Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

"Key Republicans signal openness to Bolton testimony in impeachment trial " The Guardian

Romney, Collins, and hints from others ...

Call me an optimistic old fool, but I'm beginning to suspect that the almost immaculate timing of recent revelations is designed to give GOP senators a last moment chance to say "Gasp! Shock! Horror! Who knew things were really that bad?" and vote to support the impeachment - something that many of them really wanted to do but wouldn't have dared.

I’ll agree that many of them want to support the impeachment. But as they say, no one wants to be the first person to stop clapping at a Saddam Hussein rally.

A few witnesses are certainly not going to be enough to get any Republican Senators to cast a public vote to remove the president.

Heck, Im of the opinion that no Republican would vote for removal if presented with a certified videotape of the president saying
(A) he doesn’t care at all about Ukrainian corruption
(B) his is sole motivation for holding up aid is to destroy a political oppenent
(C) he hopes the audio recording never sees the light of day.

I’m not even sure that such a videotape would be enough to get them to say, “what he did was wrong, but it doesn’t warrant removal.”
 
I honestly don't get it. What am I missing? What was the revelation from Bolton? That the aid was withheld for political reasons? I knew that. That Trump was aware? I knew that. I'm pretty sure all of you knew that, too.

Did I miss the story that explained the revelation?

ETA:. I went and read an article to see if I missed anything. The article might as well have been headlined " new book confirms that Trump actually meant the things he said in his phone call".


To be fair, that's not insignificant. When the story first broke I thought it was just Trump yapping, which led me to call it a nothingburger. When I found out he really did it, I thought it was pretty bad. But I found that out months ago. So did you.

The CNN article called it a "bombshell". Huh? It was a bombshell in September. Today, not so much.

You never do get it. It's called being "deliberately obtuse". You don't want to get it. So you won't. It's that simple.
 
You never do get it. It's called being "deliberately obtuse". You don't want to get it. So you won't. It's that simple.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

Nonetheless, and to my amazement and respect, some people are honest and truthful enough with themselves that they are willing to understand a fact and act morally in response despite the risk to their jobs, their friendships, and sometimes their lives.

Unfortunately not many, if any, are on the Republican side of the Congress. Neither themselves nor how they feel about others, such as whistleblowers.

Isn't there a saying somewhere about ancient Rome:

"The only lions are in the Colosseum not the Senate."
 
Oh, God, Herschmann said that a senior elected officeholders should have a wall of separation between their offices and their business/personal lives.

I wonder how many senators have any residual loyalty to Joe Biden.

If I'm understanding correctly, he thinks that if Trump served the nation's interest, it's OK that it also served his personal interest.

From what little I watched he was painting a vivid portrait of Trump when he describes the supposed corrupt behavior of Joe and Hunter Biden.

It won't change votes but the irony won't be lost on the more intelligent GOP senators.

I'm afraid they need a 2/3's vote.:)

Just joking - I think many do understand the irony and truth but the fear of Trump is enormous.

I suspect that if each Republican Senator could absolutely assure themselves of 19 more Republicans joining them, they might actually vote to convict Trump.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that if each Republican Senator could absolutely assure themselves of 19 more Republicans joining them, they might actually vote to convict Trump.
They're too afraid of Da Base, unless there's a sophisticated financial aspect I'm missing. No one wants to be subjected to that much raw hate. Better to keep that focused on Democrats.
 
>snip<.

I suspect that if each Republican Senator could absolutely assure themselves of 19 more Republicans joining them, they might actually vote to convict Trump.

There was talk that they'd be far more likely to vote to convict if the vote was in secret. They could always vote guilty then feign outrage in public. I think there's something to be said for that.
 
There is safety in numbers. If 25 Republicans plus bolted, they could defend themselves to the base. And likely not pay too big a price.

But this is a pipe dream. There is something about being a Republican that causes deterioration to the spinal cord.
 
They're too afraid of Da Base, unless there's a sophisticated financial aspect I'm missing. No one wants to be subjected to that much raw hate. Better to keep that focused on Democrats.

I think they are more afraid of Moscow Mitch and Trump's never-forget revenge.
 
There is safety in numbers. If 25 Republicans plus bolted, they could defend themselves to the base. And likely not pay too big a price.

But this is a pipe dream. There is something about being a Republican that causes deterioration to the spinal cord.
And ball shrinkage, don't forget ball shrinkage.
 
I think they are more afraid of Moscow Mitch and Trump's never-forget revenge.

If Mitch flips with gang, it will be ok. And Trump will have other problems to deal with. He will have lost the bully pulpit and the sharks will smell blood in the water. You'd be amazed at how ruthlessly people can change. It will be Trump assured us and yet he lied again.

But this is not going to happen.
 
That would be incredibly dumb.

Lets say the democrats decide to wait until after the election to proceed with impeachment, to let all the subpoenas play out in court. Trump engages in illegal activities to fix the election (extorting Ukraine to interfere, perhaps allowing Russia to continue its activities). It tips the balance in favor of the republicans again.

So, the democrats impeach. And 'win'. And they are STILL left with a republican president, who continues to have the authority to nominate right-wing judges, issue executive orders that push a racist agenda, etc.

Much better to, you know, make sure any election is FAIR. i.e. not subject to illegal manipulation by Trump and the republicans, rather than to try to take action AFTER the election is finished.

Now that I have a keyboard, let me go into why I think this post shows why impeachment will be a losing issue for Democrats.

First, let me say I think your thoughts are shared by many Democrats and supporters.

Second, let's recognize that I'm talking about voter impact, as opposed to some higher concept of what ought to happen in an ideal world. To think about voter impact, you have to recognize there are a bunch of hard core Trump supporters and a bunch of hard core Trump haters. Neither group is going to be swayed by darned near anything, but the two groups together make up most of the electorate. However, the smaller group left, the group of people whose minds are not made up, are the ones that will decide the election, so they're the ones that matter. How they see the impeachment will determine how their votes are influenced.


Your reasoning on why we can't wait until after the election demonstrates that you aren't worried about a criminal in the White House nearly so much as you are worried about a Republican in the White House. People can see that, and they'll resent it.

Second, you are talking about elections being stolen. It's a common theme, and it is saying, "Last time, when you voted for Trump, you didn't really mean it." They'll resent that, too.

Third, you are saying that unless our team wins, there must be cheating. That, too, is something people won't accept, and will be angry at the person saying it. (I was appalled to hear Schiff say that we can't trust the upcoming election. That's really, really, bad.) Do you really think Democracy is lost in America? If I believed that I really would move to Canada or Ireland or someplace else, or, quite literally, take up arms. I don't think it's true.

You have to accept that people really did vote for Donald Trump in sufficient numbers to win the election. Yeah, there's an electoral college asterisk there, but he still won. Saying he cheated last time or will cheat next time looks bad. (I think last time around, his own complaints about a "rigged" election cost him votes, although obviously not enough.)

The reason that Trump won is, in my humble opinion, because a lot of Americans know that you hate them, and they hate you right back. Trump was the enemy of their enemy. Impeachment reinforces everything they already believe about Democrats and those who elect them.


Balanced against that you have the opportunity to embarrass Trump in the coarse of the impeachment, or, the grand prize, to goad Trump into doing something that even a fraction of his hard core supporters couldn't defend, and would alienate most of the undecideds. It's Trump. It could happen. So, it might turn out for the best, but if I were putting money into the prediction markets, impeachment would make me more inclined to put it on Trump.
 
The media keep going on and on about "Bolton's Bombshell," but at least our elected leaders are not complete idiots. Sen. John Barrasso (R-RUS) observes Bolton's comments are "nothing new." Trump makes the BEST drug deals.
 
How so?
They let the deadline pass more than once, claiming they need to redact note or not.

And the House has asked for the Mueller material, but never got it. Now they have to use the material coming from FOIR suits.

To answer another question from earlier -


Because it is the DOJ, not Trump, and the story was from more recently than the impeachment articles, which were being discussed at the time, and because the story is sufficiently recent that the legal wheels (appeals and such) haven't had time to turn yet.

Speaking just for myself, if Trump ignores an actual court order, I'd go all in on supporting impeachment and removal.

By "ignore", I mean refusing to comply with a Supreme Court order, or by not filing a timely appeal of a lower court order.
 
To answer another question from earlier -





Because it is the DOJ, not Trump, and the story was from more recently than the impeachment articles, which were being discussed at the time, and because the story is sufficiently recent that the legal wheels (appeals and such) haven't had time to turn yet.



Speaking just for myself, if Trump ignores an actual court order, I'd go all in on supporting impeachment and removal.



By "ignore", I mean refusing to comply with a Supreme Court order, or by not filing a timely appeal of a lower court order.
Defying a subpoena against himself personally or issuing orders to others to defy subpoenas is a strange place to draw a line in the sand.

Kushner subpoenas go back to July of last year. Not new.

FOIAs started flying around in November. Not new.

Your confidence in a delay of "a week or two" was apparently way off.

The Senate has had the reigns since presentation of the articles. They rejected all attempts to include subpoenas in the proceedings thus far. So there are no new refusals to comply or cases to resolve since the House passed the articles.
 

Back
Top Bottom