Impeachment Thread: Trump retaliating at anyone who wasn't willing to commit criminal obstruction
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
No they won't because the info that comes out later won't be under oath. Any claim made later can we excused by "that person is lying or disgruntled". You couldn't do that to the witnesses that we've seen so far because they testified under oath.
As well they should. It reeks of politics to not look deeper into this when given the opportunity. Nothing more would come out that would lead to trumps removal or electoral chances so there's nothing to lose. Now it's going to look like the coverup that Schiff called it out to be.
Let there be no confussion. This retiring senator was the sacrificial lamb. McConnell is allowing Romney Collins and Murkowski to vote for witnesses and this dude just happened to be the one to get the vote he needed. Every R senator is going to get varying levels of shit for this vote so the most vulnerable are given a pass up to the point that what's actually important (no witnesses) still happens.
If he weren't there it would be Murkowski. If she weren't there it would be Collins, if she weren't there it would be Romney.
If he weren't there it would be Murkowski. If she weren't there it would be Collins, if she weren't there it would be Romney.
I'll amend my statement. It will be seen by the left as being a coverup, it will be seen by the right as "business as usual", which is equally damning. Next time I see Sasse I'm going to give him crap about it if he votes for no witnesses. The opportunity exists for them to rise above the fray and hold people accountable, but instead they're going to punt.
We know nothing will lead to Trump's removal. What we don't know that witnesses will tell us and Republicans don't want us to know is
1.) Did Trump do anything illegal that we don't know about?
2.) Who else might have been involved in this scheme.
If McConnell had another vote there would be one more republican voting for witnesses. If he had 2 there would be 2 more.
The public will see through this and the best part is... Bolton's book is coming out anyway. We get to display a corrupt Senate cover-up and the info that would come out from witnesses still comes out.
The public will see through this and the best part is... Bolton's book is coming out anyway. We get to display a corrupt Senate cover-up and the info that would come out from witnesses still comes out.
So now you're going to believe what Bolton says? He's always been public enemy #1 on the left because he's a war-monger, but now he's on the right side? I guess politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Yep. McConnell controls everything. He didn't want Roberts being a deciding vote. Alexander would have voted for witnesses if he wasn't doing a favor for his best bud.
You don't have to agree with Bolton's world philosophy to believe that he is a serious, well educated person.
I look at the likelihood.
When you bet in sports a parlay of favorites becomes a long shot really quickly.
1 person lying? Possible
2?
3?
4?
5?
6?
7?
All telling the same story. All accounts backing up what we know is likely to be true. Do I trust a dozen witnesses and Bolton's first hand account over the claims of innocence of a man who is accused of the act? Yeah, I do. Would like like to hear it under oath? We all would, except Republican politicians, because hearing it under oath is crippling to their defense that "no first hand witnesses heard Trump link the support."
The public will be able to understand exactly what happened here and Bolton being blocked may speak louder than Bolton under oath.
I don't know if the public will fully grasp what is happening. It might just get tossed aside as "politics as usual". What I do think is happening is that Trump's "brand" of draining the swamp is diminishing.
Lamar Alexander's statement was fascinating. In regards to the Abuse of Power article, he said POTUS did what he was accused of, the House Manager's proved it, it was inappropriate, but it's not worthy of impeachment/removal. I hope a decent number of Republican Senators make similar statements.
What if his testimony is the same as all of the others in that it was just an assumption or hearsay? I agree that if he actually heard the president say it that things change big time. If his testimony is no different than Sondland then it doesnt matter any more than a rumor that has just reached another person.
Dont need everyone. Trump won the important swing states by under 1%. Just need a few that pay attention.
Did anyone else appreciate the Irony of Bondi complaining about Hunter's extravagant monthly payments from Burisma, when she was just getting paid $115k/month as a registered foreign agent of Qatar "in matters relating to combating human trafficking"?
I guess we'll have to wait until the book comes out. The WH has a draft manuscript. They don't even need witnesses to find out the truth. They could subpoena the draft. But... this all assumes that that primary goal is understanding what happened but we know what they are really here to do.
The most telling thing here should be that McConnell would NEVER miss a chance to make democrats look foolish if the contents of that book helped show trumps innocence. He'd be calling Bolton as a witness so fast your head would spin.
The fact that hes blocking it should tell you all you need to know about its contents.
Yea I mean the left all of the sudden hoping John Bolton comes to the rescue is ironic, but I think seeing crazy-town descend on Bolton from the right has been more entertaining. I wonder what kind of wake-up call that is for Bolton. You're a highly respected DC conservative power player for decades, you publicly cross the cult leader and then boom, you get stuff like this...
Lamar Alexander (some intern probably) just wrote a long ass tweet that ended with. "Let the people decide."
This is nutty. We did decide. We elected a Congress to fulfill their constitutional duties. One of the duties defined in the constitution is impeachment.
The framers didn't say "when a president does a no-no the people will vote if he needs to be removed."
I have no idea how these dudes get away with calling themselves constitutional conservatives when they ignore the clearly defined duties because they think we're too close to an election or it's too divisive. That's not what the constitution says. It's not even a reasonable interpretation in any way.
This is nutty. We did decide. We elected a Congress to fulfill their constitutional duties. One of the duties defined in the constitution is impeachment.
The framers didn't say "when a president does a no-no the people will vote if he needs to be removed."
I have no idea how these dudes get away with calling themselves constitutional conservatives when they ignore the clearly defined duties because they think we're too close to an election or it's too divisive. That's not what the constitution says. It's not even a reasonable interpretation in any way.
So assuming we get no witnesses and the acquittal today (or soon after), what's the political fallout?
I think the Democrats were smart to set expectations at getting witnesses. The base knew conviction wasn't realistic, but witnesses were. It was also a super reasonable ask, to the point where ~70% of the public was on board. So Republicans had to choose between political damage via Bolton/Mulvaney testimony, or political damage of looking like they are trying to cover for POTUS.
I also think it's hard to predict which scenario is better for the GOP, but just getting it over with seems like the logical pick when you've got uncertainty both ways.
I think the Democrats were smart to set expectations at getting witnesses. The base knew conviction wasn't realistic, but witnesses were. It was also a super reasonable ask, to the point where ~70% of the public was on board. So Republicans had to choose between political damage via Bolton/Mulvaney testimony, or political damage of looking like they are trying to cover for POTUS.
I also think it's hard to predict which scenario is better for the GOP, but just getting it over with seems like the logical pick when you've got uncertainty both ways.
An Insightful and well thought out post. Thanks for joining the conversation and contributing. Without you there would be no Dale Gribble looking post-middle aged man with his red flannel shirt tucked into his wranglers covering a beer gut to fist pump at the libs getting owned. You fill an important role around here and I appreciate you.
I agree with the principal that all impeachments should be bi-partisan. But what if one side is just objectively wrong? I mean, if Republicans hadn't turned on Nixon, does that in-and-of-itself absolve him of the underlying offenses? In other words, is the validity of impeachment measured by how well the impeached can hold together his own base and caucus?
Similarly, if Trump had become unpopular amongst Republicans, and these exact same charges had received bi-partisan support - does that increase the validity of the impeachment?
In other words, the underlying behavior is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not the accused can maintain support of the base.
The removal part of impeachment feels like it's close to a dead letter.
Similarly, if Trump had become unpopular amongst Republicans, and these exact same charges had received bi-partisan support - does that increase the validity of the impeachment?
In other words, the underlying behavior is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not the accused can maintain support of the base.
The removal part of impeachment feels like it's close to a dead letter.
Some day the Trump era will end, what do these people plan to do when they've burned all bridges?
I watched a really good documentary (2 parts) on PBS last night called Obama & Trump. It explains the fervor of Trump supporters. They hate establishment whether that is Democrat or Republican. I'll get to part 2 tonight.
I was looking at the elections of 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 last night. In each of those elections the Republican candidates received between 59M-62M votes even though the voting population increased each election. Romney actually received a higher percentage of the vote than Trump. It is the democrat that either over or under performed receiving between 59M-69M votes. The 2020 Democratic nominee should/could hit 70M votes easily while I expect the Republican nominee to have a ceiling of 65M votes.
The vote is about tying republicans in swing states to Trump. Susan Collins can't win reelection in Maine if she is tied to Trump. Same with Colorado. This is damaging in any state where we have a red senator and Trump has negative approval.
Those two are done. Collins should have been done a long time ago. However, Doug Jones is probably also done.
As long as they don't run a pedo against him again then yeah for sure he's done.
It's all over folks!
Yet another Democratic partisan charade blows up in their face and results in embarrassment. Russia hoax, Kavanaugh attempted smear campaign, and now this.
Onto seeing which dolt socialist they nominate for an ass kicking in November.
Yet another Democratic partisan charade blows up in their face and results in embarrassment. Russia hoax, Kavanaugh attempted smear campaign, and now this.
Onto seeing which dolt socialist they nominate for an ass kicking in November.
Senate republicans went against 75% of the country who wanted witnesses.
How embarrassing for the dems!
Of course not. Back then, Republicans had enough self-respect to address the obvious. Everybody knew Nixon was guilty as sin. Impeachment followed by a Senate trial was designed to deal with corruption in the White House. Nixon knew the hand-writing was on the wall.
The Founding Fathers naively believed that Senators would consider the evidence and render a decision in the best interest of our country. They never expected a Senate Majority that would show a lack of moral character by completely ignoring their Constitutional duties and voting for acquittal without ever reviewing the incriminating evidence or interviewing key witnesses.
The only bright side of this sham trail is the American people can see and smell a cover-up a mile away. They, along with Trump, will pay for their sins next November.
I think this is a win for democrats. Their base is happy with their effort even if it failed while the Republican base is split, because they saw this as a chance to expose the corrupt players in washington. The (R) friends of mine that I've talked to sound like they would have traded trump being removed for a full on investigation. I dont think it hurts trumps chances in November but it definitely hurts senate republicans. Like I said earlier, his base is tired of the "business as usual" aspect of this so I would imagine we will see a lot of fringe primary challengers in 2022 and a lot of people who just dont vote in November.
You're dreaming if you think trump loses by 5 million votes. He'll probably lose the popular vote and maybe Pennsylvania but I won't be surprised if he picks up Minnesota and Virginia. I think we are going to see a lower turnout than 2016 if bernie wins.
i know several dems and even independents that hate trump but have said that if bernie wins they probably wont vote at all.
Latest posts
-
-
UCF fb -2.5 pt favorite over WVU (opening line on DraftKings)- Latest: hemightbejeremy
-
