Adam Schiff Superstar

It is hard to think of enough accolades for Adam Schiff's many presentations at the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Update: An hour after writing this I have to take him to task for his cheap dig at criminal defendants in general. ("We all know if a defendant says he didn't do it, he didn't do it." (/snark)). Many who say they didn't do it in fact did not do it. Check the stats of the Innocence Project.) A much better way to make that argument is "It is true that some criminal defendants who insist they didn't do it in fact did not do it. Donald Trump would not be one of them."

Added: One other quibble: Schiff ended with the concept of a fair trial and said "Give America a fair trial." Sorry, but the Sixth Amendement guarantees a fair trial to the accused, the defendant on trial -- not crime victims. In fact, almost all of the Bill of the Ribhts is for the protection of the accused, not to protect crime victims.)

Republicans are too scared for their own hides to buck the Republican Party line. So Donald Trump won't be impeached. If they had an ounce of integrity they would vote to find Donald Trump's impeachment charges are high crimes and misdemeanors and have been proven. The penalty is not up to them, it's written in the Constitution. He shall be removed from office.

There can be only one way to make up for this, and that is for a Democrat to win the presidency in 2020 and appoint an attorney general who will seek and obtain an indictment against Donald Trump and Rudy Guiliani for the actions they undertook with respect to the Ukraine.

One small consolation: Donald Trump will never overturn the moniker that will forever be attached to his name: Donald Trump, impeached by the House of Representatives.

< Trump on Trial: Day One | R.I.P. Kobe Bryant, Daughter Gianna and 7 Others >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Missed opportunity (1.67 / 3) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 01:11:49 PM EST
    Schiff could have shared that proof of Trump's collusion with Russia he claimed to have for years.  That would have been the nail in the coffin.

    LOL (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 04:33:40 PM EST
    1/2 of his campaign is in jail for lying about meeting with Russians. He himself colluded with Russia according to the Mueller report but since conservatives don't seem to know how to read I'm sure it doesn't matter with them.

    So (none / 0) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 26, 2020 at 12:08:43 PM EST
    So why withhold that "more than circumstantial" evidence?

    See link provided down thread.


    Bill Barr (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 26, 2020 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    lied to you guys and you ate it up. Everything is going to come out eventually. Do you really think the new tapes of him with Russian mobsters represent the first time he's been doing this crap? Because you guys let him off the hook for working with Russia in 2016 he continued to do it. And apparently you guys are going to let him off the hook the second time he was colluding with Russia. You don't care one iota for the damage he has done to the country, the country's standing nor the fact that he's a national security risk.

    The DNC and Hillary colluded with Russia (1.67 / 3) (#24)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 06:53:52 AM EST
    The sources for the Steele dossier were Russian. No use denying it.

    If you have evidence of that (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    Why have you been protecting them by concealing it from the DOJ?

    DOJ just spent two yeas investigating Hillary, and cleared her of everything including that overdue library book, because YOU concealed the evidence!


    The evidence is in the dossier (none / 0) (#74)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 09:33:04 AM EST
    Steel noted his sources in the document itself.

    Links and quotes (none / 0) (#75)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 09:49:01 AM EST
    Link to dossier

    Former top Russian intelligence officer claims FSB has compromised TRUMP through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able to blackmail him.

    Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 source A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian intlligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for at least 5 years.

     Continuing on this theme, Source G, a senior Kremlin official,  



    Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 10:23:01 AM EST
    those are the Russian talking points. They always attempt to deflect blame to Hillary or the DNC when there's absolutely no evidence of that. I guess you don't realize that the Steele Dossier was initially funded by Republicans? And that Steele is British not Russian and that he was a personal friend of Ivanka at one time? You people are so pathetic.

    You guys are hilarious (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    See if you can tell the difference between soliciting something of value for your campaign from a foreign government and hiring a private firm to do oppo research.  One is illegal,  the other is a crime.   This should help you figure out the difference.   Or my 12-year-old could explain it.

    "One is completely legal" (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    "The other is a crime."

    Which is why even a completely corrupted Barr DOJ can't touch her.

    But stock up on tinfoil!


    Conservatives (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    are brain dead. It's like Rick Wilson said they are the stupid boomer demographic who will believe anything they are told. After all Trump did say he likes the poorly educated. I guess they are easier to steal from.

    Could you (none / 0) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 05:46:55 PM EST
    ...supply the exact quote of Schiff's you are referring to, just for reference?



    About the (none / 0) (#15)
    by ragebot on Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 11:30:47 PM EST
    one minute mark Schiff keeps insisting he has evidence he can't talk about.

    It is all (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 26, 2020 at 05:52:32 AM EST
    going to come out more day by day until the election and then when Trump is out of office all the info that Barr has been withholding is going to be released and many Trump cabinet members and members of congress are going to be prosecuted. More tapes today with Trump and the Russian mafia and when those are all public we still have tax returns, tapes of phone calls with Putin and many other things. Trump has been a long time criminal running a scam operation in NYC. It's finally all catching up with him.

    Trump is favored to win in 2020 (none / 0) (#19)
    by ragebot on Sun Jan 26, 2020 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    at every betting site I know of.  While it is still early in the primary for dems none of them are even close.  The economy is still roaring and with the large number of hires by the US Census it is not likely employment will do anything but get better.  Earlier I predicted Biden would be the candidate but I may need to hedge my bet to include Sanders.  No question which ever one is the candidate he will have a problem.

    Any candidate but Sanders will have to deal with the Bernie Bros and what happened last year when they felt dissed by Clinton/DNC and basically refused to support a candidate they viewed as cheating to get the nomination.

    Sanders has his own problems if he is the candidate.  Lots of dems really dislike him.  Warren called him a liar and refused to shake his hand.  Clinton said no one likes him, and Obama has reportedly dissed him in private.

    Hard to see how these splits can be resolved.  Not to mention that there is still talk of a white night candidate stepping in at the last minute to save the day.

    Romney seems to be the only real pub who does not fully support Trump and he has massive support from the RNC and pubs in general.  I know about the libertarian who switched parties but he is expected to lose his seat to a "safe" pub due to his dissing of Trump.

    Problem with your claim that more stuff is coming out soon that will sink Trump is that the same thing has been claimed about stuff from Manafort, Cohen, Muller, and Shiff and so far none of it has panned out.


    It is death by (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 26, 2020 at 04:55:32 PM EST
    1,000 cuts. The only people that are thrilled with Trump at this point are 29% of the country. Twice that many people are strongly against him which is the best indicator of what is going to happen in 2020. The top line numbers are going to to shift back and forth but the strongly support and strongly against have proved to be reliable indicator.

    Do you have clue (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 08:52:02 AM EST
    what census workers are paid? I do, I worked the US census one year. Minimum wage. Not a livable wage today. Most census workers are probably taking it on as a second job.

    I have had (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    census takers come to my house. The one time they came it was a retired person looking to pick up extra money. So yeah, it's basically an extra income job for those who want to do it or a stop gap measure for a few.

    For me it was stop gap. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    I was collecting unemployment and the Census job was stop gap to extend my unemployment. I was a typesetter back then and ended up going back to work in the middle of the census.

    Election work is the same. I've done that before as well. Pay is low, but good way to pick up some extra money in a short term job.


    Betting sites (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 26, 2020 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    are nothing. Seriously if that is what you base your data on then there's no point in reading anything else in your post.

    Keep ignoring (none / 0) (#22)
    by ragebot on Sun Jan 26, 2020 at 11:58:41 PM EST
    the economy and ignore the famous James Carville quotation 'it's the economy stupid'.

    Do you have any doubts the Bernie Bros will change the way they acted in 2016; or that Clinton, Warren, Obama, and several other high profile dems have bashed Sanders and are seriously trying to stop him.  Throw in a couple of billion dollar candidates spending money like a drunken sailor and there seems to be little chance anyone will emerge from the pack before the convention with anywhere near the number of votes needed to win.

    Even the really astute dem soothsayers have no idea who will wind up as the dem's candidate.  But I have little doubt who ever it is there will be hard feelings on the part of some dems.

