impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[triplehorn 2664]

The DC Appellate Court deciding on the McGahn case to compel testimony asked the House legal counsel why they should hear this case if articles of impeachment have already been voted on, albeit for abuse and obstruction unrelated to potential McGahn testimony.

This answers some questions about that:

 

[triplehorn 2664]

Personally, I love the idea of impeaching Trump more than once in less than a year.  The reality is that the articles related to Trump/Ukraine extortion/election and subsequent obstruction of Congress were urgent.  Blowing the whistle and using the full measure of House power to bring it to light and stop it could not wait.  Should that impeachment surrounding an urgent national security matter render his other high crimes and abuses immune to impeachment because the evidence and testimonies were not yet available ?  Hell no. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12469]

6 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If one of those states actually declared independence from the US, I think there would be a huge collective laughter from the other 49 states. the one pain point that I would see with Alabama leaving would be the Marshall Space Flight Center, and either state could create some transportation problems.  Otherwise, would anyone care?

 

The people who work at the Marshall Space Flight Center would leave once their federal paychecks stopped coming in and Alabama offered to pay them in sweet potato pies instead.

[NWBuck 8570]

2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

The people who work at the Marshall Space Flight Center would leave once their federal paychecks stopped coming in and Alabama offered to pay them in sweet potato pies instead.

Wait... You can get paid in sweet potato pie? How does one sign up for such a thing? 

[TwiceHorn 31493]

16 hours ago, triplehorn said:

The DC Appellate Court deciding on the McGahn case to compel testimony asked the House legal counsel why they should hear this case if articles of impeachment have already been voted on, albeit for abuse and obstruction unrelated to potential McGahn testimony.

This answers some questions about that:

 

Yeah, I saw some articles on that.  Rather than assuming the House intends more articles, I think I would initially take that as a litigation position.

It's a bit of a conundrum.  The House improved its position in many of these cases by forming an impeachment committee and forging ahead.  They also hurt it by forging ahead.

But, I think the notion of blanket executive immunity is completely untenable even to general congressional oversight; an impeachment proceeding should not be necessary to dispense with that idea.

All that said, further articles wouldn't surprise me.  Politically very tricky.

Edited December 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

The House needs to go through with whatever it needs to in order to get the WH to drop this made-up absolute immunity bs. If they or the courts leave it out there, then every future WH will utilize the immunity from all testimony. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Trump also held up aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018. He also refused White House meeting with Ukraine's previous President (Petro Poroshenko) until Poroshenko stopped all investigations in to Manafort and the Black Ledger that revealed massive corruption under the Russian Puppet Viktor Yanukovych.

Lots of interesting bits in this new Daily Beast article. Mick Mulvaney held up sending Javelin anti-tank misses to Ukraine, because he was worried that it might twist Putin's panties a bit.  OMB officials were interfering in aid for other countries, besides Ukraine. Which other countries was OMB also interfering with for Trump's personal gain? 

She (White House official Catherine Cross) noted that

OMB staff also started attending meetings regarding aid to countries besides Ukraine and that the increase in their involvement was “quite taxing on a very small organization...

“In a briefing with Mick Mulvaney, the question centered around the Russian reaction,” she continued. 

“What was the concern about the Russian reaction?” asked the staffer. 

“That Russia would react negatively to the provision of Javelins to Ukraine,” she said. 

 

Quote

Under Mick Mulvaney’s leadership, the Office of Management and Budget temporarily put a hold on the delivery of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine in 2017 because of concerns their arrival would upset Russia, according to former White House official Catherine Croft. 

She described OMB’s objection as “highly unusual.”

Croft’s testimony indicates that concerns about the U.S. relationship with Russia had a direct—though short-lived—impact on U.S./Ukraine policy in the first year of Trump’s presidency.

Croft told congressional impeachment investigators that after the Trump administration greenlit the delivery of Javelin missiles to Ukraine in late 2017—the first delivery of lethal aid to the country since Russian separatists seized territory in its Eastern region in 2014—Mulvaney’s office held it up. 

“Did you understand why?” asked the congressional staffer questioning her. 

“I understood the reason to be a policy one,” she replied. 

“What was the policy one?” 

