Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Endus]

Let's also note that Castor is complaining about Republican witnesses who weren't called, but it was the administration who was blocking access to various witnesses, not the Democrats.

[Mekkle]

Take a drink every time he says "The Democrats"

"ThE uNfAiR pRoCeSs" that you people made, fucking idiots.

[Beefhammer]

Castor's spending all his time bitching about (Republican-established) process, not about the evidence or the facts, because he can't legitimately attack the mountains of evidence and the timeline of facts it clearly lays out.

We all know when you complain or argue against the process/rules/process, you have nothing to stand for. Thusbus all misdirection because they all know Trump is guilty as fuck but are too afraid of losing their seat for doing what is right. Pussies all of them.

[Endus]

"Impeachment is the undoing of a national election".

This comment is not made in good faith. It doesn't "undo the election", but it does allow for a change moving forward. And even if you want to consider it an "undoing", it's an "undoing" that was explicitly intended to exist, and thus enshrined in the Constitution, for cases where the President abused the office and/or committed crimes while in office.

It's an attempt to imply that the process is somehow against the electoral processes, but it is not.

[noidentity]

I swear Castor sounds like he is talking directly to the Republicans with some of his allegations about interrupting and silencing witnesses.

[Skroe]

True enough. My brain isn't on coffee yet, it's why you won't typically see me posting in the morning, more prone to mistakes. Here's what I wonder about Texasrules bringing out that quote though. If a narrow margin of removal from office is bad, then how about a narrow margin not to impeach, is that just as bad in his eyes? I doubt it, because we both know he's on Trump's side, and anything other than FULL EXONERATION non removal is just completely unacceptable. We of course know that there are many Republican Senators leaning towards Trump's removal, especially those either leaving office or those who knows they are "safe" in the 2020 election, either in their primaries or in the general. Any removal of Trump is going to be by a narrow margin if it even happens.

You and I both doubt that situation 4 would ever happen, if only because Trump is a useful idiot for McConnell. He fluffs up the president's ego and get what he wants, and promises to deliver what Trump wants. Ultimately, nothing has actually happened in the US aside from a huge tax break on the rich and conservatives packing as many far right judges into the courts as they can. That was one thing Obama messed up on big time, not filling as many vacant judge seats as he could. Now the courts, which are supposed to be as non-partisan as possible, are just another far right puppet.

I'd say the true trial begins in 2020, with the American people. If Senators can't do their jobs and remove Trump, then the American people need to remove Trump as a rebuke and verdict on any failed impeachment, and along with it, remove as many of those Senators who failed to do their job as they can.

As Primary Color managed to make a point of in another thread, people base a lot on their moral structure, and of course, the moral structure of the GoP has for awhile now been the scandal du jour. Bribery is bad, unless a GoP member does it, then it's fine. Tan suits are bad, unless a member of the GoP wears one. Their entire moral code of values is based around what "their guys" are doing and what "the opposition" is doing. The next Democrat could do the exact same thing Trump has done with bribery, and you know the GoP would be screaming their lungs out to impeach. Many of them will evenly openly admit that it's fine when Trump does it, but a big no no for Democrats. They're no longer even hiding that they believe themselves above the law.

I think something that Texasrules, PrimaryColor and the rest of the Trumphadis have missed is that the laying the ground work for the post-Trump era has already begun.

Donald Trump has no legislative director. He's burned through three in the past 18 months. There is no policy documents with his approval working its way through the Senate. The budget... he is just signing scaled up versions of the bipartisan 2 year deal budget that's been the norm for the past 6 fiscal years, and doesn't have a single finger print of his on it. His shutdown threats are over a measly $5 billion for the wall out of a $4+ trillion budget. In terms of doing the duties of President he is almost a non-factor at this point. Its largely through executive action, and mostly in the realm of immigration, where he has caused the most damage. His regulatory record - something the compromised "conservatives" cite as a rationale for staying behind in Trumpland, is a farce to people who care about actual results on that front. He has a 93% loss record in the courts on that topic. His degregulation agenda exists largely as a series of tweets, PR documents and intentions. In terms of tangible reality, it is still largely the Obama Regulatory Universe.

This will not change if Trump is re-elected. Democrats are expected to slightly expand their House Majority. Democrats will either lose 1 seat or gain 2 seats in the Senate (a majority would be a miracle). Trump will be re-elected with no rationale for being President other than "second terms are nice to have". He has no agenda, and no realistic path to advance that agenda.

The only thing he has value of for McConnell anymore is to be the guy who puts forward the names for judges that is put on his desk, so McConnell can vote on that. In that, he serves McConnell's purposes well.

So McConnell is in a holding pattern. He doesn't want to disrupt a thing working for him and his legacy, but he also knows that Trump becomes a lame duck approximately 5 seconds after his Second Inaugural speech and the hardcore jockeying for the next Republican party leader will begin... one that is likely to be more of a serious President than the reality television act we have going on now.

A majority for conviction that fails to remove because of falling short of the threshold serves that end nicely. Because McConnell is no fool. He knows that while Trump broad policy, and even tactics will outlast Trump (with varying degrees of success without its originator), Trump, when he is not President anymore and a Democrat is President, is a man without protection. The next Democratic attorney general will stage the investigations Barr prevents. The New York DA's office will not be stymied. Congress will not have to go to court to get documents.

The entire thing is going to get blown open. It's going to be a very bad time for Trump (the person) and people like Texasrules and PrimaryColor, when light comes upon the magnitude of the corruption. McConnell will want to ensure that there is a Republican Party that survives its temporary alliance with Trump. If the vote goes down like 57-43, he'll be able to retcon the entire saga and lie by saying "we voted to remove him, remember! If only the White House was more forthcoming with Congress!".

I do think a question we need to keep pressing though is to ask the Trumphadis exactly what are they defending. Because Trump is a year 3 (going on year 4) President with all the power of a late year 7 President. He has no legislative agenda, a skeleton crew, and can't fill positions in his government no matter how hard he tries to a attract talent. So what is the point of him anyway? To just squat? Because the timer on that runs out, a Democrat will move in eventually, be it in 2021 or 2025 or 2029, and this ends really bad for his side when that happens.

[Moonstream]

Take a drink every time he says "The Democrats"

"ThE uNfAiR pRoCeSs" that you people made, fucking idiots.

I was thinking, "Mr. Chairmen, I have a distracti err point of order" myself.

[Paranoid Android]

Nadler is shaky.

To paraphrase in a tweet I read 'These hearings show how really unimpressive most of these elected officials'.

[Skroe]

Nadler is shaky.

To paraphrase in a tweet I read 'These hearings show how really unimpressive most of these elected officials'.

It's going fine, but Nadler is no Schift. Too soft and slowed by age.

This is where the House Democrat's septugenarian leadership comes back to haunt them. Even Nancy Pelosi, as impressive as she's been, has clearly slowed down the last 5 years.

Aging sucks.

[Paranoid Android]

It's going fine, but Nadler is no Schift. Too soft and slowed by age.

This is where the House Democrat's septugenarian leadership comes back to haunt them. Even Nancy Pelosi, as impressive as she's been, has clearly slowed down the last 5 years.

Aging sucks.

You know Skroe you and I think a lot many times. I wanted to type it but held back, but dang it yeah he looks old.

Yes! Listening to Pelosi stammer and jump around is very obvious. Anytime she publicly speaks it's not good.

For some reason this past year I really have looked at many who seem too old or better yet not at top of their game anymore.

Castor complaining that Democrats had difficulty deciding which of Donald Trump's crimes was the most serious

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status...644997120?s=19

So true. I'm agreeing with David Frum. What a world we live in.

[Breccia]

The new GOP defense:

The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests that he’s disloyal to his country, and those words should be stricken from the record and taken down

That's Rep. Johnson suggesting that witness testimony that suggests the President was acting with improper motives should not be included in an impeachment hearing.

