Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Already backfiring on Pelosi and the Dems. Very few people care about impeachment anymore. They realize how political it is. If it were really urgent as the Dems said it was they would have done something with the vote already. The fact that they're sitting on it means it wasn't important at all and they're just trying to play politics over the fact that they couldn't win an election. Huge mistake by pelosi and co.

Your opinion isn’t supported by reality.

Pelosi holding up doesn’t really matter. Trump approval rate didn’t go down a bit. People don’t really care much about impeachment not to mention Pelosi’s tactics.

Not the point. Dig deeper in you “analysis”. This put pressure on moderate republican senators, and gave a low information public time to catch up. It’s a very simple catch phrase and they will hang it around any republic who votes against it.
“A trial should have witnesses and evidence.”

Well we’ll see. If Pelosi transmits the articles without getting any assurance from GOP senators, would you accept her gamble didn’t work out?

Why would she do that?

She is pressured to do so. Again, would you accept that her strategy failed if she does that?

Pressured by who? McConnell? Graham? Don't hold your breath for her to bend to wills of those hypocrites. And, no, I would not accept that her "strategy" failed. The failure is on the GOP for not honoring its oath to uphold the constitution. Even Romney is morally rotten.

Obviously you didn’t know democratic senators are putting pressure on her. But it’s OK. Pelosi wins anyway no matter what, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hilarious to see Democrats on this forum claiming a victory for Pelosi when she is going to end up caving without getting anything from McConnell.

For someone who is considered to be a savvy political strategist, she overplayed her hand. A trial will take place on terms that McConnell and the Republicans will decide. Trump will be exonerated and will win reelection in 2020.

The exoneration will be with zero Republican votes in favor conviction and between two and four Democratic senators who will vote to exonerate.

What a defeat for the Democrats only to be followed by Trump's reelection for another four years.

She doesn't "want" anything from McConnell. She wants to know what the rules are so she knows who to appoint as House Managers. Same thing when a little league baseball game starts, the managers have already met with the umpire(s) to go over the ground rules. Are you saying a little league game should have more integrity than an impeachment trial in the Senate?

But, impeachment was so "urgent." Trump is a "national security risk." It has to be done quickly.
Pure BS. She screwed up, didn't do her job, and is having buyer's remorse.
I posted a montage of House Democrats saying how URGENT impeachment was. Of course, it was deleted.
But, here are a few articles questioning her strategy:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/democrats-urgency-on-trump-s-impeachment-tested-by-pelosi-delay
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/23/impeachment_takes_a_holiday_--_starring_nancy_pelosi_142014.html
https://www.euronews.com/2019/12/22/house-democrats-undercut-themselves-withholding-impeachment-articles-vp-s-spokesman-n1106261

Hey Trumper,

I know you are brainwashed and of limited mental capacity just as your dear leader is. So I will try to use basic words (like tRump) so you can understand:

1. He asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections.
2. The 2020 election is fast approaching.
3. That ='s URGENT.
4. Moscow Mitch has pre-judged any trial so really must recuse himself.
5. ONE MORE TIME (please try to keep up) If the Senate does not remove him - I know they will not - HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED. You apparently did not take a civics course in high school.

Hey, Friend,
I won't throw insults at you because I am apparently a kinder person than you.

1. No, he didn't.
2. True
3. If it is so damn urgent, why is Nancy holding onto the articles? You would think she would want to get them there as quickly as possibly, given the urgency.
4. No, he doesn't. You think Warren, Sanders, and all other Dem Senators haven't prejudged the trial? LOL>
5. He will make history as the first president impeached who wins reelection.

My point in the post above... in case you missed it.... is that for something that was terribly urgent during the House hearings, Nancy sure is taking her good old time getting those articles to the Senate.
Pretty much undercuts her claim that the process needed to be rushed because it was so urgent.

[Anonymous]

1) yes, true
2) agreed
3) because McConnell, Graham and a bunch of senators who spent July 4, 2018 in Moscow are compromised. The public needs to know the rules before sending something to a kangaroo court. Every single impeachment trial before this have had witnesses; why not this one?
4) Compromised and public statements are not the same, but YMMV.
5) YMMV

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) yes, true
2) agreed
3) because McConnell, Graham and a bunch of senators who spent July 4, 2018 in Moscow are compromised. The public needs to know the rules before sending something to a kangaroo court. Every single impeachment trial before this have had witnesses; why not this one?
4) Compromised and public statements are not the same, but YMMV.
5) YMMV

Compromised? How, exactly?
And, who says there won't be witnesses at the "trial?"

[Anonymous]

Nancy will send the articles to the Senate next week.
Guess she is finding her little stunt isn't as strategically beneficial as she thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) yes, true
2) agreed
3) because McConnell, Graham and a bunch of senators who spent July 4, 2018 in Moscow are compromised. The public needs to know the rules before sending something to a kangaroo court. Every single impeachment trial before this have had witnesses; why not this one?
4) Compromised and public statements are not the same, but YMMV.
5) YMMV

Compromised? How, exactly?
And, who says there won't be witnesses at the "trial?"

Many GOP Senators have stated they want this whitewashed, don't want witnesses and have already made up their minds. Meanwhile, Senator Johnson (Wi) seems to be a material witness and probably ought recuse himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nancy will send the articles to the Senate next week.
Guess she is finding her little stunt isn't as strategically beneficial as she thought.

"Prepare to bring" does not equal "bring"

[Anonymous]

Reposting from another thread.

Trump Tweet on lying to start war for political gain

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/...m-obama-wanted-war-iran-2020-1


Trump telling Wolf Blitzer (fake news?) that Bush should have been impeached for lying to get US into war with Iran

https://mobile.twitter.com/trom771/status/1215027191022604288

More

https://www.businessinsider.com/old-trump-tweets-e...m-obama-wanted-war-iran-2020-1

And finally...
WSJ: Trump said he ordered strike on Iranian general to help with impeachment on Front Page Live
https://twitter.com/wvjoe911/status/1215677560786472961


(Reposted from the Wag the Dog thread)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nancy will send the articles to the Senate next week.
Guess she is finding her little stunt isn't as strategically beneficial as she thought.

It says a lot about you that you view Congressional oversight and carrying out their constitutional prerogatives a "stunt."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nancy will send the articles to the Senate next week.
Guess she is finding her little stunt isn't as strategically beneficial as she thought.

"Prepare to bring" does not equal "bring"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Friday that the House next week will consider a resolution to appoint impeachment managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate, setting the stage for a historic trial of President Trump.
Her announcement, in a letter to Democratic colleagues, came shortly after the House ended its work week without taking a vote on the matter. As recently as Thursday, Pelosi continued to insist that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should release a resolution laying out rules of a trial before the articles were transmitted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2020/01/10/e65f5f16-3398-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) yes, true
2) agreed
3) because McConnell, Graham and a bunch of senators who spent July 4, 2018 in Moscow are compromised. The public needs to know the rules before sending something to a kangaroo court. Every single impeachment trial before this have had witnesses; why not this one?
4) Compromised and public statements are not the same, but YMMV.
5) YMMV

Compromised? How, exactly?
And, who says there won't be witnesses at the "trial?"

Um. NP. By being in Russia on Independence Day? Discussing alternate facts? What do you think they were doing, having a vodka distillery tour for fun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reposting from another thread.

Trump Tweet on lying to start war for political gain

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/...m-obama-wanted-war-iran-2020-1


Trump telling Wolf Blitzer (fake news?) that Bush should have been impeached for lying to get US into war with Iran

https://mobile.twitter.com/trom771/status/1215027191022604288

More

https://www.businessinsider.com/old-trump-tweets-e...m-obama-wanted-war-iran-2020-1

And finally...
WSJ: Trump said he ordered strike on Iranian general to help with impeachment on Front Page Live
https://twitter.com/wvjoe911/status/1215677560786472961


(Reposted from the Wag the Dog thread)

Also reposted from Wag the Dog thread:

More likely, he made the strike because of the advice of CIA Director Haspel.

