HawkShack.com

So let's follow along with the impeachment and see what happens. It is pretty much as expected with the vote along party lines. No Republicans voted to impeach. Nearly all Democrats voted to impeach. Now the Senate is up next. Let's watch the show and follow along. See if the Senate votes to remove.

I think this is super interesting. I want to see if a sitting president can fight off impeachment and win re-election with so much of the press against him.

The Democrats and left wing are throwing all their power to take down Trump. A splinter group of Republicans are trying to take him down. Most of the media is against Trump. I have never seen so many people against a single president. Not even the attacks on Bill Clinton were at this level from what I recall. Trump has to be the most disliked president in history by such a large number of Americans.

Can this narcissistic big mouth fight off this much disdain, prejudice, and hate to stay in office and win re-election? I'm doubtful myself. I predict he survives removal from office and is protected by the Senate Republican majority, but is voted out of office in the 2020 election.

Nonetheless, this is all very interesting. This is similar to Clinton. A populist president with a great economy trying to survive impeachment with a split Congress, but I have to admit I think Bill Clinton inspired less ill will overall.

Let's the party start. The Dems have finally gotten what they've been seeking: a reason to impeach. If Trump survives the Senate which I think he will, then we will see what the American people think come election time.

Aseahawkfan wrote:So let's follow along with the impeachment and see what happens. It is pretty much as expected with the vote along party lines. No Republicans voted to impeach. Nearly all Democrats voted to impeach. Now the Senate is up next. Let's watch the show and follow along. See if the Senate votes to remove.

I think this is super interesting. I want to see if a sitting president can fight off impeachment and win re-election with so much of the press against him.

The Senate trial is as predetermined as any trial of any kind that I can recall in my lifetime. As a matter of fact, Trump and his allies are wanting the trial to last as long as possible so as to squeeze it for as much political value as possible. The process will be over in January, well before the 2020 elections get into high gear.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The Democrats and left wing are throwing all their power to take down Trump. A splinter group of Republicans are trying to take him down. Most of the media is against Trump. I have never seen so many people against a single president. Not even the attacks on Bill Clinton were at this level from what I recall. Trump has to be the most disliked president in history by such a large number of Americans.

Trump had the largest negative rating of any nominee ever since they started doing the research back to Eisenhower. Ironically, the nominee that had the 2nd highest negative rating is Hillary. Even a lightning rod like George W. Bush doesn't come close to Trump and Hillary.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Can this narcissistic big mouth fight off this much disdain, prejudice, and hate to stay in office and win re-election? I'm doubtful myself. I predict he survives removal from office and is protected by the Senate Republican majority, but is voted out of office in the 2020 election.

And I predict that the sun will rise in the east.

As long as the Dems don't nominate Bernie or Warren, I think they won't have any trouble beating Trump in November. But then again, up until October of 2016, I didn't give Trump a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning the election, so what do I know.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Nonetheless, this is all very interesting. This is similar to Clinton. A populist president with a great economy trying to survive impeachment with a split Congress, but I have to admit I think Bill Clinton inspired less ill will overall.

Let's the party start. The Dems have finally gotten what they've been seeking: a reason to impeach. If Trump survives the Senate which I think he will, then we will see what the American people think come election time.

It is similar to Clinton in that it is an almost exclusively partisan impeachment that went nowhere. That's why it's so foolish for the Dems to pursue it as it's only going to hurt them come November. All it's doing is rubbing salt in a huge, ugly wound. We've essentially become two separate nations.

Ironically, as I am watching NBC's Today show, they just put up a graphic on their latest poll: 48% support impeachment/removal from office, almost exactly what I've been arguing for months.

https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment ... ed751.html

Here's what big conservative Republican Trump thought of impeachment in 2008...Pelosi as well...Mind you he was advocating the impeachment of a 2 term republican president who governed and did his best under one of the most terrible times in our history. Calling for that guys impeachment and praising Nancy Pelosi and now its MAGA .

Anyone who thinks these clips of him and Lindsay graham and Mitch McConnell in the past won't be running in campaign ads is delusional. I'm not sure how it will break with the voter 11 months from now. It may not help democrats but i dont think it will help trump. And the story isn't over. Court rulings will possibly open up other areas of corruption. I'm sick of hearing democrats and fringe republicans are trying to "take him down". In my lifetime of 60 years we've had lots of presidents of both parties and 3 have been impeached even though the 2 parties have loathed one another for a long time. Politics aint beanbag but all 3 impeachment inquiries in my lifetime were justified IMO. When someone robs a bank they need taken down.

I'm tired of hearing the press is just" against him". The press reports the news except much of Faux.Even they have had to start reporting accurately to be barriaged by his furious attacks on them on twitter. The 8 years before than it was much of the media running interference for Obama but not to this degree.A free and adversarial to a president's unbridled ideology press is the lifeblood of democracy.

Most but not all anchors other than Faux are democrats but they can't just make stuff up. This president brings every ounce of hate, every negative story he gets. His chaotic administration and personal amoral conduct brings it on.1 hour after he was impeached he was at a trumptard rally in Michigan.He tore into Debbie Dingell, congressman from Michigan who took her late husband of 50 years John Dingell's seat when he passed at age 94 last year.

In the course of Trumps angry diatribe about her he suggested Dingell might be "waving up" instead of waving down at her, a clear reference that he was in hell.

If something's Fd up with me to despise a person like this then ok I'm the guy with TDS.I have no problem accepting the mantle.. I say it's anyone who doesn't hate this MF whether they support his policies or not. First stomping on the grave of lifelong public servant, war hero John Mccain and now Dingell, a decorated WW2 vet and 50 year public servant, a legend in both parties, a uniter.

How this guy Trump has 1% personal approval is beyond me ...To her credit Debbie Dingell responded with a lot more grace than i would have.

And this is no more similar to Clinton than to Nixon with elements of both. In terms of corruption I score it Trump 1, Nixon 2, Clinton a distant 3. Clinton was impeached over a land fraud investigation over stuff before his term that spun into a sex perjury trap based on a previous false deposition to the court regarding the Paula Jones Lawsuit. Starr dug it up and when Clinton lied to him he was impeached.

Clinton was at 65% popularity after an easy reelection, the economy was good, nation at peace. Support among voters never cracked 35%, he actually rose to 75% during the trial and left office at 59% a hero to the party in many ways. Trump is very similar to Clinton in one way. his party isn't going to roll. Hes committed far worse offenses than Clinton to be sure but it doesn't matter what he does, as hes said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his people would follow him. I believe it is true.

Both Trump and Nixon committed serious crimes while in office. Nixon is separated by the party of decent patriotic americans in his time vs the tribal fanatical cultists of the base today, and fox news from surviving and thriving. But people cared. Nixon hit 25% before the R senate caved.If he'd been near 50 like Trump he wouldnt have been impeached.
But it just doesn't seem like people care much anymore. This is about we the people. Is this OK or not? Image Trump with no guardrails for maybe 5 years...