    If you look at today's headlines they are suddenly dominated by the death of a retired pro basketball player.  The impeachment will be old news quickly enough.  If you look at ratings for the impeachment it is on a downward trend.  At first things like Cohen and Mueller had much higher ratings than impeachment.  Hard to get the public interested in reruns.

    These are the type of things bettors on the betting sites look at before putting down coin of the realm.  If you are so sure about what will happen in 2020 you can always put your money where your mouth is.


    Lot to unpack there (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 06:33:49 AM EST
    First it sounds like you are trying to convince yourself.

    Second, it's NOT the economy.  Stupid.  Not this year.

    Also could you name one or two of these "really astute dem soothsayers have no idea who will wind up as the dem's candidate".   Cause I think we have very different definitions of "astute".

    I've been saying for a bit now who I think it will be.  And it's your worst nightmare.  

    Finally, you would be taken more seriously if you ocaisionally threw an original thought in with all the tired BS talking points you get from WND.


    What you (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 07:14:11 AM EST
    don't realize is that the economy has grown less in the first three years of Trump than it has the last 3 years of Obama. You guys keep looking at that UE number but not the fact that wages have declined when you take into account the healthcare cost rises the GOP instated or what the tariffs have cost consumers. I mean if things are so great why are we having to bail out farmers? There is a reason why Trump's numbers are so bad with a supposed "booming" economy.

    No, impeachment is not going to be old news simply because there is so much more to come out. We haven't even gotten to the taxes yet. Trump is going to continue to make impeachment an issue because he is going to continue the same behavior.


    If the economy was an issue (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 07:22:58 AM EST
    Trump would not be at 40%.  On a good day.  It's just another talking point.  Like the betting thing.  Right now betting has Sanders as the nominee.  Go ahead, bet the farm on that.

    Sanders is surging.  Just a random thought about that.  
    I've been saying for a long time we have to stop playing by our rules and letting them play by a different set.  This is one of the main reasons Bloomberg interests me.  He has shown not only he can but more importantly will play hardball.

    What if Sanders is surging because of behind the scenes help from Bloomberg?  Those "very astute whatever's" have been saying for months Bloomberg's primary path involves Sanders surging.

    Just a random thought.  


    Because (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 12:09:46 PM EST
    That's what I would do

    If I had all the money in the world


    CNN (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    Why is Bernie Sanders surging?

    As promised, Senator Bernie Sanders is shocking the political establishment. The candidate who many thought had no chance of winning is polling extremely well in Iowa and New Hampshire and several other states. According to a new CNN/UNH poll, he has a nine-point lead in New Hampshire.

    Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumed frontrunner, is waking up to the reality that he is running neck-and-neck with the senator from Vermont. The other top candidates, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, are struggling to keep up with him. They are likely experiencing the same sinking feeling many Republicans felt in 2016, when they awoke to the reality that Donald Trump was stronger than the party establishment seeking to contain him.
    The Sanders juggernaut does not appear to be a flash-in-the-pan candidacy. It is true that Sanders has had trouble expanding his base of support, but for several months now he has remained in the top tier in the polls, along with Biden, Warren and Buttigieg. It has become increasingly possible to imagine his winning the nomination.

    How did a candidate who is so risky--as his supporter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez admitted during a rally--work his way to the very top?

    His (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 12:32:22 PM EST
    supporters finally decided it was time to put down the bong and get their revolution on.

    Bong shade (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 12:35:01 PM EST
    Not tolerated

    Got (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    over that revolution stuff a long time ago, the bong remains the same however.

    Yeah. No bong shade here. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    You made me put down my bong in order to type my objections. ;-D

    You have reached (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    ..the "April, 1974" stage of GOP grief. ("We can ride this out.")

    Trump has reached the "talking to portraits" stage of dementia.


    That reminds me of an old SNL skit ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    Repack Rider: "Trump has reached the 'talking to portraits' stage of dementia."

    ... with Dan Aykroyd as Richard Nixon, contemplating the portrait of John F. Kennedy and muttering aloud to himself, "Kennedy! Sex in the White House - with women! That never happened with Dick Nixon in charge here."

    Hey, pass the bong, will ya?


    You (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 07:21:05 AM EST
    appear not to understand odds, tRump is betting favorite now because only he has a guaranteed spot in the election. Currently every Dem is less than 50% to even get that far, so naturally they all have higher odds against them.

    Check back when the Democrats finally choose.


    The trolls (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 08:52:23 AM EST
    are in high gear in comment sections, equipped with Russian/Republican (indistinguishable) disinformation.  They must be severely troubled.

    Agreed, wholeheartedly. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 24, 2020 at 07:23:18 PM EST
    There is no question that Rep. Adam Schiff is our Man of the Hour. But let's please also praise and thank his fellow House managers -- Reps. Jerrold Nadler, Val Demings, Zoe Lofgren, Sylvia Garcia, Jason Crow and Hakeem Jeffries. The legal and rhetorical choreography we saw from this team was absolutely masterful. Every segment of the House presentation segued smoothly into the next one.

    But that said, Adam Schiff rose to the occasion to answer the call and meet the moment, summarizing each day's presentations to senators with equal parts eloquence, forthrightness and courage. I believe his series of speeches this week before the Senate will long be remembered as one of the most robust and passionate defenses of America's democratic institutions and constitutional principles in our history.

    And thanks to the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her team, Donald Trump has been exposed to the nation and the world for exactly who he is - a bully, blowhard and fraud.


    What Schiff said is correct (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 24, 2020 at 07:51:11 PM EST
    That the accused says he didn't do it does not end the investigation. Of course, he's a prosecutor, so you can't expect him to actually understand due process. A good one, and on the right side this time, but still ....

    My thoughts (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 24, 2020 at 08:23:50 PM EST
    too. He is a prosecutor after all.

    Trump has already been impeached, (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 24, 2020 at 08:51:30 PM EST
    that was the House's job. the question now is if he'll be booted from office, that's the Senate's job.

    Why, yes, That is why (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 24, 2020 at 09:41:29 PM EST
    the post refers to this Senate phase as the impeachment trial.

    The phase in the House was the impeachment hearing.


    In Manager Schiff's (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 24, 2020 at 10:29:46 PM EST
    closing statement, he mentioned the day-old CBS reporting that Republican senators were warned that a vote against Trump will put their head on a pike---clarifying that he did not know if it was true, and indeed, that he hoped it was not true.  

    Senator Susan Collins called out indignantly that it was not true, being, in the process, not only uncivil, but also in violation of rules not to speak with a penalty of imprisonment.  Not even an admonition by the Chief Justice.  And, Lisa Murkowski was troubled to the point of, perhaps, fortifying her inclination to acquit.

    Shorter (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 08:34:53 AM EST
    Murkowski " guilty has he!!, but Nadler and Schiff said some mean things about us so we have no choice but to let him go".

    When you're full of sh!t, you must acquit.


    It a bit of good news bad news (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 07:10:47 AM EST
    Good news we have someone nevas smart and articulate as Schiff to speak for us.  I really think he made some history by speaking to history.

    Bad news I doubt it, or really anything else, will change a single mind.  

    The (none / 0) (#9)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 08:38:13 AM EST
    really bad news is that sometime next week, the Republicans will vote to execute our democracy.

    FOX did not cover the last three days (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 09:15:08 AM EST
    Usually having the hearing in a squeezedown frame with no sound.

    What do you think the odds are of full screen coverage today.

    I won't spoil the surprise


    You'll love this. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    Here's a blast from the not-so-distant "Fox & Friends" past on Sept. 24, 2019. Less than three weeks after the Trump and Rudy Show's Ukraine scheme began blowing up in the administration's collective face, co-host Steve Doocy succinctly and inadvertently described the president's dilemma perfectly:

    "If the president said 'I will give you the money but you've got to investigate Joe Biden,' that is really off-the-rails wrong. But if it's something else, you know, it would be nice to know what it is."

    "It would be nice to know," indeed. Because fast forward nearly four months, and it's nice to know that the "Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade truly has the country's best interest at heart:

    "So, if John Bolton's lawyers are telling the truth here, and they just submitted [the book manuscript is] in and it's leaked out, if that is indeed the case, more evidence that people within the administration are actually against the administration. And the other thing is devastating timing, because this thing was on the fast track to closing out without witnesses on Friday."