Okay, so it may have just been the prediction of CIA Director Gina Haspel that Iran would retaliate with airstrikes on Iraqi military bases holding U.S. troops. But it was partly based on her analysis that the U.S. decided to assassinate Soleimani in the first place, administration officials tell The New York Times:

In the days before General Suleimani’s death, Ms. Haspel had advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran's response if he was killed, according to current and former American officials. Indeed, Ms. Haspel had predicted the most likely response would be a missile strike from Iran to bases where American troops were deployed, the very situation that appeared to be playing out on Tuesday afternoon. [The New York Times]

The Times is careful to point out that "Haspel took no formal position about whether to kill General Soleimani," but "officials who listened to her analysis came away with the clear view that the C.I.A. believed that killing him would improve — not weaken — security in the Middle East." Read more at The New York Times.

https://news.yahoo.com/cia-director-gina-haspel-reportedly-151000127.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nancy will send the articles to the Senate next week.
Guess she is finding her little stunt isn't as strategically beneficial as she thought.

"Prepare to bring" does not equal "bring"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Friday that the House next week will consider a resolution to appoint impeachment managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate, setting the stage for a historic trial of President Trump.
Her announcement, in a letter to Democratic colleagues, came shortly after the House ended its work week without taking a vote on the matter. As recently as Thursday, Pelosi continued to insist that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should release a resolution laying out rules of a trial before the articles were transmitted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2020/01/10/e65f5f16-3398-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

You’re confirming PP’s point. “Consider” + “resolution for transmit” = prepare to bring =\= bring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) yes, true
2) agreed
3) because McConnell, Graham and a bunch of senators who spent July 4, 2018 in Moscow are compromised. The public needs to know the rules before sending something to a kangaroo court. Every single impeachment trial before this have had witnesses; why not this one?
4) Compromised and public statements are not the same, but YMMV.
5) YMMV

Compromised? How, exactly?
And, who says there won't be witnesses at the "trial?"

Um. NP. By being in Russia on Independence Day? Discussing alternate facts? What do you think they were doing, having a vodka distillery tour for fun?

What in the hell does being in Russia on July 4 have to do with the impeachment trial? Geez you people are truly insane. Grasping at straws....
And, here, this explains their trip: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395719-gop-senators-visited-moscow-on-july-4

Meanwhile, I don't know what your sources are for claiming that the GOP is "compromised." Probably Seth Abramson or Rachel Maddow.
But, did you know that Schiff's staffer traveled to Ukraine prior to the hearings in the House? If you want to discuss being compromised...... or, conflict of interest.....

https://www.theepochtimes.com/schiff-staffers-meeting-with-impeachment-witness-marked-turning-point-in-ukraine-controversy_3126682.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) yes, true
2) agreed
3) because McConnell, Graham and a bunch of senators who spent July 4, 2018 in Moscow are compromised. The public needs to know the rules before sending something to a kangaroo court. Every single impeachment trial before this have had witnesses; why not this one?
4) Compromised and public statements are not the same, but YMMV.
5) YMMV

Compromised? How, exactly?
And, who says there won't be witnesses at the "trial?"

Um. NP. By being in Russia on Independence Day? Discussing alternate facts? What do you think they were doing, having a vodka distillery tour for fun?

What in the hell does being in Russia on July 4 have to do with the impeachment trial? Geez you people are truly insane. Grasping at straws....
And, here, this explains their trip: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395719-gop-senators-visited-moscow-on-july-4

Meanwhile, I don't know what your sources are for claiming that the GOP is "compromised." Probably Seth Abramson or Rachel Maddow.
But, did you know that Schiff's staffer traveled to Ukraine prior to the hearings in the House? If you want to discuss being compromised...... or, conflict of interest.....

https://www.theepochtimes.com/schiff-staffers-meeting-with-impeachment-witness-marked-turning-point-in-ukraine-controversy_3126682.html

Hot tip: don’t cite the Epoch Times and then call other people biased.