Hawktawk wrote:Both Trump and Nixon committed serious crimes while in office. Nixon is separated by the party of decent patriotic americans in his time vs the tribal fanatical cultists of the base today, and fox news from surviving and thriving. But people cared. Nixon hit 25% before the R senate caved.If he'd been near 50 like Trump he wouldnt have been impeached.
But it just doesn't seem like people care much anymore. This is about we the people. Is this OK or not? Image Trump with no guardrails for maybe 5 years...

Comparing Trump with Nixon is apples and oranges. Times were much different. In Nixon's impeachment hearings, the nation was riveted over John Dean's testimony, and it turned public opinion. However, that was back in the days when all a person had to do was watch one of 3 network stations, all of them decidedly liberal, and with them all televising the hearings, you couldn't get away from it. Nixon's opponents were able to turn public opinion, and with it support from within Nixon's party.

Fast forward to 2019. Americans have scores of entertainment options compared to what they had in 1973-74. There's also more variety in news coverage than there ever used to be. There was no internet, no social media, no talk radio. Had Fox News and Twitter existed in 1974, Nixon almost undoubtedly would have survived.

I do agree with you with regards to Americans not caring anymore, but it isn't limited to politics. When there's close to 30% of Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map, it's pretty clear that we exist within a nation of stooges.

I agree completely on the media thing. Back during watergate there were 3 channels and rabbit ears and black and white for all but the fortunate. I remember it. People were riveted. Now everyone's on their phone or watching ESPN or out tasting wine or whatever. its equal parts apathy and the mass media age with a dash of Trump having drug expectations for the office so far in the gutter nobody cares anymore.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-repor ... now-better

How we got from the red menace to Putin being the puppetmaster to the POTUS is beyond me but WTH

Hawktawk wrote:I agree completely on the media thing. Back during watergate there were 3 channels and rabbit ears and black and white for all but the fortunate. I remember it. People were riveted. Now everyone's on their phone or watching ESPN or out tasting wine or whatever. its equal parts apathy and the mass media age with a dash of Trump having drug expectations for the office so far in the gutter nobody cares anymore.

It goes beyond not caring. People are just plain idiots. 21% of American adults read below a 5th grade level and 19% of high school graduates can't read at all. 1 in 5 American adults can't calculate their weekly salary when told what their hourly rate will be. The United States ranks 25th out of 30 industrialized nations in math, below countries like Serbia and Uruguay. It's a huge, socio-economic problem as it results in lives of poverty and crime. Rather than encouraging everyone to vote, we need to be encouraging them to learn.

The reason I'm mentioning all that is to highlight just how insignificant our problems with the political system is when you compare it to illiteracy. No wonder we have a homeless problem.

That's our biggest challenge as a country, more so than getting people to care about politics.

RiverDog wrote:As long as the Dems don't nominate Bernie or Warren, I think they won't have any trouble beating Trump in November. But then again, up until October of 2016, I didn't give Trump a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning the election, so what do I know.

It is similar to Clinton in that it is an almost exclusively partisan impeachment that went nowhere. That's why it's so foolish for the Dems to pursue it as it's only going to hurt them come November. All it's doing is rubbing salt in a huge, ugly wound. We've essentially become two separate nations.

I lost a lot of money betting against Trump. That is why I can't count the guy out yet because it was so costly to do so last election.

Some people on here think I'm some kind of secret Trump supporter, but I did not vote for him last election and I did not think he would win. I am still not heavily invested at the moment due to the instability caused by the current political environment. If the Democrats win and reverse the Trump tax cuts, then the stock market will tank, maybe very hard as it will reverse the profit increases from the tax cuts. If Trump wins re-election, he might continue his annoying trade war which creates further instability. Not to mention if he keeps bating the Democrats into impeaching him and doing stupid things like the Ukraine phone call, then he will create further instability. If Biden wins, he might slow roll corporate tax increases which would be ok. If Warren or Sanders win, economy will tank with anyone invested in assets seeing them fall dramatically in value as the cost of owning assets will increase greatly reducing their profitability from the middle class on up to the wealthy. Warren and Sanders can claim they're helping the working class all they want, but their policies have always been destructive to working class people and any world economy aka see Europe.

That's why if Trump loses, Biden or Buttgieg would be the best bets for some economic stability, which is primarily what we need from a new president. Maintain economic stability while getting rid of all the idiot rhetoric and petty passive-aggressive fighting Trump loves to engage in to make himself feel important.

For some reason some people can't seem to accept that you can dislike an individual and still see him in his true light. I dislike Trump for being a narcissistic, race-baiting, passive-aggressive big mouth. But at the same time I'm not going to buy into BS that he's more corrupt than past presidents or some Hitler-like figure, which is just total BS. Nor am I buying he's some puppet for a foreign government. That talk is just tiresome. If I can find some peace with him leaving office, then so be it as long as my peace isn't shattered by a destroyed economy which would be worse.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I lost a lot of money betting against Trump. That is why I can't count the guy out yet because it was so costly to do so last election.

Some people on here think I'm some kind of secret Trump supporter, but I did not vote for him last election and I did not think he would win. I am still not heavily invested at the moment due to the instability caused by the current political environment. If the Democrats win and reverse the Trump tax cuts, then the stock market will tank, maybe very hard as it will reverse the profit increases from the tax cuts. If Trump wins re-election, he might continue his annoying trade war which creates further instability. Not to mention if he keeps bating the Democrats into impeaching him and doing stupid things like the Ukraine phone call, then he will create further instability. If Biden wins, he might slow roll corporate tax increases which would be ok. If Warren or Sanders win, economy will tank with anyone invested in assets seeing them fall dramatically in value as the cost of owning assets will increase greatly reducing their profitability from the middle class on up to the wealthy. Warren and Sanders can claim they're helping the working class all they want, but their policies have always been destructive to working class people and any world economy aka see Europe.

That's why if Trump loses, Biden or Buttgieg would be the best bets for some economic stability, which is primarily what we need from a new president. Maintain economic stability while getting rid of all the idiot rhetoric and petty passive-aggressive fighting Trump loves to engage in to make himself feel important.

For some reason some people can't seem to accept that you can dislike an individual and still see him in his true light. I dislike Trump for being a narcissistic, race-baiting, passive-aggressive big mouth. But at the same time I'm not going to buy into BS that he's more corrupt than past presidents or some Hitler-like figure, which is just total BS. Nor am I buying he's some puppet for a foreign government. That talk is just tiresome. If I can find some peace with him leaving office, then so be it as long as my peace isn't shattered by a destroyed economy which would be worse.

I know you're not a Trump supporter. Hawktalk is the only one that suggested it, and I don't think he believes it, just lashing out after being attacked. Idahawkman is the only one that has admitted to being a Trump supporter, and he does it in spades. Burrton was a Trump apologist, but I don't think he likes the guy, either, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he voted for him.

Did you see where Trump implied that deceased Representative John Dingell had gone to hell? It's behavior like that which just irritates the hell out of me. Trump has no sense of decency whatsoever, and I'm about to the point that I'd vote for anybody to get his ass out of there.

