again.

Hannity is the true Chief of Staff of the Trump administration.  I don't say that in jest, either.  He really is.

Speaking of Trump, has he been seen in public since Saturday?

No.  Meetings that ordinarily occur elsewhere have been held in the residence, so he didn't need to travel or go anywhere.  Haven't heard much tweeting either.

I've heard rumors and suggestions that behind the scenes, there's a push from some of the GOP to get him to willingly resign, so that the GOP isn't forced to have to vote to acquit in the impeachment trial, only to have those votes be used hard against them in the campaigns coming up to the 2020 voting day.  Now, I'm not saying I believe this kind of talk or suggestion.  I'm not saying it's legit.  Just saying I can kind of see that line of reasoning.  There are some folks I'm sure don't want to make a public acquittal vote and have that on their record.  Romney, Sasse, Corker, Murkowski, Gardner, McSally, Collins....maybe a couple others.  Those are people that will have a tricky time explaining an acquittal vote.  Some of them are on the ticket in their states for reelection.  Easy to see how some of these senators might want to form a coalition to convince Trump to walk away in favor of a president Pence.  Again, I'm not saying I BUY this notion, but I can see how this might become a discussion point.

blondy28 wrote:Don't recall if I already asked this, but too lazy to look.  In a court trial, the judge can prevent certain witnesses from testifying, can prevent certain lines of questioning, etc.  I believe in the Bill Cosby trial, there was a question as to how many, if any, alleged victims would be allowed to testify.  If memory serves, only one was permitted.  So in the impeachment, can witnesses or certain lines of questioning be prevented?  I would presume if they can, that it's the dems who control that.  When the trial moves to the senate, over which Justice Roberts will preside, will those types of issues come before him?  I know the GOP keeps talking about calling Hunter Biden and Joe Biden to testify, and their testimony is totally irrelevant.  Will the GOP be able to simply muddy the waters with irrelevant testimony?  And seems to me that if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are forced to testify, that it will serve to accomplish what Trump was trying to accomplish from the get go...smearing Joe Biden, weakening him if he ends up being Trump's opponent.

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:Don't recall if I already asked this, but too lazy to look.  In a court trial, the judge can prevent certain witnesses from testifying, can prevent certain lines of questioning, etc.  I believe in the Bill Cosby trial, there was a question as to how many, if any, alleged victims would be allowed to testify.  If memory serves, only one was permitted.  So in the impeachment, can witnesses or certain lines of questioning be prevented?  I would presume if they can, that it's the dems who control that.  When the trial moves to the senate, over which Justice Roberts will preside, will those types of issues come before him?  I know the GOP keeps talking about calling Hunter Biden and Joe Biden to testify, and their testimony is totally irrelevant.  Will the GOP be able to simply muddy the waters with irrelevant testimony?  And seems to me that if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are forced to testify, that it will serve to accomplish what Trump was trying to accomplish from the get go...smearing Joe Biden, weakening him if he ends up being Trump's opponent.

Let the Trumpists call the Bidens to testify. They watch them try to explain relevance. 

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:Don't recall if I already asked this, but too lazy to look.  In a court trial, the judge can prevent certain witnesses from testifying, can prevent certain lines of questioning, etc.  I believe in the Bill Cosby trial, there was a question as to how many, if any, alleged victims would be allowed to testify.  If memory serves, only one was permitted.  So in the impeachment, can witnesses or certain lines of questioning be prevented?  I would presume if they can, that it's the dems who control that.  When the trial moves to the senate, over which Justice Roberts will preside, will those types of issues come before him?  I know the GOP keeps talking about calling Hunter Biden and Joe Biden to testify, and their testimony is totally irrelevant.  Will the GOP be able to simply muddy the waters with irrelevant testimony?  And seems to me that if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are forced to testify, that it will serve to accomplish what Trump was trying to accomplish from the get go...smearing Joe Biden, weakening him if he ends up being Trump's opponent.

Let the Trumpists call the Bidens to testify. They watch them try to explain relevance. 

I wish the Bidens would just say "bring it on" and go in there and throw it all on the table and explain the whole thing as it is.  He took a board position he probably wasn't qualified for, but so what, since it's not illegal.  It paid well, so he took it, and now he realizes it was a dumb idea and he wouldn't do it again if having the opportunity to turn back time.  Just be honest and say "Yes, it's probably not fair that they paid me to be on their board, but they did it and I didn't break laws and there was nothing else to it unless you have some kind of proposed crime you want to ask me about."  

Ultimately, the GOP just throws the word "corruption" out there to upset the apple cart and people bite into that.  Nothing specific, just "corruption."  Come in there with about 100 examples of other unqualified celebs and political cronies that have gotten silly board positions and ask if that's all they got?  

