|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 3, 2019 10:25:31 GMT -5
Looks like the new strategy will be “OK so maybe he did threaten to withhold aid to a foreign country for dirt on a political opponent and his staff tried to cover it up but hey, nothing illegal about that.” Or maybe, “yeah he did all that but he is prone to exaggeration and lying, that’s just his style. You don’t ban a winner from the PGA tour because he has a goofy swing.” How 'bout, it never happened. The quid was the aid, right? The quo was investigating Biden, right? The Ukrainian president didn't investigate Biden but still got the aid, right? Or, try this: Suppose there's a new unknown president in a known corrupt country and you need to know if he can be trusted. What do you do? How about offer him a bribe and see if he takes it. If not, you can trust him. Don't know if that was the logic but then again I don't know that there was a bribe offered. It wasn't in the transcript. |
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Nov 3, 2019 13:24:57 GMT -5
How 'bout, it never happened. The quid was the aid, right? The quo was investigating Biden, right? The Ukrainian president didn't investigate Biden but still got the aid, right? Offering a bribe to a foreign official is illegal, even if the bribe never ultimately happened. Demanding a bribe as a government official is illegal, even if the bribe never ultimately happened. And Zelensky DID order a review of the investigations into Biden, so yes, Trump got the bribe he asked for. Ukraine to review investigations into owner of company that employed Biden's son |
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Nov 3, 2019 13:38:25 GMT -5
The notion that the hearings have been held in secrecy is nonsense. There are numerous Republican members of the committees that are conducting the hearings, and they attend and participate. The questioning has given equal time to Dem and Repub attorneys to ask questions of the witnesses. Much of what is "leaked" is actually released by the witnesses themselves, since there is nothing to stop them. One released his Opening Statement as a press release. To a certain degree, this is to protect their reputations from the inevitable smear campaign that ensues from the R's.
This process has been far fairer than Ken Starr's investigation into Bill Clinton, which was conducted in secret and was plagued with far more damaging leaks than this investigation. Allegedly, the chief leaker in the Starr investigation was a young staffer named Brett Kavanaugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 3, 2019 15:14:34 GMT -5
"
And Zelensky DID order a review of the investigations into Biden, so yes, Trump got the bribe he asked for."
That's not what your linked article says.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 3, 2019 18:52:15 GMT -5
Looks like the new strategy will be “OK so maybe he did threaten to withhold aid to a foreign country for dirt on a political opponent and his staff tried to cover it up but hey, nothing illegal about that.” Or maybe, “yeah he did all that but he is prone to exaggeration and lying, that’s just his style. You don’t ban a winner from the PGA tour because he has a goofy swing.” How 'bout, it never happened. The quid was the aid, right? The quo was investigating Biden, right? The Ukrainian president didn't investigate Biden but still got the aid, right? Makes no difference whether the plot was successful. Prosecutors indict people all the time for conspiracy to commit whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 3, 2019 19:00:11 GMT -5
Here's a scenario for ya. The House impeaches Trump. The Senate does not convict. Trump wins re-election via the Electoral College while losing the popular vote again. Riding a wave of anti-Trump sentiment, Dems hold onto the House and reclaim the Senate by a healthy margin. Trump is inaugurated for a second term. The House impeaches him again, and the new Senate expels him. Hello President Pence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 3, 2019 19:02:29 GMT -5
Wonder if the vice president gets to vote in the Senate to break a tie on expulsion.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 3, 2019 19:07:29 GMT -5
If the world worked your way, you'd be right and if you were right I'd agree with you but the world doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 3, 2019 19:14:21 GMT -5
If the world worked your way, you'd be right and if you were right I'd agree with you but the world doesn't work that way. Well, all the lawyers I've heard comment on this question of conspiracy must be wrong then. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 3, 2019 19:21:34 GMT -5
Here's a scenario for ya. The House impeaches Trump. The Senate does not convict. Trump wins re-election via the Electoral College while losing the popular vote again. Riding a wave of anti-Trump sentiment, Dems hold onto the House and reclaim the Senate by a healthy margin. Trump is inaugurated for a second term. The House impeaches him again, and the new Senate expels him. Hello President Pence. Rumor has it that giuliani will be replacing pence. (the theory being rudy is the more abhorrent trump replacement) |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 3, 2019 19:21:40 GMT -5
Here's a scenario for ya. The House impeaches Trump. The Senate does not convict. Trump wins re-election via the Electoral College while losing the popular vote again. Riding a wave of anti-Trump sentiment, Dems hold onto the House and reclaim the Senate by a healthy margin. Trump is inaugurated for a second term. The House impeaches him again, and the new Senate expels him. Hello President Pence. I keep hearing that nothing will scare your Deep State comrades like President Pence. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 3, 2019 19:25:52 GMT -5
If the world worked your way, you'd be right and if you were right I'd agree with you but the world doesn't work that way. Well, all the lawyers I've heard comment on this question of conspiracy must be wrong then. If it worked your way, Biden would be in jail because he is on video bragging about doing what you are trying to charge Trump with though you have no evidence, just opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 3, 2019 19:36:34 GMT -5
I wonder at what point john roberts will be tagged as a never trumper...
