Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Edge-]

That’s not enough for Colorado to vote him out.

I'm aware, just sharing the sauce.

[Breccia]

If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment

-- official quote from Trump's defense team

Wanna see the video?

[beanman12345]

I was mostly wondering why someone would assume being team Trump meant they’d be voted out.

His approval rating is 37% this isn't gonna win any independents certainly.

[Breccia]

Trump: If Bolton was that worried, why didn't he say so earlier?

Rep. Engel: He did. He sold you out, fatty.

Rep. Eliot Engel pushed back on President Donald Trump's claims that John Bolton didn't complain about the president's conduct toward Ukraine as the Foreign Affairs Committee chairman revealed a September call with Bolton in which the former national security adviser told him to examine the ouster of the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

"President Trump is wrong that John Bolton didn't say anything about the Trump-Ukraine scandal at the time the President fired him," Engel, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "He said something to me."

Engel said that he reached out to the former national security adviser on Sept. 19 to ask if he would speak before the Foreign Affairs Committee regarding U.S. foreign policy. Engel said the two then had a call days later, on Sept. 23, when Bolton "suggested to me — unprompted — that the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch."

"He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv," Engel continued. "At the time, I said nothing publicly about what was a private conversation, but because this detail was relevant to the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight Committees' investigation into this matter, I informed my investigative colleagues. It was one of the reasons we wished to hear from Ambassador Bolton, under oath, in a formal setting."

Well, that's a US Rep directly confirming Bolton's story. So...we gonna get someone under oath yet?

[Breccia]

I saw that live and wondered whether the GOP really wants to set the precedent

Precedent is already set. It's called "Watergate".

[beanman12345]

Most Senators have an abysmal approval rating. They still get re-elected.

Gardner won't. Keep up.

[Edge-]

His approval rating is 37% this isn't gonna win any independents certainly.

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/01/1...g-2020-senate/

Yep, but impeachment hasn't moved his numbers, apparently.

For comparison, and I'm trying to dig this up, McConnell has had approval ratings in the tank in Kentucky for multiple elections, yet he keeps getting elected.

Not a 1:1 as Gardner is a House rep, but don't think that low polling inherently means they're in jeopardy.

Gardner won't. Keep up.

You have yet to back this up with more than, "He has low approval ratings", which historically isn't enough to inherently cause a Rep/Senator to get the boot.

[beanman12345]

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/01/1...g-2020-senate/

Yep, but impeachment hasn't moved his numbers, apparently.

For comparison, and I'm trying to dig this up, McConnell has had approval ratings in the tank in Kentucky for multiple elections, yet he keeps getting elected.

Not a 1:1 as Gardner is a House rep, but don't think that low polling inherently means they're in jeopardy.



You have yet to back this up with more than, "He has low approval ratings", which historically isn't enough to inherently cause a Rep/Senator to get the boot.

Kentucky is deeeeeeeep red. Colorado isn't. having low approvals in a non deep red or blue state most certainly means they're in jeopardy.

[beanman12345]

Gardner got promoted to the senate in the elections of 2014.

- - - Updated - - -



All I’m saying is don’t hold your breath. Colorado is more purple than it used to be, but they still lean red.

I wouldn't be shocked if he won, like I wasn't shocked Trump won, but doing shit like this isn't winning him any voters over.

[cubby]

If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment

-- official quote from Trump's defense team

Wanna see the video?

That is a very interesting take on the situation. Looks like they found their tack for avoiding witnesses. I'm still on the fence after the chat with @mvaliz about whether or not calling witnesses would be good/bad long term for the Democrats.

[beanman12345]

So you're backing off your statement that he's out of his job... good to know.

No i'm pretty positive he's out of a job. I will concede I could be wrong however.

[Paranoid Android]

-- official quote from Trump's defense team

Wanna see the video?

Ha! As the Trump lawyer's put down the crack/meth pipe. Nice legal argument.

[cubby]

Not calling witnesses would be bad for the nation, forget the partisan shit.

You're not thinking far enough ahead. Remember, we know how this Trial is going to end.

[Edge-]

I actually am thinking beyond this trial. If we set the precedent of no witnesses in an impeachment trial that's bad for the nation.

Plus, Democrats have known that it was unlikely that Trump would be removed, even if he showed up and started shooting people.

This is about laying the case against him in public to let the public decide, since Republicans in the Senate are too cowardly. I fully expect a lot of this video material to be used in political ads until election day.

[cubby]

I actually am thinking beyond this trial. If we set the precedent of no witnesses in an impeachment trial that's bad for the nation.

If calling witnesses negatively affects the Senate going blue or Trump losing that's worse. There is a conversation a few pages back in this thread about how the GOP would manipulate the witness calling to bolster their position and hurt the Democrats. Especially since the procedure is to vote on each witness.

At this point, McConnell could call Hunter and Bolton, rake the Bidens across the coals and score major points for Trump's campaign, brush off any of Bolton's testimony as "we already knew that", and call it a day. The above is not an unreasonable course of action for McConnell, and would do nothing for the country, except hurt the chances of the Senate going blue and Trump losing.

[Poopymonster]

When you're looking for PR bumps and potential plea deals, you generally want to talk. A lot : P

Depending on how much blood is on your hands, the more people you can rat out the less likely you'll be utterly and completely fucked. Or he wants to get it out before he falls into food poisoning.

- - - Updated - - -

I would be very interested in what he has to say.

Does anyone know how the witness calling works in the Senate Trial. Is it open to anyone once witnesses are a "go" or do they vote on each one?

While an opinion piece, this seems interesting to consider.

[beanman12345]

If calling witnesses negatively affects the Senate going blue or Trump losing that's worse. There is a conversation a few pages back in this thread about how the GOP would manipulate the witness calling to bolster their position and hurt the Democrats. Especially since the procedure is to vote on each witness.

At this point, McConnell could call Hunter and Bolton, rake the Bidens across the coals and score major points for Trump's campaign, brush off any of Bolton's testimony as "we already knew that", and call it a day. The above is not an unreasonable course of action for McConnell, and would do nothing for the country, except hurt the chances of the Senate going blue and Trump losing.

I see where you are going with this. Here is something else to chew on. Think of the possibility of a huge blue wave if they sweep this under the rug. This is only gonna serve to rile up the dems if they don't call witnesses. Which sets the president that doing something like this has the opposite effect on your election chances when time comes due so when this happens again they'll think twice about no witnesses.

[PACOX]

There was no bullshit. LA Times retracted the report because they misquoted her and all she said was she was waiting until the trial was done to make up her mind.

Get outta here with this garbage. Feinstein is great.

For a very dumb reason, I often confuse Feinstein and Collins. So when I saw the stories on Twitter I said, "Pfft whatever she said she is lying," thinking Collins is Feinstein.

Feinstein is a fine person.

[cubby]

That's short term... you just told me to look long term. Make up your mind. Personally? I'm not counting on this election going the Dems way regardless of how all this turns out. I'm more worried about the nation the next time someone has to be impeached.

The election is long term. The Senate flipping is long term. Trump losing is the survival of our country as we currently know it. That's long term. Tell me how you're thinking long term outside of some hypothetical fourth impeachment.

[Levelfive]

No i'm pretty positive he's out of a job. I will concede I could be wrong however.

I read an interesting article (that I've been trying to find without success, unfortunately) that essentially said that swing states are just as polarized as everywhere else (as opposed to being filled with independents on the fence), it's just that the numbers are pretty balanced. So if you take someone like Cory Gardner, who's vulnerable, and he votes against Trump, he will most assuredly lose Republican votes and probably won't pick up too many Democratic ones, never mind enough to get him re-elected. So he won't risk it.