I think someone used the golden ticket from Last Action Hero on a Veep episode and Gordon Sondland fell out of screen.
There’s Impeachment.fyi which is doing pretty good daily summaries of events
Even if they can’t prove quid pro quo, isn’t Trump asking for an investigation into a political opponent an abuse of power?
Well, firstly, they CAN prove quid pro quo. There are now like 5 witnesses who were listening to the call, or in proximity of the call. Including the Republican witnesses. That’s why Nunes is shitting his pants in that video. This happened. There is no question about it now.
The issue is now if Republicans want to go down that path of just ignoring it because of their control. Do Republicans just wanna admit that they are ok with a criminal in the white house. Which, honestly by their actions, they totally are.
Yes, I understand this, but isn’t asking for an investigation even enough to show he did something wrong?
So it’s my understanding that technically, if he did have concerns about the Bidens, it is within his power ask for to an investigation to be done by US intelligence services/departments. The issue is that he asked (bribed) a foreign government to do so.
This whole process demonstrates that the position of the other branches of government are determined by the president. The idea of “checks and balances” is a nice idea, but it really doesn’t work in practice in the current system. This is not a problem unique to the US (speaking as a Canadian/US citizen), but it is definitely more apparent in the US.
Found this video interesting detailing the GOP’s attempt at defending this:
I’m surprised how much legal lingo comes from cartoons. There’s the sideshow bob defense from the Simpsons, the Chewbacca defense from South Park…
The Acme defense, dropping an anvil on the prosecutor.
Devin Nunes is a criminal and a monumental boob.
Only sort of half-listening to the news (I’ll watch a Senate hearing more attentively, if/when that happens), but every sentence I catch is insufferable. These people are miserable.
So, what does this mean? Doesn’t it still have to go through the senate?
It’ll go to the Senate for a trial. It will likely be little more than a sham with all Republicans voting to acquit regardless of what is said or argued.
Can anything be done about Mitch and Lindsey saying they aren’t impartial? Can’t they be removed?
@GoldenJoel Probably not, no. Even if we could, I don’t know if it would break the Republican vote.
Incidentally, Clinton was impeached twenty-one years ago almost to the day (he was impeached on December 19th), so there’s a good chance we’ll be following a similar schedule with the holidays and the trial will start in the first week of January. If the trial is of a similar length, then we’ll probably have the verdict by Valentine’s Day.
We did it guys! America is fixed!
I’ve been trying to find this answer, it’s possible the chief justice presiding over the trial could dismiss both of them but that’s tricky too as it would invite Rs calling for Dems to be dismissed also citing statements they’ve made publicly… The framers once again didn’t account for shamelessness.
The issue is that impeachment is not a legal process; it’s a political one, and a poorly defined one. So while the senators who are openly coordinating with The White House are utter disgraces, there’s nothing to really be done about it. We just have to maximize public political pressure on every one of these bastards who votes to acquit.
Bush appointee John Roberts, for those who don’t follow the court, so I’m not expecting much help there.
John Roberts does care a little bit, but only when it comes to how he’ll be portrayed in history books. He did stop the citizenship question on the census.