Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[plague311]

Actually, he was accurate, if one pays attention to all of what he said. Going further, there's not even a kernel of truth to any fabricating evidence charge.

I think it's debatable and that's where Trump shines. He is the king of 'debatable' and I don't see that changing soon. Schiff could have been more accurate, if that makes any difference to my point. He was being hyperbolic, but not necessarily wrong.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Actually, he was accurate, if one pays attention to all of what he said. Going further, there's not even a kernel of truth to any fabricating evidence charge.

Truth is no longer relevant, though.

 

[Aridas]

I think it's debatable

It's not, if there's any real and informed concern about what Schiff actually said in play. There's debate that can be had about how smart it was for Schiff to have said it, but that Trump and his supporters have chosen to attack it on false and nonsensical grounds doesn't make the accuracy of what Schiff actually said debatable.

 

[Belz...]

It's not, if there's any real and informed concern about what Schiff actually said in play. There's debate that can be had about how smart it was for Schiff to have said it, but that Trump and his supporters have chosen to attack it on false and nonsensical grounds doesn't make the accuracy of what Schiff actually said debatable.

Hence my "say what?".

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's not, if there's any real and informed concern about what Schiff actually said in play. There's debate that can be had about how smart it was for Schiff to have said it, but that Trump and his supporters have chosen to attack it on false and nonsensical grounds doesn't make the accuracy of what Schiff actually said debatable.

Taken out of context, and twisted beyond recognition, what Schiff said was "questionable." IOW, they continue to lie about what Schiff said.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sen. Susan Collins on saying she'll vote to acquit Trump:

I believe that the president has learned from this case.The president has been impeached. That's a pretty big lesson. He was impeached. And there has been criticism by both Republican and Democratic senators of his call. I believe that he will be much more cautious in the future.

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently Collins has never met Trump.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Sen. Susan Collins on saying she'll vote to acquit Trump:



BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was essentially my response to that on Twitter.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Tomorrow, barring a miracle, Donald John Trump will be acquitted of both counts at his impeachment trial.

I still think the Democrats made it way too easy for the Republican majority to paint their case as marginal, and I still hold they blew it.

If I had been in charge, there would have been more articles - make each Republican Senator take a stand on each and every one.

Foe instance:

Article 1: The abuse of power for the Ukraine thing, as written

Article 2: The general obstruction charge for the withholding of witnesses and evidence.

Article 3: Obstruction of Justice, to wit: the firing of James Comey to stop or limit the Russia investigation with the corrupt motive of taking the pressure off himself, in violation of 18 USC 1503.

Article 4: Soliciting a foreign power, Russia, to assist in getting damaging information on his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, in violation of 5 USC 30121. The “Russia, if you’re listening...” solicitation.

Article 5: Soliciting a foreign power to interfere with a U.S. election, to wit: China, to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden, in violation of 5 USC 30121. His request on the White House lawn in evidence.

Article 6: Obstruction of Justice, to wit: fabricating a knowingly false account of the Trump Tower meeting with the corrupt intent to mislead the public and investigators as to the true reason for that meeting, in violation of 18 USC 1503.

Article 7: Obstruction of Justice, to wit: ordering Don McGahn to produce a knowingly false document concerning an order to fire the Special Counsel, in violation of 18 USC 1503.

Article 8: Failure to Uphold his Oath of Office to “Protect and Defend the Constitution” by violating the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution. Pick several of the most egregious examples of Trump profiting from his Presidency.

And there could be other Articles for other crimes outlined in the Mueller Report.

Would the Republicans vote to acquit for each and every one of the above? Probably. But much of the public bought Barr’s and Trump’s contention that Mueller’s report concluded “No Collusion. No Obstruction”. Bringing these to light at the Impeachment Trial might at least have informed a portion of the populace as to what was really in the report. And I have trouble seeing much of a downside - more examples of misdeeds and crimes would just reinforce Trump’s pattern of behavior.

But it’s all over but the shouting now, and will be over tomorrow.

So it goes...

 

[Minoosh]

There's still a subpoena out for Don McGahn and some Mueller-related documents. And I think the laundry list of articles has potential pitfalls. I do wish the House had issued more subpoenas, not to delay proceedings but for supplemental purposes.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And I think the laundry list of articles has potential pitfalls.

Yep! It might even lead to Trump being acquitted of 8+ articles instead of 2.

Again, I don’t see that much of a downside.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sen. Susan Collins on saying she'll vote to acquit Trump:



BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently Collins has never met Trump.

She's not very bright, and she's also a coward.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At this point we should almost be mad at ourselves for falling for her "Oh I'm very concerned... I'm on the fence... lookit how concerned I am... oh I'm soooo on the fence... LOL JUST JOKING I'M VOTING FOR THE THING ANYWAY" routine over and over.

 

[Cain]

Yep! It might even lead to Trump being acquitted of 8+ articles instead of 2.

Again, I don’t see that much of a downside.