RiverDog wrote:I know you're not a Trump supporter. Hawktalk is the only one that suggested it, and I don't think he believes it, just lashing out after being attacked. Idahawkman is the only one that has admitted to being a Trump supporter, and he does it in spades. Burrton was a Trump apologist, but I don't think he likes the guy, either, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he voted for him.

Did you see where Trump implied that deceased Representative John Dingell had gone to hell? It's behavior like that which just irritates the hell out of me. Trump has no sense of decency whatsoever, and I'm about to the point that I'd vote for anybody to get his ass out of there.

Trump is super annoying as president. Nothing he says surprises me any longer. Doesn't make him the most corrupt president or Hitler-like, but it does make him the most annoying, rude, jackass big mouth to hold the office in my lifetime. It's the only thing I'll really agree with. The guy is just a narcissistic big mouth that thinks he is bigger than the office. The man is tiresome. First president in ages that has made me consider voting for a Democrat, but I'll probably toss my vote to Buttgieg. Biden is an establishment Democrat that doesn't seem very strong on anything. Buttgieg seems like a guy that gives some chance at sensible, balanced government with energy.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump is super annoying as president. Nothing he says surprises me any longer. Doesn't make him the most corrupt president or Hitler-like, but it does make him the most annoying, rude, jackass big mouth to hold the office in my lifetime. It's the only thing I'll really agree with. The guy is just a narcissistic big mouth that thinks he is bigger than the office. The man is tiresome. First president in ages that has made me consider voting for a Democrat, but I'll probably toss my vote to Buttgieg. Biden is an establishment Democrat that doesn't seem very strong on anything. Buttgieg seems like a guy that gives some chance at sensible, balanced government with energy.

He's all of that but two things you left out is his dishonesty and his below average intellectual capacity. It's one thing to be a rude, narcissistic jackass, but he lies with such ease and frequency, more so than any other public figure I've ever seen, and he's just plain stupid. I attribute those flaws to his being a lazy, spoiled rich kid, which can be debated, but there's absolutely no denying his lack of credibility as a source of information and his inability to recall basic facts that a 5th grader should know. It's these character flaws, combined with the ones you mentioned, that gives me the most concern.

I'm not a Biden fan, either. There's just two reasons why I support the guy: He's much more moderate than any of the other Dems, with the exception of Bloomberg, and is less likely to plunge us head first into socialism. Plus Biden matches up better against Trump.

Mayor Pete seems to me to be a very likeable candidate, but being that he's never held any office outside of being mayor of a mid sized city, he doesn't have a track record to where one can see what he stands for. He's said some things recently that indicates that he might be more liberal that what we've been led to believe, so I wonder of the guy has a political compass or if he's another Slick Willy and just says what he thinks people want to hear. Nevertheless, I'd still vote for him just to get Trump out.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AADKLI1
This is the sharpest one day move away from trump on removal that Ive seen in this poll.

https://www.mediaite.com/print/morally- ... ing-op-ed/

A humongous chink in the armor. Now Trump is raging on this publication founded by the great Billy Graham whose sleazy son Franklin has utterly become supine in slavish support of Trump. We will see how it plays in the evangelical community but every little bit helps.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
I lost a lot of money betting against Trump. That is why I can't count the guy out yet because it was so costly to do so last election.

Some people on here think I'm some kind of secret Trump supporter, but I did not vote for him last election and I did not think he would win. I am still not heavily invested at the moment due to the instability caused by the current political environment. If the Democrats win and reverse the Trump tax cuts, then the stock market will tank, maybe very hard as it will reverse the profit increases from the tax cuts. If Trump wins re-election, he might continue his annoying trade war which creates further instability. Not to mention if he keeps bating the Democrats into impeaching him and doing stupid things like the Ukraine phone call, then he will create further instability. If Biden wins, he might slow roll corporate tax increases which would be ok. If Warren or Sanders win, economy will tank with anyone invested in assets seeing them fall dramatically in value as the cost of owning assets will increase greatly reducing their profitability from the middle class on up to the wealthy. Warren and Sanders can claim they're helping the working class all they want, but their policies have always been destructive to working class people and any world economy aka see Europe.

That's why if Trump loses, Biden or Buttgieg would be the best bets for some economic stability, which is primarily what we need from a new president. Maintain economic stability while getting rid of all the idiot rhetoric and petty passive-aggressive fighting Trump loves to engage in to make himself feel important.

For some reason some people can't seem to accept that you can dislike an individual and still see him in his true light. I dislike Trump for being a narcissistic, race-baiting, passive-aggressive big mouth. But at the same time I'm not going to buy into BS that he's more corrupt than past presidents or some Hitler-like figure, which is just total BS. Nor am I buying he's some puppet for a foreign government. That talk is just tiresome. If I can find some peace with him leaving office, then so be it as long as my peace isn't shattered by a destroyed economy which would be worse.

Asea you may not support trump wholeheartedly but you're on the record accepting another 4 years without a problem if the economy holds up. I know you're just playing devil's advocate but when you call me a whack job liar while spouting his talking points Im going to respond in kind. Lets stop bickering and maybe you can educate me on why things will collapse if Trump leaves office and why they wont anyway if he stays.

I get your position, my best friend on the planet of 45 years is a wealthy fast food chain owner and has cleaned up in the last decade, no more so than the last 3 years. He's going to retire at 62 with millions in the bank and markets assuming there's no collapse and understandably he loves Trump even though he hates the tweets etc.We just dont say a word about it to one another.

Now Asea I know you know a lot more than me about the markets etc but I keep hearing its the best economy ever and in many ways that doesn't seem true. The GDP around 2% is positively anemic compared to historical recoveries in prior administrations a generation ago. Unemployments great at 3.5 % but almost 70% of the 27 million jobs created in the last 10 years pay less than $15 per hour.Beyond that Trump inherited an unemployment rate of 4.7 and an economy adding around 200K jobs a month.Obama inherited over 9% unemployment and a cratering economy shedding 500K jobs a month. Trump also inherited an approximate 63% workforce participation rate whereas Obama inherited a 64.5% rate, a difference of 9 million workers.When it came to the economy and markets Trump was born on third base IMO.I concede his policies have accelerated the economy in many ways although his trade tweets seem to cause massive sell offs or it would be higher wouldnt it?

The market is great for the 45% of americans invested in it, too great in the opinion of some economists and market watchers. The tax cut helped a lot as publicly traded companies used it on stock repos rewarding investors instead of workers . Only 5% of companies passed it along to their employees. I read somewhere the cut actually decreased revenues to the treasury for the first time in forever.

But as for the market , again asea I know you get this better than I but it seems to me with Trump bullying Powell into dropping already low interest rates coupled with the rise in the market people are driven to it by hydraulic principle if they want to make money. In 2007 it lost half its value under a republican administration. How does 2% annual growth equate to a market rise of what? a third in the last 3 years? It just looks like an overvalued ponzi scheme rife for a crash worse than than 2007 at some point. Do you really expect a 14 year bull market?

Educate me once again but I keep hearing about the Fed pumping liquidity into the market to hold down interest rates on repos and provide liquidity, by my count nearly a trillion in just the last few months. I don't know what that means but it sounds scary.

