Trump Impeachment Predictions

[Aseahawkfan]

Now that Trump is finally going to have an impeachment inquiry at the very least, what do you think the odds of impeachment are?

They have a phone call of him asking a foreign leader to investigate a possible political opponent in the upcoming election. There is no proof he threatened anyone. But is it enough just to ask for an investigation to impeach? I do not know. He is now on record insinuating we should treat the whistle blower like a treasonous spy. So given all of this, what do you think the chances of impeachment are? Where is the line drawn? Is this finally it or can Trump spin this up as another "Deep State" attack on him by the Dems?

Do you think a third party like Bill and Hilary orchestrated this to take down two birds with one stone? Now the Democratic challengers can question Biden's integrity and insinuate corruption, which seems to have pushed Warren up in the polls.

What do any of you predict will happen with this one?

I can't fully see how this move will play out. The more I see the fallout, the more it seems like a third party saw an opportunity to make a play. This seems to be benefiting Warren the most. Will that stay or can Biden avoid any fallout from this? Will this be enough to take Trump down?

What do you think are the odds they can get him impeached and get the Senate to remove? Will the people support the move?

[c_hawkbob]

I predicted when he got elected that he wouldn't finish his first term ... might as well stick with that.

[Hawktawk]

Polls out today show a dramatic shift towards impeachment. Just a week ago it was somewhere in the high 50’s against to mid 30’s for . Today it’s an even split 43 to 43 with 13% unsure. Of course the real poll is the senate and there’s a few leaks in the dam. Romney is “very troubled” as is notably Ben Sasse, facing a primary opponent and having been endorsed by trump as a reward for toning down his criticism of trump . John Thune and Thad Cochran have also expressed objections . Granted it’s not 20 but importantly it’s enough to stop Moscow Mitch from basically making a farce out of the senate trial . And this is such an ugly story I’d just love to see these republican bobble heads defend treason , guys like Lindsay Graham perhaps the most nauseating of the bunch after McConnell who said of the Clinton impeachment “ you don’t even have to commit a crime, just bring dishonor to the office . It’s about cleansing the office “ boy howdy. He’s gone from being a staunch Trump critic to looking at his poll numbers dropping in his red neck racist state and becoming Trumps biggest defender. Joni Ernst said of the transcript “ I see nothing here” then video of her in 2014 calling for Obama to be impeached over executive orders surfaced. So good luck with this republicans . If polls show public sentiment turning hard against the worst most lawless president ever these political animals will fold. Not saying it will happen. If I was in Vegas I’d say not but it’s going to be a donnybrook. Hopefully Trumps head will just explode and they will haul him off to the rubber room he’s belonged in for quite a while.

[I-5]

I don't understand how a third party like Hillary could manipulate the Conman to make a phone call and say all the stupid things he says. If anyone orchestrated anything, it's Giuliani.

My coworker and I were saying today that when it comes time for the Senate to vote, assuming the House does indeed send his impeachment case to the Senate, it will come down to what the public thinks. Senators care about backing Trump only inasmuch as it will help them with their own agenda, ie staying in office. If they think they see the wind is shifting, I don't think it would take much to get to 20.

[Hawktawk]

Completely agree I 5. This has nothing to do with a third party political hack . This is happening because a deranged lawless president made a phone call a day after mueller testified that was so bad it triggered a whistleblower complaint . It’s easy for the public to grasp this. An unpopular president abusing power to try to smear a political opponent far more popular than himself and getting caught red handed in no mans land. Hiding a complaint and transcript that was legally to be delivered to the congress only , releasing it to try to get out ahead of the controversy and realizing it was so damning in itself it was simply gasoline on the fire. It’s the smoking gun most didn’t see in Russia but it’s here in the presidents own words and actions . You’re overthinking it Asea. It’s truly amazing to me this moment hasn’t com much sooner .

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't understand how a third party like Hillary could manipulate the Conman to make a phone call and say all the stupid things he says. If anyone orchestrated anything, it's Giuliani.

My coworker and I were saying today that when it comes time for the Senate to vote, assuming the House does indeed send his impeachment case to the Senate, it will come down to what the public thinks. Senators care about backing Trump only inasmuch as it will help them with their own agenda, ie staying in office. If they think they see the wind is shifting, I don't think it would take much to get to 20.

I mean getting it released and orchestrating the whistle blowing.

As far as the phone call itself, Trump is either dumb as a dodo or crazy like a fox. I couldn't call it. The man's so unpredictable I have no idea if he is straight up dumb or playing games. I guess we'll see how it turns out. It maybe 70% chance of straight dumb and 30% chance of an orchestration to bate the Dems and ferret out leaks. Trump doesn't know what he is doing, but he may have some smart people on his team.

[Aseahawkfan]

Completely agree I 5. This has nothing to do with a third party political hack . This is happening because a deranged lawless president made a phone call a day after mueller testified that was so bad it triggered a whistleblower complaint . It’s easy for the public to grasp this. An unpopular president abusing power to try to smear a political opponent far more popular than himself and getting caught red handed in no mans land. Hiding a complaint and transcript that was legally to be delivered to the congress only , releasing it to try to get out ahead of the controversy and realizing it was so damning in itself it was simply gasoline on the fire. It’s the smoking gun most didn’t see in Russia but it’s here in the presidents own words and actions . You’re overthinking it Asea. It’s truly amazing to me this moment hasn’t com much sooner .

