Impeachment
Re: Impeachment
And it's official. The first article of impeachment has passed.
The vote on the second article hasn't happened yet as of this writing, but it'll go the same. I think one doofus said he was voting for 1 and against 2, but I don't expect any other split votes.
ETA And the second article passes as expected. Donald J Trump is the third American president to be impeached.
The vote on the second article hasn't happened yet as of this writing, but it'll go the same. I think one doofus said he was voting for 1 and against 2, but I don't expect any other split votes.
ETA And the second article passes as expected. Donald J Trump is the third American president to be impeached.
Re: Impeachment
I think you mean THE DEMOCRATS ARE UNDERMINING THE FOUNDING CONSTITUTION MARRIAGE FATHER DEMOCRACY 2016 ELECTION SICK WITCH HUNT
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21390
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Impeachment
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a8z ... power-play
Really curious about Brent's "The Dems are playing 5-D Chess" claim now...
Minutes after the House voted to impeach President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dropped a bombshell: She won’t send the articles of impeachment to the Senate until she feels they’ll get a fair hearing on the other side of Capitol Hill.
Really curious about Brent's "The Dems are playing 5-D Chess" claim now...
- Brantly B.
- Woah Dangsaurus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm
Re: Impeachment
Completely in line with what they think they're doing. I'm not sure if it'll actually work though. I didn't accuse them of suddenly not being Democrats.
Re: Impeachment
They talked a bit about that on yesterday's All the President's Lawyers and they didn't think it made a lot of sense. "If you don't meet our demands, we won't do the thing you don't want us to do" isn't exactly the best leverage. It also undermines the message that this is urgent and can't wait, because Trump is already tampering in the next election.
OTOH, spending more time calling attention to Mitch trying to rig the trial in Trump's favor, and giving Trump more time to freak out and act rashly against his own interest, could be a good move. And it's consistent with my earlier thoughts about waiting for the courts to compel more witnesses.
OTOH, spending more time calling attention to Mitch trying to rig the trial in Trump's favor, and giving Trump more time to freak out and act rashly against his own interest, could be a good move. And it's consistent with my earlier thoughts about waiting for the courts to compel more witnesses.
Re: Impeachment
Looks like the House will be sending the articles to the Senate this week.
I'm not sure if delaying did any good, but at least it doesn't appear to have done any harm.
I'm not sure if delaying did any good, but at least it doesn't appear to have done any harm.
Re: Impeachment
I'm seeing reports now that the Senate is expected to vote to allow witnesses. If that turns out to be true, then that's potentially a big deal, and would explain what the point of the delay was.
Calling witnesses doesn't mean that the Republicans won't ultimately acquit. But it probably means the public learns more details that look bad for Trump, and for the Senate Republicans covering his ass.
And even if McConnell gets what he wants and doesn't call any witnesses, that's still bad news for vulnerable senators like Collins and McSally, because the public overwhelmingly favors calling witnesses.
Calling witnesses doesn't mean that the Republicans won't ultimately acquit. But it probably means the public learns more details that look bad for Trump, and for the Senate Republicans covering his ass.
And even if McConnell gets what he wants and doesn't call any witnesses, that's still bad news for vulnerable senators like Collins and McSally, because the public overwhelmingly favors calling witnesses.
Re: Impeachment
A metaphor I keep seeing is that the Democrats have a poor hand but they're playing it well. I think that's accurate. Schiff is very good at this; he's clear, he's thorough, and he's as concise as anybody could be under the circumstances. He's doing an excellent job of refuting Sekulow's defense and McConnell's justifications, and using Trump's own words to bolster his case.
I continue to view this as more about what happens in November than what happens in the next two weeks. Either a plurality or a majority of the public already thinks Trump is guilty, depending on what poll you're looking at, and I don't know if that number will increase, but I sure don't think it's going to go any lower. And an overwhelming majority, 69% according to the latest CNN poll, believes that the Senate should call witnesses.
The Republicans have successfully delayed that decision; they defeated initial calls for witnesses on a party-line vote, but there will be another vote in a few days, after opening arguments. The press is focusing heavily on Republicans who might vote with the Democrats, and Collins in particular. I think that's Lucy and the football shit; don't count on Collins to do the right thing -- but again, if you look at this as being about November, if she votes No then she's just written the attack ads her opponent will be running. (I think Collins's ideal political outcome is one where she votes Yes but there aren't enough Yes votes for the motion to pass. That way she doesn't alienate Republican primary voters, because no harm no foul, but she prevents Democrats from running "she didn't even want to call witnesses" ads against her.)