Which leads me to the overall fiscal health of this economy. Deficits are well in excess of 1 trillion a year.Manufacturing is in a recession. Business investment in expansion and infrastructure is down. Its consumer spending driving this economy and consumers are carrying record debt https://www.routefifty.com/finance/2019 ... ge/161971/. The tax cut is already used up. The interest rates are near bedrock. The deficits are huge. There appears to be no tools left in the toolkit to combat a severe downturn to my untrained eye. Obviously Id like to be wrong. But if Im right we probably shouldn't hold our breath that China is going to hand us another 3 trillion to clean up our mess.

https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-fina ... ss-us-2019

But bottom line economies come and go in both republican and democratic administrations. The last economy and market with these similar fundamentals was near the end of Clinton's second term. When our constitution is gone, our rule of law, the dignity and decorum of the office, the trust of our allies, the respect and fear from our enemies it's all going to be gone sooner or later.

When did we become so transactional that our 401 K matters more than the fitness of the leader of the free world. I know this is long winded Asea but i'd love to hear your assessment of what Trump in a severe economic downturn or a shooting war would be like. How about if he wins a second term after his certain escape from conviction? How would a Trump with no guardrails for 4 more years look? Just askin...

Have a merry Christmas asea. Truly

Hawktawk wrote:Have a merry Christmas asea. Truly

Nice touch, Hawktalk! We can give each other a lot of headaches, but when it comes down to it, we're all brothers. Merry Christmas to you, ASF, I-5, Idahawkman, Burrton...if those last two guys ever decide to show up again.

Amen. For all the annoyance we cause each other, this forum is one of the few places where there aren't ad hominem attacks, and more importantly, I can learn something once in a while...it beats wasting time arguing on social media.

Even though I know the Senate republicans have Trump's back all the way, I see signs of optimism that the charlatan and con man in the White House may have a shorter tenure than I expected. I know that most evangelicals have decided to cast their lot with Trump in a Faustian bargain as someone put it, BUT....the Christianity Today editorial calling for Trump's removal opened up an ever so tiny crack in his base. All it takes is one drop sometimes. That, and I think Pelosi has more cards up her sleeve than I realized. The longer it plays out, the worse it is for McConnell. I'm not getting my hopes up....yet.

I-5 wrote:Amen. For all the annoyance we cause each other, this forum is one of the few places where there aren't ad hominem attacks, and more importantly, I can learn something once in a while...it beats wasting time arguing on social media.

Even though I know the Senate republicans have Trump's back all the way, I see signs of optimism that the charlatan and con man in the White House may have a shorter tenure than I expected. I know that most evangelicals have decided to cast their lot with Trump in a Faustian bargain as someone put it, BUT....the Christianity Today editorial calling for Trump's removal opened up an ever so tiny crack in his base. All it takes is one drop sometimes. That, and I think Pelosi has more cards up her sleeve than I realized. The longer it plays out, the worse it is for McConnell. I'm not getting my hopes up....yet.

I've already made a pre-emptive strike on my FB page and unfollowed anyone that has the propensity to post political crap. Especially now that I'm retired, I use it to keep up to date with my friends, but more and more I use the medium to get my news as I'll follow local TV, radio, government, et al pages so it pops up in my news feed, and all that garbage does is push those stories to the bottom.

It's amazing to me how anyone that calls themselves a Christian can endorse a man who openly attacks the deceased as he's done with McCain and Dingell. I'm not a deeply religious type, but to me, shaming the dead just to get a rise out of his base would be crossing the line.

But to be fair...and I have a long memory...the liberals have their own brand of hypocrisy, when, for example, the National Organization of Women failed to condemn Bill Clinton for his behavior, to the contrary, the president of the organization offering to give him a "Lewinsky" for all the things he'd done for women, when in the past they'd expressed utter outrage at the relatively innocent transgressions by Bob Packwood, John Sununu, and others that did not share their political beliefs.

The article in the Christian mag says it perfectly . No amount of good done by policies is worth keeping this guy in office. Where do you draw the line? As a guy raised in the Assembly of God church, former pastoral major, preached from the pulpit and read the entire bible several times I concur a Christian has to swear off their faith to support the porn star president. These type of people are the majority of my friends and family as a conservative republican from eastern Washington. I’m a pretty lonely guy ideologically these days.

I have also begun purging Facebook of Trump sharers. That’s the dinner table at Christmas. OT is the octagon or in my case the rubber room

Merry Christmas to all. Go Hawks!

Hawktawk wrote:The article in the Christian mag says it perfectly . No amount of good done by policies is worth keeping this guy in office. Where do you draw the line? As a guy raised in the Assembly of God church, former pastoral major, preached from the pulpit and read the entire bible several times I concur a Christian has to swear off their faith to support the porn star president. These type of people are the majority of my friends and family as a conservative republican from eastern Washington. I’m a pretty lonely guy ideologically these days.

I have also begun purging Facebook of Trump sharers. That’s the dinner table at Christmas. OT is the octagon or in my case the rubber room

Merry Christmas to all. Go Hawks!

I've purged my FB of both sides of the spectrum, not just Trump supporters. They're both part of the problem IMO.

It's difficult for me to imagine how any family-friendly folks like devout Christians can excuse a person that once referred to his own daughter as a "piece of ass", not to mention patronizing the pornography industry, something they've been outraged about for decades.

You’re preaching to the choir, kind of like talking politics on FB. Not too many minds are being changed. You’re either preaching to the choir or slapping a friend in the face.

It’s quite a phenomenon. I never thought I’d see this level of division in America , really in the Republican Party. If it’s ideology or fiscal policy or whatever trump supporters in the congress and the base demonstrate their dishonesty . It’s not Trump vs possibly socialism. It’s Trump vs Pence . This isn’t about defending ideology from the left. It’s about suspending disbelief to convince themselves this is alright so they never have to say they lost .

E mail releases over the weekend while heavily redacted show a phone call officially freezing the aid was placed by OMB official Duffy 90 minutes after the end of the July 25 phone call. He asks the matter be kept quiet and shared with as few people as possible. WH response over the weekend is call was a “coincidence”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AADKLI1
This is a dramatic shift towards impeachment and removal.Some of those family gatherings coupled with trumps non stop tweeting, more damaging info coming out, something has changed. Notice it is 14 points underwater for no impeachment, considerably below the overall job approval which has actually inched up.

Beyond that an overwhelming majority of americans, 70% in most polls want a fair trial, want to hear from witnesses with first hand knowledge. Sen Lisa Murkowski has expressed concern for Mitch McConnell's idiotic statement about coordinating in lockstep with the White House. So it's getting interesting. Will he survive? almost certainly, even if Mulvaney, Duffy, Bolton and Pompeio testify. The facts are there already and it's not moving anyone. But with this polling I think republicans will pay a heavy price at the polls for steamrolling the process, not dems.

Hawktawk wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/daily-presidential-tracking-poll/ar-AADKLI1
This is a dramatic shift towards impeachment and removal.Some of those family gatherings coupled with trumps non stop tweeting, more damaging info coming out, something has changed. Notice it is 14 points underwater for no impeachment, considerably below the overall job approval which has actually inched up.

Beyond that an overwhelming majority of americans, 70% in most polls want a fair trial, want to hear from witnesses with first hand knowledge. Sen Lisa Murkowski has expressed concern for Mitch McConnell's idiotic statement about coordinating in lockstep with the White House. So it's getting interesting. Will he survive? almost certainly, even if Mulvaney, Duffy, Bolton and Pompeio testify. The facts are there already and it's not moving anyone. But with this polling I think republicans will pay a heavy price at the polls for steamrolling the process, not dems.

That's the MSN poll you're quoting, and their results almost always show higher pro impeachment numbers than other polls. They pose their question to a slightly different audience, likely voters, rather than registered voters or all adults as do other polls, which may account for the discrepancy.

Additionally, I'd be careful throwing around your "of all Americans" statements. As was noted, many of those polls aren't posing their questions to a fair representation of that population. Many polls are limiting their sampling to "registered" or "likely" voters. Less than 60% of those eligible voted in the last presidential election.

It's not clear to me how the R's will pay a price for "steamrolling the process" when in fact it's been the Democrats that have pushed for an expedited procedure so as not to interfere with their primaries. Indeed, Murkowski herself called out Pelosi for rushing through impeachment articles.

RiverDog wrote:That's the MSN poll you're quoting, and their results almost always show higher pro impeachment numbers than other polls. They pose their question to a slightly different audience, likely voters, rather than registered voters or all adults as do other polls, which may account for the discrepancy.

Additionally, I'd be careful throwing around your "of all Americans" statements. As was noted, many of those polls aren't posing their questions to a fair representation of that population. Many polls are limiting their sampling to "registered" or "likely" voters. Less than 60% of those eligible voted in the last presidential election.

It's not clear to me how the R's will pay a price for "steamrolling the process" when in fact it's been the Democrats that have pushed for an expedited procedure so as not to interfere with their primaries. Indeed, Murkowski herself called out Pelosi for rushing through impeachment articles.

I'm assuming all these poll questions are asked of each person polled and as i said Trumps impeach # is 15 points underwater this morning with 55% approval for removal and only 40 against. But the same poll finds only 50% disapprove of trump's job performance while 44% approve, pretty good numbers for Trump and well in line with many other polls. So impeachment is 8 points underwater to his job approval from the same voters which is important IMO. By "steamrolling" I mean if Graham and McConnell and the rest of the Republican scum in the senate are able to slam a trial through the Senate with no witnesses, just an acquittal I think these polls are problematic more for them than for Dems.

Murkowski is providing herself cover for her break with the trump party with her comments about a rushed process. Her own president , Her party is still blocking witnesses with first hand knowledge that could erase any doubt about the facts, button up the evidence in one day. Not that there's really any dispute about the facts. Il take the word of Bill Taylor, Colonel Vindman, Fiona Hill etc over the slimeballs surrounding the president. Beyond that the electronic communications remove any doubt and Murkowski damn well knows it as does every politician in every party.

It's ridiculous to say impeachment has been done any other way than was possible. Had Pelosi waited around for months while these obstructions of subpoenas worked their way through the courts there would have been an outcry from the politicians of both parties, the public would have soured on it as it dragged on and it would have been a disaster. For instance the SCOTUS hearing on presidential attorney Don McGann isn't scheduled until next June. I think it was done well, good decision to take the testimony they could get and move forward.

Beyond all that I think pelosi's strategy of withholding their articles until guaranteed a full hearing is brilliant.
Mcconnel laid a huge trap for himself with the incredibly stupid think out loud statement about coordinating fully with the White House, an act that would violate 2 constitutional guidelines. Much like the scandal itself, these moves by politicians are not hard to understand for the general public and at least in the one poll I follow daily public opinion on impeachment has shifted dramatically in the last week while his overall popularity has increased somewhat. I'd be worried if I was in either party but more so as a Republican"trump" party member.

Hawktawk wrote:I'm assuming all these poll questions are asked of each person polled and as i said Trumps impeach # is 15 points underwater this morning with 55% approval for removal and only 40 against. But the same poll finds only 50% disapprove of trump's job performance while 44% approve, pretty good numbers for Trump and well in line with many other polls.

Those polls are not all the same. Some of them will phrase the questions differently while others use different populations, which is one of the reasons why I like to use the RCP composite as averaging multiple polls tends to even out some of those discrepancies. The MSN poll has consistently shown a pro impeachment bias just as Rasmussen has shown a bias towards Trump and Republicans.

Hawktawk wrote:By "steamrolling" I mean if Graham and McConnell and the rest of the Republican scum in the senate are able to slam a trial through the Senate with no witnesses, just an acquittal I think these polls are problematic more for them than for Dems.

Not that they're necessarily right, but based on good evidence, most analysts, and indeed members of Trump's camp, feel that an extended impeachment trial will benefit Trump.

Hawktawk wrote: It's ridiculous to say impeachment has been done any other way than was possible. Had Pelosi waited around for months while these obstructions of subpoenas worked their way through the courts there would have been an outcry from the politicians of both parties, the public would have soured on it as it dragged on and it would have been a disaster.

It's clear that Pelosi rushed the impeachment hearings so that they could get everything wrapped up before the Democratic primaries. She wouldn't have held the hearings if it hadn't been for the fact that so many members of her party were pressuring her that it could have affected her status as Speaker in the next Congress.

[quote="RiverDog"]
"Those polls are not all the same. Some of them will phrase the questions differently while others use different populations, which is one of the reasons why I like to use the RCP composite as averaging multiple polls tends to even out some of those discrepancies. The MSN poll has consistently shown a pro impeachment bias just as Rasmussen has shown a bias towards Trump and Republicans."

I checked the MSN poll again this morning. 55 % favor impeachment and removal while 40% are opposed, 15 points!!!! underwater and the number hasn't moved in a week at least. At the same time his personal approval is 44% and disapproval is 50%,only 6 points underwater and a number inching in his favor in this poll.. generic ballot he loses to a democrat by a bit larger # with around 10% expressing a desire for a third option. I'm not buying that one group of those polled are asked the impeach question and another group responding on job approval, 2020 preference etc. At least in this poll a significant portion of people who support Trump's policies also want him impeached and removed. It's undeniable.

"Not that they're necessarily right, but based on good evidence, most analysts, and indeed members of Trump's camp, feel that an extended impeachment trial will benefit Trump."

I dont agree with that. Trump thinks an extended trial will benefit him. Few on his team want a long trial and certainly not his bobbleheads in the senate like Moscow Mitch and lindsey Graham and John Kennedy to name some of the most vile swamp creatures ever in the senate. Other than the crazy orange baboon they want this over ASAp with as little fanfare as possible but he gets his way most of the time and that's why he's impeached in the first place.


"It's clear that Pelosi rushed the impeachment hearings so that they could get everything wrapped up before the Democratic primaries. She wouldn't have held the hearings if it hadn't been for the fact that so many members of her party were pressuring her that it could have affected her status as Speaker in the next Congress."

