#but in my defense it’s a Friday and also I did allot time for it I just ended up not doing it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cywscross · 5 years

Note

Dumb question: how does jury duty work in canada?

…Do you want the entire process? I guess I could do that.

There are probably small differences between each province but in general and from my own experience, first if you’re of age and a citizen, then you get randomly chosen and a letter is sent through the mail indicating the date of the jury selection (so you’re not a juror just yet), and you have to confirm - either online or by mail (they prefer online cuz it’s quicker) - within a limited amount of time (10 days, if I remember correctly) that you will be going, or you’ll probably be fined. It also tells you if you’re taking part in a civil case or a criminal case - civil has a final jury of 8, criminal is usually 12. I was picked for a criminal case, so on the day of the jury selection, there were around 145 people, and out of those, 14 would be chosen as jurors (12 jurors + 2 backups who would come on the first day of the trial just in case one of the original 12 doesn’t show or whatever, and then they’re excused and don’t have to come back).

The selection is held in a courtroom with a judge, the accused, the defense lawyers and the crown (prosecutor) all present. Every potential juror has a number from their letter, and the court clerk randomly picks 10-20 numbers at a time. Those 10-20 people go up to the front, and one by one they’re presented to the judge and defense/crown counsels. If you have an excuse for being excused from jury duty, this would be the time to address the judge and tell them, and the judge decides whether or not it’s a good enough reason to excuse you. If it is, then they’ll tell you to either go back to your seat or leave entirely.

For excuses, I think it depends on how severe the case is and the judge. Like, for my selection panel, one guy said he had his allotted vacation weeks coming up, and he didn’t even have anything concrete planned, but the judge was like okay, give the man his vacation. But I heard from a different jury that for their selection panel, they had a guy who said his only kid was getting married on Monday, relatives were flying in, they had a cruise booked, and he even brought tickets and schedules and stuff for proof, but the judge still just asked can you be unbiased, and the guy was like yeah, so the judge said no, and none of the counsels challenged, and so he was made a juror. I also heard though that a lot of people were trying to excuse themselves because that case was a particularly tough one so maybe the judge had to be harder on the selection.

Anyway, if you don’t have anything to say to the judge, then you just stand there while the crown and the defense decide whether they want you on the jury or not. I think it’s different in the States, but in Canada, they don’t really ask you any questions (so no voir dire), they just kind of look at you and say “content” if they’re okay with you or “challenge” if they’re not, although I think they have a limited number of challenges that they’re each allowed. If even one of them challenges, they don’t have to explain why, and you’re immediately excused back to your seat.

For me, the case I was part of had two defense lawyers because there were two accused, so each person needed three “content”s to become a juror. AND LET ME JUST SAY RIGHT NOW - NOT ONLY WAS I THE THIRD NUMBER IN THE VERY FIRST BATCH PICKED TO GO UP, BUT I WAS ALSO LITERALLY THE FIRST PERSON CHOSEN TO BE A JUROR MY LUCK IS TERRIBLE.

Anyway, the process repeats until they have 14 people (or 10 for civil). I imagine the crown and the defense all have some kind of background information on you that they read over beforehand because they do keep track of which numbers are called up, and I know they have a list in front of them. I’m not 100% sure but they probably checked off whoever they thought were suitable beforehand because the content or challenge is really quick. They did ask an occasional question, like for one lady who was called up, they asked what she did before she retired, and then one of them challenged after her answer. But generally from what I saw, on the day of the selection, all they do is give you a quick look and yes or no you, so either they were provided with more info than we realized or they actually just chose us based on what we looked like and our name and current occupation, which is important too but I feel like it’s not really enough info. And the actual jury that’s picked all get criminal record checks.

If you’re contented by the counsels, then you need to swear in. You can decide whether to affirm or swear on the bible, and the court clerk reads out the affirmation, and you just say “I do”.

(Me and public speaking are sworn enemies though, so I’m pretty sure literally nobody except the sheriff standing right next to me heard my “Yes I do’ffirm” nonsensical mumble, my anxiety levels were through the roof, and it didn’t help that I was the FIRST GDI, I didn’t even have an example to follow so I wasn’t 100% sure what to say, like is it “I affirm” or “Yes” or do I have to repeat what she said??? I wasn’t clear on that so that made me panic, and the thought that I had to recite the whole affirmation back to her made me panic more because I missed half of it while I was panicking. My hands were shaking by the time I sat down, it was torture.)

But after you’re chosen as a juror, you go directly to the jury box, and then you just sit and wait for the rest.

So that’s jury selection. For the selection group I was part of, there was only one case that day that needed a jury, but I think it could be more, so if you’re not chosen as a juror, then there’s a chance that the sheriff will take you to another jury selection for another trial.

Anyway, I was picked as a juror, and we were taken to the jury room and given a bunch of instructions (basic info about the trial, don’t look at the news, don’t do any research, photocopy of some ID so they can do those criminal record checks, when to come back for the actual trial, where to meet, etc.) and then we get to go home. On occasion, if the trial is urgent, then you may need to start right on that day, right after you’re selected. But my jury selection was on a Thursday, and the trial didn’t start until Monday, so we got to go home that day.

Actual jury duty started on the Monday. We were told that the trial would last around 20 days but it ended up just short of three weeks. So for about two and a half weeks, we went in every day from Monday to Friday, and we sat in court from 10-4, although there were multiple breaks in between (15min break in the morning, then lunch from 12:30pm to 1:45pm, and then another 15min break in the afternoon). We weren’t allowed to discuss anything about the case outside of the jury room, and the Sheriff assigned to us pretty much escorted us whenever we were in the building.

For the trial itself, we sit in the jury box and pretty much just listen to the evidence presented and take notes. It was a public trial so there were people in the gallery (victim’s parents were there, and a reporter too, amongst other people), and the two accused sat in a glass box in front of the gallery. The crown started first - she gave a summary of the whole case, and then she presented evidence (they’re labelled “exhibits”, which we’re each given copies of) and called in witnesses. For witnesses, the crown asks them questions, and the defense is allowed to cross-examine them each time the crown finished with one. I’ve forgotten how many witnesses the Crown called (I think it was 20-something) but she took about two weeks total to finish, which was faster than they originally thought it would take, and they said it was because several of the exhibits were Admissions of Facts, which are like evidence that both the crown and defense agreed were factual evidence beforehand and so could be compiled into a booklet for the judge and jury, so there was no need to present each piece individually.

Then it was the defense’s turn. For my case, they were originally not planning to call any witnesses but each of the accused ended up testifying so each of them took a couple days. Their lawyers asked them questions, and then the Crown was allowed to cross-examine them after each of them finished.

After all the evidence had been presented, the jury was dismissed (for us, it was about half a day I think) so that the crown and defense could put together their closing arguments for us. Those took a couple hours each, and the crown had something to discuss with the judge so we were dismissed again for half a day and restarted the next day.

After the closing arguments were finished, the judge took about a day to put together her charge, which was like instructions for us (in more booklets, if there’s one thing I learned about trials, it’s that they kill a lot of trees) about what we have to deliberate on, and a bunch of explanations about the law. So that took about three hours, and for us, she split it, so it was two hours on one afternoon and then an hour the next morning. We were told a day before to pack a bag and prepare for a couple overnight stays. I packed for four days, a couple others did too, and we only ended up staying overnight once. I have no idea how other people survive when their deliberations last for weeks, but our sheriff mentioned that after a handful of days, if the jury still isn’t finished, they usually cart in new clothes for them. Maybe they let them use the laundry facilities at the hotel, but I’m not sure. But yeah, they give us a heads-up beforehand to prepare for at least a couple overnights even if you don’t expect deliberations to take that long.

And then after the judge’s charge, the jury was dismissed to begin their deliberations, and from that point on, we are sequestered, any electronics we brought are locked up, and we’re not allowed to go home until we reach a final decision for each of the accused (guilty, not guilty, or if we couldn’t come to an agreement, then the judge would label it a mistrial and order a new trial with a whole new jury, which I hear that judges tend to try to avoid so she probably would’ve sent us back in for further deliberations first if we couldn’t come to a unanimous verdict, and yes it does have to be unanimous). We are technically allowed to contact someone on the outside but through a third party only, and you have to fill out a form each time with whoever you’re contacting, the number, and the message you want to send them, and the sheriffs call for you and convey the message.

Again this is for a criminal case. I heard from another jury of a civil case that was going on at the same time as ours that they’re not sequestered for deliberations, they actually get to go home each day if they take longer than a day to decide.

My jury took longer than a day. About a day and a half. So whenever we left the jury room (we were literally locked in), we were escorted everywhere by two sheriffs. We didn’t have to pay for meals during this time, but holy cow they took us to those family restaurants with appetizer/entree/dessert menus every time? It probably didn’t help that our law courts are surrounded by them, but the food is so heavy, by lunch the next day all I ate was a tomato soup, I don’t know how people who work there don’t die of high cholesterol or food comas if this is their regular diet.

Anyway, so yeah, lunch, dinner, we asked for a walk in the afternoon so the sheriffs took us out for a short walk. People stared, it was kind of funny, we had to walk between the two sheriffs, so one was in front of us and the other brought up the rear. They took us to a coffee shop once and parked themselves on either side of the only door as we ordered, and these two teenagers inside just sort of stared and whispered nervously for two minutes before fast-walking out without ordering.

Deliberations lasted until 9, and then we were taken to a hotel. (And no, we weren’t given back our phones, I felt like I was going into withdrawal.) Don’t expect anything fancy, we just stayed in a Holiday Inn. The way it works is they reserve an entire floor for us, and every juror gets their own room. The sheriffs get the room directly in front of the elevators and they stay awake with the door left open the entire night so nobody is able to sneak out (apparently that actually happens). We’re not allowed to interact with each other and are expected to stay in our own rooms and not watch the news. The rooms weren’t bad, and I was hella tired so all I did was grab a shower and watch an episode of Chicago Med before falling asleep by 11, which has to be some kind of record for me.

I was up by 6:45 I think but wake up call was at 7. The hotel called up to wake us all, and the sheriffs told us last night to be ready by 8. We ate breakfast in the restaurant downstairs (I got an eggs benedict ^_^), and then off we went back to court. Oh, and you don’t leave your stuff at the hotel, you pack up every morning like you’re checking out. Maybe it’s different for really difficult cases when the jury is definitely expected to take longer but I can’t be certain. So yeah, you gotta haul your luggage around every day.

More deliberations, and we don’t stop on the weekends the way we do when the trial is in progress, we work right through. My jury came to a final decision by the afternoon, although before that in the morning, we actually had a few questions for the judge, so we went back into the courtroom for that. During deliberations, the judge and the counsels and the accused don’t have to stay in the courtroom but they are all expected to stay nearby during our work hours (9am-9pm), and if the jury has any questions for the judge, they reconvene the whole court each time before we get our answers.

We came to our final verdict, the court reconvened, the gallery was full, and the foreperson (basically the person we chose to act as our speaker to the judge, cuz we don’t speak in court, only the foreperson does) stood up when called. The judge asked whether each of the accused was guilty or not guilty, foreperson answered, and then the court clerk asked the rest of us to stand if we agreed with the foreperson, which we did.

And that was about it. Sentencing happens later, and is decided by the judge. For this case, it doesn’t happen until May. I think the counsels take that time to prepare their arguments for the sentence that will be delivered, although I’m not too clear on this bit.

But the jury’s job is done. We were escorted back downstairs, given back our phones, and for those of us who wanted one, the sheriffs called taxis for each of us and gave us prepaid cards so the taxis would charge the ride directly to the courts. I knew this before we gave our final verdict, and at the time, I wasn’t sure why the sudden taxis when most of us either drove in or took transit, but… yeah, after the verdict, I didn’t really want to chance bumping into the victim’s or accused’s relatives either.

It can be boring, that’s true enough from what you hear or read off the internet. I almost nodded off a couple times during the trial. But it was also an interesting experience, and I actually learned a lot. And deciding whether someone is guilty or not guilty - that carries a kind of weight I actually wasn’t expecting. It’s not like I even knew the accused, and I’ve never been the empathetic sort, I don’t relate easily with other people emotionally so I didn’t think I’d really care, but - and it wasn’t even just me - when we decided guilty for the first accused, I don’t really know how to describe it, just that it was a weight. The final verdict we came to, obviously I think was the right one. We argued about it and looked over the evidence and explanations of the law so much I never want to see phrases like “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “neither trivial nor transitory” ever again, before each of us made our decision. And I didn’t lose any sleep over it yesterday, but I have asked myself a few times if I’m absolutely sure we made the right decision. And I still think we have. But. Yeah. It stays with you. Or at least it has with me.

And the trial itself was pretty eye-opening in more than one way. Like, each witness was asked - among other things - to describe each of the people involved in the incident, and of course what happened, and every single version was different in some way. A couple times, I’ve found myself taking extra notice of what the people passing me on the streets are wearing lmao. Also, the case made me a lot more aware of how much a simple action can change your life. Like, we absolutely believed that the accused didn’t mean to kill the victim. It was just a simple punch. Not even two minutes before that, he was just going about his day per usual. And then just like that, one punch and he’s being arrested five days later because the guy’s dead from his head hitting the ground too hard when he went down from the punch, and the one who punched him is going to go to jail for something he never intended to do. Some of the most thoughtless actions have some serious long-lasting consequences, and like I knew that, but I didn’t know until after this case. So, you know, think before you act.

Anyway. Uh. A few extra notes:

I know it’s different everywhere, but for where I live, if you do jury duty (not just jury selection but chosen to be an actual juror), then you’re exempt from the jury lottery for two years. Yay.

And there is reimbursement for travel, up to a certain amount. How much is different everywhere too, but basically you get a form at the beginning where you fill out each day how much you used, or how many kilometers you drove, etc., and they send you a cheque later.

And you get paid for jury duty. Which is also different everywhere. I hear in Quebec, starting pay is $103/day, which is totally unfair. In Ontario, you don’t even get paid for like the first 10 days. Most provinces under-pay. Quebec is the exception. And Ontario and I think Manitoba are the opposite extremes. You pay for meals during the course of the trial yourself though; only deliberation meals are free.

Uhhh the Judge is referred to as “Your Lordship/Ladyship” or “My Lord/Lady”, not “Your Honour”. Might be different elsewhere but in a supreme court where I live, that’s what they’re called. And the counsels all refer to each other as “My Friend”.

Clothes. I tried reading up on the jury selection process before I actually went, and it said business casual, so I dressed business casual, and then I went and felt overdressed. Idk if that’s just Canada, but from what I saw, only one guy looked even more formal than me in a full suit and bowtie. The majority just went in jeans or slacks, some in formal shoes, some in sneakers. It’s been cold so coats or sweaters/hoodies, and shirts without logos. That didn’t change for the actual trial. Or maybe my business casual is just a little more formal than everyone else’s. Also I think the guy in front of me when we were lining up to check in with the sheriffs on selection day was drunk. And they told us to be there by 8:45am. We didn’t actually get into a courtroom until like 9:35am, and the selection didn’t actually begin until 10-ish. There was a lot of waiting.

I think that’s it. I can’t really remember anything else at the moment. Oh, the thing about government coffee being terrible? Yeah, that’s absolutely true. They provided the jury room with coffee, but hell it’s disgusting.

So yeah, I hope that helped? If you can bear reading such a lengthy explanation lol.

#Message #Jury Duty #also tbh not a dumb question #i didn't know what to expect either before i actually went #i didnt even know what the letter was for i had to ask my mom #and the internet was super unhelpful when it came to the details

63 notes · View notes

celenatriestowriteagain · 5 years

Text

The Weekend That Was #1 (JLPT N5 Exams!)

Friday

After work, K and I went to Bukit Panjang to eat at our favorite, Saizeriya. We ordered the same stuff, bolognese for me, bolognese with egg for him, sautéed broccoli and mushrooms for the both of us, and a mango something dessert. Afterwards, I stumbled upon a refash outlet, and I got two dresses. When we got home, K immediately passed out because he had a headache, and I did our laundry. Wild Friday night, I know.

Saturday

I woke up around 7:30am. So early. I don't even wake up this early during weekdays. Anyway, I pushed myself to go to the gym, the first time since I sprained my ankle. It wasn't so bad.

My housemate cooked adobo, so we had that for lunch. We just spent the rest of the day doing nihongo homework, until it was time to go to our last N5 review class.

After class, we did the stupidest thing. Some bus services are interrupted because of the NDP rehearsals, so we took a different bus to Newton MRT instead of taking Bus 700A all the way. Then we boarded the train to the wrong direction. We did not realise this for like the next 30 minutes! In our defense, I was so engrossed with the book I was reading (Conversations with Friends), and K was watching something on his phone. Long story short, we would have taken the same time to commute if we had waited for our bus. We got home past 10pm and for dinner, we made a tuna + spinach + cheese wrap.

Sunday - JLPT N5 Exams Day

The day that we have been dreading waiting for! The exams start at 9:30am, but we were awake by 7:30am, and in our grab by 8ish. When we made it to Marina Square, we saw one of our classmates from our previous classes. Turns out the schedule for that morning is for N5 and N4 takers. The venue, PSB Academy, was so huge. There were more people than I expected!

The N5 examinees were divided into two separate lecture halls. K and I were not seated together, despite having consequent registration numbers. The exams started on the dot. I was most anxious about the vocabulary module, but it turned out to be the easiest of the three. They allotted about 30 minutes for that.

Afterwards, there's a 30 minute interval until the grammar module. I was glad I didn't take any food or drinks that morning because my stomach is not used to having breakfast anymore and I would need to go to the restroom if I did eat/drink anything. The grammar exam was the hardest. There's this particular kind of question that I find really hard wherein you need to arrange 4 choices in the correct order to complete a sentence. It's particularly difficult because a lot of arrangements seem right to me. 50 minutes was allotted for grammar but it still didn't feel like enough time. I was glad I brought a cardigan so I didn't get distracted by the cold.

The listening exam was also 30 minutes long. Some of the questions are a bit challenging, but there are some that are definitely for beginner level.

After the exams, we went down to chic-a-boo for late lunch. The spicy fried chicken was pretty good! I had chicken chowder and buttered corn with it.

We felt we still had the mental capacity to go to our regular nihongo class (we didn't), so off we went. Takase sensei was surprised to see us. I started getting a headache during the class. Afterwards, we went to isetan to buy groceries. When we got home, we were too tired to cook anything so we just had tuna + spinach + cheese wrap again.

We feel pretty good about the N5 exams. Let's see how the scores go by end August!

#n5 #nihongo #personal #journal #diary

2 notes · View notes

ofstagsanddoes · 7 years

Note

celebrity au in which they have a very very public rivalry which involves twitter rants, fandom wars, tabloid articles stirring etc. until they're photographed holding hands and the internet has a meltdown

Okay so literally months ago (I’m awful), I was challenged with this prompt for the @jilychallenge coordinated by @hmionegrangr and my partner was @lamelylimes (who wrote me this glorious piece you can check out here). Needless to say, college work got away from me and I didn’t finish the piece on time BUT I did promise to finish it, so finish it I did. (Albeit very, very late. I hope you enjoy it).

October 17th was the day they officially broke the Internet.

To be fair, the rivalry had started out as just that- a rivalry. She was competitive, and he was arrogant and that had lead to a fair amount of interweb war mongering.

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial Wow. I just love when I’ve beaten @quidditchjames’ offensive record but women still get paid half as much as men.

James Potter @quidditchjames wow i just love when my records are beat by flukes

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial Numbers don’t lie, babe.

James Potter @quidditchjames listen. we’re gonna play a match against each other and then we’ll see who’s the real record holder

James Potter @quidditchjames we’ll even do it for charity- all proceeds going to @witchesandwizardsforequality

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial It’s on like Donkey Kong.

James Potter @quidditchjames i’m going to pretend i got that reference

And so it was determined; the match would be played and the rivalry would be settled. But of course that wasn’t the end of it.

THE DAILY PROPHET GABS, GOSSIP, AND GLAMOUR: STARS BANTER LEADS TO CHARITY MATCH

19/10/1979

Has James Potter waved his wand over the wrong spellbook?

The nineteen year old player for Puddlemere United has had a long time rivalry with fellow chaser Lily Evans of the Wimbourne Wasps. Interestingly, the two played together during their time at Hogwarts; Evans started the sport in her seventh year, with Potter (captain at the time) teaching her the ropes. The boy, like most of the world, wasn’t expecting what was in store for Evans, however, as she came out of nowhere to score a spot on one of the most competitive teams in the nation. Evans has gone on to become one of the best players in the sport, inciting a rivalry between the two former teammates.

Recently, the teen broke Potter’s offensive record, sparking a debate on Twitter between the two about who was the better player. The pair also discussed how women Quidditch players are often payed less than their male counter parts despite, as this new record proves, their comparable skill level. This led to the two starlets deciding to play a charity match where the proceeds will go towards Witches and Wizards for Equality- a foundation which promotes the equal pay of all genders.

The Twitter banter has lead many to speculate on the two’s romantic prospects- could we be witnessing a super couple in the making? The pair doesn’t seem to think so, however, as seen in Evans’ tweet from Tuesday:

Jacob Throne @jakeythrone @lilyevansofficial behind all this banter are we seeing a romance budding between you and @quidditchjames?

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial @jakeythrone I wouldn’t keep your hopes up, buttercup.

IQBS.COM: INTERNATIONAL QUIDDITCH BROADCASTING STATION LIVE STREAMING AND ONLINE ANNOUNCER TRANSCRIPT

Marcie Bendenberg: Well, Wendy, this isn’t something you see every day.

Wendy Lawrence: No, Marcie, it certainly isn’t, and that’s why so many members of the wizarding community have tuned in to watch today’s matchup between two of Quidditch’s hottest young chasers, Lily Evans of the Wimbourne Wasps and James Potter of Puddlemere United.

M: Yes, the two actually got in an argument on Twitter over who was the better player and agreed to play a match to settle it once and for all. All proceeds sold from tickets are to go charity, and it looks as though we’ve got a sold out crowd here.

W: It’ll certainly be an interesting match to watch, and for our viewers at home it’s important to note that this will not be a regular game of Quidditch. Instead, the pair will play each other one on one for five minutes, seeing who can score the most goals within that time period. What do you think of this matchup, Marcie?

M: Well, you know that I’ve always been an Evans fan- she’s a straight, no nonsense type of player that get’s the job done, but I will say that she’s got her work cut out for her. They both have that drive, that same innate level of talent, (and I think we can both agree the same competitive edge), but Potter plays with a sparkle that’s unparalleled in the sport as of now and that could bite Evans in the butt.

W: Then again, where he’s flashy she’s blunt and to the point, and I think that is oftentimes more effective.

M: Very true as well, I suppose we’re soon to see how it all plays out as the pair takes the field.

W: I’d like to take a moment to thank our sponsors for this match: Sleekeazy’s Hair Potion: “Two drops tames even the most bothersome barnet.” Sparkbucks: “The only way Wizards drink coffee.” and our charity for this event, Witches and Wizards for Equality.

M: Let’s play some Quidditch!

W: And, right off the bat Potter has the quaffle and is streaking towards the goal but…oh, that had to hurt, Evans knocks him hard in the shoulder and he drops the ball into her waiting hands.

M: And you know, she’s able to push him around so much in the air not because she is heavier than him, but because of the broom Potter flies on. Although the Nimbus Three Sixty is an exceptionally fast broom, it is lacking in the defensive departments. On her Comet 1000, Evans has a greater balance of speed and power, and this evens up the playing field greatly.

W: We’re seeing a lot of back and forth here, neither making much progress towards either set of hoops. Is this what you expected?

M: Honestly, we’re seeing some great Quidditch right here. You get this matchup between two of the best players in the nation and of course you’re going to have some what of a standstill. Now, eventually that standstill will break and-

W: Evans gets out of the tussle and heads towards those golden hoops. She chucks the quaffle towards the right one and…SCORES! Evans-10 Potter-0

M: Uh oh, though. It seems as if this has ignited a fire under Potter; he’s playing with more vigor than before!

W: Yes, this is definitely the player we’re used to seeing. Showy, but singleminded. He and Evans are diving and weaving around each other now, and it almost seems as though they’re…yelling at each other instead of playing Quidditch. That’s a new one.

M: Certainly. Especially as the clock shows that there are only sixty seconds left in the match; Potter needs to score!

W: Oh! But instead it is Evans who emerges from the altercation with the quaffle! And she’s racing towards the goal posts, Potter right on her tail. She’s got her work cut out for her, because, yes, Potter’s beaten her there, but will he pick the correct goal post to block? She chucks the quaffle and Potter’s diving and OH!

M: The quaffle careens into Potter’s head, sending him off course and crashing into one of the goal posts. That’s not good. He looks unconscious right now, the Mediwizards are flying onto the field.

W: But the quaffle did go in, and the score stands Evans-20 Potter-0, and this certainly- oh…oh my.

M: That was…unexpected.

W (laughing): Love does come to us in the most surprising of ways, doesn’t it? That’s all from us here at IQBS, we hope you enjoyed the brief commentary of the match. [Still giggling] Signing off for now.

THE DAILY PROPHET GABS, GOSSIP, AND GLAMOUR: YOUNG LOVE ON AND OFF THE PITCH

30/10/1979

On Friday night, all eyes were tuned to James Potter and Lily Evans as they played a Quidditch match to decide the better player. One expected to see a great game between the two exceptional players, which they got. The two young chasers battled so fiercely that only twenty points were scored in the five minute time allotment; both of those shots belonging to Evans.

However, the unexpected part of the evening was not the Qudditch playing itself, but rather the events that transpired afterwards.

During the last shot of the game, a rogue quaffle hit Potter in the head, causing him to crash into one of the goalposts and be knocked unconscious. Evans, instead of pausing to take in her game-winning shot, let out a yell and streaked down to catch Potter in her arms before the Mediwizards were able to get to him. An uncharacteristic show of affection between the two rivals? Perhaps. But even more surprising is what occurred next.

As the Mediwizards lowered him down to the ground and set about examining him, Evans was crying and crying, talking about how she hadn’t meant to hurt him and how he was such an idiot for trying to defend a goal so close to the posts and hadn’t he always told her that was foolish? The Mediwizards got him revived and all, and as soon as that boy opened his eyes Evans planted a big old kiss right on his lips.

Naturally, the internet has blown up at the idea of two such promising stars (and aforementioned rivals) falling in love, but there has been no word from either as Evans travelled with Potter to St. Mungo’s for further examination. With #lilypotter trending now on Twitter, who knew Quidditch could get so saucy?

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial James is fine; he has concussion but is expected to make a full recovery in time for Puddlemere’s next match.

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial He wants everyone to know that he’s grateful for all the well wishes and he loves you all dearly.

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial Also, he concedes that I am once and for all the better player.

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial I’m being forced to reveal that he never said that and never will admit that.

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial (Even though it’s correct.)

Jamie Bowler @jamieb23 @lilyevansofficial WHAT’S UP WITH THE KISS????

Suzy Pemby @suzy.q1 @lilyevansofficial the kiss???? what did it mean???

Marcie Bendenberg @marciebendenberg.official Honestly. We’ve got to know.

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial What can I say.

Lily Evans @lilyevansofficial The boy has beautiful lips.

#lily evans #james potter #fanfic #jily #my writing #lamelylimes #jilychallenge #woooot

474 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 4 years

Text

TRUMP’S DEFENSE TEAM TO TARGET BIDENS IN COUNTERPUNCH TO IMPEACHMENT CHARGES

By Rachael Bade, Robert Costa, Karoun Demirjian and Josh Dawsey | Published

January 24 at 9:50 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted Jan 25, 2020

White House lawyers are gearing up for a scorched-earth defense of President Trump in the impeachment trial, mounting a politically charged case aimed more at swaying American voters than GOP senators — and damaging Trump’s possible 2020 opponent, Joe Biden.

Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, and Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal attorney, plan to use their time in the trial to target the former vice president and his son, Hunter, according to multiple GOP officials familiar with the strategy. Trump’s allies believe that if they can argue that the president had a plausible reason for requesting the Biden investigation in Ukraine, they can both defend him against the impeachment charges and gain the bonus of undercutting a political adversary.

The strategy — aimed squarely at muddying the waters surrounding the two impeachment articles of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — carries potential risk. Some congressional Republicans have encouraged the White House to prioritize a line-by-line rebuttal of the Democrats’ case, ensuring that wary moderates are provided enough cover to vote for Trump’s acquittal. It is unclear whether going after a former colleague will sway that core constituency, protecting moderates from possible political blowback at home — though a senior administration official made clear that Trump’s legal team would try to do both.

The official, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter frankly.

The Biden campaign condemned the strategy.

“Donald Trump is so terrified of facing Joe Biden that he became the only president in American history to attempt to coerce a foreign nation into lying about a political rival,” spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement. “Even members of his own administration — including his former top envoy to Ukraine — have refuted the conspiracy theory that he tried to force Ukraine to spread to bail out his struggling reelection campaign.”

The offensive will mark the first time lawmakers or the public have heard a full-throated White House defense. The president’s attorneys rejected the House invitation to participate in the last phase of the impeachment inquiry, making their presentation — expected Saturday and Monday — the team’s first major turn in the spotlight.

Until now, the White House has struggled to address why Trump froze military aid to Ukraine and repeatedly postponed a promised White House meeting with newly elected President Volodymyr Zelensky while pressing for investigations of the Bidens and an unfounded conspiracy theory about Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election. The White House also has had difficulty explaining why Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani was the point person on policy toward the Eastern European nation.

In October, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney openly admitted that a quid pro quo occurred, telling reporters to “get over it” — though he later walked back the comments.

Trump is eager for his team to take the stage and has been trying to strategically time it to maximize TV viewership. He has told allies that while he’s fine with the defense beginning its presentation Saturday for a few hours starting at 10 a.m. — in part because he hopes it will drive discussions on Sunday morning talk shows — he prefers the bulk of their arguments to happen Monday when more Americans will be watching television, according to White House officials who were not authorized to speak publicly.

“After having been treated unbelievably unfairly in the House, and then having to endure hour after hour of lies, fraud & deception by Shifty Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer & their crew, looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday, which is called Death Valley in T.V.,” Trump tweeted Friday morning.

The emerging strategy comes as the White House has heard conflicting advice from Republicans eager to share their opinion on the best rebuttal. In recent weeks, there has been a quiet, behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign by both GOP senators and Trump’s House allies on his defense team, creating confusion among Republicans about which strategy the White House will adopt.

The deliberations occasionally have been marked by intense discussions, including debates about whether to push a process-focused case against Democrats or to take on each of their points and accusations individually, according to senators and congressional aides familiar with the talks. Over the past 24 hours, the debate has focused more on how much time should be dedicated to going after the Bidens.

Those divergent views were on full display in the Capitol this week. Rep. Lee Zeldin, a New York Republican advising Trump’s defense team, told reporters that Trump’s lawyers needed to re-litigate what is considered a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton — and, therefore, justified Trump pushing Ukraine to investigate the matter. But some Senate Republicans, including No. 2 leader John Thune (S.D.), want the White House to avoid what they consider a baseless conspiracy theory.

“I think the intelligence community has very conclusively determined that it was Russia — and not Ukraine — that interfered in the 2016 election, so … I guess that’s not a direction I would have them go,” Thune said.

Other Senate Republicans, including Trump ally Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), have publicly pushed back on a key White House legal team talking point: that the charges against the president do not constitute a crime and therefore his actions are not impeachable.

Trump himself actively recruited lawyer and TV commentator Alan Dershowitz at a Mar-a-Lago buffet to make that very argument — then sought out Dershowitz’s wife to help persuade him to do it. “He wants me to make the argument that the case does not meet the grounds for impeachment,” said Dershowitz. “He knows that I feel very strongly about constitutional issues.”

Democrats, meanwhile, have been bracing for this moment, anxious about the Trump team getting 24 hours without any interruptions and pushback from impeachment managers. That concern only grew after Trump’s lawyers uttered several inaccuracies on the Senate floor Tuesday, including a claim that House Republicans were not allowed to question witnesses during closed-door depositions. They could, and they did.

Democrats want to ensure that the Trump team doesn’t get the last word, in part by using some of the allotted 16 hours of questions and answers to correct any misstatements.

“I’m concerned about their deceptive and misleading statements,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), promising that Democrats would “ask questions that are, in effect, an invitation to set the record straight.”

Democrats have been anticipating that the defense would shift attention from Trump’s alleged misconduct to focus on the Bidens. That, in part, is what drove House managers to devote a considerable portion of their Thursday presentation to a preemptive rebuttal on those points, arguing that several Republicans and Europeans had supported Biden’s efforts to push out corrupt former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin.

Trump and Republicans have accused Biden — without evidence — of ousting Shokin because the prosecutor was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that employed Hunter Biden on its board while the elder Biden was vice president. But former U.S. and Ukrainian officials have said the prosecutor’s investigation of Burisma had been dormant, and many had hoped that the change in prosecutors backed by Biden and others would lead to more aggressive anti-corruption investigations. Republicans also have pointed to concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest, which were expressed by some of the Democrats’ top witnesses in the impeachment inquiry.

“The House managers sort of drove a knife through the heart of those false arguments ahead of time … and I think that will help make the case,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters Thursday.

Not all Republicans are eager about a singular focus on the former vice president. In an unusual role-reversal, Trump’s most aggressive House allies have urged the legal team to focus on trying to undercut the Democrats’ timeline and arguments.

“You can’t talk about corruption broadly without talking about Burisma and Hunter Biden’s involvement,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who also is assisting the defense team. “That being said, I think the vast majority of this emphasis is on what were the components that led the president to ultimately release the aid.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his top attorney on the House Oversight Committee, Steve Castor, both of whom participated in the House investigation, have been working with the Trump team to try to highlight what they see as weak spots in the impeachment case.

As the impeachment managers showed clips of Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland confirming a quid pro quo, Jordan has pushed for the team to counter by highlighting Sondland’s changing statements as well as his own admission that he never heard such a directive from Trump.

“Remember, Sondland is the guy who had to amend his testimony, the guy who had to clarify his testimony, is the guy they rely on the most?” Jordan said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has been on the other side of the argument, working closely with the White House and meeting with Trump’s legal team as recently as Thursday evening to encourage them to go hard on Hunter Biden’s Burisma position.

“Focus on what matters, which is the substance,” he said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Friday morning, summarizing his advice to Trump’s team. “And I told them, ‘Look, nothing matters more than the facts on Burisma.’ . . . Lay out substantive, factual reasons why investigating Burisma, the president had a responsibility to do so.”

Senate Republicans said they have been eager to hear what Trump’s team has to say — in part because they don’t know what line of attack it will take. Privately, some Republican senators have groused in recent days that the Trump team is “everywhere but nowhere,” as one described the dynamic, speaking on the condition anonymity to give a frank assessment.

“They are on TV and at the Capitol yelling at the Democrats, but I’m not really sure what the whole range of the argument is. Are you?” the GOP senator asked, adding that the frustration was shared by other Republicans.

*********

ASSESSING THE TRUMP TEAM’S 6-POINT IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE

By Philip Bump | Published January 25 at 12:14 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 25, 2020 |

President Trump’s legal team in his impeachment trial began its defense on Saturday morning with a slightly more lawyerly version of one of Trump’s favorite tweets: read the transcript.

“They didn’t talk a lot about the transcript of the call,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone told the assembled senators in the Senate chambers at the outset of his remarks, “which I would submit is the best evidence of what happened on the call.”

That line, in itself, is a neat encapsulation of Trump’s case. It focuses on the rough transcript of Trump’s July 25, 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as exculpatory — while also asserting that the central issue is the call itself. It isn’t. The presented evidence shows a broad campaign of pressure of which that call was only one part, a campaign that is harder for Trump’s team to refute.

Cipollone soon transitioned to Michael Purpura, the deputy White House counsel. Purpura began by articulating a six-point defense that his team would offer during its presentation. Those six points, like Cipollone’s claim about the rough transcript: carefully worded, constrained — and often not hard to undercut.

Here’s each point as he stated it, and what the available evidence says about the claims.

THE TRUMP TEAM’S CASE

1. “The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren’t even mentioned on the call.”

Remember what’s at issue here. Trump, on the July 25 call, asked Zelensky to launch two investigations, one focused on former vice president Joe Biden and unfounded allegations about his actions in Ukraine in 2016, and another centered on a bizarre conspiracy theory in which Ukraine is implicated in 2016 election interference. To compel Ukraine to launch those investigations, the Democrats argue, Trump delayed a White House meeting sought by Zelensky and withheld military and security aid scheduled to be sent to Ukraine.

Purpura’s right that the transcript doesn’t include any conditioning of the requested investigations on a meeting or aid during the call. What he doesn’t mention, though, is evidence sitting just outside that call which makes clear that Trump’s team made that conditionality clear to Zelensky’s team.

Trump spoke with Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that morning. Sondland then reached out to then-Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker, asking Volker to call him. Shortly after, Volker sent a text message to Andriy Yermak, a key adviser to Zelensky, with whom he’d earlier had lunch in Kyiv.

“Heard from White House,” Volker wrote. “[A]ssuming President [Zelensky] convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Volker then sent a message to Sondland.

“[H]ad a great lunch with Yermak and then passed your message to him,” Volker wrote. “He will see you tomorrow, think everything in place.”

Sondland testified about that message, which he said, “likely I would have received that from President Trump.”

During the call, Zelensky at one point seems to make explicit reference to the investigate-for-visit mandate mentioned by Volker.

“I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington D.C.,” Zelensky said, according to the rough transcript. “On the other hand, I also wanted (to) ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation.”

No, Trump didn’t say that Zelensky wasn’t getting a meeting without the investigation. He didn’t need to. His team had already passed that along.

To Purpura’s second point, it is true that there was no mention of the aid during the call. We’ll get to that in a moment.

2. “President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything.”

In its careful wording, this is also true. Zelensky, sitting with Trump in a meeting on Sept. 25, was asked if he felt pressure from Trump in the call. After indicating that he didn’t want to get involved in the politics of the question, he conceded that he hadn’t felt pushed.

That admission, as he obviously understood, was what Trump wanted to hear. Trump quickly jumped on it: “In other words, no pressure,” he said, paraphrasing his counterpart.

David Holmes, a political staffer at the embassy in Ukraine, explained why he felt that Ukraine would not only have felt pressure but also pressure not to concede that they were being pressured. He was speaking about how Ukraine would have tried to navigate the hold on aid, but the point is broader.

“Whether the hold, the security assistance hold, continued or not, Ukrainians understood that that’s something the president wanted, and they still wanted important things from the president,” Holmes said. “So I think that continues to this day. I think they’re being very careful. They still need us now going forward.”

Purpura suggested that treating Zelensky’s claims with skepticism was akin to reading Zelensky’s mind. Taking the assertions of Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials at immediate face value, though, offers no more assurance of yielding an accurate interpretation.

This conflict gets to the heart of what Trump is alleged to have done. Either the United States has the ability to exert pressure on Ukraine or it doesn’t. Trump asks that we assume there is no implicit pressure at play and that everything that occurred is no more complicated than the most basic reading of events. That request can be evaluated on its own merits.

3. “President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know — did not even know the security assistance was paused until the end of August. Over a month after the July 25th call.”

Cipollone and Purpura lamented that the House impeachment managers had failed to offer evidence exculpating the president, as though prosecutors are generally in the habit of doing so. Included in that overlooked evidence were statements from administration officials indicating that Ukraine and Zelensky weren’t aware of the hold on aid — introduced in early July — until late August when Politico broke the story. Several of those who testified said that this was the first point at which the issue was raised by their contacts in Ukraine.

Trump’s lawyers mostly skipped the evidence that contradicts this, of course. Emails sent on July 25 itself to staffers at the Defense Department indicated that the Ukrainian Embassy was aware of the hold, which had been announced within the administration a week earlier. A former senior Ukrainian official, working in Zelensky’s administration at that point, indicated that she was aware of the hold by late July. Catherine Croft, a State Department official, testified that she was surprised at how quickly her Ukrainian colleagues learned about the hold soon after it was known in the administration, though she didn’t know when precisely that occurred, as Purpura pointed out.

Croft made another point, though, which directly undercuts a claim made by Purpura. “Common sense comes into play right here,” he said at one point. “The top Ukrainian officials said nothing, nothing at all to their U.S. counterparts during all of these meetings about the pause on security assistance. But then, boom, soon as the Politico article comes out, suddenly, in that first intense week of September, in George Kent’s words, security assistance was all they wanted to talk about."

“What must we conclude if we’re using our common sense?” Purpura continued. “That they didn’t know about the pause until the Politico article on August 28. No activity before. Article comes out, flurry of activity.”

During her testimony, Croft explained why Ukraine wouldn’t want to focus on the aid while it wasn’t publicly known.