“In a briefing with Mick Mulvaney, the question centered around the Russian reaction,” she continued. 

“What was the concern about the Russian reaction?” asked the staffer. 

“That Russia would react negatively to the provision of Javelins to Ukraine,” she said. 

The Daily Beast first reported last month that OMB held up the 2017 shipment of Javelins to Ukraine. Croft said the hold lasted “about a week or two,” and that “all of the policy agencies” wanted the aid to go to Ukraine. She said OMB’s interest in the decision about whether to send Javelins to Ukraine was abnormal. 

“[It] was rather unusual to have OMB expressing concerns that were purely policy-based and not budget-oriented,” she said. 

“At the beginning of the Ukrainian Javelin process, I had been told that OMB was taking a policy interest,” she continued. “And OMB began sending working level officials to attend meetings... which was very unusual at the time.” 

She noted that OMB staff also started attending meetings regarding aid to countries besides Ukraine and that the increase in their involvement was “quite taxing on a very small organization.”

Mulvaney and several other OMB officials have refused to participate in the congressional impeachment inquiry.

 

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/mulvaneys-omb-held-up-lethal-ukraine-aid-in-2017-for-fear-of-russian-reaction

[atomheartbevo 89697]

2 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

“What was the policy one?” 

“In a briefing with Mick Mulvaney, the question centered around the Russian reaction,” she continued. 

“What was the concern about the Russian reaction?” asked the staffer. 

“That Russia would react negatively to the provision of Javelins to Ukraine,” she said.

Donald Trump scared of offending the Russians.  

[WhatTheBuck 28786]

2 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Trump also held up aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018. He also refused White House meeting with Ukraine's previous President (Petro Poroshenko) until Poroshenko stopped all investigations in to Manafort and the Black Ledger that revealed massive corruption under the Russian Puppet Viktor Yanukovych.

Lots of interesting bits in this new Daily Beast article. Mick Mulvaney held up sending Javelin anti-tank misses to Ukraine, because he was worried that it might twist Putin's panties a bit.  OMB officials were interfering in aid for other countries, besides Ukraine. Which other countries was OMB also interfering with for Trump's personal gain? 

Link doesn't work. 

[Bookman 4639]

On 12/23/2019 at 9:06 AM, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

If the state was Alabama or Mississippi, probably. 

Just visited Mississippi today for the first time. Place is a shithole. Does it add anything to the Union?

Maybe we can give it to the Trumpkins. GDP will probably go up.

[Bama Chick 28596]

DEMOCRATS BETTER BE CAREFUL BECAUSE THE POLLS SHOW.....

[Guest Lobo]

"in Favour?  It's from Britain, fake news!  Don't call me anymore, Boris...we are thru!"  -DJT

[tantric superman 4667]

On 12/24/2019 at 10:19 PM, Bookman said:

Just visited Mississippi today for the first time. Place is a shithole. Does it add anything to the Union?

 

Sweet breathable cotton in a world that is increasingly, as my wife would say," goddamn dri-fit".

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

51 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

DEMOCRATS BETTER BE CAREFUL BECAUSE THE POLLS SHOW.....

 

how lopsided does this get before Moscow Mitch caves? I mean, he's been sheltered by favorable polling of late. If this turns to 60-65% (or more) supporting conviction, can Mitch continue his collusion and obstruction WITH the White House? I read somewhere today that the margin is 3 senators needed to turn the prospects in the people's favor. If 3 senators up for re-election are feeling heat from their electorate, do they turn? So many questions.

[Post Oak 20239]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how lopsided does this get before Moscow Mitch caves? I mean, he's been sheltered by favorable polling of late. If this turns to 60-65% (or more) supporting conviction, can Mitch continue his collusion and obstruction WITH the White House? I read somewhere today that the margin is 3 senators needed to turn the prospects in the people's favor. If 3 senators up for re-election are feeling heat from their electorate, do they turn? So many questions.

He's not gonna cave. He doesn't care about people or humanity in general.

The only thing we can hope for is a blood clot in his brain.

[Texas St. Armadillos 1381]

3 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

He's not gonna cave. He doesn't care about people or humanity in general.

The only thing we can hope for is a blood clot in his brain.

But, what about Mitch?