Again I disagree with most of this other than Pelosi didn't want to do it. She's made it plain since her first term she's not a fan. She received heavy pressure to impeach W over iraq missteps and refused. She said last January "he's not worth it" . But I'm not sure what she was supposed to do when the day after Mueller details his impeachable acts with russia and obstructing the probe to the congress the dude picks up the phone and tries to shake down a foreign leader with 400 million in taxpayer funded congressionally approved TRUMP SIGNED lethal aid as the carrot.She did this out of patriotism knowing full well the risks to her majority, she said as much and I applaud it 100% regardless of the ultimate outcome. It was the right thing to do.

I've never been a big pelosi fan but i think she's done it the best she can. They subpoenaed all the principals, the WH blocked them all. Then patriotic individuals came forth in defiance of WH orders and laid out the scheme in detail. Voicemails and texts and emails also dont lie and there are many absolutely damning ones. She got what she could get without dragging this out into next summer.The facts are there without any more witnesses. Anyone who thinks Bolton is going to change any minds is delusional and he's holding out for his 2 million dollar advance on his tell all book

As I was unemployed i watched most of these hearings. The dude is guilty as hell absolutely personally 100% responsible for this drug deal. News broke a couple of days ago of an August meeting in the oval office attended by Trump, Pompeio, Bolton, Mulvaney and Duffy from OMB at which they had a come to Jesus meeting with trump urging him to release the hold on the aid, warning him of its dubious legality. He refused and only released it 2 days after being briefed by DOJ about a whistleblower complaint against him. Newly released emails show the aid was officially frozen 90 minutes after Trumps phone call. The WH calls it a "coincidence" Heres the deal. The Senate can blow through this and exonerate Trump but the leaks out of this WH are going to become a flash flood. Collins became the latest senator to criticize partisanship and called for witnesses.

Then theres this https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/3 ... ews-091791
Trump has tangled with Roberts, denounced the Judiciary to the point Roberts issued a rare public rebuke. This will be interesting. Roberts doesnt lose his job if he stands up for America.

Hawktawk wrote:Then theres this

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/3 ... ews-091791

Trump has tangled with Roberts, denounced the Judiciary to the point Roberts issued a rare public rebuke. This will be interesting. Roberts doesnt lose his job if he stands up for America.

It is not at all clear that Roberts was directing his remarks to Trump. Indeed, it would be very unusual and out of character for Roberts to issue public rebukes of members from the other branches of government. There's a lot of fake news out there besides that which comes from Trump's Twitter account.

Roberts has already publicly rebuked trump for his war on judges who don’t do his bidding, calling them “so called judges, Obama judges , etc . I forget the exact quote but it was a comment unquestionably directed at Trump who also responded in kind. I certainly expect Roberts to be professional and not biased based on those exchanges over a year ago but he’s not going to be a pushover . He is in favor of a real trial I’m sure but he will need some help from republicans and also for democrats to stay in line. Time will tell

Hawktawk wrote:Roberts has already publicly rebuked trump for his war on judges who don’t do his bidding, calling them “so called judges, Obama judges , etc . I forget the exact quote but it was a comment unquestionably directed at Trump who also responded in kind. I certainly expect Roberts to be professional and not biased based on those exchanges over a year ago but he’s not going to be a pushover . He is in favor of a real trial I’m sure but he will need some help from republicans and also for democrats to stay in line. Time will tell

The "rebuke", if you want to call it that, was when Trump started tweeting about Obama judges when not every decision was going his way. Roberts came out and made a statement defending his court, as well he should, indicating in so many words that there was no such thing, that they are all independent thinkers. There was no names mentioned or threats implied, just a statement of Robert's opinion of the court's objectivity. He made no follow up comments.

This latest statement about fake news, although one can assume it includes Trump as he's the source of a lot of inaccurate information, almost certainly goes way beyond one person or one ideology. It's a concern for a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum. My concern isn't so much the fake news itself as it is the gullibility of the people that believe everything they hear.

As far as Robert's role in the impeachment, it's simply to preside. There are no other instructions in the Constitution, to the contrary, it says that the Senate will have "the sole power to try all impeachments". He's not going to be ruling on evidence or admission of witnesses like a judicial proceeding. In the Clinton impeachment, you wouldn't even know that Rehnquist was even in the chamber. Everything was left up to the House managers.

I literally don't care what happens to Trump. I'm going to sit on the sidelines with my cash until the group of idgits in government figure it out. I don't trust any of them. Bunch of liars and manipulators with agendas I want no part of.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I literally don't care what happens to Trump. I'm going to sit on the sidelines with my cash until the group of idgits in government figure it out. I don't trust any of them. Bunch of liars and manipulators with agendas I want no part of.

I hear ya, my friend! When I see anything on the tube about impeachment, I immediately switch the channel or mute it. Wake me when it's over. That's not to say that I don't care what happens to Trump, I want to see him tossed out of office. It's just that impeachment is a dead issue. It doesn't even make for good drama.

RiverDog wrote:I hear ya, my friend! When I see anything on the tube about impeachment, I immediately switch the channel or mute it. Wake me when it's over. That's not to say that I don't care what happens to Trump, I want to see him tossed out of office. It's just that impeachment is a dead issue. It doesn't even make for good drama.

It all seems like much ado about nothing. I read the phone call and listened to the evidence and I've seen nothing indicating that Ukraine ever felt threatened or was coerced into anything. I've seen no evidence Trump is some Russian puppet that Putin is benefiting from. If Trump is a Russian puppet, then I guess Merkel must be something worse since Germany and Europe are doing more to financially help Russia than us by a good measure and China is helping Russia far more than us. So I'm not sure what we're supposed to be up in arms about. It all seems made up as a massive campaign to get rid of Trump because he's a big mouth narcissist that made the Democratic Party look dumb and weak. The only part of this I understand is why the Democrats are throwing so much behind this push to get rid of him given how stupid and weak he made them look and the fact the Clintons are powerful and vengeful politicians. This has been a perfect target for payback for Bill's original impeachment and HIlary's defeat.

The fact that the Democrats launched all of this impeachment crap via foreign intelligence reeks of hypocrisy. A foreign government provided the information to take Trump down, yet none of the Democrats or Trump Haters will admit this factual information which in and of itself indicates foreign interference in American politics on the side of the Democrats. They are basically going after Trump using the same method they claim he used to beat Hilary, except it's ok when you do it to screw your opponent and have enough power and support to make it seem like it's "different." Fortunately for them Trump was dumb enough to serve them up a softball across the plate with this phone call. Then again we'll see if Trump is crazy like a fox and has seeded the field against Biden by showing how corrupt his son is because Hunter Biden looks pretty terrible right now and it does look like Joe helped him. I'm betting money Trump will flog him with it if they go head to head. We already know Trump has no compunctions about hitting people where it hurts. If Trump somehow wins re-election using the Ukraine phone call to get the Hunter Biden information out to the public since the press wasn't going to do it on their own given their lefist leanings, then I guess Trump is a lot smarter at this game than anyone gives him credit for. But that's 11 months away. We'll see what happens.