    Oy, Fox. Oy, oy, oy and vey.


    Politically (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 04:32:20 PM EST
    this is really bad for the GOP. Thank heavens there are people working on voting rights and making sure people are registered to vote, finding ways for people to get to the polls in November and all that.Still it is going to be horrible for our democracy.  

    Lawyer question about Bolton (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 08:42:13 AM EST
    Does the fact this bombshell (it is a bombshell) just released last came from Bolton's statement in a BOOK effect Trumps ability to call some kind of privilege?

    Anyone know?

    I remember hearing something about discussing something publicly can do that, right?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 09:08:46 AM EST
    expert, but I think tRump tweeting about it is even more damaging to privilege claims.

    Mitt just revised and extended his remarks (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 09:12:46 AM EST
    Shorter Mitt.  We have to call Bolton.

    If the party that holds a privilege chooses (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    voluntarily to go public, it may result in a waiver of privilege. But here, if anyone, the privilege-holder is the President (the Office of President, actually), so no, Bolton cannot, by his own conduct, waive Executive Privilege (the privilege of confidentiality of advice-seeking for the President with his close aides and advisers).

    Can they subpoena (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    The document?  It's clearly out there.

    yes, they can subpoena the document (none / 0) (#65)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    if ChJ Roberts approves the motion for a subpoena, and the Senate does not overrule him. As I understand the rules of the present proceeding.

    But, Peter, isn't it true that ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    ... executive privilege cannot be invoked legally if the purpose is to cover up acts of malfeasance or misconduct? The right to executive privilege is not absolute, is it?

    My question here is this: Is there any legal basis whatsoever for Trump's claim that his administration enjoys "absolute immunity" from the due process of congressional oversight?

    The concept of "absolute immunity" for the executive branch would flip the entire Article I of the U.S. Constitution on its head, should henceforth only the president, and the president alone, be allowed to both determine the legal scope and parameters of congressional inquiries into executive branch activities, and further establish and impose strict limits and guidelines upon the executive bureaucracy's cooperation with Congress.

    I have to admit, I've been involved in the drafting and amending of law for the better part of 30 years now and in all that time, I've never even heard of such a term as 'absolute immunity" -- that is, I never did until these malevolent snakes showed up.



    In my opinion -- and I am not a real (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    constitutional scholar or anything, just a well-educated and serious lawyer -- there is no merit whatsoever to the "absolute immunity" theory. Total hogwash.

    The (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 05:25:25 PM EST
    President is not king seemed to be one of the main themes of the whole endeavor, to my limited knowledge.

    In the Nixon tapes case, the Supreme Court held (none / 0) (#68)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 08:23:34 PM EST
    unanimously that Nixon's claim of absolute privilege -- except, notably, in a case of impeachment, as his attorney argued -- was baseless. Remember, the subpoena in that case was issued not by the House or Senate but by the special prosecutor, to obtain evidence (the White House tapes) for use in prosecuting Nixon's closest aides on charges of obstructing justice and other offenses, all for the purpose of aiding the President in hiding his attempt to cheat in the 1972 presidential election. The Court ruled that while Executive Privilege was a legitimate concept, it had to yield to a demonstrated need for probative evidence in a criminal case -- particularly one implicating White House officials (and potentially the President himself). So while the case did not actually decide the question you pose, Donald, the pretty clear implication is that you are correct in the suggestion you made at the outset of your post.

    Sorry about unintelligible parenthetical (none / 0) (#70)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 09:56:19 AM EST
    "except, notably, in a case of impeachment, as his attorney argued" -- what I meant to note is that even Nixon's attorney, when claiming absolute Presidential immunity from the prosecutor's subpoena for evidence to use against former White House aides in a criminal case, acknowledged that of course there could be no such immunity in an impeachment process. (The notion of broad presidential immunity was also rejected by the Supreme Court in the Clinton/Paula Jones case.)

    which means, of course, that if Tr*mp tweets (none / 0) (#69)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 10:18:34 PM EST
    about that he did or did not discuss with Bolton, then he can be held to have waived the confidentiality of policy advice and deliberations ("executive") privilege.

