impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Texashammer won't answer so I will. Rosebud.
 

 

That's a good one.

[shnsajax 3592]

Duh. Giuliani, the Ukrainian President, and a disgraced Ukrainian prosecutor. Didn't you read the transcript?  

 

Probably Nunes too. And Jacob Wohl.

[JBJ 3684]

 

2 hours ago, po elvis said:

i think this is all going to end up with Trump being lucky that the dems decided to go with this instead of something with more substance.

Forget it.  This thread is rolling.

[triplehorn 2664]

Being reported today that Paul Ryan has told Lachlan (Fox) to plan for a post-Trump future.

I wonder if that's based on what he's seen happen in the last 8 days, or based on his knowledge of things that helped nudge him to abandon Congress and the Speakership a year ago that soon will be news.  [whynotboth.gif]

[henrygandorf 29199]

3 hours ago, po elvis said:

i think this is all going to end up with Trump being lucky that the dems decided to go with this instead of something with more substance.

not like they’re forced to choose just one. 

[Aqua Buddha 14653]

7 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Being reported today that Paul Ryan has told Lachlan (Fox) to plan for a post-Trump future.

I wonder if that's based on what he's seen happen in the last 8 days, or based on his knowledge of things that helped nudge him to abandon Congress and the Speakership a year ago that soon will be news.  [whynotboth.gif]

Or maybe just because Trump has the worst numbers of any incumbent since Jimmy Carter.

Some on the right are being hysterical about losing Trump.  His numbers are terrible and he's absolutely toxic with key demos.

[retread 2951]

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

not like they’re forced to choose just one. 

Based on past results, it's entirely possible that he wriggles free of the Ukraine mess and placing conversations on the secure server. Maybe Barr is removed and some staffers are fired.

If Pelosi narrows it to Ukraine only, then what happens with the results of the Mueller report. Very doubtful that she would impeach twice. imo.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m still not convinced she’s going to impeach once.  She’s holding press conferences and going on TV talking about here #forthepeople agenda.  No sense of urgency or focus detected.   Looks like she’s in a wait and see position.

[Brisketexan 105572]

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Or maybe just because Trump has the worst numbers of any incumbent since Jimmy Carter.

Some on the right are being hysterical about losing Trump.  His numbers are terrible and he's absolutely toxic with key demos.

So here's the dilemma.  You have a party that depends on two things:  a vile base.  And enough representation from other demographics to cobble together a slim majority.

Now you have a candidate who is the id of your vile base.  But he repels the other demographics you need some folks from.  So, this is your scylla and charybdis:

1) if you try to go back towards the moderate route, that will be seen as a betrayal of the one true faith of Trumpism, and will piss off your base.  They won't vote dem...they just won't vote.  So you lose.

2) if you stick with the one true faith of Trumpism, your base loves you, with masturbatory fervor.  But everyone outside of your base either votes against you or just abandons you and stays home.  So you lose.

That's why, of course, they're going with....

3) actively encourage and work with foreign powers to go after the opposition, dedicate all possible efforts to disenfranchise folks who might vote for the dems, and almost certainly more nefarious shit we don't even know about.

[David Dennison 19119]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m still not convinced she’s going to impeach once.  She’s holding press conferences and going on TV talking about here #forthepeople agenda.  No sense of urgency or focus detected.   Looks like she’s in a wait and see position.

The horse is out of the barn on this. He's going to be impeached.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

41 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The horse is out of the barn on this. He's going to be impeached.

Let me clarify, I think Trump is ultimately getting impeached.  I don’t know if the democrats are going to make the effort to get him removed is where I’m at. 

Perhaps they’re going to impeach to say they did it but they aren’t going to push hard enough to have the Senate remove him.  They want to drive up turnout in 2020 by having Trump on the ballot.  

This situation complicates things for Republicans too. 

[tantric superman 4668]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let me clarify, I think Trump is ultimately getting impeached.  I don’t know if the democrats are going to make the effort to get him removed is where I’m at. 

They need to make the effort to get their ducks in a row and make a nice, persuasive case.  They just need to appease anyone who cares about the country that they (Congress and Dems) care enough to give a shit.

Then the Senate will never vote or vote not to remove him. 

And we will then be set up for 2020 elections.

Then I, with a bit of spare change and the kids out of college and gainfully employed, will devote some time to campaign for not horrible candidates.

Edited September 27, 2019 by tantric superman

[Pig Bellmont 8750]

Polls are already shifting, including 32% of republicans favoring impeachment. This will be devastating for GOP in 2020

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The earliest moment Trump should have been impeached and removed from office?

May 2017. 

Leaking classified intelligence to the Russians in the Oval Office just after decapitating the leadership at the FBI over the Russia Investigation was the five alarm fire no one put out.