Earlier you said the Burisma thing was too easily "muddied," yet you think it would have been a good idea to combine scandals, including the "discredited" Mueller "witch-hunt" that "fully exonerated" Trump? The conservative/Russian press would call it desperate, and say the Ukraine stuff is so weak Democrats are groping to get Trump on anything.

Republicans will make hay out of the silliest ****. Again, people still believe Schiff was trying to pull a fast one when he clearly paraphrased Trump's "perfect" phone call. US Senators were upset when he carefully cited a news report about "heads on a pike."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Because literally every factor that got him elected in 2016 is still there or worse.

Hillary’s running again?! Where have I been?

 

[Aridas]

Tomorrow, barring a miracle, Donald John Trump will be acquitted of both counts at his impeachment trial.

I still think the Democrats made it way too easy for the Republican majority to paint their case as marginal, and I still hold they blew it.

If I had been in charge, there would have been more articles - make each Republican Senator take a stand on each and every one.

Same here, honestly, much as if I were going to do a laundry list, I'd likely include reference to the Puerto Rico BS and Trump's quite consistent choice to put personal benefit over the public good, like with the FBI building, for example. I admit also being slightly partial to referencing how Trump's decisions have made the US a laughingstock as part of that.

At this point we should almost be mad at ourselves for falling for her "Oh I'm very concerned... I'm on the fence... lookit how concerned I am... oh I'm soooo on the fence... LOL JUST JOKING I'M VOTING FOR THE THING ANYWAY" routine over and over.

Any of us in Maine, at least, which probably isn't many. Collins is only there when it doesn't matter, either way, according to people who paid much more attention to her actual voting.

 

[Segnosaur]

Because literally every factor that got him elected in 2016 is still there or worse.

Hillary’s running again?! Where have I been?

True, they don't have Clinton (who had been subject to years of smear tactics by the republicans.)

But, you still have:
- Russian interference
- Voter suppression
- An unfavorable electoral college
- An inability and/or unwillingness by various media sources to properly address Trump's lies (Fox News, Facebook, etc.)
- A republican senate which is complicit in whatever lies and/or schemes Trump might be involved with

And while you don't have an unpopular Clinton, many of the current candidates also have drawbacks.

And Trump has managed to convince a significant number of people that he is responsible for some big economic success (ignoring of course the huge deficits)

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Charging Trump with more items during impeachment...

Yep! It might even lead to Trump being acquitted of 8+ articles instead of 2.

Again, I don’t see that much of a downside.

There was another thread from a few months back when the proceedings first began which discussed how many and what crimes should he be charged with. One poster suggested that if they list too many reasons, then a successful attack on one reason (even if the others are rock solid) might end up leaving the impression in people's minds that "all the charges must be weak".

And piling on charges might make the democrats seem petty.

For example lets say they included stuff related to Mueller. The question that will be asked is "why are you waiting to bring up the charges now instead of when you first had access to the Mueller report. (I know its a bogus argument, but many people might fall for it.)

Another problem I can see: The republicans in the senate probably wouldn't have given any more time, so the House managers would have only a limited amount of time to make their case for each article.

Plus, lets face it, most people aren't that smart, and probably would lose focus if the charges include too many unrelated items.

To be honest, I don't know whether the democrats made the right choice in restricting the articles of impeachment to just 2. I can see benefits and drawbacks to both. But, at the end of the day:
- The majority of people still favored impeachment and removal, and even more people favored the calling of witnesses
- Republican senators still had to stand up and dismiss calling witnesses. (Which, if there is any damage to occur, will be just as problematic as dismissing 8+ articles of impeachment)
- Multiple republicans have admitted "Trump acted badly". Hopefully the Democrats can use that to their advantage in the next election
- Information about Trump's misdeeds came out, and there will likely be a slow drip of information for the next little while.

 

[Lurch]

At this point we should almost be mad at ourselves for falling for her "Oh I'm very concerned... I'm on the fence... lookit how concerned I am... oh I'm soooo on the fence... LOL JUST JOKING I'M VOTING FOR THE THING ANYWAY" routine over and over.

Not unlike Lucy and the football.

 

[Venom]

Not unlike Lucy and the football.

That's....the exact thing that came to mind.

I wonder if there's anything, anything Trump can do at this point to get a majority of Congressional Republicans to vote against him.

 

[a_unique_person]

True, they don't have Clinton (who had been subject to years of smear tactics by the republicans.)

But, you still have:
- Russian interference
- Voter suppression
- An unfavorable electoral college
- An inability and/or unwillingness by various media sources to properly address Trump's lies (Fox News, Facebook, etc.)
- A republican senate which is complicit in whatever lies and/or schemes Trump might be involved with

And while you don't have an unpopular Clinton, many of the current candidates also have drawbacks.

And Trump has managed to convince a significant number of people that he is responsible for some big economic success (ignoring of course the huge deficits)

Rush has got a medal for his services in demonising Hillary.