The Impeachment Vote: The House has impeached

[RiverDog]

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

Not a good analogy. The "DA's office" is the House. Impeachment, ie the investigative process that brought about the charges, is the "sole responsibility of the House." The fact that the House feels as if they need to introduce more evidence to successfully prosecute their case makes a pretty fair argument that they acted hastily and did not do a very thorough job.

If the House isn't allowed to call additional witnesses, they only have themselves to blame.

[c_hawkbob]

I disagree. It's the Houses job to determine that impeachable crimes were committed and to determine what articles of impeachment to send to the Senate to try. It's the Senate's job to conduct the actual trial. There will be plenty of Senators calling for the introduction of these witnesses testimony, it needn't come from the House.

[RiverDog]

I disagree. It's the Houses job to determine that impeachable crimes were committed and to determine what articles of impeachment to send to the Senate to try. It's the Senate's job to conduct the actual trial. There will be plenty of Senators calling for the introduction of these witnesses testimony, it needn't come from the House.

The Senate doesn't conduct the trial. That responsibility falls on the House managers. The Senate merely sits as a jury.

I'm not saying that they cannot call witnesses or present new evidence in a Senate trial. What I am saying is that the fact that the Democrats are now calling for new witness testimony and requesting additional documents makes for a pretty strong argument that the House proceeded hastily in their impeachment hearings. It's pretty obvious that they wanted to move things along for their own very selfish political reasons, ie so as not to interfere with the primaries.

There was no new evidence presented in the Senate during Clinton's impeachment that wasn't first debated in the House.

[c_hawkbob]

Again, I disagree. Everything I've read clearly states that the Senate conducts the trial.

[RiverDog]

Again, I disagree. Everything I've read clearly states that the Senate conducts the trial.

Perhaps we're getting hung up on terminology. The trial is held or "tried" in the Senate as the venue, but it's not up to the Senators to conduct the trial. All the Senators are to do is sit as jurors. That task of investigating the charges, developing the evidence, and presenting the case to the Senators is the responsibility of House:

Article I of the Constitution designates the House of Representatives as the only chamber of Congress that has the power to launch an impeachment inquiry and file articles of impeachment against the President. After articles of impeachment pass the House, they are then sent to the Senate where a trial is held and a decision on whether to convict (remove the President from office) is made.

The majority leadership in the Senate decides exactly how, and if, an impeachment trial will be conducted. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial as Senators become jurors and representatives of the House act as prosecutors presenting evidence.

https://rantt.com/how-does-impeachment-work

The "impeachment inquiry" is essentially an investigation, and as it states, that responsibility lies with the House. There's nothing that prevents the Senators from calling for additional testimony or other evidence, but clearly, the bulk of the investigative part of the process and the task of presenting the case is the responsibility of the House.

To be fair, the House was hindered by the Trump Administration as they ordered their people not to testify. But had the Dems truly wanted to do the job right, they should have issued subpoenas to people like Andrew Bolton and force them to testify as happened when Richard Nixon refused to turn over evidence (taped conversations) the House had subpoenaed. But they didn't want to take the time for the subpoenas to work their way through the court system.

[c_hawkbob]

Jeezus whatever. I don't care about the minutia, I just know and still, regardless of what links you find to say otherwise, that enough information was gathered by the House committee to bring articles of impeachment to the Senate and now it the Senate's constitutional duty to try the case. The whole case with any and all information that is accessible, not just the sweep the whole thing under the rug and blame it on the House Dems for not doing their job well enough.

I'm not going to keep playing word games over it.

[Hawktawk]

And now we have come full circle.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/trump-i ... owitz.html. The man with far more power than Mueller who dogged Bill Clinton for over 2 years and wound up impeaching him for lying under oath about a consensual sex act is going to defend the most despicable corrupt president in history .

As for Dershowitz he got a murderer off and defended one of the most notorious pedophiles ever. Im sure hes relieved Epstein was murdered as he was implicated in the scandal personally. He's a perfect guy to defend Trump.

Can't believe I followed this party blindly for 4 decades.

[Hawktawk]

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.

See my post where Starr is joining the Trump defense team . I dont give a plug nickel what this guy who worked for him thinks.Most republican legal people are as in the tank as the Senate and the Trumptard base.

And as I've said had Pelosi waited around going through the subpoena process against total obstruction of witnesses and documents by this WH would have dragged this out into the summer. As an example the SCOTUS agreed to hear the McGann case which trump had lost on 4 times in various rulings . It's on the June Dockett and so one would assume the Bolton case etc would be at least that far out. Thankfully for America patriotic public servants crossed the line and testified in defiance of the WH and made it absolutely irrefutably clear what happened. All additional testimony and documents will do is even further incriminate the president and virtually his entire foreign policy cabinet which is why they dont want them. Lev Parnas in particular has said devastating things that implicate the entire cabinet as well as attorney Jay Sekulow.. If they are false as the republicans claim Id sure want to cross examine that guy, wouldnt you?

Among other things Parnas said in his interview last night was that Trump attorneys Sekulow and Dowd discouraged him from obeying a congressional subpoena by telling him he was part of an immunity agreement.He and Igor fruman had agreed to testify. When he was arrested Dowd basically told him to buck up and bee a good soldier at which he fired Dowd. The level of corruption is mind boggling

I've seen the evidence, I've read the Emails and phone transcript including trump's call. There's OVERWHELMING evidence of guilt now confirmed by the President's own OMB watchdog. The fact that more evidence surfaces seemingly by the hour doesn't change that were trump a private citizen he would already be in jail over obstruction of justice. This would just be extra time. The Senate and WH attempts to suppress evidence shows they know they are guilty as hell.

Its bad when Lev Parnas, eastern bloc shadow world operative sounds more credible than the POTUS but he does . Good luck squishing this Moscow Mitch. Polls consistently show around 70% of americans including a slight majority of republicans want a fair trial with witnesses. You're up 1 point on McGrath in a state Trump won by 30, a state in which Trump campaigned unsuccessfully for the governor a few weeks ago.Good luck turkey jowls Good luck vulnerable republicans. What about your legacy Lamar Alexander? You're retiring, can you stand up for america?

He won't be removed IMO but I think there will be witnesses and documents.

[Hawktawk]

And one more thing. If I hear wait till the election and let the people decide" it's only a year till the election" I'm just going to scream

First of all 40 some years ago I had some legal issues involving using the throttle as an on off switch in powerful muscle cars on numerous occasions Boy would I have loved to be able to say "hey your honor let's wait a year then I'll have my high school classmates vote on my guilt or innocence." Wouldn't that be sweet Let the voters decide what's legal or illegal .Should I go to jail for my crimes or not because i'm definitely guilty.It's a ridiculous premise.

Most on OT agree he's broken the law in impeachable ways. Nancy Pelosi is right when she says "impeachment is forever". It was my point a year or more ago when polls showed very little support for impeaching him. Even when the inquiry was launched it was far underwater. Democrats were willing to do their job regardless of the potential political consequences and it's turned out better than they could have hoped. I think she's handled this not perfectly but brilliantly under the circumstances dealing with an obstructionist president who breaks laws remorselessly.

So what's the breaking point? Does he have to rape someone? shoot them? what would make it imperative to remove a president, to "overturn an election" ? If he were anyone else including every other elected politician in the country he would have "broken the law and went to jail" which happens all the time and I never hear about anyone overturning an election. They just took out the trash. No politician should expect to stay in office if they break the law nor should their supporters have any expectation that they will.

Beyond that last cycle he benefited from a massive illegal effort by Russia in an election where he gained over 4 million less votes but won by a few thousand votes in key battleground states. See my election security thread as Russia hacked Burisma on cue when Trump got in hot water. Read my article on automatic voting machines. Think about the fact numerous counties including 3 in Florida had their voter rolls breached in 2016.
The point is obvious, its becoming hard to trust the integrity of our elections, especially with the perp in the white house with everything to gain by winning in Nov and hence no reason to stop Russian meddling.

The time is now. Now we will see how the Repubs handle it.I dont agree with Dems on much but I applaud them for standing up for America, the constitution as well as allies like Ukraine subjected to this mob style bribery.

[RiverDog]

Jeezus whatever. I don't care about the minutia, I just know and still, regardless of what links you find to say otherwise, that enough information was gathered by the House committee to bring articles of impeachment to the Senate and now it the Senate's constitutional duty to try the case. The whole case with any and all information that is accessible, not just the sweep the whole thing under the rug and blame it on the House Dems for not doing their job well enough.

I'm not going to keep playing word games over it.

All I'm saying is that the R's do have a point in that the Dems were hasty in their development of their case. The Senate is not obligated to call witnesses or develop evidence. That process of charging one with a crime, ie "impeachment", should occur in the House as it has in all previous impeachment proceedings.

It's not going to make a bit of difference anyway. Every one of those Senators already know how they will vote, and nothing pro or con is going to change their minds. It's a waste of time.

[Aseahawkfan]

I wish they would get this tired farce over with. Senate is unlikely to remove. A trial would be a waste of time other than propaganda to use against Trump, which I guess some Dem supporters support. If the Dems can't beat in Trump in the upcoming election this time, then the Dems are truly pathetic. If the Democrats and hawktawk's of the world can't beat a president this bad at managing his public image and has literally set himself up for impeachment with his dumb attempts in Ukraine, petty twitter feuds, hyperbolic, lying television speeches that indicate he doesn't seem to realize he's being recorded, then the Dems are the party that is hurting far more than the Republicans.

If I were the Democrats right now, I'd be asking myself if I can't beat this guy in 2020 then I need to really take a look at my party and what it stands for. Trump is literally pitching the Dems a softball across the plate in 2020 to win the presidency. If the Dems can't hit it out of the park, then what the hell is wrong with them.

All I know is from a pure logical perspective, I expect Trump to lose the 2020 election. My money is on the sideline waiting again. If the idiot Dems can't win this time and I Iose money waiting for them again, then I don't know what to think. There doesn't seem any way Trump should win in 2020 from a pure objective standpoint. The hate for him is so extreme. A good percentage of those that voted for him last time have to see Trump is a tiresome, annoying, eysesore of a president even if he isn't as bad politically or as corrupt as people paint him to be. Trump is an annoying ass that doesn't need to be president any longer if only so more Americans didn't have to listen to the equally annoying political conversation around his presidency.

[RiverDog]

I wish they would get this tired farce over with. Senate is unlikely to remove. A trial would be a waste of time other than propaganda to use against Trump, which I guess some Dem supporters support. If the Dems can't beat in Trump in the upcoming election this time, then the Dems are truly pathetic. If the Democrats and hawktawk's of the world can't beat a president this bad at managing his public image and has literally set himself up for impeachment with his dumb attempts in Ukraine, petty twitter feuds, hyperbolic, lying television speeches that indicate he doesn't seem to realize he's being recorded, then the Dems are the party that is hurting far more than the Republicans.

If I were the Democrats right now, I'd be asking myself if I can't beat this guy in 2020 then I need to really take a look at my party and what it stands for. Trump is literally pitching the Dems a softball across the plate in 2020 to win the presidency. If the Dems can't hit it out of the park, then what the hell is wrong with them.

All I know is from a pure logical perspective, I expect Trump to lose the 2020 election. My money is on the sideline waiting again. If the idiot Dems can't win this time and I Iose money waiting for them again, then I don't know what to think. There doesn't seem any way Trump should win in 2020 from a pure objective standpoint. The hate for him is so extreme. A good percentage of those that voted for him last time have to see Trump is a tiresome, annoying, eysesore of a president even if he isn't as bad politically or as corrupt as people paint him to be. Trump is an annoying ass that doesn't need to be president any longer if only so more Americans didn't have to listen to the equally annoying political conversation around his presidency.

The impeachment proceedings are useful in that it brought into full light Trump's abuse of power and what he's capable of. Anyone sitting on the fence has to take notice.

But outside that, it's a complete waste of time. The Mariners have a better chance of winning the World Series in 2020 than Trump has of getting impeached. It's that bad. And there's a good chance that Trump could come out of this much stronger than he went in as was the case with Slick Willy when he was impeached.

But I do agree that Trump is likely to lose the 2020 election, but I'd keep my money on the sidelines until after Super Tuesday. If Biden has a solid lead after then, I'd go all in. If not, if someone like Warren or Sanders is at least even with Biden, I'd wait until the convention.

[Aseahawkfan]

The impeachment proceedings are useful in that it brought into full light Trump's abuse of power and what he's capable of. Anyone sitting on the fence has to take notice.

But outside that, it's a complete waste of time. The Mariners have a better chance of winning the World Series in 2020 than Trump has of getting impeached. It's that bad. And there's a good chance that Trump could come out of this much stronger than he went in as was the case with Slick Willy when he was impeached.

But I do agree that Trump is likely to lose the 2020 election, but I'd keep my money on the sidelines until after Super Tuesday. If Biden has a solid lead after then, I'd go all in. If not, if someone like Warren or Sanders is at least even with Biden, I'd wait until the convention.

What he is capable of bothers me not at all. I've watched presidents engage in corruption every administration since I've been alive and before in the history books.

Trump's biggest problem is he is a political outsider and doesn't have the connections to protect himself. On top of that he likes to be polarizing and engage in public spats.

Bush Jr. and Cheney were more corrupt than Trump by a good measure. They were politically connected and knew how to manage the press. You couldn't go after them. Bush Jr. was the face man. Cheney was the hammer. I remember Cheney telling reporters and protesters to "F off." No one could touch him. They knew he wasn't someone to mess with at all. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cheney-vs-journalism/

Americans so often forget the past and just like to rage at the current administration. I tend to view politics in the long-term. I don't worry too much about who is president. Nothing I have seen Trump indicates he is very different from past administrations. He is mostly a centrist Republican/Democrat populist whose strongest stance may be his trade wars and use of tariffs. Even his immigration policies are enforcement of existing policies and his rhetoric.