“If this were public in Ukraine, it would be seen as a reversal of our policy and would, just to say sort of candidly and colloquially, this would be a really big deal, it would be a really big deal in Ukraine, and an expression of declining U.S. support for Ukraine,” she said in her closed-door testimony. “As long as they thought that in the end the hold would be lifted, they had no reason for this to want to come out.”

What Purpura also ignored, of course, is that Sondland himself had informed Yermak on Sept. 1 that the aid would be held until the investigations were launched. He did so of his own volition, as he testified, but it was nonetheless the case that an official close to Trump did inform Ukraine that there was a quid pro quo on this point.

4. “Not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else.”

This is a valid point. While several witnesses linked Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani specifically to a meeting-for-investigations qui pro quo, no one testified that they’d been told that Trump made that conditionality clear. The only person who did make such a link was acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney during a news conference in October. But, of course, Mulvaney declined to actually testify.

Trump’s team, justifiably, has long focused on the extent to which Trump himself has been kept at a distance from the allegations. There’s little question that, to some extent, that distance was intentional. Trump told Sondland, Volker and then-Energy Secretary Rick Perry to work with Giuliani, for example, just as he told Zelensky he’d put him in contact with his personal attorney. Giuliani himself told the New York Times and other outlets that he was working on Trump’s political behalf in seeking the investigations. Giuliani was also at the center of an effort to link a White House meeting to the announcement of investigations in a series of interactions in early August.

The link from Trump to those efforts seems obvious, but that it isn’t obvious — at least with the available testimony — retains some aspect of reasonable doubt.

5. The security assistance flowed on Sept. 11, and a presidential meeting took place on Sept. 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.

To undercut the idea that the aid or the meeting were conditioned on the announcement of investigations, Trump’s team (as his allies have done in the past) noted that Ukraine got both the aid and the meeting. The aid was, in fact, released on Sept. 11, 2019. The two presidents did meet, in fact, two weeks later.

However.

That aid was only released after attention had been drawn to its being withheld publicly. House Democrats had launched an investigation into the hold. The Washington Post editorial board had explicitly connected the hold to the desired investigations. Trump had already been briefed on a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower in which that connection was mentioned as part of a broad campaign to pressure Ukraine. Trump had faced questions from both Sondland and political allies, like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), about why the aid was being held and if it was being held to pressure Ukraine. The tables, in other words, had turned: now Trump faced significant pressure to release the aid.

Stack those factors against the administration’s stated rationale for the hold. That rationale centers on Trump’s purported concerns about Ukrainian corruption, concerns that weren’t manifested within the administration through any obvious process of evaluation and which for vague reasons were coincidentally alleviated just as all of this external pressure had come into play.

Another salient factor? On Sept. 11, Zelensky was still planning to participate in an interview with CNN in which he’d informed Trump’s team he would announce the investigations. That interview was only canceled once the Ukraine question broke into public view.

The claim that Zelensky got his desired meeting in late September is a simply ridiculous claim. What Zelensky wanted was a one-on-one demonstration that Ukraine is a close ally of the United States by having Zelensky and Trump sit down in the Oval Office. He wanted that photo of Trump and himself shaking hands, something he could present to the world — and Russia — as a statement of the big stick he was able to carry.

On Sept. 25, that’s not what he got. He got a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. That same day, Trump also sat down with leaders from Japan and El Salvador. The day prior, he’d similarly met with leaders from India, the United Kingdom and Iraq. Claiming that the Sept. 25 meeting was what Zelensky sought is like claiming that dancing with a partner once at a party is equivalent to getting engaged.

From the time that Zelensky won his election in April of last year through the end of last year, about a dozen other foreign leaders got precisely the sort of meeting Zelensky sought; among them was Russia’s foreign minister.

6. The Democrats’ blind drive to impeach the president does not and cannot change the fact, as attested to by the Democrats own witnesses, that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor.

This is a subjective claim, but it’s true that, in prior years, Trump had authorized aid to Ukraine including military aid which hadn’t been provided under Barack Obama.

It raises an important question, though: Why did that support collapse in 2019? House Democrats argue that there’s an obvious answer. In April 2019, Joe Biden announced his candidacy. On the morning of July 25, Trump watched a Fox News broadcast showing Biden leading Trump in 2020 polling.

We’re asked to believe that this was not a consideration for a president who has tweeted scores of times about his political opponents. We’re asked to believe instead that he was focused on corruption in Ukraine, something he’d tweeted about only once before early September — and only then in the context of Joe Biden.

*********

Adam Schiff delivered a detailed, hour-long summary of the Democrats’ impeachment case. Some Republicans dismissed it because of one line.

By Mike DeBonis | Published January 24 at 10:54 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 25, 2020 |

Rep. Adam B. Schiff spoke for nearly an hour closing the House’s case for the removal of President Trump, advancing and rebutting scores of arguments, but many Republican senators left the chamber talking about only one line: His reference to a news report that GOP senators were warned that if they vote against the president, their “head will be on a pike.”

“Not true!” an indignant Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) bristled afterward, saying senators were “visibly upset” by the comment. “Nothing like going through three days of frustration and then cap it with an insult on everybody.”

The reference came from a CBS News report that had gone viral earlier Friday, quoting an anonymous Trump confidant claiming that senators were warned that “your head will be on a pike” if they vote against the president on impeachment. The report did not say who had delivered the threat or which senators had been so warned.

“I don’t know if that’s true,” Schiff (D-Calif.) said. “I hope it’s not true. But I’m struck by the irony of the idea, when we’re talking about a president who would make himself a monarch, that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was imposed by a monarch — a head on a pike.”

Schiff sandwiched the reference between an anecdote about his father trying to get into the military with bad eyes and a flat feet during World War II, succeeding on the third attempt, and a tribute to the late representative Thomas F. Railsback (R-Ill.), who worked to build bipartisan support for President Richard M. Nixon’s impeachment.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), normally staid, smiled as Schiff told the story about his dad, which delved into lessons of courage as he urged the Republicans to break with their party leader.

When Schiff mentioned the alleged “head on a pike” threat, the GOP side of the chamber began to murmur and shift in outrage.

“That’s not true!” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who shook her head angrily, then crossed her arms over her chest in protest for the rest of his speech.

And after he ended his speech about 10 minutes later, the Republican outrage was brewing.

Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Republican Conference chairman, denied any such threat and attacked Schiff for repeating the suggestion.

“What he has proven to all of us is that he is capable of falsehoods and he would tell it to the country and tell it to us sitting in the chamber when every one of us knows it’s not true,” he said. “Whatever gains he may have made, he lost all of it, plus some, tonight.”

While it is not especially surprising that a party leader like Barrasso, whose vote for Trump’s acquittal is not in question, would be vexed by the remark, the dismay of Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — GOP senators who Democrats believe are open to voting next week for additional witnesses — could be more troubling.

“That’s where he lost me,” Murkowski said of the remark — though she quickly clarified that Schiff had lost her rhetorically, but had not necessarily lost her vote.

What neither Murkowski nor other GOP senators acknowledged is that Trump makes no secret of his disdain for Republican lawmakers who don’t follow his every cue. They hardly need to be reminded of the consequences for breaking ranks.

In October, as the impeachment investigation reached a fever pitch, Trump called Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) a “pompous ass” and “so bad for” the GOP after Romney criticized Trump’s calls for foreign countries to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, a potential campaign rival.

Two Republican senators who had clashed with Trump — Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) — chose to forgo reelection in 2018 rather than risk campaigning against a more Trump-friendly candidate.

Democrats rolled their eyes at the GOP outrage. A Democratic aide working on the impeachment probe but who was not authorized to comment publicly noted that Schiff “repeatedly said he hoped it wasn’t true — they doth protest too much.”

Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) noted that Trump’s willingness to threaten and exact revenge on those who cross him politically was no secret.

“That’s one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington — what this White House, this president does to people who cross him,” he said. “And he’s made it clear from Day 1.”

And Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) suggested in a tweet that Republicans were feigning outrage to distract from the rest of Schiff’s detailed argument for Trump’s removal.

“I’m gonna let you in on a secret,” he wrote. “Republicans who don’t want to defend Trump’s corruption on the merits are instead going to complain about how mean the House managers are.”

______

Rachael Bade, Paul Kane and Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.

*********

Democrats focus on Trump’s character as they argue for removing him from office in impeachment trial

By Elise Viebeck, Karoun Demirjian and Mike DeBonis | Published January 24 at 8:41 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 25, 2020 |

House prosecutors finished their opening arguments in President Trump’s impeachment trial on Friday, arguing that his conduct toward Ukraine reflected a dangerous reflex toward political expediency and a lack of character that will backfire on Republicans if they do not help remove him from office.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and his colleagues attempted to drive this argument home Friday to sway a handful of Republican senators whose position on gathering further evidence will determine the arc and scope of the trial. Yet there were few signs that any Republican was persuaded, leaving open the matter of possible witness testimony and further dampening Democrats’ already meager hopes of a conviction in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Schiff’s pointed and increasingly personal approach was an attempt to go beyond the specifics of House Democrats’ case to make the broader argument that Trump is an untrustworthy president who is likely to repeatedly flout the Constitution if allowed to stay in office.

“It goes to character,” Schiff said. “You don’t realize how important character is in the highest office in the land until you don’t have it.”

The Democrats’ closing statements were their final appeal to senators before the next phase of the trial: an aggressive rebuttal from Trump’s lawyers that will kick off Saturday and continue in earnest on Monday.

Speaking Friday on the Senate floor — hours after new evidence emerged of Trump’s campaign to oust the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine starting in 2018 — Schiff predicted that Trump’s future behavior would vindicate Democrats’ claim that he abused his power, and he warned Republicans the president, now their ally, could ultimately turn on them.

“Do you think for a moment that any of you — no matter what your relationship with this president, no matter how close you are to this president — do you think for a moment that if he felt it was in his interest, he wouldn’t ask you to be investigated?” he asked.

The remarks concluded the House managers’ case for the first article of impeachment, which charges Trump with abuse of power over allegations he withheld military aid and an Oval Office meeting from Ukraine to pressure the country’s leaders into announcing investigations into Trump’s political rivals. These included former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, while his father was in office. The managers spent the rest of the day detailing their case for the second article of impeachment — obstruction of Congress, following Trump’s barring the executive branch from cooperating with the House investigation.

The Senate will reconvene Saturday at 10 a.m. for several hours of what Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow described as “coming attractions” from his side — a preview of the pro-Trump case before the full-scale presentation begins Monday. The timetable is aimed at garnering peak television viewership — a priority for Trump as he faces the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history — though Sekulow also said that his side would not use its full 24-hour time allotment for defending Trump.

“We’re not going to try to run the clock out,” he said this week.

Democrats faced continued criticism from Republicans that their presentations were tedious and difficult to follow.

“I just thought yesterday was like, too much,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), calling the remarks repetitive and “mind-numbing.” “This needs to end. They’ve had an opportunity to make their case.”

While many Republicans echoed the view that the trial has been repetitive, every member of the Senate GOP caucus has voted against hearing from new witnesses or collecting new evidence.

It was clear when the trial resumed at 1 p.m. Friday that Schiff heeded some of Republicans’ complaints: rather than speaking for hours at a time, the managers presented in shorter spurts, rotating more often and punctuating their remarks with more video clips.

After Trump’s defense concludes, mostly likely on Monday, the trial will enter a question-and-answer phase that will last for up to 16 hours. This is expected to take place Tuesday and Wednesday, followed by a debate Thursday over whether to seek testimony from witnesses. Democrats are pushing for former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to appear, while most Republicans have shot down the idea of hearing from witnesses. But they have said that if Democrats secure the votes to subpoena any of their choices, the GOP will push for Joe or Hunter Biden to appear.

Democrats need four Republicans to join them in any attempt to secure new testimony or evidence, and the senators being targeted have been careful to say that they have made no decision — while giving no indication they are moving closer to supporting any subpoenas.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), one of the most closely watched Republican senators, said Friday that the House managers had “presented us with a mountain of overwhelming evidence,” though it was unclear which way he was leaning on the question of hearing more.

Alexander told reporters that he will make his decision on admitting witnesses and other new evidence only after the White House defense team makes its case.

“I think that question can only be answered then,” he said. “We’ve been polite to the House managers, listened to them carefully, and now we’re going to do the same with the president’s lawyers. I think the House managers have done a good job of making their arguments. But that doesn’t mean I will agree with them.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) raised the prospect that a Senate trial could drag on for months if Trump administration witnesses are called, arguing that the issue of executive privilege would have to be litigated in the courts.

“This could tie up the Senate through the election and even beyond as the courts litigate these claims,” Cornyn said during an appearance on conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt’s syndicated radio show. “We’ll wait and see, but right now, I’m not for extending this for months and months while claims of privilege and the like are litigated in the courts.”

The question of whether the Senate will seek more evidence was heightened Friday by a new Washington Post-ABC News poll revealing that a majority of American adults, 66 percent, support the Senate calling new witnesses to testify, as opposed to 27 percent who don’t.

ABC News also reported Friday that it reviewed a recording of Trump at a private dinner telling associates that he wanted then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gone, a reminder of the evidence yet to be uncovered about Trump’s actions.

“Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it,” Trump is heard saying, according to ABC News.

Schiff challenged the Senate to call the administration’s bluff on whether witnesses would be limited from testifying by executive privilege and let Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the trial, make those calls.

Calling executive privilege “the last refuge of the president’s team to conceal the evidence from the American people,” Schiff argued that Roberts should “decide issues of evidence and privilege” whenever witnesses or the president claim it, but that the assumption Trump will try to silence certain witnesses by claiming executive privilege should not keep the Senate from calling them to testify.

“The Senate will always have the opportunity to overrule the justice,” Schiff said to reporters, adding that “you cannot use executive privilege to hide wrongdoing or criminality or impeachable misconduct, and that is exactly the purpose for which they seek to use it.”

After Roberts scolded both sides for overheated rhetoric late Tuesday night, Democrats took pains to tone down their accusations against Trump and his supporters in the Senate.

Yet Schiff also sharpened his case on Friday, arguing that Republicans trust Trump at their own peril.

He invoked the late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) in arguing about the strategic importance of Ukraine as a U.S. ally and quoted him as saying, “We are all Ukrainians.”

And he made a lengthy case that Trump’s skepticism about the conclusions of U.S. intelligence services — particularly about Russian interference in the 2016 election — represents a “coup” for Russia.

“Has there ever been such a coup? I would submit to you that in the entire length of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had no such success. No such success,” Schiff said. “I hope it was worth it. I hope it was worth it for the president. Because it certainly wasn’t worth it for the United States.”

Trump’s defenders are focused on Biden’s push to oust former Ukraine prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin, who was overseeing a probe of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma and its owner at the same time that Biden’s son was serving as a member of the company’s board.

Biden’s actions were in line with official U.S. and European policy at the time — a consensus that Shokin was involved in corrupt schemes and needed to be removed.

Democrats detailed these facts on Thursday with the awareness that Trump’s legal team was likely to focus on them during their defense of the president.

The president’s aides and allies continued to portray the trial as a waste of time and one that is not capturing the public’s attention.

“As you’ve seen, the ratings keep going down every day in terms of viewers,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said on Fox News. “I think that next week, we need to get this over with so we can get on with the business of the country.”

Schiff concluded his remarks Friday night with a different message as he urged senators to support hearing more evidence.

“I ask you. I implore you: Give America a fair trial,” he told senators. “Give America a fair trial. She’s worth it.”

______

Michael Brice-Saddler, Scott Clement, Colby Itkowitz and John Wagner contributed to this report.

*********

0 notes

junker-town · 7 years

Text

The Top Whatever: Ranking college football teams after everything went all non-Alabama

The Top Whatever is a weekly ranking of only the college football teams that really need to be ranked at the moment. If you’re looking for the polls, those will be over here.

1. Alabama.

A boring, crushing, pleasantly consistent, 41-9 win over Arkansas.

Tell everyone who tried to find a different No. 1 team: welcome back. We tried to find others. How’d that work out? Did the Tide not process everyone like so much meat falling into the grinder? Did they not render almost every game a tedious scrimmage after the first 15 minutes?

Did that OTHER TEAM — maybe one you chose instead of Alabama as the nation’s best team — do something really stupid, like lose to Syracuse? On a Friday, no less? Did that OTHER TEAM go to Tempe and make a few late-night mistakes? (To be fair: Tempe is made for mistakes.) Did that OTHER TEAM, which seemed so much shinier and more interesting, score three points in a blowout at Cal? Did the diamond in the rough do something drastic, like losing to an underachieving Boise State?

They probably did. Everyone learned a few old lessons in Week 7.

Alabama remains the least entertaining and steadiest bet because of their bottomless depth chart and their ability to run the ball, pass just enough to win, and reduce whatever the opposing team is attempting to do to ashes by the second quarter.

Coming off a disappointing performance against Texas A&M, the Tide were the surest bet in the college football universe to win a blowout. This is mostly because Nick Saban undoubtedly made life for everyone around him a living hell this week, right down to his 8,827 coach-strong consultancy watching film until their eyes bled.

It’s cute to consider other teams, even if Alabama might — might — be beatable with a perfect storm. The offense remains largely one-dimensional and dependent on the run. The defense, like all defenses, can be broken down by a mobile quarterback having an insanely good game. The Tide fumbled two punts against Arkansas, something Saban mentioned in his postgame presser, because of course Saban mentioned that in his postgame presser.

They’re beatable, but they won’t do things to embarrass you. They won’t call you from jail in Syracuse, talking about how they lost a barfight with a giant orange. They won’t have a crazy story about losing your debit card in a bar in Arizona. (Those charges afterward are going to be weird.) They won’t lose to Cal. Alabama might do a lot of things in 2017, but dammit, we swear this: they won’t embarrass you by losing to Cal.

2. Georgia.

Won a rollicking, 53-28 matchup with Mizzou. That may look like a lot of points to give up to Missouri, but remember that playing the Tigers in 2017 is a lot like facing a button-masher in a fighting video game. They don’t know what they’re doing, everything good that happens is an accident, and after an initial flurry, they will collapse.

At 7-0, there are few mysteries about Georgia. They play brilliant defense. Their finesse/speed back, Sony Michel, hit poor DeMarkus Acy so hard, his feelings should have been hurt. When your speed back is doing things like that, you are in a rare, rare space as a football team.

When Georgia’s gone 7-0 before, it meant SEC titles at least, and in one modern case — the hallowed 1980 season — it meant a national championship. There is no snide joke about inevitably losing to Florida or Alabama here. I’ve been preparing my soul for the real possibility of consistently good Georgia football for several months now. For your own protection, I suggest you do the same.

3. TCU.

A 26-7 win over Kansas State. The Frogs continue to be whatever they have to be. Kansas State wanted to dominate possession, so TCU shut down the K-State run game, especially in short-yardage situations K-State has long dominated. From there, it was a matter of Kenny Hill being efficient, the Horned Frogs’ defense putting pressure on a backup quarterback, and the defense carrying the team.

And if the circumstances are reversed next week against Kansas — indulge the fantasy for a moment, okay — then TCU can probably still win, because they remain one of the few real complete teams. The offense can be efficient or explosive as needed, and the defense can apply pressure or fall back in coverage.

TCU is not the most talented team in the nation, and that might not matter at all because they are the most flexible. Flexible is hard to beat: just when you think you have one thing covered, TCU reaches an inch further than you can and creates a whole new problem just out of your reach. (Also: Kenny Hill, efficient quarterback! 2017 is stranger than we could have predicted.)

4. Miami.

A 25-24 thriller over Georgia Tech. Miami may or may not be a very good team overall, but I feel confident saying this:

The best team in the nation in the last two minutes of a game in 2017 might be Miami.

The absolute best team in the nation in the last 30 seconds of a football game is Miami.

The best receiver in the nation in the last 30 seconds of a football game is Miami’s Darrell Langham.

If you want to beat Miami, it’s probably best to have a large lead before the last two minutes of a football game. We recommend like, three touchdowns or so, just to be safe.

Also, the Canes beat a mean-ass Georgia Tech team custom-built for the letdown game Miami was supposed to have after beating Florida State. That’s no small accomplishment, especially since Miami politely handed Tech a touchdown on a failed surprise onside kick attempt.

This ended up being completely worth it since it broke commentator/perpetually terrified risk-phobe Rod Gilmore’s brain for the remainder of the game. If Rod Gilmore called the X Games, he would die screaming sometime in the second hour. “WHY WOULD YOU GO UPSIDE DOWN, EVER? WHY? IT’S TOO DANGEROUSSSSSSS—”

5. Wisconsin.

Beat Purdue, 17-9, a victory that is worth more than it used to be, via Purdue being interesting and good now. Wisconsin will probably win the West. Then, they will clean out the remainder of their schedule and step bravely into the ring in Indianapolis to take a 30-point loss from whatever monster roars in from the Big Ten East.

And that’s fine, because remember: Wisconsin will probably finish with a lovely, fat bowl junket to enjoy, and their former coach, Gary Andersen, just gave up $12 million so he could leave Corvallis, Oregon. Context is everything.

6. USF.

Defeated Cincinnati 33-3. The Department of Zero Sum Thinking would like to point out that, given the sludge remaining on the schedule, the Bulls should launch a PR campaign to pump up the reputation of the UCF Knights. UCF is the only remaining team of quality on the Bulls’ schedule, and USF needs to do everything it can to make that look like a Playoff play-in game.

We recommend targeting gullible voters and influencers with fake articles on Facebook in order to boost the reputation of the American Athletic Conference. Please click to share “TULSA BEATS BAMA 56-0” and “NAVY SINKS OHIO STATE 45-2 AT HOME” with all of your online friends. It’s worked before.

7. UCF.

Torched a hapless ECU team, 63-21. Like USF, there’s not much left on the schedule. However, whatever is left will be burned to the foundation, because UCF had 33 first downs yesterday, will probably have 30 first downs in every game moving forward, has a top-five yardage offense, and is hoarding the allotment of offensive touchdowns granted to the entire state of Florida. A terrifying team to face right now, and one that will probably blow up someone up in a major bowl game.

WISELY AVOIDED PLAYING FOOTBALL THIS WEEK

Penn State. Please remember that the Top Whatever ranks only the teams that played this week. The Nittany Lions are a Playoff-quality team at this point and can hammer that point home against a punchless Michigan squad that destroyed them in their last meeting. Will someone email me about this, failing to read all the way down or understand the concept? YOU BET THEY WILL, READER.

SOME OF THE ONE-LOSS TEAMS I’LL PROBABLY START PEPPERING IN NEXT WEEK, WHEN AND IF I FEEL LIKE IT, PRESENTED IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER

Ohio State. J.T. Barrett threw five TDs in a single game against Nebraska. Yes, that’s legal now.

Oklahoma. Baker Mayfield flew off the field after a win over Texas wearing a golden cowboy hat and riding an invisible horse. This sentence is literal, and we are making nothing up.

Baker Mayfield waited patiently for possession of the golden hat…and then galloped off the field at the Cotton Bowl on an imaginary horse. http://pic.twitter.com/pz0viRbPkJ

— George Schroeder (@GeorgeSchroeder) October 15, 2017

NC State. We’re just as shocked as you are, okay?

Clemson. Injuries piling up really shouldn’t relegate them to the B-pile just yet. Also, and we say this with all sincerity: Syracuse was due to kneecap someone, and Clemson walked in at exactly the wrong moment.

Michigan State. [gestures at undefeated record in Big Ten, waves hands, shrugs, walks away from chalkboard dotted with inscrutable equations, shaking head]

Michigan. Starting to think overleveraging a team’s futures on the market based mostly on a blowout of an impotent Florida might have been a bad idea.

Notre Dame. Starting to think shorting a team’s futures on the market based mostly on a narrow loss to a really good Georgia might have been a bad idea.

USC. Sam Darnold didn’t throw an interception against Utah despite throwing the ball 50 times. Darnold threw 9 INTs for the entire 2016 season; he’s thrown nine in 2017. This is what an optimist would take away from this: Apparently Darnold just gets nine INTs in a season, can budget them however he likes, and got them all out of the way early this year. He did fumble twice and lose another off a teammate’s facemask, however.

Washington. It will be so hard to justify putting them in a Playoff, given the weakness of that schedule, and their losing in the exact, excruciating way they lost to Arizona State. Plus their rivalry game got a lot less lustrous rankings-wise, thanks to Wazzu completely befouling their bed at Cal. WASHINGTON STATE TRANSITIVELY RUINING YOUR SEASON, HUSKIES! Even their losses spite you.

Kentucky. If you got this far down in the column, congratulations on paying attention and realizing that Kentucky is 5-1, and would be 6-0, if they had decided to cover two Florida receivers. We’re probably not going to rank them just yet, but thank you for reading this far. The best easter eggs are the ones you don’t have to make up.

0 notes