Silly dumbasses... Trying to remove a dictator when the military is controlled by the dictator. This is funny!!! 😝
Silly Democrats...trying to remove a president while the Senate is controlled by republicans. This is funnay!!!
I just had a hard time understanding why so many Democrats would want to jeopardize their political futures, so I said to myself, this cannot be, those people are nuts. Nah, they wouldn't really do this. I guess this is really going to play out to the stupid end. (in the end they will look stupid)
I'm coming around to the position that the best thing is to vote to impeach but withhold it from the Senate unless or until McConnell agrees to reasonable terms for the trial. If he never does, then it never goes to the Senate and Trump will be impeached but not get the acquittal he wants.
I know that most/all of the banana Republican talking points trying to defend Trump against impeachment are complete bullshit. They are trying to defend the indefensible, but this one really has me scratching my head.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oka said in his closing arguments that impeachment is a "flawed process" that has gone on "at the expense of minority rights."
Huh!? Minority rights? How the hell did he come up with that one?
I always wish the next Dem who speaks after the Repub says "63 million voted for this President " would say and "66 million didn't".Here is my favorite republicans talking point so far:
Impeachment will override the will of 63 million people.
What they fail to realize is that a president who is intent on corrupting our election process it is a failure to protect the will of ALL voters in the next election.
Is your head up your ass? No? Then you probably wouldn’t be able to understand any rationale that could possibly be provided.
I'm coming around to the position that the best thing is to vote to impeach but withhold it from the Senate unless or until McConnell agrees to reasonable terms for the trial. If he never does, then it never goes to the Senate and Trump will be impeached but not get the acquittal he wants.
I very much disagree with this. If they withhold it from the senate they will just say the House knew their case was so weak they couldn’t send it to the senate.
Send it to the senate, let them make a mockery of it if they want.
I very much disagree with this. If they withhold it from the senate they will just say the House knew their case was so weak they couldn’t send it to the senate. McConnell would happily pocket a non-impeachment impeachment and ignore it.
Send it to the senate, let them make a mockery of it if they want.
Yes that is the counter-argument, but the dems will say they can have their trial any time they agree to actually subpoena witnesses so that the actual evidence can be heard and considered.
Everyone knows how the vote in the Senate will go. The only question is what will the political impact be. The only chance of it helping is if we can get the evidence heard.
Yes that is the counter-argument, but the dems will say they can have their trial any time they agree to actually subpoena witnesses so that the actual evidence can be heard and considered.
Everyone knows how the vote in the Senate will go. The only question is what will the political impact be. The only chance of it helping is if we can get the evidence heard.
Yep...this is leading more public figures to say vote on Impeachment and then delay sending the Articles to the Senate until McConnell commits to a fair (and real) trial. But the downside is that McConnell might find ways to sit on the issue until an opportune time. If he does that, they have the option of throwing their hands up, saying "We tried to do this the right way, but it's clear McConnell is abusing his power," and then instead issue a House censure and be done with it.
It's frustrating that Trump is getting away with high crimes, but the best way to defeat him is at the ballot box, which may or may not be possible. But from the looks of things, not just now but really all along, as it looks now, impeachment has always been a long shot because Senate Republicans have known that there isn't enough public support for it. And that's because there's not enough public loathing for Trump across the electorate.
It's up to American voters to preserve our political system and Democracy.
In this scenario, what happens if a judge rules on one the already outstanding witness subpoenas in the Dems favor?Yes that is the counter-argument, but the dems will say they can have their trial any time they agree to actually subpoena witnesses so that the actual evidence can be heard and considered.
Everyone knows how the vote in the Senate will go. The only question is what will the political impact be. The only chance of it helping is if we can get the evidence heard.
I'm coming around to the position that the best thing is to vote to impeach but withhold it from the Senate unless or until McConnell agrees to reasonable terms for the trial. If he never does, then it never goes to the Senate and Trump will be impeached but not get the acquittal he wants.
I find this to be a flaw in lawyer twitter generally where they try to apply what works in trials for regular people to this. Tribe is an incredibly smart person but I think his blind spot is that anyone gives a shit as to how this plays in a legal sense or how it would play in a courtroom.
As I understand things (could be wrong) the House could decide to pass impeachment to the Senate anytime they like so we could have much more come out. What I don't know if new articles can be added with a re-vote.In this scenario, what happens if a judge rules on one the already outstanding witness subpoenas in the Dems favor?
I get how we are both guessing about how things would play politically but to me not referring it to the senate indicates the house lacks the courage of its convictions. I don’t think people are persuaded by process arguments.
I find this to be a flaw in lawyer twitter generally where they try to apply what works in trials for regular people to this. Tribe is an incredibly smart person but I think his blind spot is that anyone gives a shit as to how this plays in a legal sense or how it would play in a courtroom.
As I understand things (could be wrong) the House could decide to pass impeachment to the Senate anytime they like so we could have much more come out. What I don't know if new articles can be added with a re-vote.
You may be right overall, but I wouldn't call Trump's blocking of several critical first hand witnesses in this matter a mere "process" argument. The blocking of witnesses is not only criminally obstructive. It directly impacts the substance of the evidence presented. How many people even know that Trump has blocked the witnesses with first hand knowledge of quid pro quo, while the repugs defending him are bullshitting over the witnesses who came forward having no first hand knowledge? Trump has blocked the most important witnesses from testifying. I think the strategy would be to make that fact central to why they are doing it. Don't make it about anything else. Keep it simple: we will refer the matter to the Senate when Mitch McConnell agrees to subpoena Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton.
In this scenario, what happens if a judge rules on one the already outstanding witness subpoenas in the Dems favor?