I have a sinking suspicion the GOP might betray the president. — NOS4A2

It is Trump who has betrayed - the oath of office, the Constitution, the standards expected from a public officer.

Are you referring to Zelensky' statements? That is something, but it is at odds with testimony by the diplomats. It would be risky for Zelensky to say he felt pressured, and to his benefit to convey to Trump that "he loves your ass". On the other hand, the diplomats took a risk by testifying, and they corroborate one another.

And the Ukrainian foreign minister. His recent interview pretty much refuted the entire case against Trump. No quid pro quo, no pressure, implicit or otherwise, refutes Sondland, says everything was routine... I wonder if they would be able to testify.

What's the point of testimony by Hunter and the whistleblower?

They are the start of this whole mess and would be useful to the defense.

He has made his case and so have members of Congress and the senate.

Biden threatened to withhold over a billion dollars if the top prosecutor wasn’t fired. Meanwhile his son was being payed vast sums of cash working for a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, and this right after a revolution. — NOS4A2

If they did it... why can't I?

If what they did was wrong, then so is what I've done...

He's brilliant at making his own case, that's why everyone responsible for cleaning up his messes wants him to just shut the fuck up.

Grant that the president wanted to root out corruption.

Now, someone... somewhere... arguing on behalf of the president tell me...

What is the excuse for not investing every bit of the resources necessary to help stop known Russian corruption of American elections?

The Trump administration has done nothing. The Mueller report was a call to subsequent action. It was the first step in the process. It found overwhelming evidence that Russian agents aimed to influence the election and effectively did just that using a variety of different means. It found adequate evidence that members of Trump's campaign were actively, knowingly, seeking to coordinate with foreign entities(current enemies of the state) as a part of that very process. Some members bore the name Trump.

The idea that Trump did not know what his family members knew and/or were doing is strictly unbelievable. Any careful examination of things already known shows otherwise. It's not as if they are long lost relatives...

Either he does not care about known verified corruption at the highest levels, or he's just bullshitting when claiming the motive was to investigate corruption of the Biden family. That investigation has already been closed. The Russian one... not so much.

Yeah, Trump is full of shit.

Treasonous behaviour in many ways. Why not call a spade a spade?

Secret meeting with Putin during an investigation about the possibility of coordination between Trump's campaign members and Russian agents actively seeking to influence the American election by virtue of damaging Trump's political opponent...

What on earth would constitute a clearly established pattern of behaviour of using foreign entities to attack and discredit a political opponent?

What on earth could have been done differently - if it were true - to better satisfy Russian interests while retaining some semblance of plausible deniability? From the change in the GOP platform language at the convention(that came as a surprise to many) through the allowance of Russian forces in the middle east...

Looks like great times for Putin. Add to it his recent actions to remain in power indefinitely...

These two men cannot be allowed to retain the power to directly influence so many people's lives over which they do not have sufficient concern for; people that they do not care about. Everything short of unnecessary violence and/or harm.

When a long list of political opponents wind up dead, those standing up for truth, justice, and the American ideal do nothing to glorify and/or excuse it. We certainly do not offer public admiration for anyone so involved, especially while simultaneously denouncing and deriding American public servants. We do not stand and glorify the likes of Putin while knowing of the severity of crimes against humanity due to him.

We - as a candidate fr president - certainly ought not be permitted to be financially tied to Russian banking institutions while presiding over the office of the presidency of the United States of America.

We certainly ought not be allowed to continue on as if there is nothing else to see..

I cannot.

When there is legitimate and/or valid concern involving such deep seated problems, and the proof is the financial record, and the financial record has been kept private, then it becomes impossible to convict a guilty man.

Along with the presumption of innocence comes the possibility for guilt.

And the Ukrainian foreign minister. His recent interview pretty much refuted the entire case against Trump. No quid pro quo, no pressure, implicit or otherwise, refutes Sondland, says everything was routine... I wonder if they would be able to testify. — NOS4A2

Asking for an investigation of a political opponent is wrong even if there's no quid pro quo.

