The Impeachment Thread

[Larry]

30 minutes ago, tshile said:

why is witholding the articles leverage?

 

i don't get why anyone in the senate would give two craps if the house never votes. in fact, given the way people have talked about the impeachment, i'm not so sure withholding them helps the dems at all... it might actually hurt them... and maybe a lot...

 

Yeah, I don't get it either.  

 

Seems like a transparent political stunt.  Makes them look childish.  

 

[NoCalMike]

If anything I think what the Dems are doing is to push hard on the "Senate is rigging this" angle in the public square.  They are going to keep harping on the need for Mulvaney, Bolton, whoever else to testify because they have the information that the Republicans have been saying this entire time is missing.  If the Democrats can win over public  opinion that without those 1st hand witnesses testifying, the process is rigged for the President, then it can back the Senate into a corner or at least damage them and the President enough under the guise of this being a huge cover up by Team (R) that it could swing the election.

 

I think the Dems strategy is just as much looking ahead at 2020 Election as it is removal from office. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Jesus Christ.

 

GOP spends three years screaming about an Obama spying on Trump campaign fabrication. Trump says Obama should be arrested for treason over it.

 

Trump really does extort a foreign government to investigate his political opponent because his son got a job there.

 

While AT THE SAME ****ING TIME, the RNC is buying up copies of Trump Junior’s book accusing Democrats of being the party of everything bad that the GOP actually is.

 

And then they scream about how unfair the process is, most of their grievances being complete bull****.

 

And then straight up ****ing tell America that they are going to run a sham process in the senate.

 

And when dems don’t roll the **** over I have to hear how childish they are? What the **** people? **** those mother****ers in the GOP. Destroy those ****es.

[Simmsy]

21 minutes ago, drowland said:

 

With the Dems having limited power in the Senate, their only real leverage is when they turn it over to the Senate.  There are no rules on what timeframe it has to happen in, but I don't think the Rs want this trial happening during the middle of an election year.  They want it over in January.  

I've heard one theory (this is what I'm assuming the Dems are doing) where the Dems want to get this done and over with in the Senate by the end of February. Apparently, they want to lock the GOP senators into a yes or no vote before March which is the last chance you have (I believe it's March) to join the primary. If they vote no in the senate, middle of the road senators like Collin and Manchin will have no Dem support. The ones that vote yes, will have a primary challenge brought forth by the GOP and have a much harder time getting reelected.

[Larry]

Long as we're making analogies to a criminal trial, (as inaccurate as they are), I think I'll observe that in a criminal trial, one side has the authority to ask the judge to subpoena a witness.  The other side can argue against it.  But the judge decides whether the court should hear from the witness.  Not a majority vote of the jury.  

 

In fact, in a criminal trial, the jury doesn't get to ask questions at all.  There's a prosecuting attorney (the attorney who got the indictment), and a defense attorney.  And they ask questions of the witnesses, and make motions to the judge.  The jury sits there with their mouths shut.  (Or they get kicked off the jury.)  

 

(Somebody forward this post to John Roberts.)  

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Springfield]

They’re just flexin them nuts that we the people elected them to flex.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

why is witholding the articles leverage?

 

i don't get why anyone in the senate would give two craps if the house never votes. in fact, given the way people have talked about the impeachment, i'm not so sure withholding them helps the dems at all... it might actually hurt them... and maybe a lot...

 

There is no downside to shining a light on the Senate openly saying they won't allow witnesses and that they are consulting with the White. None. The upside is the court cases continue on the subpoenas and more information continues to come to light. Trump will have to give a state of the union while the articles are sitting there. 

 

Plus, this is just baiting Trump cause he claims he wants a show trial with witnesses. 

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, Hersh said:

There is no downside to shining a light on the Senate openly saying they won't allow witnesses and that they are consulting with the White. None. The upside is the court cases continue on the subpoenas and more information continues to come to light. Trump will have to give a state of the union while the articles are sitting there. 

I disagree with you that there is no downside to prolonging this. I see huge downside. 
 

maybe we’ll find out. 

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

And when dems don’t roll the **** over I have to hear how childish they are?

Yeah this is sort of where we’ve been for a while. 
 

part of winning the game is understanding who’s playing and by what rules. The dems have sucked at this for as long as I can remember. 
 

they’re real good about complaining about the unfairness of it all afterwards, but not real good at understanding how to win 

[Hersh]

What's the huge downside? 

[@DCGoldPants]

Just now, Hersh said:

What's the huge downside? 

 

I see an upside for the Dems Senate chances if they shine a light on this through next fall. Focus their money and energy on races like the Collins seat. Make it about her pretending to be some thoughtful representative of the independent minded people in her state. You know she isn't going to ask him to come up and campaign for her. 

 

Again, the Senate is your firewall. You have to take that. It's as important as the WH next year. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

What's the huge downside? 

 

That they're going to make this more about getting trump and playing political games than conducting a legitimate impeachment, which is going to further the argument that this is all for show and politics and not because there's something real people should care about.

