Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[Jhhnn]

Here's a clue of what to expect in the Senate:

Growing divide between Trump and McConnell over impeachment trial

President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are both looking ahead to the Senate impeachment trial, but there is a growing divide between the two over what that trial should look like, CNN has learned.

www.cnn.com

Evidently, McConnell wants to give the dems a little time to present their case, then vote to dismiss, without calling any witnesses.

But Trump wants the opposite: to call Hunter Biden, Schiff and the whistle-blower and turn it into a circus.

So it's either going to be quick or a total circus.

I think it will hurt Trump more if he gets his way and it's the latter.

It doesn't take much to see through the Trumpian bullshit. The charges presented will describe acts committed between two dates. If the defense wants to call fact witnesses, the only kind they're allowed, then they must show that those people have direct knowledge of those acts. That obviously doesn't include the Bidens, Schiff, or the whistleblower. It's a whole different kind of arena than usual Senate business. In the Clinton trial Senators could not speak but only listen.

If Mitch doesn't want any bullshit & Roberts agrees with him, there won't be any. They'll listen politely to the back & forth between the lawyers & any witnesses, then vote not to convict. Don't need no stinking reasons. We have the Power. Bye, Felicia. You can kiss my ass on your way out.

 

[Gabe323]

Still don't understand why while the Repubs are throwing Sondland under the bus the Dems aren't hammering the point that he was the ONLY one out of all of the people that testified that had a direct line to Trump. That's what a $1 mil donation gets you is what should have been pointed out.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's clearly bullshit. What happened was some of the Democrats were shitting their pants over adding bribery. It's explicitly listed in the Constitution as a reason for impeachment.

Let him whine. Giving him the fake trade deal scheme that will most likely benefit him in PA, MI, and WI is political malpractice.

Surely you have links to that pants shitting thing....

 

[fskimospy]

Only if the Senate Majority Leader will allow such a discussion to go to the floor.
Our system was never designed to deal with the entire party in majority just deciding to ignore the Constitution.

If the majority leader isn't there and no quorum is required any senator who walks on the floor can rewrite the entire rules of the senate and make themselves majority leader.

 

[NWRMidnight]

They dropped the criminal articles. They're feckless!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204426904650076160

The Senate gets to decide the rules of the trial. They are allowed to decide who the jury is, it can be the entire Senate, but it does not have to be. In the past it has always been either the entire Senate, or a specific committee, but it is entirely possible that the GOP will decide to hand pick their jurors. It is never been done, but it would take a SCOTUS decision to say it was not Constitutional, and that would probably take more than a year to work it's way through the courts. It is entirely possible the GOP will do some such thing just to delay the entire thing until after the election.
I fully expect some chicanery from Moscow Mitch.

False. The Senate is the Jury, and impeachment requires 2/3 vote of those present in favor to convict. They do not get to pick the "jury" as it includes the whole Senate, and they can not exclude any of them. They get to dictate the rules of how the trial goes, but they do not get to dictate who the jury is, as it is already stated in the Constitution.

 

[Maxima1]

Surely you have links to that pants shitting thing....

Nebulous and narrow, sidestepping any criminal articles. Feckless!

Moderate Dems warn against 'kitchen sink' impeachment push

The moderate Democrats are wary of relitigating Mueller's report in the current impeachment inquiry.

www.politico.com

 

[Jhhnn]

Still don't understand why while the Repubs are throwing Sondland under the bus the Dems aren't hammering the point that he was the ONLY one out of all of the people that testified that had a direct line to Trump. That's what a $1 mil donation gets you is what should have been pointed out.

Easy. Because Sondland is a dirty stinking rat bastard who flipped on Trump, Pompeo & Perry to save his own skin. And never mind what Mulvaney said. He didn't know what he was talking about. Got your MAGA goggles? You're gonna need 'em.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nebulous and narrow, sidestepping any criminal articles. Feckless!

Moderate Dems warn against 'kitchen sink' impeachment push

The moderate Democrats are wary of relitigating Mueller's report in the current impeachment inquiry.

www.politico.com

And the double down. How quaint. That link doesn't support your allegation that moderate Dems were shitting their pants over calling it bribery. Not in the slightest. It doesn't matter, anyway, because the evidence presented will be the same no matter what we call it as will the choice before the Senate.

“I know that there's some people who are interested in kind of a kitchen sink approach — let's throw all kinds of things in there because we can and talk about all the things we're concerned about regarding the president,” she told reporters.

“We have been taking the country down this road on this very targeted issue of Ukraine and the issues around the president using his office for personal and political gain,” Slotkin added. “And that's what I think we should focus on.”

 

[Maxima1]

And the double down. How quaint. That link doesn't support your allegation that moderate Dems were shitting their pants over calling it bribery. Not in the slightest. It doesn't matter, anyway, because the evidence presented will be the same no matter what we call it as will the choice before the Senate.

It's painfully obvious that it's a political calculation, so of course they're crapping over it. They lost I think two just from the impeachment inquiry when they should have lost none.

The second quote you put as evidence to the contrary is pretty pathetic since adding Bribery article is sticking to their allegations regarding Trump and Ukraine.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I will say that Senate Republicans have been shockingly quiet through all of this. I wouldn't necessarily bank on the house shitshow ending up the same way in Senate.

If you asked me three weeks ago, I would have said 99% they wouldn't vote yes on impeachment. Now? more like 80%.

I still have my fingers crossed the President hurts Moscow Mitches feels which prompts Moscow Mitch to make the impeachment vote secret.
Then all of a sudden there will be a bunch of Senate Republicans saying “who me?”

 

[Jhhnn]

It's painfully obvious that it's a political calculation, so of course they're crapping over it. They lost I think two just from the impeachment inquiry when they should have lost none.

The second quote you put as evidence to the contrary is pretty pathetic since adding Bribery article is sticking to their allegations regarding Trump and Ukraine.

Please. You failed to show that any moderates were shitting their pants over calling it bribery. Pelosi needs 218 votes & she'll get them easily.The Senate gets to deal with it after that. WTF do you think, that they'll fail to convict because the House didn't call it bribery?

 

[Maxima1]

Please. You failed to show that any moderates were shitting their pants over calling it bribery. Pelosi needs 218 votes & she'll get them easily.The Senate gets to deal with it after that. WTF do you think, that they'll fail to convict because the House didn't call it bribery?

Of course she'll get the votes by appealing to the moderate concerns. Duh. But do you know for a fact that would happen if Mueller and Bribery were added?

Whether the Senate convicts or not is irrelevant. I think it would be acquittal either way, but again that's irrelevant. It's painfully obvious that the moderate Democrats think they'll get hurt if other impeachment articles are added, so what's your point? The sad part is the nebulous and cowardly take is allowing the Republicans to argue the Democrats didn't even buy their own allegations.

 

[cytg111]

It doesn't take much to see through the Trumpian bullshit. The charges presented will describe acts committed between two dates. If the defense wants to call fact witnesses, the only kind they're allowed, then they must show that those people have direct knowledge of those acts. That obviously doesn't include the Bidens, Schiff, or the whistleblower. It's a whole different kind of arena than usual Senate business. In the Clinton trial Senators could not speak but only listen.

If Mitch doesn't want any bullshit & Roberts agrees with him, there won't be any. They'll listen politely to the back & forth between the lawyers & any witnesses, then vote not to convict. Don't need no stinking reasons. We have the Power. Bye, Felicia. You can kiss my ass on your way out.

Hehehe you can see why!
Trumps only chance to get next year is to sell the bowling green burisma. Bowling green burisma is gonna blow up of course and Moscow M knows this. On the other hand, a little olive branch to the dems and a route for GOP to rid them selves of the Orange menace 2020 may be MMs best outcome.
Trump is gonna push Moscow M hard on this.

 

[HurleyBird]

I don't know about feckless... maybe. But I'm sure there are a dozen possible reasons for dropping the bribery article that no one here has thought about. Whatever was the case, you know a lot of discussion must have went into it. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that meeting...

 

[NWRMidnight]

Of course she'll get the votes by appealing to the moderate concerns. Duh. But do you know for a fact that would happen if Mueller and Bribery were added?