[atomheartbevo 89697]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how lopsided does this get before Moscow Mitch caves? I mean, he's been sheltered by favorable polling of late. If this turns to 60-65% (or more) supporting conviction, can Mitch continue his collusion and obstruction WITH the White House? I read somewhere today that the margin is 3 senators needed to turn the prospects in the people's favor. If 3 senators up for re-election are feeling heat from their electorate, do they turn? So many questions.

Mitch has to believe it’s going to affect Republican control of the Senate next year.  

[Pescado_Rojo 19421]

I’d like to see poling at the state level. That’s where it’s going to get interesting. Show me the poling in Colorado, Arizona, Maine, Georgia, Kansas, etc. Mitch needs to legit fear loss of control of the senate before he even gets nervous. 

[Red Five 40861]

Show me the poling in Colorado, Arizona, Maine, Georgia, Kansas, etc.

Excuse me sir, but this is a family website. Take that somewhere else.

[Eastwood 4394]

17 hours ago, Post Oak said:

He's not gonna cave. He doesn't care about people or humanity in general.

The only thing we can hope for is a blood clot in his brain.

He'll cave if he can insulate himself from further investigation and prosecution. The Republican Party's complicity is the driving motivation behind their defense at all costs of Trump. He's the first domino. If he falls, the whole party falls eventually.

[Tuco 5076]

17 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how lopsided does this get before Moscow Mitch caves? I mean, he's been sheltered by favorable polling of late. If this turns to 60-65% (or more) supporting conviction, can Mitch continue his collusion and obstruction WITH the White House? I read somewhere today that the margin is 3 senators needed to turn the prospects in the people's favor. If 3 senators up for re-election are feeling heat from their electorate, do they turn? So many questions.

The MSN poll is just one of many, and one that I don't believe is included in RCP or 538.  The RCP average has actually moved in the negative direction (anti-impeachment).  But, realistically, the minor movement in the polls, pro or anti, isn't going to do shit.  And even the anti-impeachment results are coupled with a general belief that Trump broke the law.  For example, one of the more anti-impeach results - the Quinnepac poll - shows a 45/51 result against impeachment.  But...

Quote

Nearly 9 out of 10 voters who have an opinion, 87 percent, say their mind is made up about impeachment, while 12 percent say they might change their mind.

"Views on impeachment come with a caveat. While a slight majority of voters oppose impeaching the president, a plurality of voters believe the president held up military aid to Ukraine because he wanted the president of Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit Trump politically," added Snow.

The public remains tuned into the news about impeachment as 59 percent say they are paying a lot of attention to the news about impeachment, while 26 percent are paying some attention, and 15 percent are paying only a little attention or none at all.

On other issues related to impeachment, voters say:

• 53 - 44 percent that the president abuses the power of his office;
• 52 percent that the president was pursuing his own personal interest in his dealings with Ukraine to 40 percent that he was pursuing the national interest;
• 48 - 40 percent that President Trump held up military aid to Ukraine because he wanted the Ukrainian president to announce investigations that would benefit Trump politically;
• 48 - 44 percent that the president has committed any crimes while in office.

Nearly two thirds, 64 percent, say it is not acceptable for the President of the United States to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival, while 23 percent say it is acceptable.

This poll also shows Trump at a -9 approval delta (43/52).  It's kind of staggering really.  One of the most anti-impeachment recent polls out there still indicates that a majority of people think the President abused the power of his office. They just don't feel like he should be impeached for it.  Some of that may be because we are close enough to the election.  But some of it may just reflect the success of conservative media and their "both sides" narrative that sets the bar so low.  Democracy is going to have a hell of a time in an environment where the public doesn't hold the government accountable.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

The MSN poll is just one of many, and one that I don't believe is included in RCP or 538.  The RCP average has actually moved in the negative direction (anti-impeachment).  But, realistically, the minor movement in the polls, pro or anti, isn't going to do shit.  And even the anti-impeachment results are coupled with a general belief that Trump broke the law.  For example, one of the more anti-impeach results - the Quinnepac poll - shows a 45/51 result against impeachment.  But...

This poll also shows Trump at a -9 approval delta (43/52).  It's kind of staggering really.  One of the most anti-impeachment recent polls out there still indicates that a majority of people think the President abused the power of his office. They just don't feel like he should be impeached for it.  Some of that may be because we are close enough to the election.  But some of it may just reflect the success of conservative media and their "both sides" narrative that sets the bar so low.  Democracy is going to have a hell of a time in an environment where the public doesn't hold the government accountable.  

how much of it is that the people polled didn't understand the question they were asked or its implications?

[Tuco 5076]

10 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how much of it is that the people polled didn't understand the question they were asked or its implications?

I think that would disproportionately affect the Trumpsters.  

Actually, I do think the question is confusing.  It asks a yes or no question, but asks it both ways. 

Quote

18. Do you think that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you think so?

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I think that would disproportionately affect the Trumpsters.  

Actually, I do think the question is confusing.  It asks a yes or no question, but asks it both ways. 

 

um, wtf? no wonder polls are all over the fucking place. 

[Tuco 5076]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

um, wtf? no wonder polls are all over the fucking place. 

Yeah, my guess is that they are trying to avoid bias in the question, or even the appearance of push-polling.  But sometimes they just overthink it. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

How is it push-polling to ask an opinion based on a fact?

The fact: President Trump is getting/has been impeached and now the Senate has to hold a trial.

Question: do you believe President Trump should be convicted and removed from office?

Even the fact escapists can't deny what is right in front of them. 

[Tuco 5076]

I don't disagree, unless I believe differently. 

 

[RPM 26322]

On 12/26/2019 at 3:42 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how lopsided does this get before Moscow Mitch caves?

Mitch is an unwavering pillar of support for Trump until he gets a call from Moscow or Beijing.

[BradInATX 9208]

12 hours ago, Tuco said:

The MSN poll is just one of many, and one that I don't believe is included in RCP or 538.  The RCP average has actually moved in the negative direction (anti-impeachment).  But, realistically, the minor movement in the polls, pro or anti, isn't going to do shit.  And even the anti-impeachment results are coupled with a general belief that Trump broke the law.  For example, one of the more anti-impeach results - the Quinnepac poll - shows a 45/51 result against impeachment.  But...

This poll also shows Trump at a -9 approval delta (43/52).  It's kind of staggering really.  One of the most anti-impeachment recent polls out there still indicates that a majority of people think the President abused the power of his office. They just don't feel like he should be impeached for it.  Some of that may be because we are close enough to the election.  But some of it may just reflect the success of conservative media and their "both sides" narrative that sets the bar so low.  Democracy is going to have a hell of a time in an environment where the public doesn't hold the government accountable.  

Some might be realists and realpolitik types who can see beyond the emotional and childish need to have what they want right this very moment, consequences be damned, and realize that impeachment is probably detrimental to the chance of getting him out of office in 2020 (or neutral at best, therefore creating a zero-upside situation).

Edited December 28, 2019 by BradInATX

[Biff Tannen 45691]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Some might be realists and realpolitik types who can see beyond the emotional and childish, uber-millennial need to have what they want right this very moment, and realize that impeachment is probably detrimental to the chance of getting him out of office in 2020.

 

I would put that at less than 5%. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals and you know it. 

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would put that at less than 5%. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals and you know it. 

Sure, but that 5% is pretty much the Delta between "think he's a criminal" and "supports impeachment".

[Biff Tannen 45691]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Sure, but that 5% is pretty much the Delta between "think he's a criminal" and "supports impeachment".

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Biff Tannen

[Tuco 5076]

Some might be realists and realpolitik types who can see beyond the emotional and childish need to have what they want right this very moment, consequences be damned, and realize that impeachment is probably detrimental to the chance of getting him out of office in 2020 (or neutral at best, therefore creating a zero-upside situation).

Do you think that five percent would punish Democrats at the polls? If not, then the five percent are clearly wrong.

[triplehorn 2664]

13 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Some might be realists and realpolitik types who can see beyond the emotional and childish need to have what they want right this very moment, consequences be damned, and realize that impeachment is probably detrimental to the chance of getting him out of office in 2020 (or neutral at best, therefore creating a zero-upside situation).

Right now and moving forward, this is all about the conduct of the Senate R’s.  Specifically, it’s about how they navigate exposure around an anticipated sham Senate trial and it affecting re-election of vulnerable GOP Senators.

when you see consistent polls where north of 50% support removal, if the trial is perceived as a cover-up and a vulnerable Senator is perceived as a participant, that is big trouble.  There are about 6 obvious seats in play.

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, triplehorn said:

when you see consistent polls where north of 50% support removal, if the trial is perceived as a cover-up and a vulnerable Senator is perceived as a participant, that is big trouble.  There are about 6 obvious seats in play.

Well, let me know when this happens. I'll be thrilled.

[BradInATX 9208]

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

Do you think that five percent would punish Democrats at the polls? If not, then the five percent are clearly wrong.

I think that anyone who thinks Trump is a criminal should tell a pollster that they support impeachment, even if they actually think it was a political misstep.

I would.

Edited December 28, 2019 by BradInATX

[triplehorn 2664]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Well, let me know when this happens. I'll be thrilled.

If the Senate fakes its way through this trial  where the evidence is clear cut, they have committed themselves to being frauds.  Now keep in mind that we’ve just recently heard a signal from House top legal counsel Doug Letter that there could be additional articles of impeachment coming later.  
 

Think about the impression it will make if Senate R’s are roped into another sham trial.  Now imagine that next trial involves a significant increment in severity, such as what Trump’s tax returns and Deutsche Bank financials reveal.  Consider also that SCOTUS may not rule until June.  At that point, think of the timing if Senate has no choice but to convict Trump and what getting momentum for a replacement would look like when the campaign field is non-existent.  And if they fraudulently shield Trump - again - this summer, vulnerable R’s potentially will be screwed.

All if this puts heightened importance on how they handle Trump’s impeachment NOW.  

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, triplehorn said:

If the Senate fakes its way through this trial  where the evidence is clear cut, they have committed themselves to being frauds.  Now keep in mind that we’ve just recently heard a signal from House top legal counsel Doug Letter that there could be additional articles of impeachment coming later.  
 

Think about the impression it will make if Senate R’s are roped into another sham trial.

Impression on who, though? 

The hype cycle for the impeachment has already come and gone. The only people left paying attention already know how they feel about Trump. The 20% of the country that matters is already on to something else.

[Biff Tannen 45691]

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

And if they fraudulently shield Trump - again - this summer, vulnerable R’s potentially will be screwed.

Not if, but when.  I think the GOP (Trump) machine is willing to sacrifice a few members.  

ETA: House members.  Not Senate.  Which isn't what you are talking about.  Delete user, ban post.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Biff Tannen
on second thought

[henrygandorf 29191]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

The hype cycle for the impeachment has already come and gone. The only people left paying attention already know how they feel about Trump. The 20% of the country that matters is already on to something else.

i don't think there was much of a hype-cycle.  the only people who paid attention at all already knew who they were rooting for.  he's been breaking laws since day one and talks of investigating/impeachment have been around since day two, so everyone is already conditioned.

we're caught in a circular logic matrix i'm afraid.

[BradInATX 9208]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't think there was much of a hype-cycle.  the only people who paid attention at all already knew who they were rooting for.  he's been breaking laws since day one and talks of investigating/impeachment have been around since day two, so everyone is already conditioned.

we're caught in a circular logic matrix i'm afraid.

Oh, yeah. I'm not saying there was ever a really strong peak. if it were a chart it'd look like the rolling hills of Central Texas. But whatever that line and peak looked like, it's gone. And the problem is the same that marketing folks have. Once you've lost grasp of the hearts and minds, it takes something even more drastic to get them back. I don't even think tax evasion is going to do that at this point. I don't think there's anything in the orbit of this impeachment that will do it. Sucks, but that's where were at as a society. Obviously an informed, intellectually curious society that was paying attention wouldn't have ever ended up here to begin with.

Edited December 28, 2019 by BradInATX

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't think there was much of a hype-cycle.  the only people who paid attention at all already knew who they were rooting for.  he's been breaking laws since day one and talks of investigating/impeachment have been around since day two, so everyone is already conditioned.

we're caught in a circular logic matrix i'm afraid.

