Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rachel cannot believe the audacity and incompetence she is reporting on most nights. There is just so much lunacy going on she can barely contain herself most of the time. Bemusement is there always and not the bitter anger behind everything Colbert says.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
It had occurred to me it might be a strategic move.
Click to expand...

But why? Has Trump promised vast sums to those who support him? Does the Republican Party believe he's going make huge donations as long as he's not impeached?

If they're doing all this just to maintain the support of those who support Trump and wouldn't otherwise support the party, then they must acknowledge that the party is, for all intents and purposes, about to die either way and all of this is to steal what they can before they're all voted out of office.

If, on the other hand, they're doing this because Trump has made any promises to them, then they are literally the dumbest, most gullible people on the planet. The second Trump leaves - or is dragged out of - office he will burn every remaining bridge and stiff anyone to whom he made promises.

On that level, it's kind of amazing that they don't want Pence to take over. He's so whipped that he'd do anything the party asked and probably call the person passing the orders "mommy."

Then again, maybe Pence is so whipped that he's informed McConnell and scum that if Trump is kicked out office he'll resign and leave Nancy Pelosi to take over the Oval Office. ****. That's actually plausible to me right now.
 
cullennz said:
Yeah ok

From what I have seen US politics is almost mostly personality politics from both sides.

You just happen to have an orange, bigoted, full of himself nutcase that is better at it at the mo'...
Click to expand...
This sounds like the typical "but Obama told lies too" whataboutism from the Trump supporters.

I'm sure there were echo chambers out there that idolized Clinton or Obama the way the die-hard trumpkins worship the WH's current occupant, and of course politics is also about personality (probably more so in the USA, I'll admit, hence all the celebrities who become politicians), but nowhere close to the level of blind obedience that Trump enjoys. With former presidents, blind adherence has been the exception, not the rule.

This is an anecdote, but case in point, I recently spoke to a Norwegian Trump supporter who demanded I tell her when exactly Trump had told a lie. You simply never saw this kind of idolizing from Obama or Clinton's supporters.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
It had occurred to me it might be a strategic move.
Click to expand...
I think sometimes I'm trying way too hard to see signs that Graham is cagier than he seems. I just can't understand how someone so loyal to McCain could have transferred his loyalty so completely to someone like Trump. Especially on issues of national security.
 
Babbylonian said:
But why?
Click to expand...

Good question. If it's 3D chess, I'm still struggling with 2D.

If Roberts excludes McConnell, Graham and Paul - and maybe others by trial time - from the jury pool, if anything it reduces the number of remaining Republican jurors, meaning fewer would have to jump ship to side with the Democrats to remove Trump. Since that's not going to happen anyway, I'm at a loss as to what their strategy might be - they have to know that they may be disqualifying themselves as jurors. They're not stupid people, so they must be up to something.
 
There was that time McConnell made sure to correct the impression that he told Trump the Zelensky phone call was "innocent." That seemed pretty pointed to me. I even thought he might have suggested the question, knowing his denial would be televised.

I may just be desperate to believe that there's more going on than meets the eye.

These guys aren't fools. Well, Rand Paul may be. And I'd be shocked if people like Brennan or John Kelly haven't had private talks with some senators.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Linsey Graham just said this: “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Seeing as how the Senate will be conducting a trial in which the “jurors” will have to affirm they will be impartial, it seems incumbent on both Graham and McConnell to recuse themselves.

I’m just wondering if the Chief Justice can exclude them as jurors, as would be automatic in any “normal” trial.
Click to expand...


No, he can't exclude them as jurors due to pre-trial prejudice.
Slate put together a good summary of the differences between the Senate and a Jury a while back - link.

Slate said:
Pre-trial Prejudice: DIFFERENT.

In ordinary trials, jurors are disqualified if they already are familiar with the facts of the case or–if publicity has made that impossible–if they have expressed any opinion about it. Most if not all Senators would be disqualified if that standard applied to an impeachment trial.
Click to expand...
 
The Republicans right now are just Scared little Children, they have a monster on their hands if Bolton Testifys he is the wild card.
 
The way both Dems and Republicans voted along party lines is disconcerting to me. Not unexpected, granted, and the Dems did have good reason to vote for impeachment, of course, but it's disquieting nonetheless, and it does make one wonder if there shouldn't be a bipartisan impeachment organ.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
The way both Dems and Republicans voted along party lines is disconcerting to me. Not unexpected, granted, and the Dems did have good reason to vote for impeachment, of course, but it's disquieting nonetheless, and it does make one wonder if there shouldn't be a bipartisan impeachment organ.
Click to expand...

The vote against starting this circus was bipartisan, does that count?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Thanks. So much for an open-minded jury, though I suppose that applies to both parties.
Click to expand...
That article was from 1999. Which doesn't automatically mean it's out of date. Per that article senators can overrule any of the chief justice's procedural decisions. According to Slate ...
This means that senators, unlike ordinary jurors, can prevent witnesses from testifying and can even cancel the trial outright.
Click to expand...
 
Babbylonian said:
But why? Has Trump promised vast sums to those who support him? Does the Republican Party believe he's going make huge donations as long as he's not impeached?

If they're doing all this just to maintain the support of those who support Trump and wouldn't otherwise support the party, then they must acknowledge that the party is, for all intents and purposes, about to die either way and all of this is to steal what they can before they're all voted out of office.

If, on the other hand, they're doing this because Trump has made any promises to them, then they are literally the dumbest, most gullible people on the planet. The second Trump leaves - or is dragged out of - office he will burn every remaining bridge and stiff anyone to whom he made promises.

On that level, it's kind of amazing that they don't want Pence to take over. He's so whipped that he'd do anything the party asked and probably call the person passing the orders "mommy."

Then again, maybe Pence is so whipped that he's informed McConnell and scum that if Trump is kicked out office he'll resign and leave Nancy Pelosi to take over the Oval Office. ****. That's actually plausible to me right now.
Click to expand...

Trump has control of GOP campaign fund.

Newsweek: TRUMP IS COMMITTING 'FELONY BRIBERY' BY GIVING FUNDRAISING CASH TO GOP SENATORS AHEAD OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: EX-BUSH ETHICS LAWYER
Attorney Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, warned on Thursday that President Donald Trump appeared to be committing "felony bribery" by giving Republican senators fundraising cash ahead of an increasingly likely impeachment trial in the Senate.

The lawyer shared an article published by Politico on Thursday morning. Titled "Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash," the article outlined how the president is turning to his large network of donors to raise funds for a few senators facing difficult re-election campaigns in 2020. All of those senators have also signed a resolution condemning the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry.

"This is a bribe. Any other American who offered cash to the jury before a trial would go to prison for felony bribery. But he can get away with it?" Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, wrote on Twitter. "Criminal."
Click to expand...

If Democrats were smart they'd start making campaign ads right now revealing how much money GOP Senators are taking from Trump.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
The Republicans right now are just Scared little Children, they have a monster on their hands if Bolton Testifys he is the wild card.
Click to expand...
This is interesting: MSNBC: How a Senate trial could force testimony from Bolton, Mulvaney, others
MSNBC legal analyst Cynthia Alksne joins Stephanie Ruhle to discuss how people such as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and former national security adviser John Bolton could be forced to testify if the impeachment inquiry proceeds to a trial in the Senate.
Click to expand...
It's a 3.4 minute video. Date is Dec 5th.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is interesting: MSNBC: How a Senate trial could force testimony from Bolton, Mulvaney, othersIt's a 3.4 minute video. Date is Dec 5th.
Click to expand...
Nice to see, but she turns around and says (paraphrase) if the GOP call Schiff, they can't get around calling Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton etc. Because the chief justice is sitting right there! She says if you get a subpoena, you have to show up. Which Trump is trying hard to nullify. Her analysis depends on the GOP having any concern whatsoever about the appearance of fair play, yet Slate says very confidently that a majority can overrule Roberts on anything. Why does anyone think those senators can be shamed into making a show of fairness?

Electoral math might make a some difference. Some of those senators will pay if they totally roll over for Trump. But that alone won't affect the outcome IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom