Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment arguments

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...1Q9?li=BBnb7Kz


Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him, despite serious concerns about his character.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”
Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had left her undecided. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”
Asked whether she would ultimately vote to acquit, she demurred, saying, “We’re not finished.”
Only one other Democrat had been considered a possible vote against ousting Trump from office — Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — but he has not tipped his hand. Manchin told CNN on Saturday that Trump’s team did a “good job” in its initial arguments, “making me think about things.” He said separately on Fox News, “I am totally undecided.”
Feinstein’s comments came after final arguments from Trump lawyers in which they broadly dismissed the elephant in the Senate chamber: a leaked firsthand account from John Bolton, the former national security advisor, that the president directly tied aid to Ukraine to his demands for the country to investigate political rival Joe Biden.
Feinstein told reporters that her office had received roughly 125,000 letters in support of the impeachment last week, and about 30,000 against it. “There is substantial weight to this,” she said, “and the question is: Is it enough to cast this vote?”
The revelation on Sunday from a draft manuscript of Bolton’s upcoming book, undercut the president’s defense and splintered Republicans, leaving a few of them calling for Bolton and other witnesses to testify. GOP leaders have opposed calling witnesses, which would prolong the trial and introduce potentially damning testimony, upending White House and Senate Republicans’ plans for Trump’s quick acquittal.


The trial is heading into a crucial stage. On Wednesday senators are planning to start their public questioning of both the defense team and the Democratic House impeachment managers, with key votes on whether to call witnesses. The outcome of a vote on allowing witnesse, expected Friday, remained uncertain after a closed-door strategy session of Senate Republicans on Tuesday afternoon. “No clear conclusions,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.).
After the Trump team initially sidestepped the Bolton reports in their arguments Monday, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow urged the Senate on Tuesday to ignore the recent reports.
Impeachment, Sekulow said, “is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts. That is politics unfortunately.” Alexander Hamilton, he continued, “put impeachment in the hands of this body, the Senate, precisely and specifically, to be above that fray.” The Senate, Sekulow said, should “end the era of impeachment for good.”
Alan Dershowitz, a veteran defense attorney, was the only member of Trump’s 10-person team to mention Bolton’s name Monday, the first full day of the lawyers’ presentation. While Trump has argued that his July 25 call with the Ukrainian president that prompted the impeachment inquiry was “perfect,” Dershowitz at one point suggested a different defense tack, arguing essentially, so what?
“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz told the Senate in his first appearance at the trial.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) echoed that argument Tuesday, suggesting that even if Democrats could get the necessary four Republican votes for a majority in favor of subpoenaing Bolton or other witnesses, it wouldn’t make much of a difference given that the Republican-majority Senate will almost certainly vote to acquit the president.
“To me, it seems like the facts are largely undisputed; I don’t know what additional witnesses will tell us,” Cornyn said of Bolton. “We know what the facts are, and the question is whether the facts meet the constitutional standard of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’”
Trump’s lawyers have continued to assert that Trump had “done nothing wrong” and was genuinely interested in combating corruption in Ukraine when he directed that nearly $400 million in security assistance and a White House meeting with its president be withheld as he pushed the new government to announce probes of Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company when his father was vice president.
The president’s lawyers have said that House Democrats didn’t provide any firsthand witnesses or direct evidence to prove their charges that Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his potential rival in the 2020 presidential election and then obstructed Congress to cover it up.
Bolton, a combative conservative and a hawk on national security, declined a House invitation to testify but subsequently said he would do so at the Senate trial if subpoenaed. However, the White House issued a blanket order blocking officials and documents, calling the impeachment process illegitimate.
The Bolton allegations have fractured the largely united front that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had maintained. Several mostly moderate Republicans who’d been open to calling witnesses have now become more so.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) made an impassioned speech during a party lunch Monday arguing for Bolton to be called, leading to a direct attack from colleague Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.). Afterward, Romney told reporters that “it’s increasingly likely” that there will be enough votes to subpoena Bolton.
Underscoring the chaos the Bolton report has unleashed, other once-resistant Republicans seemed to shift their position on witnesses.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the president’s closest allies in the Senate, initially opposed calls for any witnesses, whether the Bidens or Bolton. He seemed to reverse himself Monday after the Bolton reports, and Tuesday he supported a proposal by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) that Bolton’s manuscript be made available for senators to read in a classified setting known as a SCIF, or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. The idea could be viewed as a way of getting Bolton’s information to the Senate without his public testimony.
Each senator would have “the opportunity to review the manuscript and make their own determination,” Graham tweeted.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate minority leader, rejected the proposal as “absurd.”
“It’s a book,” Schumer said of Bolton’s manuscript, which is set to publish in March. “There’s no need for it to be read in the SCIF unless you want to hide something.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned Bolton’s motivations for wanting to testify, and the timing of the leak. “Democrats have spent a lot of time imagining what the president’s motives are,” Paul said. “Someone ought to spend some time imaging what John Bolton’s motives are other than making millions of dollars to trash the president.” And Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) quipped, “I’m sure Mr. Bolton would rather I’d bought the book.”
Other Republican senators indicated they’d continue taking their cue from the president’s team. Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, pushed unproved theories that the Bidens engaged in corruption in Ukraine. Kenneth W. Starr, the prosecutor whose four-year investigation ultimately led to the impeachment of Democratic President Clinton, claimed that the impeachment process itself is being abused for political ends.
As Trump’s defense team wrapped up, the war over witnesses is likely to be reflected in senators’ written questions to the president’s lawyers and the Democratic House managers. They have up to 16 hours on Wednesday and Thursday for questions, which will go back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, to be read aloud by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Roberts said on Tuesday that lawyers on both sides should adhere to Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s guidelines in the Clinton trial of a five-minute cap on answers, prompting laughter in the chamber.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate minority whip, said he had whittled his nearly 30 questions down to nine. Democratic leaders have collected draft questions to “avoid duplication and pick the ones in sequences that make sense in terms of delivering a message,” he said. Schumer said Democrats’ questions would give House managers a chance to rebut the Trump lawyers’ claims.
Several questions are expected about Bolton, with Republicans focusing on why the House didn’t push harder to get his testimony. Both Republicans and Democrats have also suggested they have questions about Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who was central to the dealings in Ukraine.
“I want to confirm that Rudy Giuliani was working personally for the president and not on behalf of the United States of America,” said Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.)
Manchin has said he would also like to hear from Trump’s White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, based on testimony during the House impeachment investigation about his dealings with Trump on Ukraine policy.
It remains unclear what sort of agreement Republicans and Democrats could reach on calling witnesses, with additional testimony carrying risks for both sides. Many Republicans have said they would agree to calling Bolton only if the Bidens are also subpoenaed, while Democrats say they won’t be any part of any such “trade,” because the Bidens are irrelevant to the charges against Trump.
“I’ll make a prediction: [There will] be 51 Republican votes to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower,” Graham warned. “If people want witnesses, we’re going to get a lot of witnesses.”
Durbin called the idea of bargaining over testimony — “‘Well, we’ll give you one material witness for one relevant witness’” — “baloney.” Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.) said that agreeing to call Biden in exchange for Bolton would make Democrats “complicit” in Trump’s original scheme to smear Biden.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) argued Tuesday morning against any witnesses. “When you open the door a little you’ll never satiate the appetite that House managers have for witnesses,” Cramer said. “It’s as though they want to go fishing in the United States Senate and they’re going to fish until they catch one.”
———
©2020 Los Angeles Times


The whistlinig sound is the air coming out of the house case. Fascist DPST leadership holds the case in doubt for the American people to vote on.

The whistling sound is also the disappointment of j666 and other DPST's whose existence and mental health depend on the conviction of Trump.

Now the fascist DPST's may well have no chance of a majority vote to convict to use at election.
Utter failure is the House faux Impeachment.

Still - nazi pelosi is already working on Impach 45 in 2021. Hope springs eternal in the breast of the ...........!!!!
Definition of extreme patience - Fascist DPST awaiting the conviction of DJTrump. been over 3 years now - can they hang on for 5 more?????

i heard feinstein talk

I was surprised at her reasonableness

mostly because of the juxtaposition of her comments with the untoward and unwarranted scoffing and bluster of the other dims I have heard

The Chinese are scared of a Sanders presidency.