I don’t know.  The frame of reference people are using here for poll shifts around impeachment has been since November.  But go back and look at what polls showed around impeachment after the Mueller report last summer.  It’s come a long way.  No reason to think we’ve hit a ceiling in every respect.

[henrygandorf 29191]

6 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I don’t know.  The frame of reference people are using here for poll shifts around impeachment has been since November.  But go back and look at what polls showed around impeachment after the Mueller report last summer.  It’s come a long way.  No reason to think we’ve hit a ceiling in every respect.

i'm not saying people don't care.  i'm saying that there's nothing really coming out in these hearings and investigations that moves the needle, because people are generally apathetic to the whole situation, and have tuned out.  plenty of people do care, but their minds are made up.  it's difficult to reach and convince the folks that are undecided at this point.  the news cycle/presentation and the learning curve for the general public is nothing like it was for nixon, or even clinton. 

[triplehorn 2664]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm not saying people don't care.  i'm saying that there's nothing really coming out in these hearings and investigations that moves the needle, because people are generally apathetic to the whole situation, and have tuned out.  plenty of people do care, but their minds are made up.  it's difficult to reach and convince the folks that are undecided at this point.  the news cycle/presentation and the learning curve for the general public is nothing like it was for nixon, or even clinton. 

Again, all eyes on vulnerable Senate R’s.  
 

Absent new witnesses in the Senate trial, evidence against Trump is known.  Polls generally reflect a majority favor removal.  However, what is NOT a known is what individual Senators will do in some yet to be defined trial.  Individual Senator tracking polls, looking at pre- and post-impeachment trial polls, might be the real crystal ball - especially if there’s a round two of impeachment of Trump based on more damning evidence of other crimes.

And Mitch stating he will coordinate directly with the WH for the trial is likely intended to set up the illusion of fairness when he backs off from that to some less obvious form of rigging.  The extent of that compromise from his initial extreme stance likely depends on real time calculations of damage to preserving his majority.

[GRHorn 105]

22 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm not saying people don't care.  i'm saying that there's nothing really coming out in these hearings and investigations that moves the needle, because people are generally apathetic to the whole situation, and have tuned out.  plenty of people do care, but their minds are made up.  it's difficult to reach and convince the folks that are undecided at this point.  the news cycle/presentation and the learning curve for the general public is nothing like it was for nixon, or even clinton. 

Agree. 
 

There’s also something to the idea that, of all the fucked up shit past Presidents have done, this is what we’re gonna remove a President for?  For the first time ever? For putting conditions on foreign aid that would benefit him politically?

meh(ringer)

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

So what’s the endgame here for pelosi?  I assume she wants to ensure trump isn’t acquitted prior to the state of the union. 

[GRHorn 105]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

So what’s the endgame here for pelosi?  I assume she wants to ensure trump isn’t acquitted prior to the state of the union. 

She’s praying on it.  Solemnly. 

[David Dennison 18905]

22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

So what’s the endgame here for pelosi?  I assume she wants to ensure trump isn’t acquitted prior to the state of the union. 

She's doing everything she can to solidify the narrative that Republicans are not interested in hearing evidence that supports the articles of impeachment.

Edited December 29, 2019 by David Dennison

[Tom 2959]

12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Agree. 
 

There’s also something to the idea that, of all the fucked up shit past Presidents have done, this is what we’re gonna remove a President for?  For the first time ever? For putting conditions on foreign aid that would benefit him politically?

meh(ringer)

 

People can't be reached and don't care because Trump could line up every Democratic candidate on 5th Avenue and shoot them in the head and you'd be here the next day spewing right wing conspiracies peddled by Fox on why it's not really a big deal.

We get it.  As long as you get your judges and "stick it to the libtards," bribing foreign governments to interfere and undermine our democratic elections is no big deal.  A criminal in the white house isn't so bad so long as the wall gets built and your 401K keeps growing at a satisfactory rate.  Expecting your tribe to care about Trump's dereliction of upholding the constitution is asking a lot.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She doing everything she can to solidify the narrative that Republicans are not interested in hearing evidence that supports the articles of impeachment.

She needs to send over the articles of impeachment soon or it does look like a waste of time. And I get that she wants to ensure or alter some senate trial rules but the House can’t force it. Just as then senate couldn’t do the reverse to the House.