Trump Impeachment Trial – Day 6, Open Thread

Today, Donald Trump’s Fox friends Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz will be defending him in the Senate impeachment trial. Meanwhile, pressure has just increased for John Bolton to testify. We’ve got the day’s proceedings streaming after the jump.

As I've previously posted, The New York Times dropped a bombshell from former National Security Adviser John Bolton last night that The Washington Post described as having kneecapped Trump's "no quid pro quo" defense.

The Times reports this juicy nugget:

Republicans are angrily pressing the White House in private about the revelations from the manuscript, saying they were blindsided by the former adviser’s account — especially because the administration has had a copy of it since Dec. 30. Many Republicans have adopted the arguments offered by Mr. Trump’s defense team, but Mr. Bolton’s assertions directly contradict them.

According to CNN, the legal team “worked late into the night after Bolton bombshell.” As of this morning, no decision had been made as to whether or not to address it. So far, Starr has not.

Watch Trump’s impeachment legal defense below, via The Washington Post, and share your thoughts and observations below.

Follow @NewsHounds

Follow @NewsHoundEllen

Do you like this post?

Showing 17 reactions

commented 2020-01-27 22:02:57 -0500 · Flag

Dershowitz overly generalizes that “maladministration = abuse of power”. E.g., Trump’s slowness in appointing government officials is maladministration but not an abuse of power. On the other hand, Dershowitz ignores the much closer association between extortion and bribery.

commented 2020-01-27 20:40:15 -0500 · Flag

I was wrong about the Trump team finishing up before prime time. I’ll bet at least one of them is on Fox prime time anyway.

commented 2020-01-27 20:39:27 -0500 · Flag

Alan Dershowitz is likening Trump’s quid pro quo to refusing to give Israel aid because of its policies. But he must know that the issue is that Trump’s quid pro quo was for his own benefit only, not over policy, and then he covered it up. Also, it was in defiance of Congress.

commented 2020-01-27 19:49:30 -0500 · Flag

Robert Ray, like Dershowitz and Starr, is claiming expertise in condemning something of which he was previously guilty (re: some argument Ray previously attempted that the court rejected 9 – 0.)

Going into history is “a treacherous endeavor for lawyers” says Ray, apparently not having listened to Starr’s lecture. That Andrew Johnson, arguably the worst President until Trump, wasn’t convicted says something was lacking in how impeachment works, not about the supposed bravery of the deciding voter, who in fact may have been bribed.

Ray shows no sign of adjusting to the Bolton news.

commented 2020-01-27 18:21:00 -0500 · Flag

Starr and Dershowitz. Golden Oldie Law. At least Starr has stopped sniffing women’s clothing for semen stains. At least I think he has.

commented 2020-01-27 16:37:40 -0500 · Flag

I do not think the defense is going to use up their time. They have already signaled as much. Plus, I predict, they will stop just in time to get on Fox News prime time.

commented 2020-01-27 16:37:04 -0500 · Flag

John McKee, I was surprised they brought in Rudy, too, especially since they defended him as legit.

commented 2020-01-27 16:27:13 -0500 · Flag

What goodies do the Republicans have left to fill in their 24 hours? Well, there’s Alan Doucheawitz and his amazing Juggling Opinions act (admired throughout the colonies) of course, and then I guess it will be ‘Benghazi! Benghazi!’ and the But-Her-Emails Orchestra and Chorus all the way down.

commented 2020-01-27 15:45:53 -0500 · Flag

Dear God Almighty. I’d have thought the words ‘Rudy’ and ‘Giuliani’ would have been right there at the top of the list of verboten terms for this so-called defence, along with ‘Lev’, ‘Igor’, ‘Emoluments Clause’, ‘Alleged Abortions’, ‘Stormy’ and ‘Multiple Bankruptcies’.

commented 2020-01-27 14:53:30 -0500 · Flag

Starr is certainly livened up the proceedings. Not. Droning away as you’d imagine Ambien would drone if it too was a sad old slug whose relevancy had withered and died decades ago. Supremely ironic that ‘Mr Impeachment’ is now arguing against the whole concept of impeachment.

commented 2020-01-27 14:46:47 -0500 · Flag

But Purpura seems to be addressing quid pro quo for meeting, not mentioning aid, at least not that I heard.

commented 2020-01-27 14:42:55 -0500 · Flag

Purpura just claimed there’s no evidence of quid pro quo, LOL.

commented 2020-01-27 14:42:00 -0500 · Flag

Anonymous: I agree.

commented 2020-01-27 14:41:01 -0500 · Flag

Purpura is arguing that Trump met with Zelensky with no pre-conditions and that the only real issue was where the meeting was.

commented 2020-01-27 14:30:13 -0500 · Flag

The most interesting thing I’ve seen so far is Starr’s unintentional implication that the embers of his so-called “Age of Impeachment” were reignited by Alan Dershowitz against Ronald Reagan.. So Starr and Dershowitz are nowadays making a living over condemning the tools they themselves attempted to exploit the past.. They were leaders among those who exploitatively called wolf before, now unable to apprehend the real wolf.

commented 2020-01-27 14:18:08 -0500 · Flag

Purpura seems to be putting forth the “no quid pro quo” defense, so far without mention of Bolton.

commented 2020-01-27 14:00:37 -0500 · Flag

I’m having a hard time taking Starr’s “you should avoid the nuclear option of impeachment” seriously given that he was gaga for impeaching Clinton for lying about his extramarital affair.