Whether the Senate convicts or not is irrelevant. I think it would be acquittal either way, but again that's irrelevant. It's painfully obvious that the moderate Democrats think they'll get hurt if other impeachment articles are added, so what's your point? The sad part is the nebulous and cowardly take is allowing the Republicans to argue the Democrats didn't even buy their own allegations.

I don't agree. They are saving the other charges so they can charge Trump for impeachment a second time after the Senate acquittals Trump on these charges. This is a calculated move because of the inability of the Republican Controlled Senate to do their sworn duty which is To uphold the constitution of the United States, ass well as all the delays, using the Courts, Trump is doing. They are playing the long game in removing Trump from Office, and when it's over, he may, or may not be convicted in the Senate, even for the second round of impeachment charges, but it may have an impact at the voting booth, as the majority of American's (not Trump's base) know he is guilty. However, the other bonus, is it guarantees he will be going to jail for his crimes, because once out of office, he can be charged criminally. The kicker is, because the charges will be the same tried in the impeachment, they can't be pardoned, by anyone, not even Pence (If Trump is removed), or any other President. Why? Because all crimes are pardonable, except those of Impeachment. per the constitution.

 

[HurleyBird]

I don't agree. They are saving the other charges so they can charge Trump for impeachment a second time after the Senate acquittals Trump on these charges. This is a calculated move because of the inability of the Republican Controlled Senate to do their sworn duty which is To uphold the constitution of the United States, ass well as all the delays, using the Courts, Trump is doing.

There is no concept like double jeopardy when it comes to impeachment.

The kicker is, because the charges will be the same tried in the impeachment, they can't be pardoned, by anyone, not even Pence (If Trump is removed), or any other President. Why? Because all crimes are pardonable, except those of Impeachment. per the constitution.

Impeachment and criminal charges are totally different beasts. What you've misinterpreted just means that the president can't undo an impeachment. It doesn't mean he can't separately pardon someone for the criminal acts that were brought up in an impeachment.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know about feckless... maybe. But I'm sure there are a dozen possible reasons for dropping the bribery article that no one here has thought about. Whatever was the case, you know a lot of discussion must have went into it. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that meeting...

The best argument I have heard is the fear was it would get bogged down in legalistic arguments of whether it met the requirements of the bribery statute when that misses the larger point which is we have the president on tape asking foreign governments to investigate his political enemies. It doesn’t matter if you call it bribery, it’s an enormous abuse of power.

 

[Maxima1]

I don't know about feckless... maybe. But I'm sure there are a dozen possible reasons for dropping the bribery article that no one here has thought about. Whatever was the case, you know a lot of discussion must have went into it. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that meeting...

I'm sure there were other considerations, but from the articles I've read, it appears to center around whether it'll hurt the moderate Democrats or not. This seems obvious considering they also dropped Mueller.

In hard-line Congress, moderates boosted with Trump impeachment articles, trade deal

Democrats declined to use the Mueller report in the articles of impeachment, all the while announcing a deal with Trump on USMCA.

www.usatoday.com

The best argument I have heard is the fear was it would get bogged down in legalistic arguments of whether it met the requirements of the bribery statute when that misses the larger point which is we have the president on tape asking foreign governments to investigate his political enemies. It doesn’t matter if you call it bribery, it’s an enormous abuse of power.

Letting the sycophants and toadies argue the legalistic issues with either the federal statute of bribery or the meaning within the Constitution is much better than this current nonsense we'll have to endure if Democrats remain afraid.

CBS's Major Garrett: Significant That Democrats Did Not Charge Trump With "Bribery" Or "Extortion"

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment, accusing President Donald Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. CBS's Major Garrett discusses why it is significant that they did not charge Trump with bribery or extortion. Garrett said they backed off charges they seemed...

www.realclearpolitics.com

 

[Maxima1]

Please. You failed to show that any moderates were shitting their pants over calling it bribery. Pelosi needs 218 votes & she'll get them easily.The Senate gets to deal with it after that. WTF do you think, that they'll fail to convict because the House didn't call it bribery?