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 3, 2019 21:23:19 GMT -5
Here's a scenario for ya. The House impeaches Trump. The Senate does not convict. Trump wins re-election via the Electoral College while losing the popular vote again. Riding a wave of anti-Trump sentiment, Dems hold onto the House and reclaim the Senate by a healthy margin. Trump is inaugurated for a second term. The House impeaches him again, and the new Senate expels him. Hello President Pence. Rumor has it that giuliani will be replacing pence. (the theory being rudy is the more abhorrent trump replacement) How absurd. First off it takes 2/3 in the Senate. The Dems aren't going to get 2/3 of the Senate under any scenario. And then I believe Pence would be his own man. And Giuliani would NEVER be Pence's pick for anything. Pence is a good "Yes" man. But given the reigns, he'd acct in a different manner than Trump. As much as I don't particularly like Pence, he'd act in a more civilized manner with our historic allies in the world than Trump. And I don't think he'd put up with Putin's aggressive actions in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 3, 2019 22:04:11 GMT -5
No, I agree. The idea is that pence* could be replaced on the 2020 ticket, and giuliani would be so repulsive that nobody would dare impeach trump. Of course that's the same thing people said about pence (look what you'll get if you impeach trump!), but he's looking more attractive by the day.
*and I generally agree with your comments about pence
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 4, 2019 7:25:11 GMT -5
It's an unfortunate but almost total barricade to reasonable discussion that everything gets tagged for marketing and/or convenience and then the rest of the discussion devolves into an unintended characterization of the tag.
So we can dismiss "never Trumper" and "Deep State" and any number of other realities because the terms used to broadcast them can be made to sound silly, or can be otherwise mis-characterized. It's a branch of the rhetorical straw man argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 4, 2019 9:17:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lar on Nov 4, 2019 12:42:08 GMT -5
It's an unfortunate but almost total barricade to reasonable discussion that everything gets tagged for marketing and/or convenience and then the rest of the discussion devolves into an unintended characterization of the tag. So we can dismiss "never Trumper" and "Deep State" and any number of other realities because the terms used to broadcast them can be made to sound silly, or can be otherwise mis-characterized. It's a branch of the rhetorical straw man argument. Good point. Something I find interesting is that national polls indicate that the idea of impeaching Trump is not nearly universal. The difference between those who faro impeachment and those who don't is rather narrow. Despite that, the Democrats in congress continue to proceed as if they have some kind of national mandate to act. Now comes polling that concentrates on attitudes in the swing states. Guess what? A Marquette University poll of Wisconsin residents shows that 44% of Wisconsin residents approve of impeachment and removal. 51% favor neither. A New York Times-Siena College poll of 6 swings states (Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) shows similar results. This, of course, doesn't come as good news to congressional Democrats or the group of Democrats who are running for president. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 4, 2019 13:08:03 GMT -5
It's an unfortunate but almost total barricade to reasonable discussion that everything gets tagged for marketing and/or convenience and then the rest of the discussion devolves into an unintended characterization of the tag. So we can dismiss "never Trumper" and "Deep State" and any number of other realities because the terms used to broadcast them can be made to sound silly, or can be otherwise mis-characterized. It's a branch of the rhetorical straw man argument. Good point. Something I find interesting is that national polls indicate that the idea of impeaching Trump is not nearly universal. The difference between those who faro impeachment and those who don't is rather narrow. Despite that, the Democrats in congress continue to proceed as if they have some kind of national mandate to act. Now comes polling that concentrates on attitudes in the swing states. Guess what? A Marquette University poll of Wisconsin residents shows that 44% of Wisconsin residents approve of impeachment and removal. 51% favor neither. A New York Times-Siena College poll of 6 swings states (Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) shows similar results. This, of course, doesn't come as good news to congressional Democrats or the group of Democrats who are running for president. I think it's classic "Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome. As in most things you only get one chance to make a first impression. And what are we on now, the third or fourth bite at the remove Trump (and reverse the legitimate elected will of those who voted for him) apple? It's starting to fade into just more vicious noise from the deadbeats in DC. I can't help but think this is an ill considered suicide for Democrats. If you look at history, there are reasons Nixon and Clinton were assaulted in their second terms. Trump's the first one to be gang raped in his first- conveniently only 12 months from the next election which would be the entirely legitimate way to try to get rid of him. Meanwhile this show is sucking all the oxygen out of the room for an already weak field of challengers. And it only promises to get worse when it hit the Senate and Trump gets to defend himself calling Comey, Brennan, et. al. for a public dressing down after Barr and his crew fire off their results (and probable criminal indictments) that will land shortly. Man, it's going to be a mess. And I don't see any good way for the Democrats to call or fold now that they've laid their cards on the table. |
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 4, 2019 15:00:24 GMT -5
I've seen the rumors about who the whistleblower is and the supposed background but haven't heard it from any source I'd trust. We'll see, I hope. The whistleblower followed a legal path to bring attention to something he or she thought was egregious. The summary of the conversation confirms the whistleblower's compliant. The opening statements and testimony released so far confirm the whistleblower's complaints. Why the whistleblower matters to anybody at this point is a mystery. |
|
