Schiff says McConnell setting stage for 'rigged trial'

[DavidPT]

"That will be a decision that the House should make, not that the senators should prescribe to go late into the evening. Look there is a wealth of evidence to present here, and we should have the opportunity to present the case as the House chooses to present its case. Not to go late into evening," Schiff said.

He added that McConnell was opening the door for the trial to go until roughly 1 a.m., if one side used all 12 hours each day, because he hoped "the public will not be watching."

Schiff says McConnell setting stage for 'rigged trial'

What kind of lame arguments are these people trying to pass off on us? If the trial begins at 1 pm and goes to 1 am, so what? Even if a person doesn't want to stay up that late to watch all of it, there are other means to watch the parts they missed. There is such a thing as Youtube where you can bet the entire 12 hour session will have been uploaded and online to watch.

The latter is how I usually watch some of these events to begin with. When the House was holding it's hearings, as an example, I waited until after the stream had already started and ended, then started watching it from the beginning. Then when the Democrats were speaking I could scrub the timeline past that part altogether and get to the reasonable part, that being when the Republicans were speaking. Then when they quit speaking and it was the Democrats turn to speak again, I did the same procedure as before, I scrubbed the timeline past that part until it got to the common sense part again, that being when it was the Republicans time to speak again.

 

[HTacianas]

"That will be a decision that the House should make, not that the senators should prescribe to go late into the evening. Look there is a wealth of evidence to present here, and we should have the opportunity to present the case as the House chooses to present its case. Not to go late into evening," Schiff said.

He added that McConnell was opening the door for the trial to go until roughly 1 a.m., if one side used all 12 hours each day, because he hoped "the public will not be watching."

Schiff says McConnell setting stage for 'rigged trial'

What kind of lame arguments are these people trying to pass off on us? If the trial begins at 1 pm and goes to 1 am, so what? Even if a person doesn't want to stay up that late to watch all of it, there are other means to watch the parts they missed. There is such a thing as Youtube where you can bet the entire 12 hour session will have been uploaded and online to watch.

The latter is how I usually watch some of these events to begin with. When the House was holding it's hearings, as an example, I waited until after the stream had already started and ended, then started watching it from the beginning. Then when the Democrats were speaking I could scrub the timeline past that part altogether and get to the reasonable part, that being when the Republicans were speaking. Then when they quit speaking and it was the Democrats turn to speak again, I did the same procedure as before, I scrubbed the timeline past that part until it got to the common sense part again, that being when it was the Republicans time to speak again.

That's like rigging a one horse race.

 

[Bobber]

What kind of lame arguments are these people trying to pass off on us? If the trial begins at 1 pm and goes to 1 am, so what? Even if a person doesn't want to stay up that late to watch all of it, there are other means to watch the parts they missed. There is such a thing as Youtube where you can bet the entire 12 hour session will have been uploaded and online to watch.

Schiff is trying to feed into a narrative that might have worked before the age of cable news, and downloading youtube for anyone interested in watching. Everyone knows he's blowing smoke in saying what he is.

Here's the greater question. Will the left wing media when Trump lawyers are making their case just put the image of them on the screen and have their talking heads marginalize their arguments...without the people hearing them themselves. We'll see.

 

[Kentonio]

"That will be a decision that the House should make, not that the senators should prescribe to go late into the evening. Look there is a wealth of evidence to present here, and we should have the opportunity to present the case as the House chooses to present its case. Not to go late into evening," Schiff said.

He added that McConnell was opening the door for the trial to go until roughly 1 a.m., if one side used all 12 hours each day, because he hoped "the public will not be watching."

Schiff says McConnell setting stage for 'rigged trial'

What kind of lame arguments are these people trying to pass off on us? If the trial begins at 1 pm and goes to 1 am, so what? Even if a person doesn't want to stay up that late to watch all of it, there are other means to watch the parts they missed. There is such a thing as Youtube where you can bet the entire 12 hour session will have been uploaded and online to watch.