Securing a conviction is almost certainly an unattainable goal. But making the case that Trump is a crook and his party is shielding him from consequences is a very attainable goal. And I think so far Schiff and Schumer are both doing a good job of that.
I continue to view this as more about what happens in November than what happens in the next two weeks. Either a plurality or a majority of the public already thinks Trump is guilty, depending on what poll you're looking at, and I don't know if that number will increase, but I sure don't think it's going to go any lower. And an overwhelming majority, 69% according to the latest CNN poll, believes that the Senate should call witnesses.
The Republicans have successfully delayed that decision; they defeated initial calls for witnesses on a party-line vote, but there will be another vote in a few days, after opening arguments. The press is focusing heavily on Republicans who might vote with the Democrats, and Collins in particular. I think that's Lucy and the football shit; don't count on Collins to do the right thing -- but again, if you look at this as being about November, if she votes No then she's just written the attack ads her opponent will be running. (I think Collins's ideal political outcome is one where she votes Yes but there aren't enough Yes votes for the motion to pass. That way she doesn't alienate Republican primary voters, because no harm no foul, but she prevents Democrats from running "she didn't even want to call witnesses" ads against her.)
Securing a conviction is almost certainly an unattainable goal. But making the case that Trump is a crook and his party is shielding him from consequences is a very attainable goal. And I think so far Schiff and Schumer are both doing a good job of that.
Re: Impeachment
Right, exactly. Getting the Republicans to boot Trump out of the White House was never going to happen, but anything that can make more of this guy...
...is worth trying.
...is worth trying.
Re: Impeachment
If Bolton turns out to be the linchpin, and this thing turns around, I will not hail him as a hero like a modern Howard Dean or whatever.
My sentiment is, "About fucking time you decided to be a fucking patriot, asshole. Now, retire and never show your face again."
My sentiment is, "About fucking time you decided to be a fucking patriot, asshole. Now, retire and never show your face again."
Re: Impeachment
François wrote:Right, exactly. Getting the Republicans to boot Trump out of the White House was never going to happen, but anything that can make more of this guy...
...is worth trying.
Not just former Trump voters, but ideally former Collins and Gardner voters, too.
(We don't actually need any McSally voters to defect; she already lost the first time, but gets to be a senator anyway.)
McDohl wrote:If Bolton turns out to be the linchpin, and this thing turns around, I will not hail him as a hero like a modern Howard Dean or whatever.
My sentiment is, "About fucking time you decided to be a fucking patriot, asshole. Now, retire and never show your face again."
Wrong Dean; you're thinking of John.
But yeah, totally agreed on Michael Bolton.
Re: Impeachment
Securing a conviction is almost certainly an unattainable goal. But making the case that Trump is a crook and his party is shielding him from consequences is a very attainable goal.
I've had to explain this concept so many times to my friends and family now that I feel like I should just record it and play it back for anyone else who asks.
NOVEMBER MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT
Re: Impeachment
Just how fucking dumb does the GOP think voters are?
to be fair to the GOP, and I mean this entirely seriously, the voters did elect Trump, an obvious con man and idiot.
This isn't a "lol voters r dumb and that's the problem" post, I don't believe in that horseshit. I mean, I -know- people are fucking idiotic, but I don't think that's the primary problem with our system.
Re: Impeachment
Thad wrote:Wrong Dean; you're thinking of John.
But yeah, totally agreed on Michael Bolton.
Re: Impeachment
"Who's a more loathsome human being, Alan Dershowitz or Ken Starr?" is like one of those Zen questions with no answer, like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" or "How many babies fit in the tire?"
Except, what's the opposite of Zen?
Except, what's the opposite of Zen?
Re: Impeachment
Yolo.
Re: Impeachment
So the goalposts appear to have shifted from "he didn't do it" to "OK, he did it but it wasn't abuse of power" to "OK he abused his power but that's not an impeachable offense."
So next week it'll be "OK it's an impeachable offense but it's not like he shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue."
I'm not looking forward to the week after that.
So next week it'll be "OK it's an impeachable offense but it's not like he shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue."
I'm not looking forward to the week after that.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests