U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Rep. Jeffries: Dershowitz says impeachment has to be a crime, or akin to a crime. That's what we allege in 1st article, abuse of power. That it was corrupt, bc Trump solicited a thing of value in exchange for 2 official acts: release of $391 million of aid, and White House visit
86th question, from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): How do the president's actions differ from other presidential holds on Congressional assistance, and how is that aid supposed to work? Rep. Crow: What Trump did is not same as making sure it aligns with policy and process
Crow (cont): If it was, we'd have documents, facts, and other to back it up. We have none of that. Prior holds, as under Obama, Congress was notified, and always done in national interest. Trump's other holds, like Afghanistan bc of terrorism--official, public, involved Congress
87th question, from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO): What does supermajority requirement (67 votes) for removal via impeachment say about the type of case and the standard of proof that should be brought? Dershowitz: 2/3 requirement serves as check on the House, but also...
Dersh (cont): ...the Senate was much different back then, senators not directly elected, supposed to be more mature, take a view to the future, and therefore should not engage in a partisan impeachment.
88th question, from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): House managers have committed to abide by rulings of Chief Justice on witnesses and evidence. Will WH counsel make same commitment, eliminating need for extended litigation? Sekulow: We're not gonna do that...
Sekulow (cont): With all due respect to Chief Justice, we're not going to give up our rights to challenge subpoenas.
89th question, from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): Prof. Dershowitz, you said House grounds for impeachment are dangerous. What specific danger does it pose to our republic? Dershowitz: Crucial. Would make divisions grow even greater. If president were removed today, it would pose...
Dersh (cont): ...existential dangers. Wouldn't be accepted by many Americans, because such divided country and time. And if precedent is established that president can be removed for ubiquitous term like "abuse of power" this would just be the beginning of the use of impeachment.
90th question, from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ): Administration worked with Congress on other aid holds. Receiving countries also knew funds were withheld. Why, when administration withheld aid from Ukraine, did it not notify Congress or these other countries, so they knew?
Philbin: In those other instances, it was clear that withholding aid was meant to send signal. Here, Amb. Volker made clear that hold would NOT become public, bc they didn't want signal to Ukraine or others. Idea here was not to send signal to whole world.
91st question, from both Sens. Young & Braun (R-IN): We were promised by House managers the evidence for both articles would be overwhelming, but we keep hearing calls for witnesses. Both parties agree all testimony has been included except ICIG report...?
Schiff: Evidence has been overwhelming. Also, Sekulow argued that they won't give up rights, but Constitution does allow Chief Justice to rule, they just don't want him to. Sekulow: 29 times House managers have said "overwhelming." 31 times said "prove." Clearly hasn't been done
That's it for tonight, Senate adjourns until 1pm Thursday.
@threadreaderapp if you have time to unroll these questions from Day 1, I'd really appreciate it this too!
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
