snafu

Schiff is arguing that there's a pattern of election interference that goes back to 2016 (Russia). Now the WH Counsel (if they want) can just bring up Mueller Report Part 1. They can also bring up the mishandling of Crossfire Hurricane investigation. They can bring up Comey's leaks, they can argue everything in response. Or they can just ignore it and say there's never been any proved collusion.

Day Two...

Oh damn, I had to sleep. Nads is the one I was waiting for.

Yeah but wait until they upgrade to the Civic and watch the pretentiousness blossom!

I think Sekulow is doing that right now. He's just not being so brief.

She'd do well if this was a Court of Law. Probably still lose, but her arguments are meaningless in this venue. Too little, too late.

Does Pence get to be the tiebreaker? If he does then the R's should wrangle a couple ties just to trot out Pence to tip the balance.

That's the Campaign hopes of Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar. Hell, at this rate, the trial can go right into Super Tuesday.

"That's exactly what we did here, with the understanding that the Senate may call its own witnesses. /Schiff Maybe he should have checked with the Senate before railroading his Articles through his chamber.

Oh, young Dana Scully. Now I'm completely distracted!!

I love this part, actually. If you win the motion practice, you're 80% of the way home. ...and now my feed just crashed!!!

Di he say that the House materials are subject to Hearsay objection? HAHAHAHA.... there goes the case. Buh-bye.

If the people accusing the President of wrongdoing haven't made out a coherent case, then why does the President need to exonerate himself?

Yeah, right... Remember that Minority Hearing Day that the Rules in the House required? You know, the one Nadler completely ignored over notices, letters, and motions demanding them? I remember it never happened. And that was just the icing on the cake. For Democrats to be disingenuous enough to call for more Democrat witnesses and call the rejection of that "unfair" is utter B.S. and it shows that (A) they can't look far enough into the future to see that the wheel comes around, or (B) they're not honest. https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/press-release/collins-to-nadler-minority-hearing-day-must-come-before-articles-of-impeachment/

Cue Ethel Merman: There's no business like show business and I tell you it's so Traveling through the country is so thrilling, standing out in front on opening nights Smiling as you watch the theater filling, and there's your billing out there in lights There's no people like show people, they smile when they are low Angels come from everywhere with lots of jack, and when you lose it, there's no attack Where could you get money that you don't give back? Let's go on with the show

Normally, I’d agree... https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/international-sanctions-iran

I don't know why they would think that threatening to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty would be a good thing. However, I think this has to do with the UN's lifting of their sanctions after JCPOA was passed in 2015. If I recall, those sanctions were pretty harsh. They might get reimposed if the Euros go to the Security Council. Also, there is an arms embargo on Iran that expires this year (it was extended for 5 years after the JCPOA was ratified) if Iran stays in compliance with their non-proliferation. The expiration of the embargo will probably go out the window later this year if the U.S. and Europe go to the Security Council. I think the Europeans have more leverage than the U.S. to argue this at the UN, since they didn't pull out of the JCPOA and Iran started up their nuke efforts. But even if Russia or China proposes a Security Council measure to keep the sanctions lifted and lift the embargo, the U.S. can veto that proposal. So, really, if I'm describing this right, Iran is screwed. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran

Wherever you go, whatever you do, you're almost never alone. It's a damn shame.

They've been streaky all season. If they win the first two after the break, then they'd have 14/20 points for January. If they had a 2C and a starting goalie...I don't think either of their G's are starter material at all.

They could have used pretty much any honest Constitutional Scholar -- or any good attorney at all for that matter. I wouldn't have chosen Dershowitz. Then again, I'm not in a position to choose.

Partisan reporting is not new. It was prevalent in the 18th and 19th Century and then faded out, and then made a resurgence. One article I found is from 2011 https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2011/04/20/the-fall-and-rise-of-partisan-journalism/ . I almost wrote an email to the author because I wanted to know whether his opinion in 2011 is different today. He's dead, so I can't ask him. But I found an Atlantic article which cites him and basically concludes that there's no going back at this point https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/post-advertising-future-media/578917/ . I kind of disagree with the Atlantic author's absolutism, but even if partisan reporting does fade away, it will probably take a long time. It seems very easy to fix the problem (this goes for Left, and Right news outlets). Have NEWS stories report the FACTS, and if a reporter wants to color the facts, then he or she should be required to put a disclaimer at the front of the article. The problem is, reporting outlets act as though there's no subjectivity in their news articles at all -- or worse yet, they deny it outright.

Point well taken, but you didn't need to wait 60 years. George frikkin McGovern.

^^^^^ Hey, wow, thanks.

That's different because ... shuddup!

THAT'S what they did!?!? Holy stupidity. Is tomorrow's OpEd going to exol the virtues of a "Biumverate"?