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

They need to make the effort to get their ducks in a row and make a nice, persuasive case. 

Like the above May 2017 situation, Trump admitted to his malfeasance publicly.  We have a confession, we have transcripts, and we have witnesses.  

What could possibly bolster the case more than that?  

The “getting all the ducks in a row” just looks like stalling and if it goes on too long, the media and the public lose interest. 

[wildcat09 29453]

13 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

So if Trump is around 42% now, then Clinton was at 57% and ended at 73%. So let's assign a preliminary value of a shitty impeachment of +16%.

But I am sure you will dazzle the public with talk of emoluments and phone calls.

I’ll bet you $1,000 that Trump’s approval rating will not reach 58% by the end of his first term.

[tantric superman 4668]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The “getting all the ducks in a row” just looks like stalling and if it goes on too long, the media and the public lose interest. 

"Getting ducks in a row" = finishing up discovery, deciding on what arguments you want to make and preparing for your presentations so you look good on tv and have some good sound bytes. 

[Biff Tannen 45763]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The “getting all the ducks in a row” just looks like stalling and if it goes on too long, the media and the public lose interest. 

This.  I don't think the Dems can keep this up for a year straight.  Public will lose interest and he will skate and possibly get re-elected.

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I’ll bet you $1,000 that Trump’s approval rating will not reach 58% by the end of his first term.

Sure it will.  By the same metric a hurricane was slated to hit Alabama a few weeks ago.

[bolverk 29818]

What's crazy is he's been underwater in the polls since the second week of his presidency. That has never happened to any president since WWII. The only one that even comes close to dropping so fast was Ford.

Scroll down to view his polls against past presidents.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

 

[4th&Five 41701]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I’ll bet you $1,000 that Trump’s approval rating will not reach 58% by the end of his first term.

I'll bet my house and cars.

[David Dennison 19119]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let me clarify, I think Trump is ultimately getting impeached.  I don’t know if the democrats are going to make the effort to get him removed is where I’m at. 

Perhaps they’re going to impeach to say they did it but they aren’t going to push hard enough to have the Senate remove him.  They want to drive up turnout in 2020 by having Trump on the ballot.  

This situation complicates things for Republicans too. 

Republican senators up in 2020 don't want anything to do with a removal vote.

The Senate is very much in play now.

Mitch McConnell has his hands full.

[David Dennison 19119]

37 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  I don't think the Dems can keep this up for a year straight.  Public will lose interest and he will skate and possibly get re-elected.

It's not going to be a year. This will be over by Iowa.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Republican senators up in 2020 don't want anything to do with a removal vote.

Which is part of the reason I think Pelosi might be sandbagging on impeachment.  She fears the senate might opt to force Trump out via resignation instead of going on record with a vote.  

[Biff Tannen 45763]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's not going to be a year. This will be over by Iowa.

How so?  If they impeach that early it gives the Senate time to actually call a vote and not convict.  Then the entire general will be him spouting about how he's innocent because the Senate said so.  Doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.

[cactusflinthead 27615]

There's no way he was sober.

58%?

Bwahaha!

[David Dennison 19119]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

How so?  If they impeach that early it gives the Senate time to actually call a vote and not convict.  Then the entire general will be him spouting about how he's innocent because the Senate said so.  Doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.

Great. Every Republican up for re-election will be on the record. 

And Trump will be an impeached candidate.

Those aren't good things for a general election.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

5 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

There's no way he was sober.

58%?

Bwahaha!

if we get 9/11'd or he declares war on someone, i could see 58% happening.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How so?  If they impeach that early it gives the Senate time to actually call a vote and not convict.  Then the entire general will be him spouting about how he's innocent because the Senate said so.  Doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.

Nah, that’s bullshit.  No one thought OJ Simpson was innocent after he was found not guilty. 

Impeaching Trump cripples him politically no matter how hard they try to spin it. 

[cactusflinthead 27615]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

if we get 9/11'd or he declares war on someone, i could see 58% happening.

Indies are going to flock to him in the event? Not sure about that. He's already manufactured a series of crises. He's got 40% and that's it. 

[Biff Tannen 45763]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Nah, that’s bullshit.  No one thought OJ Simpson was innocent after he was found not guilty. 

Impeaching Trump cripples him politically no matter how hard they try to spin it. 

Oh, I'm not saying don't impeach.  But what happened to the idea of stretching it out until the election so as to not give the Senate time to declare him innocent?

[henrygandorf 29199]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Which is part of the reason I think Pelosi might be sandbagging on impeachment.  She fears the senate might opt to force Trump out via resignation instead of going on record with a vote.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Oh, I'm not saying don't impeach.  But what happened to the idea of stretching it out until the election so as to not give the Senate time to declare him innocent?

if you want to make it look as clear as possible that it isn't being done in good faith...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

Pelosi never wanted to impeach Trump. Why do you think that is?