Destroying the US economy affects their economy as well.

Feinstein's chauffeur got to her.

I think more than one Dem will jump over. They will be looking at their voting base to determine if they need to.

She walked it back. The ESTABLISHMENT Got a hold of her. Just like Romney and Collins. They are fighting for power. It ain’t going to be easy. When I say establishment, Republicans too.

There will be Democrats voting for acquittal on both articles with many more on article 2. I feel very confident in saying that.

There will be Democrats voting for acquittal on both articles with many more on article 2. I feel very confident in saying that. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I agree. Nobodies talking about that in the MSM.

There will be Democrats voting for acquittal on both articles with many more on article 2. I feel very confident in saying that. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

the ones that will see the lack of evidence for what it is, yes.

I agree. Nobodies talking about that in the MSM. Originally Posted by bambino

what a dilemma for the MSM yeah? who do they brand as a traitor? the Democrats that side with Trump or the Republicans?


both?


BAHJHAAAAAAAAAa

the ones that will see the lack of evidence for what it is, yes.







what a dilemma for the MSM yeah? who do they brand as a traitor? the Democrats that side with Trump or the Republicans?


both?


BAHJHAAAAAAAAAa Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

DaNang Dick Blumenthal said they didn’t have any evidence yet!!!!!! He needs witnesses!!!! Was that a slip of the tongue? I doubt it. Schiff didn’t produce any evidence. There isn’t any.

what a dilemma for the MSM yeah? who do they brand as a traitor? the Democrats that side with Trump or the Republicans?


both? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

in all the daily and nightly roundtables held by the msm,, the discussion regarding how senators are reacting only always is related to will repubs break from mcconnell

they never speak of dims who might go the other way

I think its due to the msm not wanting to give any time to that out of fear that talking about it in an evenhanded manner might cause more dim leakage and also might give their viewers another and more even point of view

She walked it back. Originally Posted by bambino

Got taken to the woodshed, did she? Figures.

The whistling sound you hear is a breeze going in one of your ears and out the other.

The outcome was never in doubt. The senate made up their minds before the house settled on the articles. And 125000 letters to impeach and 30000 not to? How do you think Feinstein will vote?
As long as you think she'll convert her vote, no one will pressure Manchin.
Bolton's book doesn't mean anything. His sworn testimony means everything.
Do you think he'll take the stand and do a reading?

At this point, polls show a clear majority of Americans want to hear from extra witnesses. Even fox news poll says that. A majority also support the impeachment.
Actual removal from office fluctuates in the 42% to 45% range. But that's not the real goal (IMO). Because everyone knows how the trial portion will end (the repubs have told us many times), I think it's all about getting everyone on the record as well as the facts. As time goes by towards the election, more and more information will come out. Many repubs are on the record from before the election describing trump's behavior and lack of character. The viewing audience has been increasing since last Saturday. Americans are listening.
The Bolton testimony wasn't on Dems (or anyone's) radar last week.
You might not think it's a "bombshell" but it did nothing to hurt the Dems.
How many questions will they waste on the Bidens? Don't forget, the Pentagon had already certified that Ukraine had made the inroads/progress on corruption required to qualify for their aid. Part of the progress was removing Shokin. Shokin was removed because he DIDN'T go after corruption and that the Bursima investigation covered activities before Biden was on the board.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...1Q9?li=BBnb7Kz


Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him, despite serious concerns about his character.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”
Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had left her undecided. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”
Asked whether she would ultimately vote to acquit, she demurred, saying, “We’re not finished.”
Only one other Democrat had been considered a possible vote against ousting Trump from office — Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — but he has not tipped his hand. Manchin told CNN on Saturday that Trump’s team did a “good job” in its initial arguments, “making me think about things.” He said separately on Fox News, “I am totally undecided.”
Feinstein’s comments came after final arguments from Trump lawyers in which they broadly dismissed the elephant in the Senate chamber: a leaked firsthand account from John Bolton, the former national security advisor, that the president directly tied aid to Ukraine to his demands for the country to investigate political rival Joe Biden.
Feinstein told reporters that her office had received roughly 125,000 letters in support of the impeachment last week, and about 30,000 against it. “There is substantial weight to this,” she said, “and the question is: Is it enough to cast this vote?”
The revelation on Sunday from a draft manuscript of Bolton’s upcoming book, undercut the president’s defense and splintered Republicans, leaving a few of them calling for Bolton and other witnesses to testify. GOP leaders have opposed calling witnesses, which would prolong the trial and introduce potentially damning testimony, upending White House and Senate Republicans’ plans for Trump’s quick acquittal.