[Dan T.]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

That they're going to make this more about getting trump and playing political games than conducting a legitimate impeachment, which is going to further the argument that this is all for show and politics and not because there's something real people should care about.

 

You mean a legitimate impeachment - as in carefully and soberly considering the facts of the case brought forth from the House investigation?  That kind of legitimate impeachment?

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Dan T. said:

 

You mean a legitimate impeachment - as in carefully and soberly considering the facts of the case brought forth from the House investigation?  That kind of legitimate impeachment?

 

I don't think holding it in the house is going to go over well for the dems with that group of people who isn't sold either way. I don't know what the right description for them is.

 

You either pay attention to the general public and how they react to things or you don't. I don't think this will go over well. It would be better if it does go over well, like you guys seem to think it will. Maybe we'll see who's right.

 

I don't know how any of you can pay attention to anything over the last 10 years and how we got here and think that this plan is going to play out that way, but oh well. Good luck.

[Simmsy]

2 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

There is no downside to shining a light on the Senate openly saying they won't allow witnesses and that they are consulting with the White. None. The upside is the court cases continue on the subpoenas and more information continues to come to light. Trump will have to give a state of the union while the articles are sitting there. 

 

Plus, this is just baiting Trump cause he claims he wants a show trial with witnesses. 

If there is a God, up in heaven, Trump will rant and ramble about impeachment during the SotU address.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Larry]

40 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Those guys are doing something Wrong. Therefore I approve of doing something else Wrong.  

 

Just thought I'd more clearly state what your post actually says. 

[Springfield]

I mean, at this point you’re either sold or you aren’t.  You have to be living under a rock to not have your mind made up, and if so, this delay in voting shouldn’t sway you one way or another.

[drowland]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

I disagree with you that there is no downside to prolonging this. I see huge downside. 
 

maybe we’ll find out. 

 

We'll see what happens after impeachment is voted on in the House.  I think a lot of what Mitch and Lindsay are saying right now is to rattle House Ds who are on the fence.   Lindsay did this when he challenged House Ds to vote on the formal inquiry which they didn't have to do.  "Put your name on the line" he said.    And then they did it and Lindsay got more pissed.  Quite frankly I think the Rs in the Senate are more scared to put their name on anything acquitting Trump.  

[Cooked Crack]

3 minutes ago, drowland said:

.  Quite frankly I think the Rs in the Senate are more scared to put their name on anything acquitting Trump.  

Nah. Most of them don't care. They'll acquit Trump and blame the process.

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I mean, at this point you’re either sold or you aren’t.  You have to be living under a rock to not have your mind made up, and if so, this delay in voting shouldn’t sway you one way or another.

 

Yeah there's part of me that thinks that too.

 

Then there's part of me that wanders around and talks to people in real life and realizes we (here at ES) have a warped view of reality.

 

Zoom out of it a bit and just ask yourself... do you think it's more likely a trump supporter decides, over time, that yeah he should be impeached? Or do you think it's more likely current supporter of impeachment might decide, over time, that maybe this was all a giant political stunt/circus and that they're tired of it and it should go away and that if the dems were actually right they would have gone forward with it?

 

Cause I see way more people falling into the later category than the former. Way more.

 

(and I think he should have been impeached and removed 3 years ago...)

 

[EmirOfShmo]

The Dems are going to scream "Release the docs if you're innocent & let us interview Bolton & Mulvaney." The longer the WH refuses the worse Agent Orange will look. 

 

It took the Democrats ~3 months to get SCOTUS to force Nixon to release the tapes. Maybe this turns into the same scenario - prior to the trial moving to the Senate. 
 

"What did he know & when did he know it?" 

[Springfield]

53 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Yeah there's part of me that thinks that too.

 

Then there's part of me that wanders around and talks to people in real life and realizes we (here at ES) have a warped view of reality.

 

Zoom out of it a bit and just ask yourself... do you think it's more likely a trump supporter decides, over time, that yeah he should be impeached? Or do you think it's more likely current supporter of impeachment might decide, over time, that maybe this was all a giant political stunt/circus and that they're tired of it and it should go away and that if the dems were actually right they would have gone forward with it?

 

Cause I see way more people falling into the later category than the former. Way more.

 

(and I think he should have been impeached and removed 3 years ago...)

 

I can see that, even agree.

 

I think most people who are in the impeachment camp decided he should have been impeached at, or around, the Muller Report (and the facts leading up to).  I’d bet a fraction of people have used this whole Ukraine thing to push them one way or another.
 

Let’s face it.  Nobody likes to be wrong.  Once their mind is made up, people will fight tooth and nail to support that reality.  At this point, I’m in it for the long haul.  Ugly or pretty, he should not be president.

 

I think relatively few people are walking back.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

Nah. Most of them don't care. They'll acquit Trump and blame the process.

 

The process.  Biden.  The FBI.  The dossier.  Hillary.  The Ukraine.  Obama.  Illegal immigrants.  Comet Ping Pong.  Peter Strozk.  Fake News.  . . . . .