Republicans holding the Senate has been his shield. We'll see if this can get the Repubs to move against him and make a party sacrifice of The White House. You know this game. Repubs holding The White House and pushing their agenda is their priority. It has to reach a point where protecting The Clown King former reality TV star becomes too costly.

I'll never see him as some threat like you do. But he's a clown playing in a pond too big him. The Republicans may need to kick him from the pond just to get things sensible again.

[I-5]

I think you’ve got him all wrong. He’s neither as dumb or as smart as you think. He behaves exactly as a malignant narcissist would, because that’s exactly who he is. You’re right though that he has people around him who are good at protecting his narcissistic ways. Read the textbook definition and tell me if it reminds you of anyone we know:

“Malignant narcissism is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial behavior, aggression, and sadism.[1] Grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines families and organizations in which they are involved, and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate.[2]”

[Aseahawkfan]

I think you’ve got him all wrong. He’s neither as dumb or as smart as you think. He behaves exactly as a malignant narcissist would, because that’s exactly who he is. You’re right though that he has people around him who are good at protecting his narcissistic ways. Read the textbook definition and tell me if it reminds you of anyone we know:

“Malignant narcissism is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial behavior, aggression, and sadism.[1] Grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines families and organizations in which they are involved, and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate.[2]”

I was one of the first people on here to call him a narcissist. It is one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him. His narcissism is amusting as a TV personality, but not great for president. He literally gave an interview sitting on a gold throne. I've followed this guy for ages. Read his book at 16. I also told you is a salesman. And that is also how he works. He's always selling. When he says do me a favor, it isn't some Godfather like statement. It's a salesman working a customer or associate.

He's a narcissistic, billionaire salesman who has never had a day of hard living in his life. I don't agree he is a malignant narcissist with that definition. If he was, we would be at war right now and his children would be far worse than they are. He just a run of the mill narcissistic rich kid who decided to become president and somehow managed to pull it off. He is in no way some violent sadist. I hate people painting Trump as much as he is as much I dislike his annoying ways and the way he treats the presidency.

Open your damn eyes, I5. He's not Hitler or anywhere close. Stop buying to the left wing garbage. Don't be [b]IDhawkman['/b] on the other side. Trump is a punk rich kid New Yorker with a big mouth who likes to get in petty feuds. He's not violent or sadistic. Just a mostly annoying jackass. Probably hasn't been in a fight in his life and to my knowledge and has never been known to be violent. Just a big mouth who says what he needs to say to work crowds even if he doesn't believe it. It's like you guys can call him a liar for nearly anything he says you don't like, but when he's working crowds with anti-immigrant rhetoric or talking about his lack of belief in climate change he's telling the truth? He's full of crap and just working his angles.

This is where I start tuning out when people start making Trump into a far worse person than he is, an exaggerated bad guy comparing him to a genocidal maniac. He's not even within spitting distance of that and has absolutely no historical evidence of such behavior. I hope at some point you look at him as he really is rather than building this big talking narcissist into something worse.

[obiken]

I hate to use the Litard term what if Obama had done it. However IF Obama had called the Ukrainian leader and said I want to investigate Mitt Romney's Son, and IF you do not I will withhold funds appropriated for your defense by the Congress and signed off on by me, you cannot tell me all these NeoCon Bubbas would not have split a gasket? Come on.

[RiverDog]

At this point, I'd bet against removal from office. It's very predictable that an impeachment question would see some sort of an uptick when this story first broke, but they're going to have to sustain it if they're going to have a chance at swaying enough public opinion in order to get 20 R Senators to go along. I said in another thread that they need to get Trump's job approval down into the 30's if they're going to make any headway on 20 R Senators.

I just read in a polling taken Wednesday where 32% of all Americans weren't following the story and 42% haven't heard enough to venture an opinion. That 42% probably includes mostly swing voters as the far right and left sides of the spectrum have already formed their opinions and won't come off them no matter what they hear. It means that the Dems do have an opportunity if they can get their story out in a manner that's simple enough for the average Joe to understand.

And let's keep in mind that impeachment and removal from office are two entirely different things. IMO the chances of impeachment are pretty good as the Dems control the House and need just 50% +1 to approve an article of impeachment and send it to the Senate for trial. Removal from office requires 2/3 of the Senate where the R's rule the roost.

So, at this point, I'd give 2-1 odds for impeachment, 2-1 against removal from office.

[I-5]

Don’t be silly ASF. I don’t think he’s Hitler. Geez.

A malignant narcissist is dangerous to national security, though, so don’t be naive. Case in point: Ukraine.

[Hawktawk]

I hate to use the Litard term what if Obama had done it. However IF Obama had called the Ukrainian leader and said I want to investigate Mitt Romney's Son, and IF you do not I will withhold funds appropriated for your defense by the Congress and signed off on by me, you cannot tell me all these NeoCon Bubbas would not have split a gasket? Come on.

Thats where the term "Trumptard" came from and I loved it the first time I heard it. I am sad that america, at least 40 some % of it has become so transactional about their 401 K, their paycheck, the Wall, SCOTUS, whatever they will accept chaotic illegal lunacy from their leader. It doesn't matter to some people what he does no matter how off the hook they will defend him.

But as I've said this is different. last time was Hillary. A lot of people didn't care about Russia helping Trump even though it's clear they did. It was Hillary.

This one is a simple, clear cut. He asked a foreign leader to look into a popular respected opponent who crushes him in the polls meaning a lot of people who voted for him are likely to vote for this guy if he's the nominee. He previously withheld aid approved by congress, lied about it and said it wasn't his idea to do so when it's clear it was . He also forbade Pence from going to the inauguration sendiong a low level rep instead. His exact wording to the Ukrainian prez from his own transcript "can you do ME a favor" and look into the Bidens. He encouraged him to consult with HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY as well as the AG. Bob Barr AKA the walrus has said he has nothing to do with this other than reviewing the matter with his "career prosecutors" and determining there was no violation of law, shades of the 4 page Mueller report summary which proved utterly false. But key point it was Giuliani that was to be the point man to Ukraine, Trump's reelection/personal corruption point man hack.

Forget the quid pro quo argument. There doesn't need to be one proven. The act of asking a foreign leader to investigate an opponent is enough.It's also been revealed that he phoned the president elect from AF 1 returning from Mara Lago and pressed him to address "corruption". He was pressuring this guy before he was even sworn in to dig dirt.

Then yesterday at a public event he's on tape saying the whistleblower and those who confided in him about the cover up of this call are "like spies" treasonous" and that "we used to deal with people who are spies and commit treason a little differently when we were smart". He drew a few laughs but mostly stone silence.

2 points about this. If there's nothing wrong with the call who cares ? also its a clear attempt to intimidate potential witnesses in his impeachment inquiry, another impeachable act in itself.

No he's not smart. He's not playing 3 dimensional chess. He's a dolt, an utter cretin and the only people more intentionally stupid are the Trumptards who suspend their disbelief of who they are following.

I think it was I 5 who mentioned Hitler. No hes not hitler but there are similarities, primarily that out of a tribal appeal to nationalism or keeping their political power some super good, intelligent patriotic people are willing to put up with sheer insanity to say they weren't wrong.

[Hawktawk]

At this point, I'd bet against removal from office. It's very predictable that an impeachment question would see some sort of an uptick when this story first broke, but they're going to have to sustain it if they're going to have a chance at swaying enough public opinion in order to get 20 R Senators to go along. I said in another thread that they need to get Trump's job approval down into the 30's if they're going to make any headway on 20 R Senators.

I just read in a polling taken Wednesday where 32% of all Americans weren't following the story and 42% haven't heard enough to venture an opinion. That 42% probably includes mostly swing voters as the far right and left sides of the spectrum have already formed their opinions and won't come off them no matter what they hear. It means that the Dems do have an opportunity if they can get their story out in a manner that's simple enough for the average Joe to understand.

And let's keep in mind that impeachment and removal from office are two entirely different things. IMO the chances of impeachment are pretty good as the Dems control the House and need just 50% +1 to approve an article of impeachment and send it to the Senate for trial. Removal from office requires 2/3 of the Senate where the R's rule the roost.

So, at this point, I'd give 2-1 odds for impeachment, 2-1 against removal from office.

Polling is shifting rapidly RD. 43 for-43 against, about a 9 point shift to the right position in juist the few days since this broke. 13 percent undecided but most undecideds will break for the challenger as they have seen almost 3 years of Trumps bullshit.
The senate is a tough one but let's see. I'm a 100% of impeachment happening and maybe 60-40 no in the senate but there's never been a more stupid uncontrollable legal client in history so there's time. If the economy starts to sink( I'm hoping to stay employed manufacturing is already in a depression) then its a snowball rolling downhill.

[RiverDog]

Forget the quid pro quo argument. There doesn't need to be one proven. The act of asking a foreign leader to investigate an opponent is enough.

I tend to agree. If it were the president of Panama asking for a favor, it might be different. But when it's the president of the richest and most powerful country on the planet that's doing the asking, that alone carries a huge amount of weight.

Then yesterday at a public event he's on tape saying the whistleblower and those who confided in him about the cover up of this call are "like spies" treasonous" and that "we used to deal with people who are spies and commit treason a little differently when we were smart". He drew a few laughs but mostly stone silence.

2 points about this. If there's nothing wrong with the call who cares ? also its a clear attempt to intimidate potential witnesses in his impeachment inquiry, another impeachable act in itself.

The whistle blower himself (or herself) is unlikely to be a witness in any trial as it's second hand information to them. Their testimony would be thrown out as hearsay. All they've done is give the investigators a road map. If anyone testifies, it will be those that took the notes during the phone conversation, most likely CIA agents.

You can think of the whistle blower as Deep Throat from Watergate fame. It was decades before we knew his identity, an FBI agent by the name of Mark Felt.

[c_hawkbob]

Then yesterday at a public event he's on tape saying the whistleblower and those who confided in him about the cover up of this call are "like spies" treasonous" and that "we used to deal with people who are spies and commit treason a little differently when we were smart". He drew a few laughs but mostly stone silence.

2 points about this. If there's nothing wrong with the call who cares ? also its a clear attempt to intimidate potential witnesses in his impeachment inquiry, another impeachable act in itself.

The whistle blower himself (or herself) is unlikely to be a witness in any trial as it's second hand information to them. Their testimony would be thrown out as hearsay. All they've done is give the investigators a road map. If anyone testifies, it will be those that took the notes during the phone conversation, most likely CIA agents.

You can think of the whistle blower as Deep Throat from Watergate fame. It was decades before we knew his identity, an FBI agent by the name of Mark Felt.

Who cares about the whistle blower! Address Tawk's point that I've bolded and italicized ... that's where the rubber meets the road in that statement.

It was clear witness intimidation and it in and of itself a crime. Trump's so used to doing it at rallies and and on twitter he can't help himself even when it's bound to become another nail in his own political coffin. This isn't just more evidence of wrongdoing, it's more actual wrongdoing even while the impeachment proceedings have just begun.

[RiverDog]

Who cares about the whistle blower! Address Tawk's point that I've bolded and italicized ... that's where the rubber meets the road in that statement.

It was clear witness intimidation and it in and of itself a crime. Trump's so used to doing it at rallies and and on twitter he can't help himself even when it's bound to become another nail in his own political coffin. This isn't just more evidence of wrongdoing, it's more actual wrongdoing even while the impeachment proceedings have just begun.

Of course, it's an act of intimidation. My only point is that the whistle blower himself is unlikely to be a witness because all of his information is 2nd hand, so it's not clear in my mind if it would qualify as witness intimidation. Perhaps obstruction of justice would be a more fitting potential crime.

And as far as whether or not it's an impeachable crime, an impeachable crime is whatever 218 Representatives and 67 Senators says it is, so I couldn't really tell you if it's an impeachable crime or not. Hell, I thought perjury was an impeachable crime, but I was wrong.

[Hawktawk]

No
It’s an impeachable crime whether the senate ratifies it or not. He’s committed at least half a dozen impeachable offenses that are public knowledge already and should have been removed by impeachment or under the 25th amendment long ago.whether it happens depends on whether these senators care more about their seat or their place in history. As for the threats they are against witnesses. Trump said “ who told this whistleblower about the call?” That’s like a spy “. He’s trying to intimidate witnesses. If he survives this impeachment should be just done away with. There’s never been a more crooked unfit occupant more deserving of immediate removal.

[RiverDog]

No
It’s an impeachable crime whether the senate ratifies it or not. He’s committed at least half a dozen impeachable offenses that are public knowledge already and should have been removed by impeachment or under the 25th amendment long ago.whether it happens depends on whether these senators care more about their seat or their place in history. As for the threats they are against witnesses. Trump said “ who told this whistleblower about the call?” That’s like a spy “. He’s trying to intimidate witnesses. If he survives this impeachment should be just done away with. There’s never been a more crooked unfit occupant more deserving of immediate removal.

That's your opinion, Hawktalk. It is not a fact.

Congress could impeach/remove a President from office for spitting on the sidewalk if enough of them voted for it. Or they could acquit him of an "impeachable offense" if he committed a murder. There is no standard set forth in the Constitution that limits Congress as to their interpretation of what an impeachable offense is. It's a very vague definition. Personally, I think that the bar should be set very high to overturn the results of an election, but that's just me.

I agree with you and CBob that Trump's intimidation of the whistle blower is a very serious incident and supports the case for his impeachment. We'll see where it goes.

[c_hawkbob]

Who cares about the whistle blower! Address Tawk's point that I've bolded and italicized ... that's where the rubber meets the road in that statement.

It was clear witness intimidation and it in and of itself a crime. Trump's so used to doing it at rallies and and on twitter he can't help himself even when it's bound to become another nail in his own political coffin. This isn't just more evidence of wrongdoing, it's more actual wrongdoing even while the impeachment proceedings have just begun.

Of course, it's an act of intimidation. My only point is that the whistle blower himself is unlikely to be a witness because all of his information is 2nd hand, so it's not clear in my mind if it would qualify as witness intimidation. Perhaps obstruction of justice would be a more fitting potential crime.

And as far as whether or not it's an impeachable crime, an impeachable crime is whatever 218 Representatives and 67 Senators says it is, so I couldn't really tell you if it's an impeachable crime or not. Hell, I thought perjury was an impeachable crime, but I was wrong.

I see now, so your point wasn't to deflect from the seriousness of his latest crime ("impeachable" is not my qualifier) it was to question whether it would actually be a crime if the target of the intimidation were not in fact to wind up a witness. I'm not sure of the legal fine points involved with that question, but I believe that his status as a whistle blower already has made him a witness.

[RiverDog]

I see now, so your point wasn't to deflect from the seriousness of his latest crime ("impeachable" is not my qualifier) it was to question whether it would actually be a crime if the target of the intimidation were not in fact to wind up a witness. I'm not sure of the legal fine points involved with that question, but I believe that his status as a whistle blower already has made him a witness.

That's correct. It was not my intent to trivialize the charges, and I'm not sure of the legal fine points, either. I ain't no Perry Mason. I was just repeating what I've been taught, that second hand information, ie hearsay, usually does not stand up in court, so it's my opinion that should the whistle blower ever be called to testify that their testimony would be deemed irrelevant. I felt it important to point that out.

As far as the issue with Trump's tweets calling the whistle blower a spy, I would treat those actions exactly the same as intimidation of a potential witness. That cell phone and Twitter account is going to be his undoing.

The other thing I felt important to note is that, unlike our justice system where there are specific definitions for each crime, such as the difference between felony crimes and misdemeanors (monetary thresholds, for example), there are no such definitions in an impeachment process, nor are there any rules or procedures that Congress must follow during hearings and a Senate trial. An impeachable offense is truly whatever Congress says it is.

[Hawktawk]

That's correct. It was not my intent to trivialize the charges, and I'm not sure of the legal fine points, either. I ain't no Perry Mason. I was just repeating what I've been taught, that second hand information, ie hearsay, usually does not stand up in court, so it's my opinion that should the whistle blower ever be called to testify that their testimony would be deemed irrelevant. I felt it important to point that out.

As far as the issue with Trump's tweets calling the whistle blower a spy, I would treat those actions exactly the same as intimidation of a potential witness. That cell phone and Twitter account is going to be his undoing.

The other thing I felt important to note is that, unlike our justice system where there are specific definitions for each crime, such as the difference between felony crimes and misdemeanors (monetary thresholds, for example), there are no such definitions in an impeachment process, nor are there any rules or procedures that Congress must follow during hearings and a Senate trial. An impeachable offense is truly whatever Congress says it is.

The whistleblower is the person who implicated numerous WH officials, lawyers etc in a cover up of a phone call. They will be the witnesses who actually heard the call and some were almost certainly involved one way or another in covering it up and trying to bury it. The whistleblower heretofore referred to as WB may have had direct knowledge of that but reported that numerous WH officials had expressed concern that the president had broken the law. Now word breaks that calls with Putin and Crown Prince of SA are also hidden away in the same top secret computer system in the situation room.

The president's idiotic and ominous comments on camera in a public forum were "I WONDER WHO TOLD THE WB about the call" They are like spies doing treasonous things and we used to handle spies and people who committed treason a little differently when we were smart". Trump is indeed threatening THE WITNESSES.Mike Pompeo has been subpoenaed after stonewalling for weeks on records as has been the Ambassador to Ukraine who arranged for Guliani to meet with the Ukrainian president and abruptly resigned yesterday. Every single member of Trump's cabinet as well as his official WH legal team will be called to testify in this inquiry and we will see if they are willing to fall on their sword to protect a guy most republican officials privately loathe but publicly support.

Its already common knowledge that the one on one meetings with Putin do not involve any other american present other than interpreters and their notes are promptly confiscated. We do know he emerged from one in helsinki to stand by Putin and say he believed his account that he didn't meddle into our elections over that of our own intelligence services, mentioning now departed Dan Coates by name. One can only imagine what he's said, what hes promised what he's been threatened with in these meetings. Also reports have surfaced that during the oval office meeting in 2017 with Lavrov and Kysliak Trump said he "doesn't care about the russian interference in our elections because we do the same thing".

This is where I have a hard time understanding people in this forum and just people in general whio think it's no big deal this is the guy occupying the most powerful influential chair on the planet

[RiverDog]

The whistleblower is the person who implicated numerous WH officials, lawyers etc in a cover up of a phone call. They will be the witnesses who actually heard the call and some were almost certainly involved one way or another in covering it up and trying to bury it. The whistleblower heretofore referred to as WB may have had direct knowledge of that but reported that numerous WH officials had expressed concern that the president had broken the law. Now word breaks that calls with Putin and Crown Prince of SA are also hidden away in the same top secret computer system in the situation room.

The whistle blower's complaint reads as follows: "In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to 'lock down' all the records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced as is customary by the White House situation room," the complaint says.

That's still second hand information. It's like a news reporter quoting an unnamed source. How many times have you heard Andrea Mitchell say something like "aids close to the President" in a news report? That statement of his don't mean squat unless he can point out who the "U.S. officials" and "senior White House officials" are so that Congress can interview or subpoena them.

We're arguing over minute points. I'm in agreement with you that Trump's threats to the whistle blower is a very serious incident as is the suspected cover-up. Even if it's not considered threatening a witness as I am arguing it is, it's still obstruction of justice as he's actively trying to impede the investigation, not to mention that it's the act of a person who has a consciousness of guilt. Trump's acting like the cat that ate the canary.

I'm right with you on this, Hawktalk. Although there's still a lot to find out, such as corroborating some of these accusations with eyewitness testimony, based on what I suspect is the truth, I'd be voting impeachment/removal from office if I were a Rep./Sen.

[Hawktawk]

The whistle blower's complaint reads as follows: "In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to 'lock down' all the records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced as is customary by the White House situation room," the complaint says.

That's still second hand information. It's like a news reporter quoting an unnamed source. How many times have you heard Andrea Mitchell say something like "aids close to the President" in a news report? That statement of his don't mean squat unless he can point out who the "U.S. officials" and "senior White House officials" are so that Congress can interview or subpoena them.

We're arguing over minute points. I'm in agreement with you that Trump's threats to the whistle blower are a very serious incident as is the suspected cover-up. Even if it's not considered threatening a witness as I am arguing, it's the act of a person who has a consciousness of guilt. Trump's acting like the cat that ate the canary.

Trump's own intelligence Inspector General found the Whistleblowers account to be "credible" and of the highest urgency. The transcript released by Trump's own WH clearly proves that the phone call was exactly as it was reported by the WBs second hand account. The only question is who made the decision that placed it in lockdown, reportedly at the advice of WH lawyers. Of course its evidence of guilt, just like russia with 10 clear instances of obstruction, refusal to answer even written questions about obstruction etc. Over 1000 former federal prosecutors signed a document stating that were trump anyone else he would be indicted and prosecuted. In this current scandal 300 NSA people from both parties have already signed a letter defending this impeachment inquiry.

The senate republicans for the overwhelming part are disgusting, un american political bottom feeders who privately loathe Trump but support him publicly to not alienate the Trumptard base. I heard a reporter who regularly has access to senators say if they could keep their vote secret Trump would have over 30 R senators vote to remove him. It's just a really sad time in america in the age of DT.

The acting NSA director was clearly uncomfortable testifying before congress and struggled to explain his decision to hand the WB complaint over to justice and the walrus instead of directly to congress as the law states but under grilling he admitted it was wrong to ask for help from a foreign leader to smear an opponent and said the WB had done the right thing in reporting this. Certainly the WB will name the specific people who spoke with him/her expressing their concerns, likely already has and if they deny it then he/she clearly will become a witness in the proceedings. This is going to get very ugly and legally expensive for a lot of people in this administration. And as i've said when a guy like Ben Sasse comes out and says Republicans should not circle the wagons since there a lot of troubling things here it carries a lot more weight than Romney. Time will tell but this is not some Andrea Mitchell unnamed sources thing that never gets verified. Its ALREADY been verified by the rough transcript and Trump's own words. And one more time. If its not impeachable conduct do away with impeachment and find a better way to address misconduct by the president.

[RiverDog]

We'll have to wait and see if this impeachment momentum builds. It was predictable that there'd be some bump in the polls, about 5-6% since the news broke on 9/20 and end of the Mueller Investigation, but most of those are Democrats that were reluctant to go all in due to the consequences of a failed effort. They seem pretty galvanized now.

Currently the polls show that just under half think that Trump should be impeached. IMO They're going to have to get that number up to around 60% in order to get 20 R Senators to sit up and take notice.

[Hawktawk]

Yeah let’s see how the investigation plays out and how much stupid stuff trump says and tweets. It will be a lot. And if he is impeached which I’m 99% sure he will be then McConnell has already said “ we have no choice but to hold a trial.” As for the trial I believe is virtually certain to happen the Dems need 4 to cross the aisle to stop
McConnell from muting democrats with procedural moves limiting their time to question witnesses etc. my guess is Romney and Sasse are there already. Perhaps murkowski and Susan Collins who is on life support in Maine due to her supporting Kavanaugh. It should be interesting.

[RiverDog]

A Senate impeachment trial would be the Republicans worst nightmare. They're already defending twice as many seats as the Dems, and there's a number of them besides Collins that are in 'purple' states, like Gardner in Colorado and McSally in Arizona. That's why I'm saying to watch the poll numbers, because you can damn well be sure that the R Senators will be looking at them for guidance. If it were a private vote, I'm confident that Trump would be a goner. But that's not how it works. The R Senators are going to lose their fig leaves if they are forced to vote on impeachment.

[Hawktawk]

A Senate impeachment trial would be the Republicans worst nightmare. They're already defending twice as many seats as the Dems, and there's a number of them besides Collins that are in 'purple' states, like Gardner in Colorado and McSally in Arizona. That's why I'm saying to watch the poll numbers, because you can damn well be sure that the R Senators will be looking at them for guidance. If it were a private vote, I'm confident that Trump would be a goner. But that's not how it works. The R Senators are going to lose their fig leaves if they are forced to vote on impeachment.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/463 ... e-of-trump

This is not Bill Clinton sitting at 65%, balancing budgets and passing welfare to work bills in a bipartisan fashion, glib and funny and putting on his tie to go work every day with the people impeaching him.Its the first time I ever heard the word "compartmentalize"

This is a guy who engages in twitter wars with an autistic 16 year old climate activist, says borderline impeachable threatening and flat out stupid things in front of cameras and on twitter every day.Its not going to get any better either as this thing progresses.

I've heard it so many times, he's actually privately loathed by the overwhelming majority of his colleagues. Flakes comments here are telling.Also telling is the absence of a strong condemnation of the impeachment inquiry by McConnell despite Trump having a far higher amount of support in Kentucky than Moscow Mitch. He also authorised a unanimous vote to release the WB complaint to the house intelligence committee. MOF he allowed a vote on an election tampering bill he had blocked for months . Is he actually beginning to grow a conscience, some balls, contemplating his place in history as a formerly widely respected leader who has become a lap dog for a lunatic?

I think this inquiry, how it's handled, what additional facts are developed
( and the leaks of other conversations with the likes of Putin and the Saudi CP are extremely damning if true) the dam may break and this blight on american history might be able to be cleaned up. Reportedly Schiff has reached an agreement with the whistleblower to testify before the congress , other witnesses are being subpoenaed with lightning speed and its anticipated a vote on impeachment might be coming as early as October with a senate trial by December at the latest. This has a different feel than Clinton for sure, more like Nixon and watergate...

[RiverDog]

I think this inquiry, how it's handled, what additional facts are developed ( and the leaks of other conversations with the likes of Putin and the Saudi CP are extremely damning if true) the dam may break and this blight on american history might be able to be cleaned up. Reportedly Schiff has reached an agreement with the whistleblower to testify before the congress , other witnesses are being subpoenaed with lightning speed and its anticipated a vote on impeachment might be coming as early as October with a senate trial by December at the latest. This has a different feel than Clinton for sure, more like Nixon and watergate...

It's a horrible idea to call the whistle blower to testify before Congress. It would be nothing but a PR stunt as he/she can add nothing to the investigation than they haven't already done. All it's going to do is to place their life in jeopardy as there's a lot of lunatics out there looking for retribution. There's already a bunch of amateur sleuths trying to figure out their identity.

I, too, think they'll move pretty fast. The primary season kicks off in February shortly after the Super Bowl and they're going to want to get it wrapped up by then. As far as the comparison with Watergate and Lewinsky, I agree that it's a different feel than Lewinsky but it's not close to the sentiment that existed during Watergate. There were two huge events that turned public opinion against Nixon: The testimony of his White House legal counsel John Dean and the Saturday Night Massacre where Nixon fired his AG for his refusal to fire the special prosecutor. That drove Tricky Dick's popularity into the mid 20's where it stayed until he resigned. I haven't seen a like event in Trump's scandal yet.

[Hawktawk]

I tend to agree on the whistleblower testimony thing. Trump has been threatening in his comments and demanding to know the identity of this person . There are conflicting reports as to the degree this individual has already received some protection from law enforcement. Clearly breaking their secrecy will make them a target in many ways including possibly their physical safety. Regardless Schiff says he has a deal , never mind his clownish skit imitating a mob boss opening the DNI hearing was the only nakedly political moment in the hearing . Pelosi for her part I truly believe has opened this inquiry out of a sense of constitutional responsibility . Asked yesterday about losing the house over this she said” I don’t care” I’ve not been a fan but good for her. And politically polls clearly show a majority of Americans favor this inquiry to continue with a poll just this morning saying 55%!!!!! Favor impeachment. It stands to reason that with that being his general disapproval # it was only a matter of time till this simple to understand scandal would convince all of them to support it.

[RiverDog]

I tend to agree on the whistleblower testimony thing. Trump has been threatening in his comments and demanding to know the identity of this person . There are conflicting reports as to the degree this individual has already received some protection from law enforcement. Clearly breaking their secrecy will make them a target in many ways including possibly their physical safety. Regardless Schiff says he has a deal , never mind his clownish skit imitating a mob boss opening the DNI hearing was the only nakedly political moment in the hearing . Pelosi for her part I truly believe has opened this inquiry out of a sense of constitutional responsibility . Asked yesterday about losing the house over this she said” I don’t care” I’ve not been a fan but good for her. And politically polls clearly show a majority of Americans favor this inquiry to continue with a poll just this morning saying 55%!!!!! Favor impeachment. It stands to reason that with that being his general disapproval # it was only a matter of time till this simple to understand scandal would convince all of them to support it.

I'm glad we're in agreement over the relevance of the whistle blower's testimony. Trump's insistence on meeting him is silly. It's not the whistle blower he needs to talk to, it's the first hand sources that the whistle blower has referenced that holds the keys to his possible impeachment.

As far as Pelosi goes, she's nothing but a political hack. She wouldn't be taking this action if there was a capital "D" behind Trump's name. I don't have anymore respect for her today than I did 6 months or 6 years ago.

The 55%' I think you're referring to in the latest poll doesn't necessarily favor impeachment. If you're looking at the same poll I am, that 55% support an impeachment inquiry. That's wholly different than favoring impeachment, and even that appears luke warm, with just 35% strongly supporting the inquiry. Additionally, it shows that 45% oppose the proceedings, suggesting that nearly all that typically respond positively in job approval polls where Trump has been pegged in the mid 40% region ever since he was elected oppose even the start of an inquiry let alone removing him from office. Impeachment is still a very partisan initiative.

The poll, which was released Sunday morning, found that 55 percent of Americans support an impeachment inquiry, with 35 percent strongly approving and 20 percent somewhat approving the move. Meanwhile, 45 percent of respondents said they disapprove of congressional Democrats' decision to start an impeachment inquiry into Trump.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... nt-inquiry

You're getting ahead of yourself. Public opinion still has a long ways to go before it starts turning the heads of those R Senators that will ultimately be the ones that pass judgement and determine if that ass clown stays or goes. As Kung Fu would say..."Patience, Grasshopper."

[c_hawkbob]

You're getting ahead of yourself. Public opinion still has a long ways to go before it starts turning the heads of those R Senators that will ultimately be the ones that pass judgement and determine if that ass clown stays or goes. As Kung Fu would say..."Patience, Grasshopper."

And I think you are understating (as is your usual stance, so kudos for consistency) the significance of the amount of recent movement in the polls. I guarantee you those moderate R's you keep talking about needing to shift sides of the aisle on Trump are paying attention to those polls and they all have a threshold beyond which they will not be willing to keep their political careers tied to his. Over 50% is significant, whether the questions about favoring actual impeachment or just having the inquiry (I don't think most respondents would answer either question any differently).

[RiverDog]

And I think you are understating (as is your usual stance, so kudos for consistency) the significance of the amount of recent movement in the polls. I guarantee you those moderate R's you keep talking about needing to shift sides of the aisle on Trump are paying attention to those polls and they all have a threshold beyond which they will not be willing to keep their political careers tied to his. Over 50% is significant, whether the questions about favoring actual impeachment or just having the inquiry (I don't think most respondents would answer either question any differently).

Agreed about the moderate R's watching the polls, especially considering that we're rapidly approaching an election year where 33 Republican Senator's seats will be up for grabs. Sadly to say, most politicians on both sides of the aisle value their political careers more than they do voting their conscience.

But I disagree with you about the 55% of those that answered the question of an inquiry the same as if the issue was impeachment, and would point to the just 35%...obviously composed entirely of Dems that wanted to impeach him the day he took office..that strongly support an impeachment inquiry as evidence, at least in the poll that I referenced.

Aw, it's just one poll and it's damn early in this process, so not a lot of sense in us getting our briefs in a wad over it.

Edit: There's 22 Republican Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.

[c_hawkbob]

No twisted nickers here, just opining that 50% is a significant threshold to have crossed.

[RiverDog]

I'm not saying my way of looking at things are any better than anyone else's, but here's how I look at things regarding public opinion on the Trump impeachment issue:

According to Real Clear Politics, which takes an average of all the major polling organizations, Trump's job approval ratings have ranged from a low of 37.0% on December 15th, 2017 to a high of 46.5 on January 31st, 2017 throughout the past two years. His job approval ratings don't change very much. It currently sits at 44.5% for the week ending 9/29/19, .8% down from the previous week. Given the gravity of the news from the last couple of weeks, that's not very much movement, and does not represent a huge encroachment into Trump's and the R's political base. It was the loss of his political base that gave Republicans in the House and Senate the courage to give up Richard Nixon and force his resignation (for months prior to his resignation, Nixon's job approval ratings were below 30%).

Certainly it's still early and some of those polls were taken before all of this news had a chance to sink in, but from my way of thinking, the R Senators that we all agree will be watching the polls, won't start taking notice in the numbers needed to convict Trump in a Senate trial until they break the 55% mark of those supporting impeachment, not the proceedings. 55%, or the negative of his 45% job approval, would mean that some of those that have almost always felt that Trump was doing a good job are now beginning to move into the camp that says he has to go.

[c_hawkbob]

Searching the term "impeachable crimes" from this conversation I ran across an interesting quote:

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Jan. 1999 speaking on whether Clinton's "crimes" rose to the level of impeachment.

Of course now that same hypocrite says he has no problem with what the current President has done ...

[RiverDog]

Searching the term "impeachable crimes" from this conversation I ran across an interesting quote:

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Jan. 1999 speaking on whether Clinton's "crimes" rose to the level of impeachment.

Of course now that same hypocrite says he has no problem with what the current President has done ...

I agree with the quote and it dove tails pretty much with what I've been saying, ie that this is a political process, not a judicial one. I disagree with some of those folks that are trying to defend Trump by saying he didn't break any laws. I really don't give two hoots in hell if what he did was against the law or not. It's common sense not to ask foreign leaders to intervene in our elections, and especially given that we just got over a major brew ha ha regarding election interference by a foreign government, he should know better. IMO it's a clear abuse of his power as President to be using his office to promote his own re-election.

Having said that, it would help the case against Trump if they could find a law of which he is in clear violation. Impeachment is a pretty loosely defined term and there's obviously a lot of people that do not agree with our definition of it.

[I-5]

The 2 things I'm looking at if Impeachment makes it to the Senate, is 1) how quickly McConnell will attempt to run the trial and/or dismiss it, and 2) how the national mood is regarding impeachment. I think if the 50/50 split we have today is eclipsed, and we're at 55%-60% or higher by the time the Senate trial begins, including the independent and republicans starting to flip, republicans will be stuck between circling wagons around their guy, and worrying about their careers. It's more scary than exciting what will happen, but I have some optimism.

[RiverDog]

The 2 things I'm looking at if Impeachment makes it to the Senate, is 1) how quickly McConnell will attempt to run the trial and/or dismiss it, and 2) how the national mood is regarding impeachment. I think if the 50/50 split we have today is eclipsed, and we're at 55%-60% or higher by the time the Senate trial begins, including the independent and republicans starting to flip, republicans will be stuck between circling wagons around their guy, and worrying about their careers. It's more scary than exciting what will happen, but I have some optimism.

Not to nit pick, but two polls released today (Quinnipiac and CNN) show that the pro impeachment number is at 47%, a couple ticks under 50%. All those polls show is that the Dems are now more galvanized. There's virtually no movement amongst R's and the movement amongst independents is mixed:

A Quinnipiac University poll released Monday shows that support for impeaching Trump and removing him from office has grown from 37 percent of registered voters at the start of last week to 47 percent in the latest survey, which was conducted Friday through Sunday. An identical 47 percent say Trump should not be impeached.

In the Quinnipiac poll, another big reason for the shift appears to be that Democrats are increasingly united in their support for impeachment. Support among Democrats has risen from 73 percent a week ago to 90 percent in the survey released Monday.

The CNN poll shows an 11-point rise in support for impeachment among independents, from 35 percent in May to 46 percent. In the Quinnipiac poll, independents’ support for impeaching Trump has grown from 34 percent a week ago to 42 percent through Sunday; a majority of independents, however, say Trump should not be impeached and removed from office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Some movement when the story first breaks is inevitable. The big shock occurred when the news first broke and again when Pelosi made her announcement as to the start of impeachment proceedings. That bump is over, so it's important that subsequent supporting evidence keep emerging. Both polls show that there's still an equal number, 47%, that oppose impeachment, meaning that Trump's base hasn't started eroding. That's the number we need to keep our eyes on.

Don't start your touchdown dance on the 25 yard line.

[I-5]

From the same article:
he change since May has largely come among independents and Republicans. About three-quarters of Democrats favor impeaching Trump and removing him from office, roughly the same as in May, while among independents, support for impeachment and removal has risen 11 points to 46% among independents and 8 points to 14% among Republicans.

Also, saying ‘some optimism’ doesn’t equate a touchdown dance. I’m still generally pessimistic about the process. Not sure how you got touchdown dance out of such a reserved statement, but whatever.