The latter is how I usually watch some of these events to begin with. When the House was holding it's hearings, as an example, I waited until after the stream had already started and ended, then started watching it from the beginning. Then when the Democrats were speaking I could scrub the timeline past that part altogether and get to the reasonable part, that being when the Republicans were speaking. Then when they quit speaking and it was the Democrats turn to speak again, I did the same procedure as before, I scrubbed the timeline past that part until it got to the common sense part again, that being when it was the Republicans time to speak again.

McConnell understands perfectly well that the public have short attention spans and that if each day goes on that late, any big moments can be buried overnight.

Ask yourself the opposite question, why exactly does the senate NEED to be sitting until 1am during the trial? Do normal courtrooms run those kind of hours? Does it actually make any sense at all to run those kinds of hours, unless they want to try and hide things?

 

[Albion]

On the other hand, it is predictable that Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, and Co. will claim that the Senate rigged the outcome NO MATTER WHAT.

So long as the president is not convicted and removed from office--which all the House Democrats know will not happen--the come-back will be "it was rigged," just like the claims we have already heard from the same people saying that the President rigged the 2016 election and intends to rig the 2020 election. They don't have much else.

 

[GACfan]

On the other hand, it is predictable that Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, and Co. will claim that the Senate rigged the outcome NO MATTER WHAT.

So long as the president is not convicted and removed from office--which all the House Democrats know will not happen--the come-back will be "it was rigged," just like the claims we have already heard from the same people saying that the President rigged the 2016 election and intends to rig the 2020 election. They don't have much else.

For the record, the Democrats weren't the only ones claiming the 2016 election was rigged.

Donald Trump Continues to Claim Election Is Rigged | Time

US presidential election is rigged, says Donald Trump – video

 

[stevil]

The latter is how I usually watch some of these events to begin with. When the House was holding it's hearings, as an example, I waited until after the stream had already started and ended, then started watching it from the beginning. Then when the Democrats were speaking I could scrub the timeline past that part altogether and get to the reasonable part, that being when the Republicans were speaking. Then when they quit speaking and it was the Democrats turn to speak again, I did the same procedure as before, I scrubbed the timeline past that part until it got to the common sense part again, that being when it was the Republicans time to speak again.

This is the thing.

Trump and his team know that their base aren't interested in discovering facts, they aren't interested in hearing the case against Trump.
They also know that Trump's base only watch far right wing media.
They also know that far right wing media will edit out all the bits that incriminate Trump.

So having testimony and statements made in unreasonable hours ensures Trump's base will only get their views of the trial from their chosen media outlet, and that for Trump's base will be a rosy shiny view of Trump and a damming critique of the Democrats and their case.
These people will not seek other sources, they will not go to non far right wing sources. Many won't even go to news, they will instead go to Hannity, Tucker, Pirro for their Trump favouring opinion pieces.

 

[Albion]

For the record, the Democrats weren't the only ones claiming the 2016 election was rigged.

We were talking about the impeachment proceedings now going on. Of Trump. The claims made by Democrats that he rigged the 2016 election. OK now?

 

[paul1149]

Schiff has a well-established history of blatant lying and everything out of his mouth should be treated accordingly. This is all about politics, at the expense of the nation.

 

[Albion]

This is the thing.

Trump and his team know that their base aren't interested in discovering facts, they aren't interested in hearing the case against Trump.
They also know that Trump's base only watch far right wing media.
They also know that far right wing media will edit out all the bits that incriminate Trump.

I always have to laugh at this familiar charge. So, Trump supporters are reduced to watching one channel--one--out of six or so which are available, and all of these except for that one lonely one are solidly against Trump all the time.

How awful of anyone who wants something close to impartiality to do.

 

[DavidPT]

McConnell understands perfectly well that the public have short attention spans and that if each day goes on that late, any big moments can be buried overnight.

Ask yourself the opposite question, why exactly does the senate NEED to be sitting until 1am during the trial? Do normal courtrooms run those kind of hours? Does it actually make any sense at all to run those kinds of hours, unless they want to try and hide things?

