Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Meadmaker]

I have no idea about the point here you are trying to make.

I know.

 

[Trebuchet]

Jay Seklow's alleged law firm appears to exist solely to funnel money from non-profits into his and his family's pockets

"Constitutional Litigation and Advocacy Group". CLAG!

 

[Segnosaur]

Plenty of cynicism about Collins’ motives. Well justified throughout this whole process getting re-elected has been discussed as the prime motivation for how senators on both sides vote. Agree with opinions that in this context her position was likely party sanctioned.

I think its 100% Collin's motives.

Yes. She lost a lot of political capital in her state by voting to confirm Drunky McRapeface to the supreme court (as well as the big republican tax giveaway to the rich). She is now seen rightly as just another Trump lap-dog.

She needed something to try to make her look more moderate. Unfortunately she seems to have gotten that here... Republicans allow her to vote for witnesses, knowing her vote won't affect the outcome. She looks good (supposedly) among moderates in her state, yet the Republicans get to keep allowing Stubby McBonespurs to continue abusing power.

 

[Paul2]

So you Americans going to hit the streets? This ******** cannot stand.

I think there are more strategic things to do to influence the upcoming election than hitting the streets, and I'm making plans that way for myself (although I'm not opposed to hitting the streets in addition). It will also be a question of playing offense as well as defense (defense against anti-democratic activities) and also targeting Congressional races as well as the Presidential race.

 

[lobosrul5]

I mean not that it makes any difference but, Trump clearly has indeed met with Parnas

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tap...source_4380645_2_heads_hero_live_hero_related

ETA thought that was released today, I guess it was yesterday. I cant keep up with this ****.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

much better for the Dems this way.

Why?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the Democrats are right to try to control the narrative on this. The Republicans want to make the trail about the Bidens. But it's not. It's about Trump. Even if the Bidens are the most corrupt, guilty people on Earth, that's completely irrelevant to the trial that's currently going on.

It's a bad idea to let the Republicans make it about the Bidens, and it's a bad idea to spend the whole trial chasing down the lies of the Republicans. The message is simple - Trump acted in a corrupt manner and obstructed justice and needs to be removed - and it's a good idea to stay on-message, especially as the facts are on the Democrats' side.

But the Democrats didn't control the narrative, just the opposite.

A quick message, the prosecutor was blocking the Burisma prosecution, does more to control the narrative than all the run around not to discuss the Bidens.

It's what the public hears, not only what is true. And once again the Democrats failed to learn this lesson.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Why?

No witness is going to convince enough Senators, and no core Republican voter will be affected by their testimony.
It will be easier to run against obstructionist Republicans, especially given that we will learn more before November anyway.


But even a single witness can be sold by Republicans as a major concession to the irrational Dems.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/VeraMBergen/status/1223252399000821761

Yesterday: “When Zelensky appears with Pompeo before cameras on Friday, White House officials hope he will reiterate a message that has become central to Trump’s defense: The president never pressured Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political rivals”

Article embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1223283646947307521

WOW. They are still at it. Holding up a White House visit unless Zelensky publicly states that it was a perfect call. Basically, at the same time he is blocking witnesses from appearing in our legal processes, Trump is coercing people into being “witnesses” for him

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But the Democrats didn't control the narrative, just the opposite.

A quick message, the prosecutor was blocking the Burisma prosecution, does more to control the narrative than all the run around not to discuss the Bidens.

It's what the public hears, not only what is true. And once again the Democrats failed to learn this lesson.

Discussing what the Republicans want them to discuss, and allowing the Bidens to be put on trial, is the opposite of controlling the narrative.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/npfandos/status/1223310526731751429?s=20

This is a remarkable statement from Murkowski:

"I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed."

"It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray... We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another."

That statement? Her reasoning for voting "no" to new witnesses: https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1223309581457203201

BREAKING: Murkowski is a NO on new witnesses.

“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate.”

She says “as an institution, the Congress has failed.”

Quote embedded in tweet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Jay Seklow's alleged law firm appears to exist solely to funnel money from non-profits into his and his family's pockets

Not just Sekulow.

A half dozen lawyers employed by the non-profit ACLJ are named in recent Senate legal briefs as members of Trump’s defense team — including one of Sekulow’s sons. The ACLJ, as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, is barred under IRS rules from engaging in partisan political activities.

These are the people that complain about Hunter Biden's job.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Discussing what the Republicans want them to discuss, and allowing the Bidens to be put on trial, is the opposite of controlling the narrative.

You keep saying a simple statement is a discussion.

We're never going to agree on this.

Not understanding messaging is one of the reasons the Democrats keep losing elections.

ETA: The Republicans didn't need the Democrats to discuss Biden. It was better for them to simply put thier case out there unopposed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

https://twitter.com/npfandos/status/1223310526731751429?s=20

That statement? Her reasoning for voting "no" to new witnesses: https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1223309581457203201

Quote embedded in tweet.

Bet she got something for her vote: campaign financing, help with legislation.

Or maybe she was threatened with Trump campaigning against her.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

https://twitter.com/VeraMBergen/status/1223252399000821761

Article embedded in tweet.

WOW. They are still at it. Holding up a White House visit unless Zelensky publicly states that it was a perfect call. Basically, at the same time he is blocking witnesses from appearing in our legal processes, Trump is coercing people into being “witnesses” for him

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1223283646947307521

Of course they are still at it. Trump is counting on a win being in the bag already.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No witness is going to convince enough Senators, and no core Republican voter will be affected by their testimony.
It will be easier to run against obstructionist Republicans, especially given that we will learn more before November anyway.


But even a single witness can be sold by Republicans as a major concession to the irrational Dems.

Maybe.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Republicans saying "Trump did wrong" but still voting to acquit/not call witnesses...

No, there is no "gigantic difference". There's pretty much no difference at all.

If you are faced with a crime, or other major problem (like presidential abuse of power) that you can take actions to stop, easily, and you chose not to, then you are OK with it, despite any and all rhetoric that you might throw around about how "bad" it was.

Lamar Alexander did not have to sacrifice his first born kid to vote yes on impeachment and/or witnesses. Heck, he's not even sacrificing his political career (since he's retiring).

He was 100% A-OK with Trump abusing power.

When drawing lines in the sand, don't draw them too close to yourself. Leave some room for people who might be allies.

I have no idea about the point here you are trying to make.

I know.

Then why don't you enlighten us.

Who's drawing the 'line in the sand'. Alexander? People critical of him because he is A-OK with Trump abusing power? Who are the potential 'allies' you are referring to?

 

[Meadmaker]

Then why don't you enlighten us.

Who's drawing the 'line in the sand'. Alexander? People critical of him because he is A-OK with Trump abusing power? Who are the potential 'allies' you are referring to?

You are.

You are saying there are two positions. Throw the bum out, or 100% ok with abusing power.

The allies are voters.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Senator Lamar Alexander has released a statement acknowledging that the Democrats have proven their case, but that he's totally fine with what Trump did, so he will vote against witnesses.

Election rigging is official Republican policy.

It has been since Tom Delay convinced the TX State legislators, having a majority, to redistrict, thereby gerrymandering Congressional seats in between censuses. That's when it became official party-wide policy to cheat.

2003 Texas redistricting

That was followed in 2006 by GW using the DoJ to impact state elections.

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

The Guardian: The history of 'rigged' US elections: from Bush v Gore to Trump v Clinton

 

[JoeMorgue]

What are the odds the Senate actually launches an investigation into Biden after they, I assume, get around to declaring Trump innocent, the victim of a witch hunt, devilishly handsome, and our new God-King?