This goes beyond "arguing for loopholes because they can't defend the evidence". They're now trying to make even evidence against the rules to bring up.

By the way, when's Trump going to testify, again? Still not going to? So much for that defense.

[draynay]

If Republicans don't want to hear testimony that "impugns the motives of the president" they should just go home.

[PACOX]

You know Skroe you and I think a lot many times. I wanted to type it but held back, but dang it yeah he looks old.

Yes! Listening to Pelosi stammer and jump around is very obvious. Anytime she publicly speaks it's not good.

For some reason this past year I really have looked at many who seem too old or better yet not at top of their game anymore.



https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status...644997120?s=19

So true. I'm agreeing with David Frum. What a world we live in.

I don't know, she sounds fine to me. Obama stammers and jumps around. People love to hear him speak.

I think her experience is useful during this sort of transition period but I'm glad they term limited her.

- - - Updated - - -

If Republicans don't want to hear testimony that "impugns the motives of the president" they should just go home.

Or tell their man's to stop doing stupid stuff that embarrasses them on the national level. They could have reined Trump in a long time ago and tell him to chill the hell out. Now they are running out of excuses for him.

[Breccia]

If Republicans don't want to hear testimony that "impugns the motives of the president" they should just go home.

More importantly: bribery requires motive, as I'm sure @cubby will back me up. Denying evidence of motive therefore makes bribery, a crime specifically called out in the Constitution, magically cease to exist. It's akin to saying "Trump never committed adultery, because we choose to ignore marriage vows when discussing infidelity."

[Moonstream]

When I hear Pelosi speak I hear someone that is saying the exact language she wants to see quoted later. As in, doesn't just ramble. Which does make it seem like she's speaking slow and stammering but when you read it later, it looks great.

I don't know what she was like previously though, only the last couple years. She very well could be slower at this now.

Also I agree, Nadler is no Schiff. Schiff seemed to know exactly what bullshit the Gop were going to bring up and had the rebuttal ready and could dish out the exact rule/ruling/clause that said their interruption was bullshit, right off the bat.

[Attackrabbit]

Aging sucks.

Apologies, OT and all but truer words have never been spoken.....the other day I managed to fuck my shoulder up something chronic just by putting my jumper on.....young'uns don't know how good they got it

[PC2]

I think something that Texasrules, PrimaryColor and the rest of the Trumphadis have missed is that the laying the ground work for the post-Trump era has already begun.

Well I got bored with everything Trump and political at the beginning of 2017... IDK for sure if I'm a "Trumphadi" in 2020, but if Sanders or Warren end up being the presidential candidate then yeah being a Trumphadi makes more sense to me because those Dems don't offer much, except that I agree with their non-economic social stances. Admittedly I'm not like a gay or trans person who wants equality and safety so I'm sure that does bias me towards not voting based on social reasons.

[Grapemask]

It's going fine, but Nadler is no Schift. Too soft and slowed by age.

This is where the House Democrat's septugenarian leadership comes back to haunt them. Even Nancy Pelosi, as impressive as she's been, has clearly slowed down the last 5 years.

Aging sucks.

Yep. Republicans are so uppity with Nadler because all he'll do is hammer the gavel and beg them to stop. Then, they turn around and retweet clips of it. The hammering and pleading for them to suspend works for the GOP spin.

Schiff would've turned off their mics. Gaetz would have to ask permission to use it.

[Edge-]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ions-about-his

I guess it fits here.

Nunes got politely asked a question by a member of the media.

He decided to post the journalists face and accuse him of "stalking" without a hint of irony. Journalist has the video of that exchange, including Devin Nunes' extremely shaky hand.

I wonder if Devin is terrified of journalists? He seems terrified of journalists, and sure seems to like pointlessly suing them a lot.

[Skroe]

Gohmert remains the single most pathetic member of Congress.

What a little worm.