What would you propose should be a convenient time then? Some people actually have jobs and work from 9 to 5, so they wouldn't be able to tune in, regardless, assuming the trial were during the day like that. And some people have jobs on the 2nd shift, so that would mean they would not be able to tune into most of it anyway if the sessions were 1 PM to 1 AM. No matter how you look at it, regardless when the sessions are, the timing of it is not going to be convenient for everyone anyway.

 

[whatbogsends]

We were talking about the impeachment proceedings now going on. Of Trump. The claims made by Democrats that he rigged the 2016 election. OK now?

Yes, we know that you're focusing on Democrats claiming it was rigged, while simultaneously ignoring that Trump made similar claims.

Just as you harp on the fact that some Democrats wanted to impeach Trump before he took office and ignore the fact that some Republicans wanted to impeach Hillary before the election even happened.

You are consistent in your double standard.

 

[Albion]

...and it will all be available in rebroadcast anyway.

 

[Pommer]

John Roberts still has SCOTUS duties to perform while presiding over the trial in the Senate.
This makes for a very long day for the Chief Justice.

 

[Steve97]

 

[BobRyan]

"That will be a decision that the House should make, not that the senators should prescribe to go late into the evening. Look there is a wealth of evidence to present here, and we should have the opportunity to present the case as the House chooses to present its case. Not to go late into evening," Schiff said.

The House did "present its case" in the house and they are given another opportunity to make that case in summary in the Senate , adding to whatever they already claimed was "sufficiently overwhelming" evidence... already presented.

The claim that Schiff makes that no actual evidence has been made , no case made before the American public (which would also include the Senate) is difficult to accept given that the House already claimed that the existing case already made in the house is "overwhelming".

It almost appears that Schiff now agrees with the "rest of America" that the evidence presented in the house was mere straw and a new case an actual substantive case with new witnesses and new facts needs to be made for the impeachment charges coming from the House to actually have "the weight of evidence" in favor of them.

Or does he claim that the House did such a shoddy job of stating what its evidence is that it is not reasonable at this point for the Senate to confirm the charges made given the flimsy evidence that supposedly is expected to rise to support the claim of impeachable offense?

My how the "mighty house has fallen" all the way from "clear and overwhelming" evidence in support of its charges... down to paltry case in much need of new evidence and new witnesses to give it a ghost of a chance of serious consideration outside of the context of a one-sided democrat-majority in the house to decide "objectively" the merits.

Democrats' Unprecedented Approach to the Trump Impeachment

 

[BobRyan]

Just as you harp on the fact that some Democrats wanted to impeach Trump before he took office and ignore the fact that some Republicans wanted to impeach Hillary before the election even happened.
.

If Hillary had won the office and republicans had impeached her after her election all the while insisting that she should be impeached even before she even won the election - then republicans would have a hard time selling the story that the house and the senate must be completely unbiased before they look at such a case.

Sound familiar?

 

[stevil]

I always have to laugh at this familiar charge. So, Trump supporters are reduced to watching one channel--one--out of six or so which are available, and all of these except for that one lonely one are solidly against Trump all the time.

How awful of anyone who wants something close to impartiality to do.

Trump and his supporters falsely claim MSM as being biased against him.
Basically they are saying only to trust far right media.
The Democrats and the "left" aren't trying to steer people away from anything that isn't far left media.

 

[BobRyan]

On the other hand, it is predictable that Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, and Co. will claim that the Senate rigged the outcome NO MATTER WHAT.

Very funny. They are stuck having to make the case that if the Senate relies only on the condemning charges and supposedly "overwhelming" evidence presented to them by the house against Trump then the Senate "is rigged" against the democrats. Because apparently even Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer see that the democrat case will never stand up to the clarifying arguments that we saw in the house by Republicans and that we would expect to see in the Senate. They themselves had "bipartisan vote against impeachment" as their "bipartisan result" in the house.

How is that not "true confession" on the part of the democrat leaders in the house?

 

[Albion]

Trump and his supporters falsely claim MSM as being biased against him.

Stop there. Hardly anyone who pays much attention thinks that's true, not even the people who like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and maybe PBS being slanted against the president.