• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Maybe. Just maybe. Not likely, hell if anything a few Democrats voting against seems way more likely then any Republicans voting for it from where it stands now, remember the Democrats didn't get everyone of their people onboard with it in the House while the Republicans did and I'll have to to back and dig up the cites but I think a couple of Democratic Senators have already made statements that sound an awful lot like "Don't plan to vote guilty."...
Click to expand...

The only reason I'll disagree with this is because I think the sheer numbers in the House means that at least a few were going to defect. They also answer to districts, not states. They have to be a bit more willing to flip back and forth if they want to keep their seats, unless they're in safe districts.

There are more Senate Republicans that have to watch their backs than Dems. I think Jones for Alabama is gone anyway, and he'd be the one that I would see defect because of his close win. Other than that I think we might actually see a few defectors on the GOP possibly happening.
 
Venom said:
I think Putin and his top brass primarily wanted Clinton to lose. I think they were cautiously encouraged by Trump's statements about conditional assistance to NATO allies. Putin was strongly critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq during the Bush presidency and American involvement in the fall of Gaddafi during Obama's. Clinton was at the helm of U.S. foreign policy at the time and Putin reportedly obsessed over the death of Gaddafi, bringing it up in Kremlin meetings and re-watching footage of his capture. He no doubt saw Clinton and leaders like her as a threat to the stability of his regime.

So I think there was an element of that going on as well, not just Cold War shenanigans.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They didn't want Hillary more than they wanted Trump. Trump being the fool he is was just icing on the cake for them.
 
Rumor is the Republicans are looking at an option for 1:1 witnesses. Dem's get one (Bolton at the top of the list) and the Repubs get one (Hunter, Joe, Schiff, or the whistleblower). To be honest, I'm all for it as any of those witnesses wouldn't help the GOP all that much. Everything in Ukraine has been investigated, and as long as they tell the truth it should be fine. On the flip side, if Bolton tells the truth it would be damning for Trump in the best case scenario. If all the Dems want is Bolton, then I would say do it because the GOP will almost certainly call Joe. If they crush Joe, then Sanders would get the nom.
 
plague311 said:
Rumor is the Republicans are looking at an option for 1:1 witnesses. Dem's get one (Bolton at the top of the list) and the Repubs get one (Hunter, Joe, Schiff, or the whistleblower). To be honest, I'm all for it as any of those witnesses wouldn't help the GOP all that much. Everything in Ukraine has been investigated, and as long as they tell the truth it should be fine. On the flip side, if Bolton tells the truth it would be damning for Trump in the best case scenario. If all the Dems want is Bolton, then I would say do it because the GOP will almost certainly call Joe. If they crush Joe, then Sanders would get the nom.
Click to expand...

I doubt they can crush Joe.

The Senate trial is very very different than say witness testimony in a trial or a house impeachment hearing. Senators must sit on their hands. If they have questions, they must submit them in writing to the Chief Justice and he will ask him. The House managers can also ask questions. If Joe is prepared for it, it might be biggest gift his campaign could ask for.
 
There is a huge risk in having Bolton testify without having a deposition from him first. Trump has the ultimate power over him, namely, he can force him to delete chapters of his upcoming book "for reasons of national security", especially those chapters that make Bolton look good.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
There is a huge risk in having Bolton testify without having a deposition from him first. Trump has the ultimate power over him, namely, he can force him to delete chapters of his upcoming book "for reasons of national security", especially those chapters that make Bolton look good.
Click to expand...

As any good lawyer will tell you, never ask questions of a witness you don't already know the answers to.
 
Norman Alexander said:
I suspect this is just the first of a rolling series of impeachments, each for yet another serious crime Trump has already committed, or will go on to commit shortly if he is exonerated. McConnell will have to keep rallying his loyalists time and again to dismiss these, and each one will get news sound-bites. It could go on for some months, especially if, each time, Congress delays sending the articles due to negotiations for a "fair trial". Trump, of course, will be apoplectic, which won't help his demeanor in the election process.

Incidentally, all the Dems need to do next would be refuse to debate Trump in the lead-up to November. Not give him the oxygen of confronting them with his boorish behaviour like he did to Hillary. It's what he lives for...is living for. The Dems should just ignore and walk right round him.
Click to expand...

That just would not work in the US.
 
theprestige said:
Probably not going to have an effect on them, either.

People in the middle fall into a few broad categories:

- Those who already decided he was an ass in 2016 and voted for him anyway.

- Those who already decided he was an ass in 2016 and thus didn't vote for him.

- Those who aren't paying attention or don't care if he's an ass, and voted however they were going to vote anyway.

I don't think this particular revelation is going to move the needle much one way or the other, for any of those groups.

I think if killing Soleimani had sparked a major escalation of the war with Iran, that might have made some people in the middle reevaluate their electoral priorities. But this kind of trickle, more of the same shenanigans they've already accounted for? I doubt it's going to make a difference in November.

But hope springs eternal! This may yet be The One Thing.
Click to expand...


I decided he was an ass in 2016 and didn't vote for him. However, I didn't vote for Hillary either. So far, this next election really looks up for grabs.
 
dudalb said:
That just would not work in the US.
Click to expand...
Why not? It's happening now.

There is no limit on how many times a president (or any other impeachable official) can be impeached. And Trump has a growing rap-sheet of impeachable material to work with. This current Ukraine one is just the most recent incident, certainly not the only incident.

So why not lather, rinse and repeat these impeachments into the future?

The Dems as a team have appeared resolute in not responding to any of Trump's taunts. Almost none, unless it is exceptionally low-hanging fruit that gets Trump fair in the nads. And Trump (technically, his team) tweets are getting more and more raucous and bullying in tone and content. We can all see the childish name-calling and blatant lies ramping up - he's clearly trying to provoke a response!

Trump's efforts in 2016 were a clear example of style over substance. Everyone saw Clinton won "the debate" by miles. But Trump won the video grabs, he wasn't even trying to "debate". His childish insults and boorish behaviour ignored everything Hillary said and made a spectacle of him that got far more air-time, more oxygen. And that's all his team wanted to be able to say to their base that "Trump thrashed Hillary in the debates".

So why not refuse to debate him? The debates are not mandatory at all, just a recent convention. Trump is going to make a deplorable spectacle of himself again anyway, debate or no. Let him talk to some empty chairs, then. See how good his solo stand-up act really is (hint: based on the unexpurgated transcripts from his rallies, it's utter crap). And the other candidate(s) can have a sensible exchange elsewhere without him. Because if there's anything Trump hates, it's when important things are NOT all about him.
 
Marcus said:
I decided he was an ass in 2016 and didn't vote for him. However, I didn't vote for Hillary either. So far, this next election really looks up for grabs.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, if you could do it over again, would you still not vote at all rather than vote for Hillary?
 
Norman Alexander said:
Why not? It's happening now.

There is no limit on how many times a president (or any other impeachable official) can be impeached. And Trump has a growing rap-sheet of impeachable material to work with. This current Ukraine one is just the most recent incident, certainly not the only incident.

So why not lather, rinse and repeat these impeachments into the future?
Click to expand...

Boy who cried wolf.

Sooner or later they'll uncover something actually worth impeaching a president for. If it's your fourth try, your audience (the voters) won't care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom