Impeachment Thread: Trump retaliating at anyone who wasn't willing to commit criminal obstruction
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
Opinion: I think there a whole bunch of other conservatives in the House and Senate that agree with Amash, but lack the will to risk their political future.
Even if we agreed that the Page FISA is equivalent to the implication that Trump Tower was bugged, what does that say for his credibility? That he's a broken clock? Or a blind squirrel maybe? The dude is more than happy to throw whatever conspiracy theory he's heard into the public square.
Maybe that is the case but releasing tax returns has been traditional for candidates since Nixon. Releasing transcripts is just something that people applied to Obama, much like his birth certificate. Honest question, what do you think Republicans reaction to Obama would have been if he refused to release his tax returns?
I don't know what the second part of your post means. The US government used its power to sway the election?
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Sure dude. You regurgitate whatever comes across your exclusively-left wing twitter feed here but you didn't vote for HRC. Mmmmmmmmmkay.
17 massive mistakes that led to the rubber stamp of the fisa court. fisa needs to be done away with completely. its unconsitutional. for those that say its ok, please tell me how you think if it would be a good idea to load the fbi with a ton of his own people that hate anyone with a D next to their name and then had them spy on warren leading up to the 2020 election? you cant.
I dont know how Republicans would have reacted, but I doubt it would be half as big of a deal that's been made of Trump. Mostly because obama didn't have a controversial financial past like Trump does.
Most of the GOP talking heads in the House last night had cringe-worthy defenses of the President. It was all about the process with them. One idiot said yesterday's vote was a "Day that will live in Infamy" like Pearl Harbor. Are you KIDDING me???!? Didn't a lot of American servicemen DIE in that sneak Japanese attack?
The gringiest of the cringy was when one Georgia Rep said that Poor Donald has been treated worse than Pontius Pilate treated Jesus Christ. WTF???!?
That is the type of stuff that makes it sound like a cult. Nobody in their right mind thinks this is anything close to Pearl Harbor, and nobody in their right mind thinks the serial adulterer who just ran a sham charity is a Christ like figure.
The people who pretended he faked his birth certificate and hid his transcripts because of some nefarious secret wouldn't have made a big deal about it? Seriously?
But Democrats didn't buy into it, Republicans did. Sure Hillary's campaign tried to start rumors and it was a dumb tactic that never caught on with Dem voters or the media. So in 2019 you can't possibly associate the Birther movement with Hillary or Democrats, Republicans, including Trump, were the one's who embraced and ran with it for years.
Last edited:
He's been unhinged ever since he realized that it's apparent to everyone that this is just one, massive, partisan waste of time that voters in swing districts are rejecting as a farce.
Fringe republicans and opportunists. There wasn't a mainstream movement about it because everybody knew that even if he was born in Kenya it didn't matter.
The current president became a fixture on Fox news because of it and spoke of it often. It was a lot more mainstream than you are giving it credit for.
Nice attempt at revisionist history. I seem to recall one of the cornerstones of Trump's candidacy for the Presidency was his insistence that Obama was an illegitimate President.
If there was nothing 'mainstream' about this notion, why did it take the GOP front-runner OVER FIFTEEN MONTHS of running for President before he finally opined that Obama was a citizen after all.
Why won't Mitch McConnell call the 4 witnesses that the minority leader is requesting?
-These are 4 Trump appointees, not democrats, not never trumpers.
-They have first hand knowledge of the situation and offer a valuable perspective.
-Their testimony may be helpful or harmful to either side but they know the truth and they can help put this to rest one way or another.
The only real way through this is if accurate information is shared that helps arrive at a consensus conclusion. Hiding information makes no sense at all unless the goal is to cover up the truth.
-These are 4 Trump appointees, not democrats, not never trumpers.
-They have first hand knowledge of the situation and offer a valuable perspective.
-Their testimony may be helpful or harmful to either side but they know the truth and they can help put this to rest one way or another.
The only real way through this is if accurate information is shared that helps arrive at a consensus conclusion. Hiding information makes no sense at all unless the goal is to cover up the truth.
[
This is gonna be interesting. The strategies are obvious. Democrats see tremendous value in having these witnesses testify. Trump probably is all for it - he loves reality TV and itches for the fight. But no doubt everyone around him is saying what a terrible idea it is. Mitch knows that this testimony can only possibly make it worse for Trump and by extension, his vulnerable Senators.
There's broad public support for a real trial with witnesses, but there's also going to be public desire for resolution. Now we we wage a PR battle - is the Trial delayed because Republicans refuse to hold a fair and impartial proceeding? Or is delayed because house Democrats are making unreasonable demands on the Senate?
This is gonna be interesting. The strategies are obvious. Democrats see tremendous value in having these witnesses testify. Trump probably is all for it - he loves reality TV and itches for the fight. But no doubt everyone around him is saying what a terrible idea it is. Mitch knows that this testimony can only possibly make it worse for Trump and by extension, his vulnerable Senators.
There's broad public support for a real trial with witnesses, but there's also going to be public desire for resolution. Now we we wage a PR battle - is the Trial delayed because Republicans refuse to hold a fair and impartial proceeding? Or is delayed because house Democrats are making unreasonable demands on the Senate?
If these witnesses were able to exonerate Trump and make the democrats look bad they would call them in a heartbeat. They aren't calling them because their testimony would be damaging and in McConnell's own words he isn't looking to do his job and be a fair juror, he's looking to protect Trump
Agree. And I think McConnell made a huge mistake in admitting that like he did. I think that gave Pelosi the leverage she needed to justify holding the articles back.
I see a huge vulnerability though for the Democrats. Mitch can handle waiting a few weeks, but can Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, and Booker? The Iowa Caucuses are Feb 3rd. I think the Democrats rushed this process primarily to prevent it interfering with the primaries.
The candidates shouldn't be impacted by the process. They are competing for voters with near universal support for impeachment. They also all individually have near 100% support for impeachment except for Tulsi who just voted "present" but I think we all know what's going on there.
LMAO. Says the guy who believes a delay in the House sending their articles of impeachment to the Senate is "Unconstitutional."
True but the Iowa caucuses are a big deal and it's a close race. Of the front runners, Biden and Mayor Pete will be practically living in Iowa organizing and motivating voters while the others spend 6 days a week at the Trial. That could well have a material impact on the election - a few of just a few points in Iowa could have substantial impact on momentum after that. It's definitely a big deal to the Senators impacted.
This is like saying that MSNBC putting Dennis Kucinich on the air several times makes his bizarre positions mainstream. Trump wasn't a Republican figure at all when he started spewing that conspiracy crap and I don't know of a single republican politician who subscribed to it.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but it was the Houses responsibility to form a case against Trump, the senate is just supposed to act as a jury on the case as has been presented to them. I dont like it, but mcConnell has a reasonable position in saying that it isn't the (senate) jury's job to investigate further.
Dude, it was all over Fox news, Hannity and Limbaugh questioned his eligibility, and all of the other talk radio personalities. Not to mention Sarah Palin, who was a Republican politician, as was Michelle Bachman, several state Reps, etc etc etc. I don't know if you are just misremembering it or intentionally downplaying it, but birtherism was most certainly a mainstream thing. Even electors in AZ, the people who actually vote for the president, brought it up.
Here is a quick wiki rundown for you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
Last edited:
The Senate can (and typically does) hold a trial. They don't just look at the house info and vote. There are impeachment managers who essentially act as prosecuting attorneys, and Pelosi and the House are determining who those managers are going to be. Nothing Pelosi has done is out of line.
Not sure if what you are saying is accurate because I haven't followed this since Tuesday. Are you saying that Pelosi is delaying the transmission of the articles of impeachment until she puts together the house legal team together that presents the case? If that's the case, totally legit. I can't imagine it will take more than a month to do that.
More or less yes, though she did say who the managers end up being will depend on how the Senate intends to run their part of it. There is probably some gamesmanship to it, but McConnell is doing that as well.
This is kind of ironic. Pelosi is withholding something until the Senate does what she wants. Isn't that a quid-pro-quo?
It is a negotiation between two chambers of congress. That isnt remotely the same thing as asking a foreign power to investigate your political rival.
LOL. This whole thing is actually pretty fascinating. It's not very often that we get to operate at a raw constitutional level like this, with very little precedent. Mitch is flexing his power and Nancy is flexing hers. Nancy has no authority to dictate the Senate Rules to Mitch, and likewise Mitch has no authority to dictate when and on what terms Nancy uses to decide when to pass the articles on. This is precisely the kind of conflict that I believe the founders would have wanted, a check-and-balance almost that forces a negotiated solution where both sides have to give up something.
Trump and Mitch's best case scenario is a quick trial with no witnesses. Their worst case scenario is a delayed trial (closer to election) with House Managers who can call whatever witnesses and subpoena whatever documents they want. Neither of those scenarios are likely to occur as long as Nancy and Mitch can hold their caucuses together.
So if we game this out and neither bends an inch? Then Nancy accepts Mitch's trial terms, but gets to control timing. She holds the articles until she believes that the "sham" trial is most damaging to Trump and McConnell. Mitch gets bad timing but is still able to prevent witnesses and document discovery. We get an impeachment trial during the heart of a Presidential election that includes another 8 months or so of investigative reporting, leaks, FOIA requests, etc. Recognize the uncertainty that presents to Mitch - he has no idea what might break between now and then. Heck, a brand new scandal could break and he could end up with additional articles to deal with.
That said, I think both Nancy and Mitch are shrewd enough to take a staring contest down to the wire. But I think Trump's impulsiveness puts Mitch at a strategic disadvantage here. We all know he's going to rage-tweet during this show down. He's going to say stuff like "I want people to testify, but..." and Mitch's vulnerable Senators are going to have a harder and harder time explaining why there were no witnesses.
Based on that, I think a compromise on Trial terms sooner rather than later is the most likely outcome (sometime in January). But this entire deal of holding the articles came out of left field, so it's naive to think we don't have other big surprises coming...
No...it's saying you want something that will benefit her party politically for action from another. Pretty similar actually.
No it isnt. Negotiations between respective parties doesnt equate to a quid pro quo. By that logic you could argue any negotiation is quid pro quo, since one thing is typically exchanged for another. Legally speaking Quid pro quo is typically when a person in a position of power makes demands to get what they want in an unethical and/or illegal manner. And in this case, that involved asking a foreign nation to investigate your political rival. Pelosi is simply wanting answers to how the Senate is going to proceed, because it will impact who she selects as her impeachment managers. There is nothing unethical or illegal about what she is doing.
You are unequivocally an utter moron. The last sentence is truly an embarrassment to this forum.
Horse trading is what Congress has been all about since the beginning. Like making hot dogs, the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" approach to bill passing is not pretty to watch close up, but, nevertheless, it's served our country well over the years. The Speilberg film on Abraham Lincoln that came out a few years ago illustrated this quite well.
But when politicians resort to horse trading for PERSONAL gain, that's a horse of a different color. If you don't believe it, just ask former-Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich.
But when politicians resort to horse trading for PERSONAL gain, that's a horse of a different color. If you don't believe it, just ask former-Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich.
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/12/25/republican-senator-disturbed-by-mcconnell-impeachment-remark/
Omigod, a Republican Senator with a conscience!!!!
Omigod, a Republican Senator with a conscience!!!!
Oh no, not "disturbed!" Is this past "concerned" and "deeply troubled?" The only thing that matters is the votes and these moderate republicans ALWAYS fall in line when they are needed.