The foreign minister's comments suggest Ukraine wasn't aware of Trump conditioning release of aid on the announcement of an investigation, but the case doesn't hinge on that. There is a good bit of evidence that Trump did hold up aid to get an investigation announced, and that still constitutes an inappropriate quid pro quo (something for something). Ukraine was beholding to the US and its President and wanted to please him, and Trump appears to have tried to take advantage of that.

What's the point of testimony by Hunter and the whistleblower?

They are the start of this whole mess and would be useful to the defense. — NOS4A2

That's what I don't understand. They won't refute any of the facts, so how is it useful to the defense? Or are you just saying it's politically useful because it will be an opportunity to play to the base, like when they had Peter Strozk testify?

I have a sinking suspicion the GOP might betray the president. — NOS4A2

There ought to be at least a few Republic Senators who would desire Trump's office. Once they realize that attempting to prop up Trump is a hopeless course, all they would need to do is garner some support, and then out with the old, and in with the new.

I have a sinking suspicion the GOP might betray the president. — NOS4A2

Oh, I forgot to say, I really like the way that quote looks. Let me try it again

I have a sinking suspicion the GOP might betray the president. — NOS4A2

Yes, it's beautiful isn't it?

I have a sinking suspicion the GOP might betray the president. — NOS4A2

If any GOP members "betray" the President, doesn't that mean they're setting politics aside and following their conscience? What a nightmare!

I hope you guys are enjoying the holiday.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2020, as the Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday. On this day, I encourage all Americans to recommit themselves to Dr. King’s dream by engaging in acts of service to others, to their community, and to our Nation.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-martin-luther-king-jr-federal-holiday-2020/

Nice sentiment, but I don't understand why he's "proclaiming" it a Federal Holiday. Ronald Reagan signed it into law (despite initially opposing it) as a Federal Holiday in 1983.

I believe everything Donald Trump says. He speaks the language of the people! lol

Nice sentiment, but I don't understand why he's "proclaiming" it a Federal Holiday. Ronald Reagan signed it into law (despite initially opposing it) as a Federal Holiday in 1983.

I think every president does it every year to specify the exact day. Trump did it last year. Obama did it before him. Bush also.

I’ve been reading about Trump’s impeachment defence. Basically, the argument is another expression of contempt for Congress and the law. By denying that there was anything wrong with Trump’s conduct towards the Ukraine, the defence is basically stating that Trump is above the law, or that the law doesn’t apply to him.

Actually the defense is saying the impeachment effort is a "brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election". The articles are "constitutionally invalid, founded on falsehoods" and thus should be rejected.

That is what they’re saying, but it has no foundation in fact. Furthermore the impeachment enquiry was established on the basis of witness testimony and in accordance with constitutional principles. So the claim that the trial is improperly established is also completely false.

As always with Trump, he accuses his accusers of the blatant wrongdoing that he himself has committed. That is his ‘defense’.

That is what they’re saying, but it has no foundation in fact. Furthermore the impeachment enquiry was established on the basis of witness testimony and in accordance with constitutional principles. So the claim that the trial is improperly established is also completely false.

As always with Trump, he accuses his accusers of the blatant wrongdoing that he himself has committed. That is his ‘defense’.

The charade is not in accordance with constitutional principles because Trump is well within his constitutional powers to do what they claim he did. Not only that but he didn't do what they claimed he did.

"Article 1 Fails because House Democrats have no evidence to support their claims" (The case rests entirely on Sondland's speculations, which he admitted were presumptions)

"Abuse of Power" is a concocted theory that does not rise to the level of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

It also presents a dangerous precedent, allowing a hostile House to attack almost any presidential action if s/he does them for what they believe are the wrong reasons, expanding impeachment beyond constitutional bounds.