I'm personally expecting some racist rant recordings from Trump near election time this around cleverly released at key times anonymously. I think we're going to see the dirtiest election campaign in our lifetime this time around. Neither side will be pulling punches. It's going to get dirty as dirty can get.

I just don't care about those games on either side. Be nice if we have politicians that cared about running the nation well rather than these clowns that seem to be playing games as they sit there for decades like old school royalty holding onto their crowns by any means necessary. They hate the new big mouth Clown King, so his enemies are doing what they can to take him down and his supporters are slurping up his BS to maintain their positions and feel like they're "winning." And the reality is very little has changed.

Just pathetic all the way around. At this point I would prefer Trump get removed via election loss as I think it would lead to greater stability in the economy and government than an impeachment. It's too bad the current crop of candidates are pretty terrible as far as providing a quality vision for the nation. Not much I'm looking forward from any of them.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It all seems like much ado about nothing. I read the phone call and listened to the evidence and I've seen nothing indicating that Ukraine ever felt threatened or was coerced into anything.

Oh, I think that without a doubt that impeachable conduct did occur. I don't think it's necessary that the intended target of the ploy feel threatened or intimidated. The fact is that DJT tried to use the power of his office to force the leader of another country to behave in a manner that would benefit him exclusively and was not done in the best interests of the United States, and the quid pro quo that has been established by a number of officials within various branches of the US government makes it a slam dunk. It's clearly an abuse of power. My only difference with other pro impeachment types is that it is politically stupid for them to pursue it when it's almost strictly a partisan issue and has virtually no chance of removing the POS from office.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm personally expecting some racist rant recordings from Trump near election time this around cleverly released at key times anonymously. I think we're going to see the dirtiest election campaign in our lifetime this time around. Neither side will be pulling punches. It's going to get dirty as dirty can get.

What has me concerned is the same thing that Chief Justice Roberts eluded to, ie the susceptibility of the public to believe in the most wildest and outlandish stories and that they will be manipulated by such things as deep fakes.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Just pathetic all the way around. At this point I would prefer Trump get removed via election loss as I think it would lead to greater stability in the economy and government than an impeachment. It's too bad the current crop of candidates are pretty terrible as far as providing a quality vision for the nation. Not much I'm looking forward from any of them.

That's my default position, too. I'm not anxious to overturn the results of an election, and I do agree with the R's that the Dems have been hell bent to impeach him, exercise the 25th, etc, from the get go. If it's really that bad of conduct, exposing it like they have should be sufficient punishment. We're only talking about a matter of months before the next election. Let the people decide if he's fit to hold the office.

Of course its impeachable conduct. Unredacted Emails leaked last weekend show the redactions ordered by Barr were only to cover up it was DJT and he alone that hatched this drug deal, pushed it, defied advisors who cautioned him it was probably illegal.

What I read from Zelinskis comments about not feeling pressured is he is an extremely shrewd politician despite his youth. He demurred and stalled several times when asked to start the investigations trump wanted so as not to interfere in US politics.The aid was officially frozen 90 minutes after the phone call in July when Trump asked Zelinski to "do us a favor" and Zelinski had just asked about the weapons package. Trump defied pressure from every part of his administration as well as the Pentagon. 2 senior OMB officials resigned in protest rather than be part of what they considered a violation of law. At the time the aid was released after Trump was warned of a whistleblower complaint Zelensky had agreed to an interview on CNN where he would announce investigations but it became unnecessary. Testimony makes it clear there was massive pressure placed on Ukraine and they were ready to yield to in in desperation to get the weapons to fight against Putin surrogates.Vital lethal aid was withheld for nearly 3 months 100% because trump wanted it.

At any rate it was extremely shrewd of Zelinski not to publicly criticize Trump. Anyone been watching Trump handle criticism over the last few decades? Zelenski is still waiting on his oval office visit while Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov got his second one the day the House voted to impeach as it is...Imagine if he had said one word negative about Trump . These are Jim Jordan Devin Nunes talking points, a complete joke.

Good lord the Russian scandal was impeachable on many levels. If you can't see a problem here then you need new glasses. Just ask Lindsey Graham circa 1998 "you dont have to even commit a crime to be impeached".
Indeed Lindsey. What happened to you buddy?
And yes the Dems hate him. I'm a lifelong republican and I detest him . I despised Obama, thought he was weak, thought he golfed too much, never saw a regulation he didn't want to impose, failed to call terrorism what it was, allowed Isis to rise. But show me where I called for his impeachment or where there was a serious push from republicans to Impeach. Joni Ernst called for his impeachment over executive orders But it didn't gain traction.

GW? Dems hated him beyond his ideology because they believed he was an illegitimate president elected by hanging chads and the SCOTUS. Some in the house pushed Pelosi to impeach him over Iraq but she refused, making the point for me. She doesn't like impeachment .
Was there love for GHW in the opposing party?
How about Reagan?? Talk about a guy hated on the left. But only 3 presidents have been impeached. Politics aint beanbag but other than the Clinton impeachment which was questionable these presidents are 100% responsible for what happened to them. Thank God for an opposing party in lawless times like these.

This isn't about the Clintons or payback for 2016.Those are the Trump talking points, overturning an election. It's a lawless president in every respect of the word who has disqualified himself from the office he holds.

Impeachment was the right thing to do, politically quite courageous by Pelosi and Dems although polls moved dramatically in their favor from high 20s% in favor, 20% unsure and well over 50% opposed in early summer. It's a long time till november but polls show a clear majority or at a minimum plurality of voters are more in favor than not in favor of actual removal.
Ipsos poll this AM says 57% believe the offense was impeachable with 52% calling for outright removal and around 40% opposed. A huge majority in this poll, over 80% want a real impartial trial with witnesses..

It's the Republicans who are being nakedly political to save their seat at all costs even though they hate this MF as bad as I do. Every damn one of them knows this is impeachable conduct and so does Asea no matter what riff he's laying down in here to try to jerk someone or anothers chain.

McConnel can do what he wants minus defections which could handcuff him a bit but I fail to see how this is going to help Trump or Republicans, especially with a new devastating leak on almost a daily basis and these are coming from the most leaky white house ever. These are his employees. Its not gonna get any better between now and November.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/1 ... ays-099682

Of course they did

https://apnews.com/708b81d4c77038eb0b751c30f72ff315

It gets crazier by the day

https://abcnews.go.com/International/uk ... d=68324113

This is positively crazy. And its pretty sad when Ukranian law enforcement has to take the lead on a cas where americans were surveilling americans . Bob Barr is the most corrupt AG in my memory . Ed Meese is off the hook

Lev Parnas just implicated pretty much EVERYONE near Trump in regards to knowledge about the Ukraine 'deal' in his TV interview with MSNBC. His logic is sound....indeed, why would both Poroshenko's and Zelinski's people bother meeting with Parnas? Who is he?

He got Pence and Barr, too. Of course they know. Pence particularly is in a tough spot, as he wants to distance himself from the mess without stabbing his boss in the back. Good luck!