Edited September 27, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Aqua Buddha 14653]

48 minutes ago, bolverk said:

What's crazy is he's been underwater in the polls since the second week of his presidency. That has never happened to any president since WWII. The only one that even comes close to dropping so fast was Ford.

Scroll down to view his polls against past presidents.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

 

I posted that link earlier and it's a great link.  I go back to it from time to time because it's an ongoing tracker of Trump's popularity compared to other presidents.  As mentioned before, the Clinton comparison is the valid one here.  Clinton's low water mark was higher than Trump's high water mark.  What's remarkable to me is while never getting more than 45% of the total vote, Clinton maintained a decent approval rating faults and all.  There were large numbers of people voting for Bush, Dole, or Perot that still liked Clinton.  The GOP was impeaching a relatively popular president.  Trump is strongly hated and that's evidenced by not just his disapproval ratings but the "strong" disapproval.

The Democrats would likely suffer no political blowback here.  In fact, the upside to them is this sucks the oxygen out of the room and masks the nonsense that will come out of their primary candidates.  The voters will also reach peak Trump Fatigue, if we're not there already.  The dude is exhausting.

Despite what TexasHammer and the other water carriers are telling you, there is no bump to be had.  For that to happen, you'd need people who currently disapprove of Trump or even strongly disapprove to jump the fence solely because of an impeachment move.  That's not going to happen and in fact, we're seeing self identified Republicans cross over if the polls are to be believed.

[Aqua Buddha 14653]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pelosi never wanted to impeach Trump. Why do you think that is?

She'd rather run against Trump in the election.  He's a liability to the GOP.

[henrygandorf 29199]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pelosi never wanted to impeach Trump. Why do you think that is?

because he's going to lose the election, and she doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize that.

(at the time) impeachment could've jeopardized that.  she also doesn't want to unsuccessfully attempt removal.  she also isn't afraid of him resigning.

come on.

[Aqua Buddha 14653]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I’ll bet you $1,000 that Trump’s approval rating will not reach 58% by the end of his first term.

Yeah, that's not happening.  For that to happen, you'd have to have people in the "Strongly disapprove" camp move over to "approve."  That's not happening.  Roughly 45% of the people now want him impeached if they polling is to be believed and that's a very high number.  Bare minimum there are another 20% that disapprove of him but don't want him impeached.

[cactusflinthead 27615]

You aren't going to get it. 

Because it doesn't make sense. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Aqua Buddha said:

I posted that link earlier and it's a great link.  I go back to it from time to time because it's an ongoing tracker of Trump's popularity compared to other presidents.  As mentioned before, the Clinton comparison is the valid one here.  Clinton's low water mark was higher than Trump's high water mark.  What's remarkable to me is while never getting more than 45% of the total vote, Clinton maintained a decent approval rating faults and all.  There were large numbers of people voting for Bush, Dole, or Perot that still liked Clinton.  The GOP was impeaching a relatively popular president.  Trump is strongly hated and that's evidenced by not just his disapproval ratings but the "strong" disapproval.

The Democrats would likely suffer no political blowback here.  In fact, the upside to them is this sucks the oxygen out of the room and masks the nonsense that will come out of their primary candidates.  The voters will also reach peak Trump Fatigue, if we're not there already.  The dude is exhausting.

Despite what TexasHammer and the other water carriers are telling you, there is no bump to be had.  For that to happen, you'd need people who currently disapprove of Trump or even strongly disapprove to jump the fence solely because of an impeachment move.  That's not going to happen and in fact, we're seeing self identified Republicans cross over if the polls are to be believed.

Trying to draw conclusions based on situations among previous administration is a mistake IMO.  Our current socio-political state of affairs isn’t comparable to any time in history, it isn’t the same country with the same set of rules, even in the 1990s.

[Biff Tannen 45763]

2 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

You aren't going to get it. 

Because it doesn't make sense. 

And it's not just "something stupid".  It's fucking traitorous.  Among the dozens of other traitorous acts he's already committed.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

because he's going to lose the election, and she doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize that.

(at the time) impeachment could've jeopardized that.  she also doesn't want to unsuccessfully attempt removal.  she also isn't afraid of him resigning.

come on.

You kind of make my point for me.  Her objective is to keep Trump on the ballot. Impeaching Trump opens the door for Trump to resign thus removing himself from the ballot and depressing  Dem turnout.  Hence why it would behoove her to sandbag on impeachment. 

You just said she doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize Trump losing in the 2020 election.  

[henrygandorf 29199]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You kind of make my point for me.  Her objective is to keep Trump on the ballot. Impeaching Trump opens the door for Trump to resign thus removing himself from the ballot and depressing  Dem turnout.  Hence why it would behoove her to sandbag on impeachment. 

You just said she doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize Trump losing in the 2020 election.  

my gif was in response to "she fears the senate may choose to force him to resign."

1. he's not going to resign.

2. she's not afraid of him resigning.  she would laugh her ass off.  she knows it's unrealistic, but she would welcome it.  it would leave the gop in complete disarray.

3. there was a time that an impeachment that was hard to explain to the people might turn the independents.  that time has long passed.

4. he's not going to resign.  never ever ever ever.

5. remaining president is all he has.  it's what's keeping him from a bunch of other investigations and prosecutions.  he's breaking laws left and right to win in 2020. 

6. never ever ever ever.

7. ever.

[Bigpoppapump 532]

15 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

You aren't going to get it. 

Because it doesn't make sense. 

I don't know why, but this makes me think of "He shouldn't be impeached for treason, but death is fine." (I know this doesn't completely relate)

[cactusflinthead 27615]

He'd need a complete personality transplant to resign. Malignant narcissism means you are never wrong. Resigning means he admits to being wrong. That's not happening. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

my gif was in response to "she fears the senate may choose to force him to resign."

1. he's not going to resign.

2. she's not afraid of him resigning.  she would laugh her ass off.  she knows it's unrealistic, but she would welcome it.  it would leave the gop in complete disarray.

3. there was a time that an impeachment that was hard to explain to the people might turn the independents.  that time has long passed.

4. he's not going to resign.  never ever ever ever.

5. remaining president is all he has.  it's what's keeping him from a bunch of other investigations and prosecutions.  he's breaking laws left and right to win in 2020. 

6. never ever ever ever.

7. ever.

You lack imagination.  McConnell could force Trump to resign with the snap of his fingers.  

“Mr. President, our situation is untenable but we want to give you the opportunity to define the terms of how this ends.  We are with you and we will remain with you unless you choose not to resign.  If you remain in office we will be forced to turn on you with the full weight of the Senate and Republican Party, you will go to prison.  None of us wants that to happen.

We can’t compete in upcoming elections and continue to defend you if you choose to remain.  The politics just aren’t there.” 

[wildcat09 29453]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You lack imagination.  McConnell could force Trump to resign with the snap of his fingers.  

“Mr. President, our situation is untenable but we want to give you the opportunity to define the terms of how this ends.  We are with you and we will remain with you unless you choose not to resign.  If you remain in office we will be forced to turn on you with the full weight of the Senate and Republican Party, you will go to prison.  None of us wants that to happen.

We can’t compete in upcoming elections and continue to defend you if you choose to remain.  The politics just aren’t there.” 

Lol

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You lack imagination.  McConnell could force Trump to resign with the snap of his fingers.  

“Mr. President, our situation is untenable but we want to give you the opportunity to define the terms of how this ends.  We are with you and we will remain with you unless you choose not to resign.  If you remain in office we will be forced to turn on you with the full weight of the Senate and Republican Party, you will go to prison.  None of us wants that to happen.

We can’t compete in upcoming elections and continue to defend you if you choose to remain.  The politics just aren’t there.” 

You certainly don’t lack imagination. 

[henrygandorf 29199]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You lack imagination.  McConnell could force Trump to resign with the snap of his fingers.  

“Mr. President, our situation is untenable but we want to give you the opportunity to define the terms of how this ends.  We are with you and we will remain with you unless you choose not to resign.  If you remain in office we will be forced to turn on you with the full weight of the Senate and Republican Party, you will go to prison.  None of us wants that to happen.

We can’t compete in upcoming elections and continue to defend you if you choose to remain.  The politics just aren’t there.” 

if that fan fiction is imagination, you're right, i lack it.

i'm a writer by trade and i can't make that stand up.

[cactusflinthead 27615]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You lack imagination.  McConnell could force Trump to resign with the snap of his fingers.  

“Mr. President, our situation is untenable but we want to give you the opportunity to define the terms of how this ends.  We are with you and we will remain with you unless you choose not to resign.  If you remain in office we will be forced to turn on you with the full weight of the Senate and Republican Party, you will go to prison.  None of us wants that to happen.

We can’t compete in upcoming elections and continue to defend you if you choose to remain.  The politics just aren’t there.” 

And then what? 

He calls Turtle's bluff.

It's all about the base. He runs off Trump and they are going to be a problem. 

[wildcat09 29453]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

if that fan fiction is imagination, you're right, i lack it.

i'm a writer by trade and i can't make that stand up.

But it's the funniest shit I've ever read.