They all need to be primaried.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204446747935805442

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course she'll get the votes by appealing to the moderate concerns. Duh. But do you know for a fact that would happen if Mueller and Bribery were added?

Whether the Senate convicts or not is irrelevant. I think it would be acquittal either way, but again that's irrelevant. It's painfully obvious that the moderate Democrats think they'll get hurt if other impeachment articles are added, so what's your point? The sad part is the nebulous and cowardly take is allowing the Republicans to argue the Democrats didn't even buy their own allegations.

You still haven't shown that the "moderate concerns" you mention about calling it bribery actually exist. Just saying so doesn't make it true. It's just a necessary element of deriding the Dems for doing the right thing, a form of concern trolling via projection. A vote for or against impeachment won't play any different back home because they called it bribery instead of abuse of power.

I'm just pleased that Dems have decided to keep it simple & to the point. It's easier to focus. It's as much about convincing the public as as it is about anything else. Send a simple message loud & clear, 5 x 5. These are deeply criminal acts. We can't have that. I mean, it's not like he'll quit being a criminal, is it? Hell, no. He'll just get bolder.

 

[Jhhnn]

They all need to be primaried.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204446747935805442

Heh. They didn't say they'd vote against impeachment, did they? It's second hand unofficial bullshit. And they didn't voice any concerns about calling it bribery, either.

 

[Maxima1]

You still haven't shown that the "moderate concerns" you mention about calling it bribery actually exist. Just saying so doesn't make it true.

I just posted a link showing that 10-12 Democrats wanted censure. It's obvious then that there are moderates that would balk at bribery being added. You just don't want to admit it's a political calculation. It may be the case that it could still pass, but that's only because Pelosi also is concerned about it affecting the Democrats negatively.

It's just a necessary element of deriding the Dems for doing the right thing, a form of concern trolling via projection.

Oh please. I'm hardly the only liberal that has criticized this. It's laughable how we can't criticize blue dogs at all, while you are totally fine with the Bernie bashing.

A vote for or against impeachment won't play any different back home because they called it bribery instead of abuse of power.

That's bullshit. Now the Republicans are mocking the Democrats for backing off, which they clearly did.

I'm just pleased that Dems have decided to keep it simple & to the point. It's easier to focus. It's as much about convincing the public as as it is about anything else. Send a simple message loud & clear, 5 x 5. These are deeply criminal acts. We can't have that. I mean, it's not like he'll quit being a criminal, is it? Hell, no. He'll just get bolder.

Come again? How is bribery and obstruction in regards to Mueller not simple?

Heh. They didn't say they'd vote against impeachment, did they? It's second hand unofficial bullshit.

So? They're scared and would be more scared if other articles were added a.k.a. crapping their pants.

And they didn't voice any concerns about calling it bribery, either.

Wow. If they're calling for censure instead of impeachment, it goes without saying they would dislike having other articles attached. They're lucky they have Pelosi at the helm as she's also scared this would be like Bill ClinTON.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pulling out all the stops on the second guessing, nay saying & back biting, huh? Pelosi has played it exceptionally well so far. The evidence of willful & damaging criminality in this Ukraine affair is simply overwhelming. Rational people will decide it's more than enough to toss Trump out. It remains to be seen how many of my fellow Americans are capable of being rational at this point. There's no point in confusing any of them making impeachment about anything else.

 

[JSt0rm]

Pulling out all the stops on the second guessing, nay saying & back biting, huh? Pelosi has played it exceptionally well so far. The evidence of willful & damaging criminality in this Ukraine affair is simply overwhelming. Rational people will decide it's more than enough to toss Trump out. It remains to be seen how many of my fellow Americans are capable of being rational at this point. There's no point in confusing any of them making impeachment about anything else.

the chuds will never care about this.

 

[Jhhnn]

the chuds will never care about this.

It's not just deplorables out there. A lot of pretty decent people just made a huge mistake in voting for Trump. Call it a temporary lapse in judgement. Hell- a lot of them voted for Obama before they voted for Trump.

A lot of them won't make the same mistake again. Once bitten twice shy.