Just playing a little Devil's advocate here to give the discussion some balance. Keep in mind that I personally feel that Trump's actions represent impeachable conduct, and have so for some time.

Democrats remain hopeful that the (Parnas) revelations will dial up pressure on Senate Republicans weighing whether to seek witnesses and documents in the trial. It has already provided the House’s impeachment managers new angles to lay out their case against Trump, as they race to prepare for opening arguments expected to begin Tuesday.

So far, Senate Republicans appear unmoved.

“They were in such a hurry that they didn’t get all this information? What the heck, OK?” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), blaming House Democrats for impeaching Trump before waiting to develop additional strains of evidence. “So let’s focus on the record. They obviously felt they had enough information to impeach the president with what they had. Let’s take a look at what they had.”

They have a point. If the Democrats felt they had sufficient evidence to impeach, why the need for additional testimony, documents, etc? Did they hurry their investigation on something as momentous as impeachment in order to meet some artificial deadline....like the 2020 primaries?

It's as if the Dems got the wagon in front of the horses. The criticism has been that the Democrats have been looking to impeach Trump since January of 2016, and this is evidence of that mind set.

RiverDog wrote:Just playing a little Devil's advocate here to give the discussion some balance. Keep in mind that I personally feel that Trump's actions represent impeachable conduct, and have so for some time.

Democrats remain hopeful that the (Parnas) revelations will dial up pressure on Senate Republicans weighing whether to seek witnesses and documents in the trial. It has already provided the House’s impeachment managers new angles to lay out their case against Trump, as they race to prepare for opening arguments expected to begin Tuesday.

So far, Senate Republicans appear unmoved.

“They were in such a hurry that they didn’t get all this information? What the heck, OK?” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), blaming House Democrats for impeaching Trump before waiting to develop additional strains of evidence. “So let’s focus on the record. They obviously felt they had enough information to impeach the president with what they had. Let’s take a look at what they had.”

They have a point. If the Democrats felt they had sufficient evidence to impeach, why the need for additional testimony, documents, etc? Did they hurry their investigation on something as momentous as impeachment in order to meet some artificial deadline....like the 2020 primaries?

It's as if the Dems got the wagon in front of the horses. The criticism has been that the Democrats have been looking to impeach Trump since January of 2016, and this is evidence of that mind set.

All complete BS.Pelosi was anti impeachment. She had pressure during the Bush administration to impeach him over Iraq and refused. The dems didn't even have the votes to impeach him before this Ukraine black hole of corruption then what the hell were they supposed to do??

Do the Dems already have enough? Absolutely. 12 career non partisan public servants confirmed a scheme to break the law by violating the impoundment act which prevents a president from redirecting funds appropriated by the congress and signed into law BY HIM!!!! for any purpose whether policy related or certainly personally related. There were Emails, text messages, contemporaneous notes, a phone call with trump overheard in a kiev restaurant. He is guilty and it was his idea too. His alone and he directed it every step of the way.

Its F#cking rich for the Repubs to defend a POTUS who refused to provide one single document or witness other than the 12 who defied them as patriotic americans to claim a rushed process. Had Pelosi sat around waiting for the courts to rule, maybe by next June she would really have been screwed even though they would likely rule in the Dems favor. That the second article, obstruction of congress. The lack of cooperation in this is unprecedented.

As it is her delay was brilliant with more and more bizarre facts almost on a daily basis making it harder and harder on republicans to sweep it under the rug. Asked today why she waited to release the Parnas info until yesterday Pelosi said" that's when we got it". They had subpoenaed he and Fruman before they were indicted and they had initially agreed to testify to congress then TRUMP'S FORMER ATTORNEY JOHN DOWD took over and declined to provide them to the congress. The Republican Senate argument to suppress new evidence that literally implicates the entire cabinet including the VP and the head of Justice Barr is ridiculous.

Without a doubt this scandal, really this entire saga from 2015 till today is more seamy and sinister by the day as news breaks Russia hacked Burisma last fall posing as an employee. Now why would they do that? It's truly a dark time for our democracy and our future hangs in the balance.It just boggles my mind that these MAGA fanatics dont care if foreign nations help them keep their beloved trump who can do no wrong .

Last of all that dumb broad Joni Ernst can pound sand. Google her comments in the Obama administration suggesting Obama should be impeached for issuing too many executive orders.https://news.yahoo.com/joni-ernst---imp ... 39051.html

Now she doesn't want to hear the facts about the most personally corrupt president in history. I noticed she was pretty quiet when DT was signing executive orders despite controlling both houses. F her. I can't even believe this was my lifelong party. I'm going to find out who her opponent is and send them some money. I'm already backing Amy McGrath against Moscow Mitch. Time to quit bitchin and try to do something about it before its too late.

Hawktawk wrote:Last of all that dumb broad Joni Ernst can pound sand. Google her comments in the Obama administration suggesting Obama should be impeached for issuing too many executive orders.https://news.yahoo.com/joni-ernst---imp ... 39051.html

Now she doesn't want to hear the facts about the most personally corrupt president in history. I noticed she was pretty quiet when DT was signing executive orders despite controlling both houses. F her. I can't even believe this was my lifelong party. I'm going to find out who her opponent is and send them some money. I'm already backing Amy McGrath against Moscow Mitch. Time to quit bitchin and try to do something about it before its too late.

OK, let her pound sand. Here's another opinion that doesn't bring her into it:

To Republicans, the latest claims and disclosures are evidence that House Democrats put together a slapdash investigation that did not cover enough bases before they rushed to an ultimately partisan vote on the House floor. It is not the Senate’s job, Republicans say, to do what the House failed to do.

“Makes them look sloppy as hell,” said Solomon L. Wisenberg, a deputy independent counsel during the Starr investigation. “I think they should have gotten their act together a little better.”

Mr. Wisenberg said the House Democrats should have authorized an impeachment inquiry and issued subpoenas to Mr. Bolton and anyone else they wanted to question. “They wouldn’t be in this hot mess,” he said.

There's a very legitimate point of view that the Democrats did a very poor job of investigating this case, and were more interested in timeliness than they were at getting to the truth.

RiverDog wrote:
OK, let her pound sand. Here's another opinion that doesn't bring her into it:

To Republicans, the latest claims and disclosures are evidence that House Democrats put together a slapdash investigation that did not cover enough bases before they rushed to an ultimately partisan vote on the House floor. It is not the Senate’s job, Republicans say, to do what the House failed to do.

“Makes them look sloppy as hell,” said Solomon L. Wisenberg, a deputy independent counsel during the Starr investigation. “I think they should have gotten their act together a little better.”

Mr. Wisenberg said the House Democrats should have authorized an impeachment inquiry and issued subpoenas to Mr. Bolton and anyone else they wanted to question. “They wouldn’t be in this hot mess,” he said.

There's a very legitimate point of view that the Democrats did a very poor job of investigating this case, and were more interested in timeliness than they were at getting to the truth.

That's like expecting the DA's office to conduct a trial before sending a case to court.