    Additional question , sorry (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 08:57:14 AM EST
    If that's true is it possibly this is the very reason Bolton did it this way?

    They can not avoid calling him now.  Even Lindsey is basically admitting that threatening all manner of irrelevancy when it happens.

    They are also talking about some reporting that this information in the form of an advance had been in the hands of the NSC for a while but might not have been shared with either Trump or McConnell.   The timing is pretty suspect.  In a good way.  

    Might be a more interesting day than we expected.


    I (none / 0) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 09:12:16 AM EST
    wonder if this is somehow connected
    "Andrew Peek, the senior director for European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council, has been placed on administrative leave pending a security-related investigation," Axios reported Saturday, citing people familiar with the situation.

    I think you're correct in one respect. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 03:45:45 PM EST
    In fact, an advance copy of Bolton's manuscript was delivered to the Trump White House on December 30. But please indulge me here. Given the way this administration has rolled these past three years, let's suppose that White House Counsel Pat Cippolone and Trump's defense team likely already knew about its contents.

    The question then becomes whether Trump's defense counsel are presently spinning a yarn to the Senate that's fundamentally at odds with the facts of the case as they themselves knew those facts to be. And if that's true, what will GOP senators do when they realize that Trump's defense team has been misleading them all along?

    Remember, Watergate's curtain finally -- and only -- rang down on Richard Nixon in the summer of 1974 when his own fellow Republicans finally began to grasp the full extent and enormity of the president's material misrepresentations to them, which caused about one-third of the GOP congressional caucus to revolt and make common cause with the Democrats. Politically, that was the fatal blow.



    ... at this point, isn't it? I mean, the story's now out there in the public domain. I suppose the Senate Republicans can rule the evidence as inadmissible and still close the trial Friday as planned, but that now comes with its own unique set of potential political pitfalls.

    Anyway, Chief Justice John Roberts is just sitting up there on the dais like a bump on a log. If the defense objects to the Senate subpoenaing Bolton on grounds of executive privilege, make them appeal to the bench. What's the point of having a Chief Justice preside over an impeachment trial, if he's not allowed to decide such matters?



    In a court setting (which impeachment is not) (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 05:00:49 PM EST
    the judge will enforce a privilege even after improper or other public disclosure of the same material, so far as the formal record of the court proceeding is concerned. I'm not so sure that Executive Privilege is even valid in the impeachment setting, but if it is, there could be a similar result. As for ChJ Roberts, he is most certainly allowed to decide such matters. But his decisions can be overruled by a majority vote of the senators, if appealed. Just as a trial judge's rulings in a court case might be appealed.

    The great thing is this (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 09:44:44 AM EST
    At this point the republicans, who could have helped themselves earlier in this process, will not help themselves with thinking people even if they are now forced by events to actually remove Trump.

    They have played their little hear no evil thing long enough no one thinks they care about anything but self preservation.

    There is now chatter about calling Barr.

    I know. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    They have gotten away with so much for so long that they figured it would continue. They really have made it much worse for themselves. Rick Wilson said Mitch is mooving the senate GOP into the feedlot for slaughter. If they vote for witnesses now good but there are also gonna be records of them voting against both documents and witnesses several times.

    Tweety (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 10:31:50 AM EST
    Just compared Bolton to Claude Rains in Mr Smith Goes to Washington.

    God help us

    Way off if.Tweety (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 01:35:08 PM EST
    remembers Senator Paine (Claude Raines character) as realizing the error of his ways, attempts suicide, and then confessed to everything, but maybe closer if he sees Paine as starting off as an ally and then shows cowardice and phoniness when doing right is called for (unlike Dr. Fiona Hill)

    Bolton is not seeking  redemption either.  More, self-serving in dodging his non-disclosure agreement and concerns and criticisms for holding back--book sales suicide.