The trial is heading into a crucial stage. On Wednesday senators are planning to start their public questioning of both the defense team and the Democratic House impeachment managers, with key votes on whether to call witnesses. The outcome of a vote on allowing witnesse, expected Friday, remained uncertain after a closed-door strategy session of Senate Republicans on Tuesday afternoon. “No clear conclusions,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.).
After the Trump team initially sidestepped the Bolton reports in their arguments Monday, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow urged the Senate on Tuesday to ignore the recent reports.
Impeachment, Sekulow said, “is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts. That is politics unfortunately.” Alexander Hamilton, he continued, “put impeachment in the hands of this body, the Senate, precisely and specifically, to be above that fray.” The Senate, Sekulow said, should “end the era of impeachment for good.”
Alan Dershowitz, a veteran defense attorney, was the only member of Trump’s 10-person team to mention Bolton’s name Monday, the first full day of the lawyers’ presentation. While Trump has argued that his July 25 call with the Ukrainian president that prompted the impeachment inquiry was “perfect,” Dershowitz at one point suggested a different defense tack, arguing essentially, so what?
“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz told the Senate in his first appearance at the trial.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) echoed that argument Tuesday, suggesting that even if Democrats could get the necessary four Republican votes for a majority in favor of subpoenaing Bolton or other witnesses, it wouldn’t make much of a difference given that the Republican-majority Senate will almost certainly vote to acquit the president.
“To me, it seems like the facts are largely undisputed; I don’t know what additional witnesses will tell us,” Cornyn said of Bolton. “We know what the facts are, and the question is whether the facts meet the constitutional standard of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’”Yes the facts are pretty much undisputed. The significance of those facts is totally disputed
Trump’s lawyers have continued to assert that Trump had “done nothing wrong” and was genuinely interested in combating corruption in Ukraine when he directed that nearly $400 million in security assistance and a White House meeting with its president be withheld as he pushed the new government to announce probes of Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company when his father was vice president.
The president’s lawyers have said that House Democrats didn’t provide any firsthand witnesses or direct evidence to prove their charges that Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his potential rival in the 2020 presidential election and then obstructed Congress to cover it up.
Bolton, a combative conservative and a hawk on national security, declined a House invitation to testify but subsequently said he would do so at the Senate trial if subpoenaed. However, the White House issued a blanket order blocking officials and documents, calling the impeachment process illegitimate.
The Bolton allegations have fractured the largely united front that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had maintained. Several mostly moderate Republicans who’d been open to calling witnesses have now become more so.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) made an impassioned speech during a party lunch Monday arguing for Bolton to be called, leading to a direct attack from colleague Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.). Afterward, Romney told reporters that “it’s increasingly likely” that there will be enough votes to subpoena Bolton.
Underscoring the chaos the Bolton report has unleashed, other once-resistant Republicans seemed to shift their position on witnesses.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the president’s closest allies in the Senate, initially opposed calls for any witnesses, whether the Bidens or Bolton. He seemed to reverse himself Monday after the Bolton reports, and Tuesday he supported a proposal by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) that Bolton’s manuscript be made available for senators to read in a classified setting known as a SCIF, or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. The idea could be viewed as a way of getting Bolton’s information to the Senate without his public testimony.
Each senator would have “the opportunity to review the manuscript and make their own determination,” Graham tweeted.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate minority leader, rejected the proposal as “absurd.”
“It’s a book,” Schumer said of Bolton’s manuscript, which is set to publish in March. “There’s no need for it to be read in the SCIF unless you want to hide something.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned Bolton’s motivations for wanting to testify, and the timing of the leak. “Democrats have spent a lot of time imagining what the president’s motives are,” Paul said. “Someone ought to spend some time imaging what John Bolton’s motives are other than making millions of dollars to trash the president.”Instead of wondering, both should testify. If trump has done "nothing wrong", why is he afraid to testify under oath? And Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) quipped, “I’m sure Mr. Bolton would rather I’d bought the book.”
Other Republican senators indicated they’d continue taking their cue from the president’s team. Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, pushed unproved theories that the Bidens engaged in corruption in Ukraine. Kenneth W. Starr, the prosecutor whose four-year investigation ultimately led to the impeachment of Democratic President Clinton, claimed that the impeachment process itself is being abused for political ends.
As Trump’s defense team wrapped up, the war over witnesses is likely to be reflected in senators’ written questions to the president’s lawyers and the Democratic House managers. They have up to 16 hours on Wednesday and Thursday for questions, which will go back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, to be read aloud by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Roberts said on Tuesday that lawyers on both sides should adhere to Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s guidelines in the Clinton trial of a five-minute cap on answers, prompting laughter in the chamber.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate minority whip, said he had whittled his nearly 30 questions down to nine. Democratic leaders have collected draft questions to “avoid duplication and pick the ones in sequences that make sense in terms of delivering a message,” he said. Schumer said Democrats’ questions would give House managers a chance to rebut the Trump lawyers’ claims.
Several questions are expected about Bolton, with Republicans focusing on why the House didn’t push harder to get his testimony. Both Republicans and Democrats have also suggested they have questions about Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who was central to the dealings in Ukraine.
“I want to confirm that Rudy Giuliani was working personally for the president and not on behalf of the United States of America,” said Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.)
Manchin has said he would also like to hear from Trump’s White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, based on testimony during the House impeachment investigation about his dealings with Trump on Ukraine policy.
It remains unclear what sort of agreement Republicans and Democrats could reach on calling witnesses, with additional testimony carrying risks for both sides. Many Republicans have said they would agree to calling Bolton only if the Bidens are also subpoenaed, while Democrats say they won’t be any part of any such “trade,” because the Bidens are irrelevant to the charges against Trump.
“I’ll make a prediction: [There will] be 51 Republican votes to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower,” Graham warned. “If people want witnesses, we’re going to get a lot of witnesses.”
Durbin called the idea of bargaining over testimony — “‘Well, we’ll give you one material witness for one relevant witness’” — “baloney.” Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.) said that agreeing to call Biden in exchange for Bolton would make Democrats “complicit” in Trump’s original scheme to smear Biden.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) argued Tuesday morning against any witnesses. “When you open the door a little you’ll never satiate the appetite that House managers have for witnesses,” Cramer said. “It’s as though they want to go fishing in the United States Senate and they’re going to fish until they catch one.”
———
©2020 Los Angeles Times


The whistlinig sound is the air coming out of the house case. Fascist DPST leadership holds the case in doubt for the American people to vote on.

The whistling sound is also the disappointment of j666 and other DPST's whose existence and mental health depend on the conviction of Trump.

Now the fascist DPST's may well have no chance of a majority vote to convict to use at election.
Utter failure is the House faux Impeachment.

Still - nazi pelosi is already working on Impach 45 in 2021. Hope springs eternal in the breast of the ...........!!!!
Definition of extreme patience - Fascist DPST awaiting the conviction of DJTrump. been over 3 years now - can they hang on for 5 more????? Originally Posted by oeb11

The viewing audience has been increasing since last Saturday. Americans are listening. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Last Saturday? Isn't that when trumpy's team took to the podium to respond by shooting holes in the dim-retard case? No wonder Americans are listening.

Americans understand this is a Schiff show, and the outcome is done.

Americans are tuning out the impeachment show in droves.

bad news for the Fascist DPST's

Sucks to be the US Senate after they whitewash this trial.

Bolt-on will release his book. trump will lose his tiny little mind and sinks himself.

Meanwhile Trumpholians like you will stew in your owns puddles of piddles.

Remember, yous can come to Canada, but yous can’t stay.

LOLLING!