pbmus

pbmus's Journal

December 17, 2019

Seth Abramson...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1207049551338786816.html

BREAKING (MSNBC): U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Floats Idea of House Not Sending Articles of Impeachment to Senate Unless GOP Agrees to Actual Trial*

* = I increasingly concur with this sentiment.

1/ Imagine how *angry* Trump would be if he never got his "show-trial exoneration" because he refused to let his own officials testify under circumstances in which he's *sworn* that no one could possibly have damning evidence against him*. OK, sorry then, no Senate trial for you.

2/ As I said earlier today: you don't negotiate over *how many punches in the face you're going to take*; you *exit the ring*. If the Senate refuses to have a trial, there's no one and nothing for House Democrats to hand over the articles of impeachment to. It's that simple, now.

3/ Investigations are still ongoing. Court proceedings are still ongoing. Moderate GOP senators have more or less made clear that they don't want a trial. OK then, you don't get the articles. The investigations and court proceedings will continue. It's a very reasonable position.

4/ Mitch McConnell may not realize it right now, but for all that he thinks he's negotiating with Trump or Schumer right now and has the upper hand in those negotiations he is not and he doesn't.

Nancy Pelosi has and controls the articles. As of tomorrow *she* has all the power.

5/ This is a very fair question. I'd answer this way: I am not saying and do not support the articles being held back forever. I think Pelosi and McConnell should negotiate for a few weeks or months and the investigations should, in the meantime, continue.

December 14, 2019

Seth Abramson...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1205893737190187008.html

That @JonathanTurley writes in bad faith is confirmed by his inclusion of this abject, vile lie, which he *knows* is a lie, in every column: "Mueller found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump associates or the campaign with those Russians intervening in the election."

What @JonathanTurley writes is *such* a lie that not only is the Mueller Report *overflowing* with evidence the *top* Trump campaign official colluded with indicted Russian Kilimnik, but *also* evidence *Trump induced him to lie about it*, suggesting he knew of the collusion.
mentions

2/ That Trump defenders find they can't defend him, as @JonathanTurley can't, without spreading disinformation *should* be an indication to them they're in the wrong, and losing their integrity because of it. As a defense attorney I *never* had to sacrifice my integrity this way.
mentions

3/ I can't recall now, but does anyone know if @JonathanTurley made this same claim under oath to Congress? Because if he did, it's perjury, and I suspect that if he didn't, it was in part because the coward didn't want to put himself in the position of publicly lying under oath.
mentions

4/ I want be clear: this isn't a matter of opinion or feeling, @JonathanTurley. No attorney in good standing with his local bar could under oath say that the Mueller Report contained absolutely no evidence of collusion or that that's what the report stated. It'd be an actual lie.

December 14, 2019