The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

[Beantown Express 2.0 6531]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Nice.

 

If CNN and others would do their job properly they would do this same polling but state specific and show the nation (and the Senators/Congressmen) from certain particular states what the polling is.  The senators from Utah, Maine, Alaska, etc... should see if their constituents are polling highly towards allowing witnesses in the trial or new evidence.  Ah, nevertheless it won’t matter as those Senators will vote against all of that no matter what with furrowed brows and all. 

[David Dennison 18608]

41 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

100% of Mitch McConnells don't give a fuck.

Bingo.

He's betting his majority on this.

Assuming Doug Jones loses in Alabama, Dems need to flip five seats in November.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Bingo.

He's betting his majority on this.

Assuming Doug Jones loses in Alabama, Dems need to flip five seats in November.

Why are we assuming Doug Jones loses?  Serious question, I don't pay attention to Alabama politics.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

13 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Murderer's Row here:

 

 

I have absolute faith that the Republicans will completely embarrass themselves.  Trump will still sail through this, sure, but I imagine that the Democrats running against Republicans incumbents in Congress will get plenty of material for their campaign ads this fall. 

[mchookem 16095]

is Schiff exceptionally tall or is Adler a munchkin? Schiff is like a foot taller lol

yeah, everybody knew how this was gonna go once the Senate got it. McConnell is diabolical. 

[Chad Fuck 17503]

13 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

How many people does Harvard have looking for a way to remove that guys "emeritus" status?  

[Guest Lobo]

There's "Being Right" and there's "Being Much More Correct."

In addition to his Emeritus status from Harvard, you can also add to Dershowitz's litany of titles, "Argumentative Woman"  

[Chad Fuck 17503]

That was just embarrassing for all involved.  Then he goes on about how he's being "bullied."  Please.

[Irieguy 1059]

58 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why are we assuming Doug Jones loses?  Serious question, I don't pay attention to Alabama politics.

Because he’s a Democrat. In Alabama. Glad I could help.

*And the Republicans won’t nominate a pedophile again. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Irieguy

[Lagunamadre 1975]

59 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why are we assuming Doug Jones loses?  Serious question, I don't pay attention to Alabama politics.

We are assuming he will not be running against a child molester this time around. We learned in the last election that Alabamians will take a Democrat over a child molester, by a 1.7% margin.  

[safe sex 11659]

4 minutes ago, Irieguy said:

*And the Republicans won’t nominate a pedophile again. 

50/50 chance

[Jive Turkey 12562]

21 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

That was just embarrassing for all involved.  Then he goes on about how he's being "bullied."  Please.

Yep. This is a guy who bitched about being shunned at dinner parties on Martha’s Vineyard because of his association with Trump. He might be the biggest snowflake of them all. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Jive Turkey

[SquishMitten 10395]

18 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

We are assuming he will not be running against a child molester this time around. We learned in the last election that Alabamians will take a Democrat over a child molester, by a 1.7% margin.  

You know what they say about assumptions... they make children's buttholes appealing to republicans.

[Chad Fuck 17503]

29 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Yep. This is a guy who bitched about being shunned at dinner parties on Martha’s Vineyard because of his association with Trump. He might be the biggest snowflake of them all. 

Not to mention he has no problem taking advantage of underage girls.  Fuck that guy. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why are we assuming Doug Jones loses?  Serious question, I don't pay attention to Alabama politics.

Jones is basically damned if does, damned if doesn't in terms of this trial. If he tries to side with the GOP because of his state's conservative and perhaps his own stance, he will lose some support in Alabama on the Left. If he sides with the Left in the trial, he will lose support for the Right that he probably was never going to get in the first place.

He doesn't have a safe political lane to stay in. This trial overall is bad for his political career but his 2020 odds were never the best.

Cory Gardner (CO-R) is in a similar situation but not identical.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Jones is basically damned if does, damned if doesn't in terms of this trial. If he tries to side with the GOP because of his state's conservative and perhaps his own stance, he will lose some support in Alabama on the Left. If he sides with the Left in the trial, he will lose support for the Right that he probably was never going to get in the first place.