    However, it does not matter.  What matters is for the silver screen entry for 2020, "Mr. Trump Leaves Washington" to be released pronto.  Bolton has helped already and will continue to do so. Bolton's draft has been around the White House for a month. It is unlikely that Cippolone did not know it or see it, yet they ignored it in their defense putting Republican heads on a pike.  

    It was wise for Moscow Mitch to wish Chief Justice Roberts a happy 65th birthday, he will what ever help he can get.  His Merrick Garland strategy may not be watchable as a re-run.


    Who is Mr Smith? (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    The Lt Colonel, Volker, the ambassador (not trying to spell that),  Sondland ...who?

    Ambassador Yovanovich. (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 03:25:15 PM EST
    as well as those who testified voluntarily, patriotically, and at professional, and maybe, personal risk--- Holmes, the Lt. Colonel, and Taylor all had Mr. Smith's earnestness and, even, naïveté.  The Ambassador embodies the "Boy Rangers".  

    Volker and Sondland are critically important, but we know Mr. Smith, and they are no Mr. Smith.


    And, (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 03:28:50 PM EST
    the whistleblower  underpinning the story.

    He needs (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    to be retired. This is not the first time he's gone down that road.

    You know what (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    The whole thing seems to good to be true

    Jus sayin


    I keep hearing (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but is it a "fair trial" ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2020 at 05:50:19 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "One other quibble: Schiff ended with the concept of a fair trial and said 'Give America a fair trial.' Sorry, but the Sixth Amendement guarantees a fair trial to the accused, the defendant on trial -- not crime victims."

    ... when the foreman of the jury is allowed to collude with the defendant for the expressed purpose of dictating to the jurors, the prosecutors and the trial judge the scope and parameters by which said trial shall be conducted, including whether or not evidence is to even be admitted and witnesses are to even be called?

    Just sayin', Jeralyn. I think you know exactly what Adam Schiff meant in this particular moment, when he argued passionately for the Senate to "give America a fair trial." He was appealing beyond those senators in attendance to the rest of our country at large. He was speaking to the ages, and accounting for posterity's sake the Republican cover-up that's about to take place here.

    And yet, you've somehow managed to misrepresent all that by conflating standard due process and trial procedure in civil and criminal court with the impeachment process in Congress -- which, as we should all know by now, is a wholly unique and hybrid process crafted by our country's Founders to account for the political passions of any given moment, as well as for the rule of law.

    Yours, therefore, appears to me to be a "quibble" without much substance. Further, it does an incredible disservice to the truly heroic stand that Rep. Schiff and his House manager colleagues have taken here for the sake of our country's Constitution and the rule of law. Because they're standing upon bedrock principle at a time when all too many of us take such principle for granted or worse, view it as a disposable commodity, they and their loved ones have been subjected to threats of harm and even death.

    Further, I would ask that you consider this: If Trump, Barr, Pompeo, et al., are allowed to subvert Article I of our Constitution for the mere sake of political and legal expediency, what makes you believe that the rest of the Constitution and its underlying principles will still be held by this president or future presidents as both sacrosanct and inviolate?

    "A republic -- if you can keep it." Those words, uttered by Benjamin Franklin 233 years ago, ring just as true today as they did in 1787. So, please think large, Jeralyn, rather than quibble about a minor rhetorical detail which can serve only to provide a welcome distraction for weak-minded MAGA-lovers on the right from the now-deadly serious issue and debate that's presently before us.

    Now more than ever in this time of constitutional crisis, your country is depending upon you and other like-minded officers of the court, who respect and honor both our Constitution and the rule of law, to stand resolute in their defense and be counted on the side of the angels. And as you do so, may you rest assured that true patriots everywhere will be standing shoulder to shoulder with you.


    John Kelly says (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 10:49:36 AM EST
    I believe John Bolton.

    This is going to matter.

    ... who mouthed either "Wow!" or "Wha-?" upon hearing what was just offered by Trump's defense team:

    Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

    Somebody needs to run to the store and get us another case of "Oy!" Because at this rate, we're likely to run out of them before sundown.


    Question time (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    Is more interesting than I expected

    It sure sounds like some people are looking for a reason to not commit political suicide.  

    Tho Lindsey and Ted definitely give the best question.