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like the Bidens' playing coy with this makes them seem more guilty.  Just own it.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:Don't recall if I already asked this, but too lazy to look.  In a court trial, the judge can prevent certain witnesses from testifying, can prevent certain lines of questioning, etc.  I believe in the Bill Cosby trial, there was a question as to how many, if any, alleged victims would be allowed to testify.  If memory serves, only one was permitted.  So in the impeachment, can witnesses or certain lines of questioning be prevented?  I would presume if they can, that it's the dems who control that.  When the trial moves to the senate, over which Justice Roberts will preside, will those types of issues come before him?  I know the GOP keeps talking about calling Hunter Biden and Joe Biden to testify, and their testimony is totally irrelevant.  Will the GOP be able to simply muddy the waters with irrelevant testimony?  And seems to me that if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are forced to testify, that it will serve to accomplish what Trump was trying to accomplish from the get go...smearing Joe Biden, weakening him if he ends up being Trump's opponent.

Let the Trumpists call the Bidens to testify. They watch them try to explain relevance. 

I wish the Bidens would just say "bring it on" and go in there and throw it all on the table and explain the whole thing as it is.  He took a board position he probably wasn't qualified for, but so what, since it's not illegal.  It paid well, so he took it, and now he realizes it was a dumb idea and he wouldn't do it again if having the opportunity to turn back time.  Just be honest and say "Yes, it's probably not fair that they paid me to be on their board, but they did it and I didn't break laws and there was nothing else to it unless you have some kind of proposed crime you want to ask me about."  

Ultimately, the GOP just throws the word "corruption" out there to upset the apple cart and people bite into that.  Nothing specific, just "corruption."  Come in there with about 100 examples of other unqualified celebs and political cronies that have gotten silly board positions and ask if that's all they got?  

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like the Bidens' playing coy with this makes them seem more guilty.  Just own it.

Do you think they're playing coy?  Didn't Hunter go on the Today show and basically say just what you said?  I think if he does that again and again and again it would be worse...and it would also have them reacting to the Republicans, and I don't think you ever want them to think they control youl.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:Don't recall if I already asked this, but too lazy to look.  In a court trial, the judge can prevent certain witnesses from testifying, can prevent certain lines of questioning, etc.  I believe in the Bill Cosby trial, there was a question as to how many, if any, alleged victims would be allowed to testify.  If memory serves, only one was permitted.  So in the impeachment, can witnesses or certain lines of questioning be prevented?  I would presume if they can, that it's the dems who control that.  When the trial moves to the senate, over which Justice Roberts will preside, will those types of issues come before him?  I know the GOP keeps talking about calling Hunter Biden and Joe Biden to testify, and their testimony is totally irrelevant.  Will the GOP be able to simply muddy the waters with irrelevant testimony?  And seems to me that if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are forced to testify, that it will serve to accomplish what Trump was trying to accomplish from the get go...smearing Joe Biden, weakening him if he ends up being Trump's opponent.

Let the Trumpists call the Bidens to testify. They watch them try to explain relevance. 

I wish the Bidens would just say "bring it on" and go in there and throw it all on the table and explain the whole thing as it is.  He took a board position he probably wasn't qualified for, but so what, since it's not illegal.  It paid well, so he took it, and now he realizes it was a dumb idea and he wouldn't do it again if having the opportunity to turn back time.  Just be honest and say "Yes, it's probably not fair that they paid me to be on their board, but they did it and I didn't break laws and there was nothing else to it unless you have some kind of proposed crime you want to ask me about."  

Ultimately, the GOP just throws the word "corruption" out there to upset the apple cart and people bite into that.  Nothing specific, just "corruption."  Come in there with about 100 examples of other unqualified celebs and political cronies that have gotten silly board positions and ask if that's all they got?  

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like the Bidens' playing coy with this makes them seem more guilty.  Just own it.

Do you think they're playing coy?  Didn't Hunter go on the Today show and basically say just what you said?  I think if he does that again and again and again it would be worse...and it would also have them reacting to the Republicans, and I don't think you ever want them to think they control youl.

Joe looked pretty silly yelling at that guy about it yesterday.  Just politely say the same thing over and over again until it's been stated a million times.  Just like in Trump world, once you say it a million times it becomes true whether it is or not.  Rather than yelling, Joe needs to repeat..."He took a board position.  His decision.  Zero involvement from me.  No laws broken.  No crimes committed.  No corruption.  Just took a position he was offered that paid him well.  Anyone would have taken it."  Something to that effect, over and over.  By avoiding talking about it, which I think they mostly have, it makes them seem like something is amiss.  I don't think anything really is amiss, but the perception is there.  Take a fucking one hour interview with Barb Walters and tell her she can spend the entire hour asking about it on national TV and then announce that you're done talking on it.  I get what you're saying.....don't let them control you.  It's like when the GOP forced Obama to show his fucking birth certificate, but doing it basically shut them up and kind of embarrassed them.