What I find most annoying about the man is his tweeting, petty feuds, and his public speaking. The guy is always selling everything he does as great and perfect like he's always selling or telling tall tales to his buddies at the local club. It's tiresome. It's always about him when he talks. Most politicians are far more polished and capable public speakers that handle the face man part of the presidency far better.

If you want to watch a new trial with the same information told to you in ten different ways by fifty different people, have at it. I'll never think much of it. I see a bunch of Democrats getting a pass for doing exactly what Trump is accused of, except they obviously have better protections. Christopher Steele was a foreign spy that used his connections in Russia to drum up dirt on Trump to influence an election. The Dems built an impeachment case out of it. Trump did an inept job of trying to get back at the Dems and attack Joe Biden and his stupid, corrupt son that Joe protected using his political power. That's what I see.

Not like Biden didn't do what he is accused of. Not like his son Hunter isn't a corrupt piece of crap being protected by his powerful father. I guess all these Dem supporters and hawktawk's don't care because it's all about taking down Trump. But I don't fall for that tired crap. I'm quite fine waiting for the election to decide.

[RiverDog]

What he is capable of bothers me not at all. I've watched presidents engage in corruption every administration since I've been alive and before in the history books.

That's fine for you, but others may not have read or listened to him as much before. The impeachment proceedings are potentially very damaging to his chances of re-election because it's some very negative information that many voters might not have been fully aware of.

If you want to watch a new trial with the same information told to you in ten different ways by fifty different people, have at it. I'll never think much of it. I see a bunch of Democrats getting a pass for doing exactly what Trump is accused of, except they obviously have better protections. Christopher Steele was a foreign spy that used his connections in Russia to drum up dirt on Trump to influence an election. The Dems built an impeachment case out of it. Trump did an inept job of trying to get back at the Dems and attack Joe Biden and his stupid, corrupt son that Joe protected using his political power. That's what I see.

I didn't say that I'd watch any of it. I've tuned out nearly everything so far and don't plan on paying much attention to the trial. Heck, they're talking about taking the Senators cell phones away from them so that they pay attention during the trial. Those poor bastards are going to have to sit there for hours on end, worse than sitting in church listening to some blow hard preacher.

Not like Biden didn't do what he is accused of. Not like his son Hunter isn't a corrupt piece of crap being protected by his powerful father. I guess all these Dem supporters and hawktawk's don't care because it's all about taking down Trump. But I don't fall for that tired crap. I'm quite fine waiting for the election to decide.

Agreed about Biden. He's dirty, too, and if he were matched up against nearly any other candidate besides Trump, I wouldn't be voting for him. My personal preference to face off against Trump is Michael Bloomberg.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="Aseahawkfan"]
If you want to watch a new trial with the same information told to you in ten different ways by fifty different people, have at it. I'll never think much of it. I see a bunch of Democrats getting a pass for doing exactly what Trump is accused of, except they obviously have better protections. Christopher Steele was a foreign spy that used his connections in Russia to drum up dirt on Trump to influence an election. The Dems built an impeachment case out of it. Trump did an inept job of trying to get back at the Dems and attack Joe Biden and his stupid, corrupt son that Joe protected using his political power. That's what I see.

Not like Biden didn't do what he is accused of. Not like his son Hunter isn't a corrupt piece of crap being protected by his powerful father. I guess all these Dem supporters and hawktawk's don't care because it's all about taking down Trump. But I don't fall for that tired crap. I'm quite fine waiting for the election to decide.[/quote ]

I'm not sure why you insist on taking your petty little second hand potshots at me.Most of the time you dont address my points directly but then you're taking your little potshot "the Hawktawks of the world" WTF does that mean ?? I guess it's better than being a libtard or even worse a Trumptard. Yes I hate because my eyes are open, not blinded by apathy and indifference like yours. Yes it's about talking down trump because he needs taken down. You sound like a fool saying he's no worse than other presidents. I've never seen this level of personal corruption and certainly the integrity of our elections has never been remotely as threatened as by the president, welcoming, encouraging and now trying to strong arm foreign interference. It seems pretty damn stupid to say wait till the election to get rid of a guy who cheats in elections as the main part of the impeachment he built against himself. He left Pelosi no choice.He should have been impeached after the devastating Mueller report.

As for Biden, Hunter specifically I heard him described as a "man skank" by a female CNN reporter and not only did she demonstrate her network credibility but she's exactly correct. Hunter benefitted off daddys name in a very handsome way. To be fair Burisma brought in many high profile westerners to sit on the board for the same $ at the same time to resuscitate its image.

As for Joe his error was not demanding he resign out of the appearance of impropriety although to be fair Hunter is a middle age adult who can do what he wants. He admitted in an interview he would never have gotten the position without his name. Other than that Joe Biden is not demonstrated to have done a damn thing wrong from a standpoint of integrity or violation of law. He pummels Trump in the polls and is currently the clear best choice for Democrats if they want to win. So attacks on him are the Trump talking points.
Besides it doesn't matter what the Bidens did or didn't do in Ukraine, it completely misses the point.

Point is a president violated the impoundment act holding lethal aid approved by the congress and SIGNED INTO LAW BY HIM. It doesn't matter why, its illegal, he was advised it was illegal, his staff had an intervention, OMB attorneys resigned over it as well as John Bolton. He also bartered the power of his office threatening Ukraine with "no relationship" if they did not comply with the demands.Mike Pence cancelled a trip to Zelenski's inauguration after he walked back the promise to announce investigations.

Trump did it to influence a vulnerable foreign power to ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS of the Bidens. No need to do the investigations, just announce them.Kind of like hacking Emails or whatever politically, worth a few points in the polls which trump surely needs. I've heard this from witnesses including Gordon Sondland of the million dollar donation to Trump to the guy he doesn't know, Lev Parnas, who has an unending supply of pictures and communications linking them. Parnas said he will produce another picture every time trump says he doesn't know him

So much for the "fighting corruption" talking points. It was instigating corruption.

And one more time on Steele, you really dont know what youre talking about. He was hired initially by Republicans opposed to Trump, at a certain point the DNC employed him and in the end he was working with the FBI. Very little of his work is actually discredited, other than whether Cohen was in Prague to meet Russian Oligarchs I've not heard a thing absolutely disproven. If a guy is corrupt enough to have shady business ties to Putin(in the report and proven) get caught on film with prostitutes in the Moscow ritz Carlton( In the report and totally believable) If he's that type of scum he's fair game when he runs for president. Most important the Steele Dossier WAS NEVER REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC DURING THE ELECTION!!!

Can you explain how that dossier influenced an election??? It was published by Buzzfeed well AFTER the election!!!! It influenced his polls with guys like me that already justifiably hate him but it did not influence the election at all so stop saying it. The access hollywood tape influenced the election for a few hours till the Clinton Emails were released by Wikileaks, right on cue.

But I'm loony for being paranoid about waiting around till the next election to let Putin help decide .

[RiverDog]

The impeachment trial is scheduled to start this Tuesday the 21st, and as Democrats feared, it's going to take out two of the party's big guns, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both liberals, and set them on the sidelines just as the Iowa caucus heads into its stretch run. Additionally, the Senators will be barred from bringing their cell phones with them (oh, the horror!) to the trial so they'll essentially be incommunicado during the proceedings, which is bound to be a long, drawn out circus, and could affect the New Hampshire primary as well.

Additionally, both Sanders and Warren have lost some momentum and desperately need to do well in both Iowa and in their own back yards in New Hampshire or else it could all be over with after Super Tuesday, which is only 6 weeks away. As was feared, the impeachment trial has the potential to be a spoiler in the 2020 primaries.

I personally think things are shaping up well and hope that the impeachment trial drags on for weeks. Of the 3-4 major candidates, Biden is the one I would like to see in the White House. He is the one that matches up best against Trump, especially in the battleground states where the election is likely to be won or lost, so if the objective is to get Trump out of office, you have to be rooting for every witness from the cook to the janitor to be called to testify during the trial.

On a side note, Sanders and Warren had a very childish exchange last week involving Sanders supposedly saying that Warren couldn't win because she was a woman. Sanders denies saying it, but the media seems to have taken Warren's side in this he said-she said argument despite some of Warren's past behavior that would normally cause one to question her credibility vs. that of Bernie's, who has not had anything that would cause a person to question his honesty.

Sanders is not the favorite son of the mainstream Dems as technically he is an independent and many of the party faithful are still peeved over his failure to get out of the 2016 primary race soon enough to suit them and accused the Dems of stacking the deck in favor of Hillary.

Quite an interesting soap opera playing out in the Democratic party. No wonder Trump beat them.

Oh, and BTW Hawktalk, since you seem to reference polling data a lot, the latest RCP poll published on Jan. 14th shows impeachment/removal from office being underwater, with more people being against it (47.3%) than in favor (46.9%).

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6957.html

[Hawktawk]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AADKLI1

Again I've followed this one for months, the only daily poll running. Same 3 questions, Impeachment, Job approval, 2020 vs generic opponent. Impeachment is far underwater to his job approval and his reelect which are both bad but nowhere near his impeach# in this poll.Way different from your RCP which is skewed by Rasmussen which is typically 10 points off from everyone else, also a couple of other outliers. Regardless polls consistently show an overwhelming majority of americans want a fair trial with witnesses and assuming that happens,a more likely prospect every day it's not going to go well for Trump and his counsel.My hypothesis is polls will trend that way as well. They are light year better for the rule of law and the constitution than they were at the end of summer, better than Pelosi could have hoped for or expected which is why she held off so long in the first place.

Here's the 538.https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... gs/adults/ Horrible reelect #s. Biden or Bloomberg would crush him. Sanders and Warren and their stupid food fight created by a desperate Warren divulging details of a private conversation are a recipe for 4 more years most likely. Dont know about Buttigeig, love the way he speaks but... Love klobuchar. Steyer sounds like fingernails scratching on the blackboard trying to talk, the male linguistic equivalent of Hillary . Id love Bloomberg to gain traction. He would be the best to beat trump and the best for america IMO. The party is foolish to exclude him from the debates.

[RiverDog]

Again I've followed this one for months, the only daily poll running. Same 3 questions, Impeachment, Job approval, 2020 vs generic opponent. Impeachment is far underwater to his job approval and his reelect which are both bad but nowhere near his impeach# in this poll.Way different from your RCP which is skewed by Rasmussen which is typically 10 points off from everyone else, also a couple of other outliers.

Summoning my best Ronald Reagan imitation: "There he goes again!"

You're rationalizing again, discounting information you don't like in lieu of that which fits your narrative. Rasmussen isn't figured into the RCP average and I suspect that they haven't even done a poll on impeachment, at least not with the question posed so it could be included in a meaningful average with other organizations. But feel free to browse their website yourself in case I missed something:

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public ... rack_jan17

[Hawktawk]

Cnn yesterday 51% remove 45% no. 58% believe Trump abused power and obstructed congress. 70% want witnesses including nearly 50% of republicans and 70% of independents.

Meanwhile MCconnells rules mean testimony may conclude at 3AM due to the compressed schedule providing only 24 hrs over 2 days, making it virtually impossible for the average american to see testimony in real time. An attempt is ongoing to force Boltons testimony behind closed doors if it is allowed at all. McConnell has fought tooth and nail for no witnesses and documents .

Alan Dershowitz is running around saying abuse of power is not impeachable Yeah it's all political but like most issues one side is right and one side is wrong. It's really clear who is who here, and polls are showing the american people are less and less fooled by the smoke and mirrors.

Good luck with this Midnight Mitch. See you in Nov

[RiverDog]

I saw Dershowitz being interviewed yesterday. His argument is that the Constitution is specific, that there has to be a "crime" committed in order to qualify for impeachment, and in the case of Donald Trump, there is none (according to him). The problem with his argument is that there is no definition of a "crime" in the Constitution. Is it a criminal offense? A misdemeanor offense? A crime against humanity? A violation of his oath of office? If not impeachment, what remedy is available for an official that acts in a manner that is unacceptable but technically legal? I don't see the kind of specifics in the Constitution that he apparently does.

Dershowitz's argument is opposite to the one he made in defense of Slick Willy. In that impeachment trial, there WAS undeniable evidence that a crime had occurred, a very serious one that people had gone to jail for. The question wasn't did he commit a crime, the question was did it qualify as a "high crime", an impeachable offense.

In reality, a "high crime" isn't anything more or less than what 218 Representatives and 67 Senators says it is. They could convict the POTUS of spitting on the sidewalk and there's nothing that the Supreme Court, the voters, or anyone else could do about it, no appeal, no nothing. It's a political process, not a legal one that would normally be subject to the judicial process.

I started a thread a while back that asked why the Democrats were at that time referring to Trump's phone call to Ukraine as "bribery", and IMO it was an attempt to silence the debate over what an impeachable crime was as bribery is one of just two crimes called out in the Constitution rather than this much more broadly defined abuse of power accusation.

[I-5]

Riv, was Dershowitz representing Bill Clinton in 1998? I don't see his name on the list of attorneys that Clinton procured for his trial. I would think the answer is 'no' since he was then making the argument that one does not have to commit a 'technical crime' to be impeached.

Also, how is quid pro quo different from bribery besides the spelling of the word? I found this description from a lawyer website:

“Quid pro quo” is a Latin phrase that means “something for something” or “this for that.” Every bribery or extortion charge necessarily has a “quid pro quo.” However, not every “quid pro quo” is a crime. If one person offers another $5,000.00 to purchase a car, that is simply a contract for the sale of a car. Although there is a quid pro quo (“I’ll give you $5,000.00 if you give me your car”) that is not illegal. On the other hand, if the quid pro quo is money in exchange for a public official’s act (“I’ll give you $5000.00 if you give my company the public works contract”) then that is certainly illegal.

[RiverDog]

Riv, was Dershowitz representing Bill Clinton in 1998? I don't see his name on the list of attorneys that Clinton procured for his trial. I would think the answer is 'no' since he was then making the argument that one does not have to commit a 'technical crime' to be impeached.

I kind of gave that impression, didn't I? Dershowitz was not on Clinton's defense team but he was very public in his opposition to the impeachment. Indeed, that's one of the reasons why he was attractive to the Trump legal team as they saw him as a person with substantial name recognition that unlike Ken Starr, could refute allegations of partisanship due to his past opposition to Clinton's impeachment and his having voted for HRC in 2016.

Also, how is quid pro quo different from bribery besides the spelling of the word? I found this description from a lawyer website:

“Quid pro quo” is a Latin phrase that means “something for something” or “this for that.” Every bribery or extortion charge necessarily has a “quid pro quo.” However, not every “quid pro quo” is a crime. If one person offers another $5,000.00 to purchase a car, that is simply a contract for the sale of a car. Although there is a quid pro quo (“I’ll give you $5,000.00 if you give me your car”) that is not illegal. On the other hand, if the quid pro quo is money in exchange for a public official’s act (“I’ll give you $5000.00 if you give my company the public works contract”) then that is certainly illegal.

"Bribery" is not the crime that Trump is accused of committing. There were two articles of impeachment, ie "crimes", approved by the House: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. As the matter of fact, the term "bribery" or "bribe" as it relates to Trump doesn't appear anywhere in the approved articles. That's why I felt that the Democrats started using the term 'bribery' earlier last fall as it was a specific crime called out in the Constitution as a "high crime" and wouldn't have been subject to such criticism. It's a weakness in the case that Dershowitz is seeking to exploit.

In Clinton's impeachment, the charge was perjury, a crime that was easily defined and almost without question that Clinton had committed. The only question in that impeachment was does perjury rise to the Constitutional requirement of a "high" crime. "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" are crimes that are quite a bit more difficult to define let alone prove that it was committed.

My opinion is that Dershowitz is getting hung up on the legal aspect of the case. Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political one, and although "high crimes" can include defined criminal acts as they were in the Clinton impeachment, they are not limited to them. IMO Congress can essentially make up a "high crime", convict the POTUS of violating it, and be within the Constitutional definition. A high crime is what 218 Representatives and 67 Senators says it is.

[Hawktawk]

As Lindsay Graham and Alan Dershowitz both said during the Clinton Impeachment "you dont even have to commit a crime to be impeached". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrZYv8StSA
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... mpeach.cnn

Now they are arguing that ABUSE OF POWER is not impeachable conduct? What a joke Starr was the driving force to Impeach Clinton somehow swerving away from investigating a failed land deal in Arkansas to charging him with perjuring himself regarding a consensual sexual affair he had originally lied about during an unrelated sexual assault lawsuit.

Talk about a witch hunt Mueller could easily have done this and more with the Stormy daniels, Karen McDougal scandal had he had the authority or inclination.

Now Starr is all in for the most corrupt lawless president in history .

Then there is this https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics ... index.html


Id love to be a Democratic ad consultant for this fall. It would be like shooting ducks in a gallery with all this material. Looking at the latest polls mCConnell may well win this trial, almost certainly but he may lose the Senate and even his seat over it. The parade of formerly respected people falling on their swords in loyalty to a man who never returns it is stupefying. The people will not forget this.

[RiverDog]

Now they are arguing that ABUSE OF POWER is not impeachable conduct? What a joke Starr was the driving force to Impeach Clinton somehow swerving away from investigating a failed land deal in Arkansas to charging him with perjuring himself regarding a consensual sexual affair he had originally lied about during an unrelated sexual assault lawsuit.

Let's set the record straight regarding Starr and the Clinton impeachment. It was not Starr's decision to "swerve away from investigating a failed land deal to perjury in an unrelated lawsuit" as you are suggesting. During the course of the Whitewater investigation, Starr discovered evidence of a possible crime having been committed in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit. As required by law, he reported it to the 3 judge panel he answered to and the panel told him to expand the investigation to include possible perjury by Clinton in the lawsuit. Starr had nothing to do with the expansion of the investigation other than telling the panel of judges about the evidence he had discovered.

[c_hawkbob]

In a new Yahoo News poll:

Nearly two-thirds of registered voters (63%) agree with Democrats that the Senate should call new witnesses to testify during President Trump’s impeachment trial, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll. Only 26% of voters disagree.

[RiverDog]

In a new Yahoo News poll:

Nearly two-thirds of registered voters (63%) agree with Democrats that the Senate should call new witnesses to testify during President Trump’s impeachment trial, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll. Only 26% of voters disagree.

Let me respond by saying this: If I were asked that question, ie should the Senate call new witnesses to testify in President Trump's impeachment trial, I would answer yes. I want all the information relevant to this case to be in full view of both the Senate and the American public.

However, I still firmly believe that the Democrats pushed this impeachment through w/o doing a proper investigation and are forcing the Senate to do their jobs for them. This should have all been ferreted out before impeachment charges reached the Senate for a decision. The Democrats are putting the wagon in front of the horses in the purely selfish interest of not allowing it to affect the 2020 primaries.

[Hawktawk]

This morning from Davos the president said of his trial"we have all the materials, the democrats dont have any materials". This as the debate in the Senate rages over witnesses and documents I'm sure they will have the talking points out soon, the pres was speaking off the cuff, is not really fluent with his words etc....


The Democrats did a pretty good job with what they have yesterday IMO. Showing emails relevant to the Ukrainian drug deal, only released through a freedom of information lawsuit with everything but the header redacted, an E mail of black lines was pretty powerful. Especially when contemporaneous accounts of career diplomats revealed that the contents held no classified content but rather communications about the scheme.. The timeline makes clear the president conceived of and directed this every step of the way despite multiple warnings it was illegal, cabinet officials pleading with him to release the aid. A fraudulent document stating the funds were held subject to a "multiagency review" was signed 90 minutes after the July 25 "we need a favor" phone call. In fact a multi agency review never occured. This was an attempt at providing a fig leaf of legal cover for an illegal act.The facts are not in dispute. 11 MILLION watched the opening day of the trial.

Will these Senators convict? Not a chance. Will there be witnesses? Maybe. McConnel pushed them off a week until the presentations are done.Republicans are already arguing that the case the Dems have made without witnesses and documents makes additional witnesses unnecessary. That's threading the needle if i've ever heard of it saying the other side made a pretty good case to keep from their case getting stronger.Frankly I think the existing evidence is enough and its ridiculous to charge a rushed process when this WH was blocking everything to try to run out the clock. People like Bolton will only make repubs look worse and turn public opinion against Trump. Polls have rewarded the dems, more so every day.
76% want witnesses. 58% believe he broke the law. 51% in the most recent polls say he should be removed with 45 opposed, 6 points underwater.

No he won't be impeached and removed but Republicans are going to look really bad to a majority of the american people for acquitting him.

[RiverDog]

11 MILLION watched the opening day of the trial.

Actually the numbers I saw were closer to 13M. But let's keep it in perspective. 16M watched the House impeachment vote, and about 15M-20M routinely watch Sunday Night Football. And turning back the calendar to 1980, 80M watched Ronald Reagan debate Jimmy Carter, and going back even further, 80% of all American households watched the Watergate hearings, and that wasn't even a trial. The country doesn't pay attention to this chit like they used to, which is the big problem in trying to remove a POS like Trump.

76% want witnesses. 58% believe he broke the law. 51% in the most recent polls say he should be removed with 45 opposed, 6 points underwater.

I see that you're still cherry picking polls. The RCP average is currently 47% yes/remove, 47.9% no, and the no votes have actually bumped up a tick in recent days:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6957.html

No he won't be impeached and removed but Republicans are going to look really bad to a majority of the american people for acquitting him.

Citing the same source as above, Trump's approval rating this week at 44.3% is EXACTLY what it was in January of 2017 when he took office:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Hawktawk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -vote.html
Lots of times you have to go across the pond to get the facts.....

The founders and framers did their best and created a remarkable if very flawed roadmap for our nation known as the constitution. Many amendments have been necessarily added including one that should have been employed in early 2017 at the latest, the 25th amendment. And call me a loon or whatever but at least 2 books as well as mueller testimony indicates it was in fact discussed by cabinet officials on several occasions in early 2017.


But the most needed amendment is to this national travesty known as Impeachment being the only potential guardrails for a rogue president. I get what the founders did. They didn't want a president to be harassed or driven from office over political differences or indicted on phony charges by a runaway justice department so they made this very hard, 2/3rds of the senate must decide in a bipartisan political decision whether to convict and remove, and at least 51 must vote for a conviction at which point we would be in no man's land, a convicted guilty president left in power.

What the founders envisioned was 100 exceptional people of integrity in the chamber as a potential nuclear option in the unlikely event a president broke the oath of his office and was impeached by the congress, . They also envisioned special, remarkable, visionary selfless public servants in the office of the presidency.

In their worst nightmares they could not envision a system so broken an utterly corrupt unchecked president they would never have envisioned possible would be defended lock stock and barrel by an equally corrupt party that knows full well he should be removed. Its come full circle from the founders desire politics not unfairly remove a president to politics now guaranteeing the survival of an unfit president.

It's become a total joke with the head of the judiciary committee Lindsey graham saying he "wont even read the evidence, it's a sham trial" McConnell" we are coordinating 100% with the white house", now reports of an all out intimidation campaign against basically the jurors in this trial.It was funny watching the Dem house managers playing video of Graham, McConnell and Dershowitz during the Clinton trial saying exactly the opposite.

So, no new evidence allowed including cabinet officials who could end the trial in 5 minutes, Repub lawyers flat out lying, Cipollone and Sekulow saying multiple false things in the US Senate with the chief justice watching strictly to confuse the public. Looks like perjury to me. Witness intimidation. Obstruction of justice, jury tampering.

This chink in the armor of our democracy is becoming a breach in the wall. If a president can be this lawless and survive we've lost something were never getting back.
And again I am so sick of hearing let the voters decide. I'm not sure the voters decided in 2016.First of all they didn't as 4 million more voted against than for him. The electoral college decided. Vlad putin had a vote, a huge vote. Nothing's been done to stop him according to everyone from Chris Wray to Bob Mueller and he's had 4 years to perfect his attacks. Beyond that criminal wrongdoing should result in immediate expulsion from office for any person in america. Why is the golfer in chief, captain bone spurs any different? What's the difference to the country if his fat ass is in the slammer or on the golf course?Isn't that why we have Pence? although he's knee deep in the hoopla in the Ukraine scandal.

Changes to the constitution need to happen. They likely never will as I fail to see any POTUS ever surrendering any protections or powers or disavowing Trump's tactics if they are ever in his position. But as a result of this toothless act Impeachment being the only emergency brake on this runaway administration america has gotten considerably less great

[RiverDog]

What the founders envisioned was 100 exceptional people of integrity in the chamber as a potential nuclear option in the unlikely event a president broke the oath of his office and was impeached by the congress, . They also envisioned special, remarkable, visionary selfless public servants in the office of the presidency.

How do you know what the founders envisioned? If they envisioned selfless public servants, why did they bother putting in a mechanism to remove them?

Changes to the constitution need to happen. They likely never will as I fail to see any POTUS ever surrendering any protections or powers or disavowing Trump's tactics if they are ever in his position. But as a result of this toothless act Impeachment being the only emergency brake on this runaway administration america has gotten considerably less great

If you don't like the results of an election, let's abolish the electoral college. If impeachment doesn't go the way you think it should, then let's change the Constitution. You would have a lot better chance of getting things to go your way by convincing others of the righteousness of your arguments than you would trying to change the rules of the game to suit your means.

The nation is deeply divided, and it's not just because Trump is in office. Take a look at our own state and the divide between western WA and eastern WA. I've been a life long resident and I've never seen it so bad, where you have county sheriffs refusing to enforce a law enacted by vote, huge disagreements on taxes, dam breaching, gun control, and threats to secede. It's a microcosm of what's happening on a larger scale nation wide.

The nation isn't going to heal itself just by getting rid of Trump. The divisions are real and they are not going away. IMO if we vote out Trump and install someone like Sanders or Warren, it's likely to get worse.

[Hawktawk]

How do you know what the founders envisioned? If they envisioned selfless public servants, why did they bother putting in a mechanism to remove them?



If you don't like the results of an election, let's abolish the electoral college. If impeachment doesn't go the way you think it should, then let's change the Constitution. You would have a lot better chance of getting things to go your way by convincing others of the righteousness of your arguments than you would trying to change the rules of the game to suit your means.

The nation is deeply divided, and it's not just because Trump is in office. Take a look at our own state and the divide between western WA and eastern WA. I've been a life long resident and I've never seen it so bad, where you have county sheriffs refusing to enforce a law enacted by vote, huge disagreements on taxes, dam breaching, gun control, and threats to secede. It's a microcosm of what's happening on a larger scale nation wide.

The nation isn't going to heal itself just by getting rid of Trump. The divisions are real and they are not going away. IMO if we vote out Trump and install someone like Sanders or Warren, it's likely to get worse.

I know the founders anticipated men of integrity would occupy the office since they made it so damn hard to remove them assuming the senate was also generally full of selfless american patriots who would defend the constitution and not get involved in partisanship. The Nixon scandal was the last time that happened and even then it was pulling teeth until the tapes were released. This senate doesn't want any more smoking guns which is why they are fighting tooth and nail to stop them. There are already smoking cannons in the carnage of multiple scandals by this president.https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4797 ... d-evidence. Looks like he believes the Congress, Mueller etc did their job.

I'm not sure what you mean by changing the rules to suit myself. Nobody thinks the rules are going to change with Midnight Moscow Mitch running the show. I advocate a constitutional amendment to the impeachment process which would involve forcing compliance with subpoenas or facing immediate removal from office, recusal from making military decisions while the trial is ongoing and a secret ballot. Every other jury in America is secret.

As former senator Jeff Flake who resigned rather than follow trump said "if it was a secret ballot there might be 35 republicans support it".
That ought to tell anyone who gives a damn where we are as a democracy right now.

The problems with our politics in general is a separate issue although I completely agree with what you said about it. But it has no bearing on a lawless president shaking down a vulnerable desperate ally for political gain. If we get a Sanders or Warren I won't be overjoyed but it will be TRUMP'S FAULT BECAUSE HE'S SO BAD although they would be the best chance for him to win.. No president with an economy that's clicking and relative peace would be welded at 40-44% give or take and before you say it's like Obama etc at this point in the first term the disapprove most certainly is not like Obama as it is hardened at around 50 % , a dreadful reelect #.

No administration would be remotely as chaotic or corrupt or destabilizing . I prefer Biden or Bloomberg but i'll take any of them. If the Trump party is a permanent minority I'm happy with that. They deserve to be voted into oblivion. Country over party. Country over ideology. Constitution over corruption. F the Trump party, they are pond scum.

[RiverDog]

I know the founders anticipated men of integrity would occupy the office since they made it so damn hard to remove them assuming the senate was also generally full of selfless american patriots who would defend the constitution and not get involved in partisanship.

Neither you nor I know what the founders assumed when they wrote the Constitution. There was not a singular voice known as "the founding fathers". It was a relatively large group from different parts of what would become the United States and there was a lot of disagreement within that group on a number of things.

I advocate a constitutional amendment to the impeachment process which would involve forcing compliance with subpoenas or facing immediate removal from office, recusal from making military decisions while the trial is ongoing and a secret ballot. Every other jury in America is secret.

Other juries in America aren't there because they were elected representatives. We have a right to know how they vote. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

That ought to tell anyone who gives a damn where we are as a democracy right now.

We're not a democracy, we're a representative republic. We elect others to do our bidding for us. I have no desire to live in a pure democracy under mob rule.

[Hawktawk]

We are living under mob rule now, or to be more specific a mobster style administration that has done as its pleased for 3 years in breaking multiple laws, totally obstructed congressional oversight as well as continuing to fight in the courts despite multiple losses. They utterly own Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham , well basically every politician in the party.But privately the Republicans in congress hate him for the most part, know he's done wrong things.They are burned out and resentful about having to run out and defend controversy after controversy. They just dont have the guts to take a chance on a primary opponent. Its despicable.

We need a secret ballot if Flakes statement is anywhere near true, anonymously they will vote their conscience and overwhelmingly remove him.Thats the correct result isn't it?. Why should political pressure be a part of the decision? If a president can prove as Trump has that he can exert enough pressure on the jurors judging his misconduct that it will influence their decision rather than the facts that's a problem for me.They are jurors, not politicians in that setting. A secret ballot would eliminate political consideration beyond normal party affiliation. And as Flake said maybe 35 repubs would do it.
This policy of continually ceding power to the POTUS is utterly failed. The most deserving recipient ever of removal from office will not be removed. I fail to see how a system that permits this type of behavior by the President is so great. It's a long way from a monarchy to mob rule, quite a bit of room there. Im for heading to DC with pitchforks and not just to the White house either. Mob rule is why we are here.

[RiverDog]

We need a secret ballot if Flakes statement is anywhere near true, anonymously they will vote their conscience and overwhelmingly remove him.Thats the correct result isn't it?. Why should political pressure be a part of the decision?

"Political pressure" should be part of the decision because impeachment is a political process. Every Senator needs to take into consideration the views of those they were sent to Congress to represent. That doesn't mean they should always follow what their constituents say, only that it be part of the equation in their decision making process. As a voter, I have a right to know how my Senator or Representative voted on every subject that is put before them.

You talk about democracy yet you advocate elected officials voting in secrecy? What other votes should be exempt from "political pressure"? SCOTUS nominees? Declarations of war? Budget appropriations?

You need to quit while you're behind on this one, my friend.

[Aseahawkfan]

10 months until Trump is likely out. Farce impeachment trial continues until Senate acquits. No one is changing their mind. Most people sound like they are tired of the whole farce.

[RiverDog]

10 months until Trump is likely out. Farce impeachment trial continues until Senate acquits. No one is changing their mind. Most people sound like they are tired of the whole farce.

I've taken a peek at the trial a few times this week, and there's been a few occasions where I've laughed out loud. How does one a president self impeach? Hire Rudy Giuliani as your attorney. It's no wonder that some of the Senators are doing cross word puzzles.

Although the Dems have made some pretty good arguments that IMO are very convincing, they're falling on deaf ears, both in the Senate as well as the public in general. What I'm hearing this morning is that the Republicans aren't likely to allow more witnesses to be called and that the trial could wrap up by as early as next week. There hasn't been very much new information shared that we haven't heard recycled time and time again over the past 4 months.

For my friend Hawktalk, here's the most recent poll I can find regarding the impeachment and Trump's overall popularity, showing that the needle hasn't moved one little bit, and if anything, has swung in Trump's favor, bolstering my argument that impeachment is very bad politics for the Dems:

Two-thirds of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say the U.S. Senate should call new witnesses at Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, and the public is divided on his removal from office – even as Trump’s approval rating has rallied to match his career high.

Forty-four percent now approve of Trump’s performance in office; 51% disapprove, maintaining his position as the first president in modern history never to achieve majority approval. That said, bolstered by the economy, his approval is up 6% since late October, with disapproval down 7 points to a new low.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/66-call ... d=68509143

[Aseahawkfan]

I think most Americans understand, or I hope they do, that what Trump did is business as usual in Washington D.C. Same as I'm still wondering why it was ok to use the Steele Dossier and authorize an investigation against Trump and his campaign by a president of the opposing party with his appointees in place. Why Manafort, Flynn, and the like were doing what they were doing long before Trump, but the Dems didn't give a crap then. They didn't seem to give a crap until they were with Trump even though all their charges from previous actions during other administrations.

This is the kind of crap is why I tell Hawktawk and I5 they're full of chit as you like to say. Fact is all this stuff we've seen has been ongoing every administration, but it only becomes an issue when an enemy politician like Trump doesn't have the juice to cover it up. All these dudes including the Bidens were doing their dirty crap during Obama and Bush Jr. They been doing it for years. But now some powerful people like the Clintons hate Trump, so they manufactured this impeachment with foreign generated intel and a huge all of proxies that won't sell them out for this farce.

It is real hard for me to care when both sides are pretty much doing the same thing, while I'm supposed to consider one side worse because he's a narcissistic, big mouth jerk of a man.

[RiverDog]

I think most Americans understand, or I hope they do, that what Trump did is business as usual in Washington D.C. Same as I'm still wondering why it was ok to use the Steele Dossier and authorize an investigation against Trump and his campaign by a president of the opposing party with his appointees in place. Why Manafort, Flynn, and the like were doing what they were doing long before Trump, but the Dems didn't give a crap then. They didn't seem to give a crap until they were with Trump even though all their charges from previous actions during other administrations.

This is the kind of crap is why I tell Hawktawk and I5 they're full of chit as you like to say. Fact is all this stuff we've seen has been ongoing every administration, but it only becomes an issue when an enemy politician like Trump doesn't have the juice to cover it up. All these dudes including the Bidens were doing their dirty crap during Obama and Bush Jr. They been doing it for years. But now some powerful people like the Clintons hate Trump, so they manufactured this impeachment with foreign generated intel and a huge all of proxies that won't sell them out for this farce.

It is real hard for me to care when both sides are pretty much doing the same thing, while I'm supposed to consider one side worse because he's a narcissistic, big mouth jerk of a man.

I do feel that Trump committed impeachable crimes and if I had a vote, I'd vote for conviction. My argument is that it's a fruitless effort in trying to remove him from office as it's never had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding and that the Dems are fast tracking this process in order to wrap it up before they get into their primaries. The only positive that could possibly come out of this is that it will expose plenty of Trump's dirty laundry to anyone currently sitting on the fence. The problem is that the Dems, specifically Biden, have a certain amount of sleaze attached them as well and it may cancel out any influence it might have on independent voters.

I'm hearing today that the R's might be willing to allow the Dems to call John Bolton as a witness if the R's are allowed to counter with Hunter Biden. It's an underhanded ploy as Hunter Biden doesn't have any information to share regarding the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges against Trump but it might be the only option they have of getting any witnesses to testify.

[Hawktawk]

"I think most Americans understand, or I hope they do, that what Trump did is business as usual in Washington D.C. Same as I'm still wondering why it was ok to use the Steele Dossier and authorize an investigation against Trump and his campaign by a president of the opposing party with his appointees in place. Why Manafort, Flynn, and the like were doing what they were doing long before Trump, but the Dems didn't give a crap then. They didn't seem to give a crap until they were with Trump even though all their charges from previous actions during other administrations."

Baloney. There is no evidence whatsoever that any other president has EVER blatantly colluded with a foreign country on 2 occasions strictly to benefit himself politically. As for Manafort and Flynn Manafort had already been under investigation, maybe even charged at one point prior to Trump hiring the "best" campaign manager who could count votes and still collude with russia, share campaign polling data from battleground states and countries, districts etc with Russian oligarchs etc. to get his boy over the top along with his equally corrupt assistant Rick Gates.

Flynn was fired by Obama who warned Trump he was bad news but trump hired him anyway. Trump continued to employ him in spite of Assistant AG Sally Yates warning he was compromised by having lied about communications with russia. He was sentenced to 6 months in jail recently after having been scolded for his "treasonous" conduct the judge in an earlier hearing. So these guys were on the radar, their presence on the Trump team was just another demonstration of the utter chaos and amateur hour that's the norm in the administration.
As for Steele I've called out your BS on this plenty of times.Im not sure what bothers you so much about Christopher Steele #1 tell me what's phony. Break it down for me asea, point by point instead of running around taking potshots at this "phony dossier". If it's something about the president of the united states I think its most important whether it is true and very little has been disproven. If it is even half true, especially stuff about secret tapes of trump with prostitutes in the Moscow Ritz Carlton during the Jr Miss in 2013 it is a terrible problem for national security and for whatever reason trump acts like a guy terrified of confronting Putin, quite the opposite.

Beyond that the Dossier WAS NEVER RELEASED BEFORE THE ELECTION. It was originally contracted by republicans who saw as I did that this guy was a disaster for america and the entire world. At one point Democrats had Steele under contract but again, it had no effect on the election unlike wikileaks and Putin hacking democrats emails did. As for the investigation into the massive russian collusion with trump and his 10 instances covering it up there was clearly a there there. Even the IG who was pretty critical of some of the FBI Fisa warrants he determined that the investigation was "properly predicated" or "legitimate' for those with reading comprehension difficulties.He determined the Steele Dossier was not used to start the investigation. Clearly it uncovered a mountain of dirt, rampant collusion. Trump should have been impeached the day Mueller spoke to the congress. There's never been a scandal like this involving mucking around with eastern bloc countries to win american presidential elections. Most americans agree with me on this so not sure whos full of chit, maybe its the guy who keeps saying stuff that isn't factual and that's not me.

"This is the kind of crap is why I tell Hawktawk and I5 they're full of chit as you like to say. Fact is all this stuff we've seen has been ongoing every administration, but it only becomes an issue when an enemy politician like Trump doesn't have the juice to cover it up. All these dudes including the Bidens were doing their dirty crap during Obama and Bush Jr. They been doing it for years. But now some powerful people like the Clintons hate Trump, so they manufactured this impeachment with foreign generated intel and a huge all of proxies that won't sell them out for this farce."

As for the Bidens it doesn't matter what they were doing over there. Its a bad look but the president still can't break the law violating the impoundment act(Verified by the GAO watchdog just the first day of the trial). He can't order a foreign leader to "ANNOUNCE" investigations of a guy beating him like a drum in the polls no matter what he thinks the guy is doing and again he just wanted public announcements anyway. Most people get this but they aren't the ones with all the Trump talking points down.Just last night a 90 minute recording of the president at a private dinner with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman ordering the removal of the US Ambassador, musing on the chances Ukraine would have in an all out war with russia etc. Parnas attorney says he has more,. These are eastern bloc thugs charged with campaign finance violations who this president "doesn't know". Its unimaginable how deep this slimy pit really is. Nobody's done things like this, no previous administration, not remotely close.

"It is real hard for me to care when both sides are pretty much doing the same thing, while I'm supposed to consider one side worse because he's a narcissistic, big mouth jerk of a man."

They aren't doing the same thing. Nobody's doing what Trump is.No president has done these types of things to destabilize our elections and no president has ever asserted absolute immunity in complete defiance of the congress. If he gets away with this say goodbye to the separation of powers or any accountability for any president ever going forward.

You dont care enough.

[Hawktawk]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZlMfy
So much for the Trump legal teams assertion that there is absolutely no proof of linkage And based on the Bolton teams assertion that they did not leak this and only shared it with the WH for vetting of classified information it would mean someone on the president's legal or NSA team leaked it to hurt him.

It's clear this WH is comprising a strategy to deny any wrongdoing knowing full well this evidence of what Bolton would say for weeks and planned to lock down Bolton, likely claim executive privilege and tie him and the process up for months.
Should he testify they will launch a withering attack an an arch conservative with decades of fierce loyalty to the party, tremendous gravitas and credibility. They will say he's lying to sell a book.It will come down to who believes who.And polls show people dont trust trump on this, far more than support impeachment feel he's committed wrongdoing. Like I say Trump will win this round in the legal sense but the public won't forget, especially when slime from the dirty dealings with ukraine and wherever else will be oozing out all the way to november.