Today, Team Trump began their opening arguments. Were you watching? Did you see any of the Democratic responses? If you missed it, you can watch the full two-hour proceeding after the jump.
Like the House impeachment managers, the Trumpers will have 24 hours over three days. Today, Team Trump only used two hours. I predict that next week, Team Trump will not use all their time and conclude the next two days’ arguments just in time to appear on Fox News prime time, where they will have several more hours to promote their case, without any pesky Senate rules and with the aid of Fox News hosts.
Still unknown is whether enough Republicans will come forward and ask for witnesses. I did two posts on the subject for Crooks and Liars today. One has Sen. Tim Kaine explaining how the Trump Team strengthened the Democrats’ case for witnesses. The other is about Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe saying that Republicans are afraid of the truth or else they would want witnesses, too.
Make sure to keep calling your senators and tell them that a trial without witnesses is un-American. Daily Kos has a list of their phone numbers here.
Meanwhile, share your thoughts and observations below.
The video below of today's proceedings is via The Washington Post.
No, the key point is the non-sequitur, indeed the logical contradiction between concern for burden sharing and the withholding of aid from Ukraine. It is analogous to my standing on the shore with a life preserver in my hand but not throwing it to a friend in risk of drowning “because*” nearby friends aren’t helping my friend as much as I think they should. This is a head-scratcher, because if I really wanted others to help my friend I would do so by my example, “walking the talk“ about how my aid is so much better than my predecessor’s, therefore hastening to be the first to throw a life preserver.. The “because*” above makes sense only in the case that “my friend“ is taken as BS code for almost its opposite, I.e. “someone I don’t give a damn about whom I’m in a position to extort”.
Trump could shoot someone on the floor of the Senate and he’d still be acquitted by a vote of 54-47.
Unless he shot a republican and then it’d be 53-47.
I know the numbers are wrong but maybe the poster thought that that the VP would have to vote? Or they can’t add.
1) Cipolloni (sp.?) started by bitterly criticising the House Managers for not having mentioned (wrongly as it happens, for they did at least once) Trump’s comments on burden-sharing (a total lie as it happens, since the EU has provided over 15B and Germany alone has provided over 1B). Most of that aid was to kick start Ukraine’s economy not destroy stuff (where American aid is focused).
2) he then proceeded to air Schiff’s parody of the quid-pro-quo argument without Schiff’s comments both before and after where he says that his words were to be understood “reading between the lines”.
While I accept that lawyers for the defence are entitled to do everything they can to get their client off the hook, anybody else saying such stupid things cannot but be accused of hypocrisy.
Ahhhhh. The man Trump claimed not to know is releasing audio tapes of some of their conversations. Parnas used to worship the Donald. Trump is unaware that there’s no fury like a devotee scorned.
The one upside here is that everyone gets to vote on the Senate as well as the presidency, so if people don’t stay home, there’s a strong chance that we can hold multiple GOP senators responsible for their behavior here.
Monday plus or minus Tuesday will be a hysterical Jordan/Collins/Ratcliffe/Meadows/Lesko/Stefanik show – don’t know whether they are allowed to speak themselves, but we can be sure they’ll be loading up the teleprompter.