Anyways there is much to go through in their defense.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6662414/Trump-Legal-Team-Impeachment-Trial-Memorandum.pdf

Trump is well within his constitutional powers to do what they claim he did. Not only that but he didn't do what they claimed he did. — NOS4A2

False. Trump has been caught dead to rights, is lying his way out of it, and you promote his lies, because you’re a disinformation agent.

False. Trump has been caught dead to rights, is lying his way out of it, and you promote his lies, because you’re a disinformation agent.

I get it. You've been strung along by democrat lies this entire time. When they said "bribery" or "extortion" you followed along, parroting it willingly and uncritically. When they didn't show in articles of impeachment you sing "abuse of power" at the top of you lungs. You've been duped. You know I know that, you know I can see that, and the best you can do is resort fantasy in an attempt to alleviate the dissonance.

The Wikipedia page on the Trump Ukraine scandal has a very useful digest of the facts of the case, along with a list of all of the witnesses who testified in the open hearings, including Yovanovich, Hill, Kent, Vindman, Sondland, and Taylor. It lays out very clearly the initial basis for the charges, specifies exactly what crime has been committed, and includes links to further documentary evidence and other sites and resources.

The accepted wisdom is that, as Trump has essentially corrupted the GoP, that he will be acquitted by the Senate, but it will be very interesting to see how this hearing plays out, for example if some new piece of information makes continued defense of Trump impossible on pain of perjury, which is possible. I will check in from time to time over the next few weeks.

"Either you're an American, or you're a Democrat"

Trump will drive a wedge through the country dividing it against itself. What for? To further his ambition.

Without looking at the media and Twitterati analysis, the beginning of the impeachment trial was a bad one for the House managers. They spent the entire day begging the Senate to amend the resolution to allow for more witnesses and evidence, something they failed to do in the inquiry. It’s damning to their case because they drafted articles of impeachment and voted on them based on the testimony and evidence they gathered in the inquiry, so it makes no sense that they require more to make their case.

It makes no sense to think that any more evidence and/or testimony is needed. The obstruction charge has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. No one in their right mind would disagree. Trump has done everything in his power to stop the process.

It makes no sense to think that any more evidence and/or testimony is needed. The obstruction charge has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. No one in their right mind would disagree. Trump has done everything in his power to stop the process.

It was never proven because it was never taken to court. That is where matters of executive privilege vs congressional subpoenas are settled. For instance Bolton said he would take the House to court if they subpoenaed him. The court may or may not have allowed Bolton to testify, but democrats refused to go that route,

The Senate Majority is putting out some pretty sophisticated propaganda here.

Either you're an American or you're a Democrat, oh well you might be a profit of doom, I suppose.

It was never proven because it was never taken to court. That is where matters of executive privilege vs congressional subpoenas are settled. For instance Bolton said he would take the House to court if they subpoenaed him. The court may or may not have allowed Bolton — NOS4A2

The Courts interpret the Constitution, they don't make law. SCOTUS' interpretation is binding for matters that come to them. However, Congress is also free to interpret the Constitution - they do this all the time when passing laws. SCOTUS can overrule their interpretation and throw out laws when (and only when) a case comes to them. However, in the case of impeachment - there is no appeal to the Supreme Court, so the Senate could, in theory, interepret the President's blanket rejection of all subpoenas as unconstitutional and remove him from office for that.

Further, it's a reasonable interpretation. There's zero probability SCOTUS would agree that a President has the authority for a blanket rejection of all subpoenas associated with an impeachment inquiry - it would be contrary to US vs Nixon, which was a unanimous SCOTUS decision. In that decision, SCOTUS directly rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

The figurative gutters of Fifth Avenue are awash in blood and spent shell casings. What the Senate cameras recorded was a day-long showdown between reason and brute force. Schiff and the other impeachment managers have all the facts and principles on their side. The president’s defenders had nothing to counter them with but nonsense and lies. Nonsense, lies, and 53 votes. — Tom Scocca

Slate