He doesn't have a safe political lane to stay in. This trial overall is bad for his political career but his 2020 odds were never the best.

Cory Gardner (CO-R) is in a similar situation but not identical.

That's a shame.  Maybe he should focus on doing the right thing and not his political career.

[heso 2748]

Is there any legitimate reason to not allow witnesses like Bolton other than to protect Trump? From my point of view it’s that they know the witnesses and documents they’re trying to block would hurt Trump and they’re just saying “we have the votes to protect him and we don’t give a fuck about truth or justice”. But is there any real argument for not having witnesses or producing documents?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That's a shame.  Maybe he should focus on doing the right thing and not his political career.

Agree and I imagine Schumer is talking to him about that. A Democrat in the South is not exactly ignorant of their chances when running for state-wide offices.

I don't follow this thread too closely. Who are the Senators that might vote against their party for trial motions like dismissal or witnesses?  I see the following as potential:

GOP: Murkowski, Alexander (retiring), Collins (ha), Romney.   Gardner and Ernst are wild cards because they're in states that are purple if not blue, and both are up in 2020. They along with McSally may require strong Trump support in 2020 if they stick to the Trump line.

Dem: Manchin, Jones, Tester.   All 3 are in red states but only Jones is up in 2020.

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

16 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Jones is basically damned if does, damned if doesn't in terms of this trial. If he tries to side with the GOP because of his state's conservative and perhaps his own stance, he will lose some support in Alabama on the Left. If he sides with the Left in the trial, he will lose support for the Right that he probably was never going to get in the first place.

Taking your assessment at face value, wouldn't it seem that there is no political harm in siding with the left if doing so simply drives the right further away?  If he's not gonna get any votes from Republicans, regardless of what he does going forward, then that's a sunk cost.  Ignore it.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

16 minutes ago, heso said:

Is there any legitimate reason to not allow witnesses like Bolton other than to protect Trump? From my point of view it’s that they know the witnesses and documents they’re trying to block would hurt Trump and they’re just saying “we have the votes to protect him and we don’t give a fuck about truth or justice”. But is there any real argument for not having witnesses or producing documents?

No

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

2 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

If CNN and others would do their job properly they would do this same polling but state specific and show the nation (and the Senators/Congressmen) from certain particular states what the polling is.  The senators from Utah, Maine, Alaska, etc... should see if their constituents are polling highly towards allowing witnesses in the trial or new evidence.  Ah, nevertheless it won’t matter as those Senators will vote against all of that no matter what with furrowed brows and all. 

Monmouth came out with a national poll that 75% think there should be witnesses.  I imagine the cost of running 50 polls is much more expensive than running 1. I'm guessing 50x the cost.    

Too bad the the NYTimes Upshot section isn't running some of their live polls like they did in the runup to the 2018 elections. Those were pretty cool to see the results as they came in. Seems like an enterprising org could even ask for donations to run the polls.  Would be interesting to see the breakdown of interest, and thoughts for many of the states.

[Irieguy 1059]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Taking your assessment at face value, wouldn't it seem that there is no political harm in siding with the left if doing so simply drives the right further away?  If he's not gonna get any votes from Republicans, regardless of what he does going forward, then that's a sunk cost.  Ignore it.

You are making it overly complicated. Jones winning was like Haley’s comet. Trump idiotically supported a pedophile and still lost by less than 2%.  End of story. Any other R will win in Alabama. ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN. Jesus people. Jones’s impeachment vote means nothing. Democrats aren’t winning that Bama seat. Move on. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Irieguy

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

I don't follow this thread too closely. Who are the Senators that might vote against their party for trial motions like dismissal or witnesses?  I see the following as potential:

GOP: Murkowski, Alexander (retiring), Collins (ha), Romney.   Gardner and Ernst are wild cards because they're in states that are purple if not blue, and both are up in 2020. They along with McSally may require strong Trump support in 2020 if they stick to the Trump line.

Dem: Manchin, Jones, Tester.   All 3 are in red states but only Jones is up in 2020.

 

 

Ha. No. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

Just now, Seasick Sailor said:

Ha. No. 

 

Hell, I figured Romney had the best chance of anyone.  The rest will fall in line like we all thought they would.  

[tx 3 putt 76159]

8 minutes ago, Seasick Sailor said:

Ha. No. 

 

It’s all over. Does IMpotus have enough campaign money to buy the full dismissal ?

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

It’s all over. Does IMpotus have enough campaign money to buy the full dismissal ?

He will once the #MAGA fundraising starts in earnest.

 

 

[heso 2748]

48 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

No

Yea that’s what I assumed. The only talking point I heard was that if the dems wanted witnesses they should have called them during the house investigation. Ignoring the fact that they did call them they just didn’t comply with the subpoena. 

[deech 2251]

43 minutes ago, Seasick Sailor said:

Ha. No. 

 

RIP Impeachment 2020.  Brisket out front should have told you.

[Mo Horn 8795]

McConnell should just start by calling for a vote to dismiss all charges and be done with it. We could be done by dinner. Results will be the same, and probably better than an acquittal for Dotard. That gives the charges legitimacy. Dismissing them is saying they aren't legit. Why waste time on something that is a forgone conclusion. 

[Foosters 17691]

Man, Cippollone's opening remarks sounded like a 1L winging it at a moot court competition.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

I know that I'm preaching to the choir here, but this is pretty good:


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/neal-katyal-trump-trying-to-use-executive-privilege-to-hide-stuff-from-american-people-77212741909


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/wallace-gop-treatment-of-impeachment-trial-is-positively-russian-77218885692


 

[Goredho 17302]

It is almost lunchtime.  Has McConnell done this on the senate floor yet?  Hope he uses a copy of the constitution as a prop when he does, you know, to make it more legitimate.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 hour ago, Seasick Sailor said:

Ha. No. 

 

That has been his position the whole time and does not mean he will not vote for witnesses after evidence has been presented. He may vote to not call witnesses when it is all over, but that is not what he is talking about here. Don't conflate it. 

[4th&Five 41457]

Checking in from Davos...

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

11 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

That has been his position the whole time and does not mean he will not vote for witnesses after evidence has been presented. He may vote to not call witnesses when it is all over, but that is not what he is talking about here. Don't conflate it. 

I agree.  There are many ways to interpret Romney's statement from Dana Bash. I fully expect that he will vote with the GOP but I don't seem him cowering like most of the GOP. Romney has nothing to worry about from Trump; Utah cheers him on when he doesn't.

[tantric superman 4667]

Everything this Sekulow guy says is bullshit.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

4 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Checking in from Davos...

 

Not that it will occur to his base, but the 's' ought to be removed in case someone decides to read the other transcript that are real transcripts and not memos.. They perfectly paint him into a corner.

Since it's a forgone conclusion how this is going to go, I'm mostly watching to see if Jim Jordan rips his jacket seams.

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

 

[CowboyFred 1151]

52 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Man, Cippollone's opening remarks sounded like a 1L winging it at a moot court competition.

I winged mine because of a hangover after a trip to Mexico (the part of the brief that I didn't write) and I am pretty sure I did better than that.

[hayden_horn 11360]

so, basically, the white house defense strategy is to go full douchebag and victim complexing. i mean, we all know how this ends, but arguing about the process means they know that the facts are terrible for trump.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

The Jay Sekulow Band.

No, I have no idea if he's a member.

 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Ooh, but here's evidence he is.  This is fucking hysterical.

 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

OH it gets better!

 

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

Yep, it's a thing.  And apparently bad.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-lawyer-jay-sekulow-has-a-band-its-terrible

 

 

 

 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

JFC...this fucking simulation.

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

Not band related, but what an epic porn 'stach.

 

[Sbbruin 21697]

31 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Checking in from Davos...

 

He keeps coming back to this.  If we read the unedited transcripts, this will be pretty open and shut.  The call was not perfect, despite screaming from the mountaintops that it was.

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

Just now, Francisco 2.0 said:

Not band related, but what an epic porn 'stach.