Schiff has done well. It won’t be his fault if they acquit; and he made it clear he was talking to the public as well.
Schiff has done well. It won’t be his fault if they acquit; and he made it clear he was talking to the public as well.
Do we really want to remove a duly elected president of the United States over an effing phone call? Seriously?
For those who are unclear: Words have meanings.
A coup is defined as a sudden, violent, and illegal change of government. The Constitutional process of impeachment is none of those.
To undo the 2016 election would mean making Hillary Clinton president; a guilty verdict in the Senate trial (not that it will happen) would mean making *Mike Pence* president. Hence a Senate conviction would not "undo" the 2016 election.
Finally: acquittal and exoneration are different words with different meanings. Acquitting Donald Trump, as the Senate will almost certainly do, would mean that the Senate declined to convict-and-remove him for his conduct; it would *not* mean that they determined that he hadn't committed the acts that he, his personal lawyer, and his chief of staff admitted on camera.
Sally Vix wrote:
Do we really want to remove a duly elected president of the United States over an effing phone call? Seriously?
Crimes can’t be committed over a phone call huh
Holy shite trump is so fkn stupid he’s actively trying to mess up his own defense. Earlier today he said about the WH (himself): “we have all the material. They don’t have the material.” Seems he meant that as a taunt but of course makes you obviously wonder what’s in this material. He could possibly be the most inept American ever voted into any office.
Ratings were strong on Faux News, so even trumpers are watching. It’s not like they had anything to celebrate.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ukraine-clearinghouse-House%E2%80%99s-Trial-Memorandum-and-Statement-of-Material-Facts-in-the-impeachment-trial-of-President-Donald-J.-Trump..pdfSally Vix wrote:
Do we really want to remove a duly elected president of the United States over an effing phone call? Seriously?
So basically the new standard for impeaching a President is if the other party holds the majority in the house. This is a very dangerous precedent!!
jesseriley wrote:
Ratings were strong on Faux News, so even trumpers are watching. It’s not like they had anything to celebrate.
If you mean firing up the base then you are correct.
Do You Remember? wrote:
So basically the new standard for impeaching a President is if the other party holds the majority in the house. This is a very dangerous precedent!!
1998 called....
It ain't new. Been that way for a looooong time.
Yes the substance of the Clinton Investigation was weak, having an affair and covering it up, but the man still broke the law when he lied to the grand jury.
Alan
Saw an interview with Chuck Schumer. He made the interesting point that many of the Republican senators watch Fox exclusively. Many are likely to be hearing the facts for the first time.
I wonder if he's right.
Fat hurts wrote:
Saw an interview with Chuck Schumer. He made the interesting point that many of the Republican senators watch Fox exclusively. Many are likely to be hearing the facts for the first time.
I wonder if he's right.
A couple of things...1) at least 15 GOP Senators were absent for large portions of the testimony yesterday. So, maybe they are hearing the facts on Fox but they are not hearing them unfiltered as they should be if they were doing their duty. 2) there may be enough GOP defections to call witnesses and get additional documents 3) In recent polls something like 70 % of those polled said the senate should call witnesses.
One thing I have not heard the talking heads point out regarding #2 and 3 above is this—despite the facts of the case and the fact that the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy has been definitely shown to be false AND a narrative pushed by Russia (our enemy)— the GOP Senators who might agree to call witnesses and some of those polled (those who lean right) saying they want the senate to call witnesses likely mean Biden and his Son (not Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc) when they hear “witnesses”.
It is disturbing to watch the GOP handle this situation but it is also very clear that they don’t care or don’t believe that Trump did anything wrong here. They only appear to care about nominating RWNJ judges and overturning Roe v. Wade—that is what this is about. It’s maintaining power to control the courts. It’s about the culture war and social issues. See Bill Barr’s Norte Dame speech as exhibit A.
I can see why the Republicans were outraged at Nadler. How could anyone say the Republicans are engaged in a cover up for Trump? It's ridiculous. Just because they wanted a very quick trial doesn't mean anything. Just because they didn't want evidence released, so what. Just because they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent witnesses from saying what they know, that all just makes sense, right? You can't implicate a president, he has executive privilege.
No president should ever have someone who works closely with him give testimony when the president does something wrong, right?
Poor Donald, it all shifty Schiffs fault. It a hoax. Donald has been perfect and this trial is just a hoax to undo an election. We don't need no stinkin trial, Donald says he's perfect. That's good enough for me.
I love Donald. He understands me.
Sally Vix wrote:
He did NOT mock the call. He misrepresented (LIED) it . Tell me how he did not lie about it because you are lying now!
I am considering making a post on this thread for every lie that Trump has made while in office.
You think the thread is long now ...
I'll just give a link:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/by/
38 pages of 20 mostly false statements per page.
L L wrote:
I'll just give a link:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/by/38 pages of 20 mostly false statements per page.
Ah yes. Four years later and the Democrats main strategy remains "Trump is a bad man!!!"
It didn't work at all in 2016 but don't worry! I'm sure it'll work this time around.
Racket wrote:
L L wrote:
I'll just give a link:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/by/38 pages of 20 mostly false statements per page.
Ah yes. Four years later and the Democrats main strategy remains "Trump is a bad man!!!"
It didn't work at all in 2016 but don't worry! I'm sure it'll work this time around.
It worked in 2018.
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Do we really want to remove a duly elected president of the United States over an effing phone call? Seriously?
Crimes can’t be committed over a phone call huh
Yeah, that's an outrageously stupid thing that Sally keeps repeating; no surprise. You can commit a crime that can give you the death penalty with one word on a phone call. The whole "duly elected" mantra that Republicans are spewing too is crap. Any president up for impeachment was "duly elected". That matters not. What matters is the crimes committed AFTER BEING ELECTED. Trumpers are freakin' insane. What crimes will Trump commit if he actually gets a second term? Hard to fathom.
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
Ah yes. Four years later and the Democrats main strategy remains "Trump is a bad man!!!"
It didn't work at all in 2016 but don't worry! I'm sure it'll work this time around.
It worked in 2018.
No it did not. If it truly had worked, the Dems would control the Senate and Trump's big fat arse would be getting kicked out of office.
Specifically, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota and Missouri are the senate seats that voted Republican in 2018 that helped Republicans maintain that majority.
Florida was razor thin and went to a recount. The other three are normally reliably red.
There were only 9 Republican seats up for election in 2018 and Trump gave Arizona to the Democrats and may give them their other seat this year.
While we are in the present, how many red states will flip blue this fall as a rebuke to Trump?
Thom Tillis in North Carolina is really stumping for Trump right now.
Will voting to acquit help or hurt a person like him in a potential swing state?
Carolina blue may get a new meaning.