Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Senate is going to have a legitimate trial and at least 4 witnesses will be compelled to testify; or at a minimum, Bolton will, though don't be surprised if Lev Parnas becomes a witness to testify as well.

If Bolton does in fact testify and it goes consistent with Fiona Hill's testimony, the GOP are going to have a hard time not removing Trump from office. Even if the Senators that are in purple states vote to remove and there aren't enough total to remove, it will be a stain on the GOP that the 2020 elections will settle in terms of control of the Senate and White House.

Yes, Trump had 62 million voters in 2016. He likely has fewer than that now. But there are 285 million voters who will be awakened by such a travesty.

I wouldn’t be so sure that Bolton’s testimony will go the way you think.
I agree with the pp - good job staying optimistic. Right now, it’s all that you’ve got.

You mean staying delusional!!

[Anonymous]

Since the Democrats on this forum are interpreting Nancy caving in completely on transmitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate as some kind of victory, I have no doubt that they will claim that when the Senate votes by a substantial majority against Trump's removal from office, they will interpret that as a major victory because the Democratic senators voted to convict!

What else can they do because this is impeachment is not going to go anywhere in the Senate. The attempted coup will fail and Democrats will actually need to win an election if they want to replace Trump ......... such an alien concept for Democrats!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since the Democrats on this forum are interpreting Nancy caving in completely on transmitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate as some kind of victory, I have no doubt that they will claim that when the Senate votes by a substantial majority against Trump's removal from office, they will interpret that as a major victory because the Democratic senators voted to convict!

What else can they do because this is impeachment is not going to go anywhere in the Senate. The attempted coup will fail and Democrats will actually need to win an election if they want to replace Trump ......... such an alien concept for Democrats!

If the GOP didn’t cheat, they’d never win. You guys haven’t won cleanly in twenty years.

Also your problems with projection are pathological. A coup? B, please.

[Anonymous]

Poor Nancy: someone critical of Trump and the Republicans says that she gambled and lost.

Pelosi's goal was simple: To try to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's hand. Pelosi wanted to use her possession of the articles of impeachment to yield promises and/or compromises from McConnell -- most notably on the issue of witnesses being allowed to be called in the Senate trial.

Except that McConnell wasn't playing ball.

"There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure," McConnell said earlier this month. "We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats' turn is over. The Senate has made its decision." And McConnell backed up that no-negotiation position with a show of force: Announcing that he had secured the support of a majority of the Senate to begin the impeachment trial without any decision on witnesses.

Which left Pelosi hung out to dry. The leverage she imagined she possessed to get McConnell to accede to her wishes didn't exist. McConnell was perfectly happy waiting while Pelosi held on to the articles of impeachment, probably believing rightly that these sorts of delaying tactics would look like just more Washington funny business to the average person. And he knew that whenever she decided to send the articles over, he had a majority waiting to open the trial without any promises made on witnesses.

Never mind, Nancy ......... next time!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnnell/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Senate is going to have a legitimate trial and at least 4 witnesses will be compelled to testify; or at a minimum, Bolton will, though don't be surprised if Lev Parnas becomes a witness to testify as well.

If Bolton does in fact testify and it goes consistent with Fiona Hill's testimony, the GOP are going to have a hard time not removing Trump from office. Even if the Senators that are in purple states vote to remove and there aren't enough total to remove, it will be a stain on the GOP that the 2020 elections will settle in terms of control of the Senate and White House.

Yes, Trump had 62 million voters in 2016. He likely has fewer than that now. But there are 285 million voters who will be awakened by such a travesty.

I wouldn’t be so sure that Bolton’s testimony will go the way you think.
I agree with the pp - good job staying optimistic. Right now, it’s all that you’ve got.

Mr Bolton, several of your direct reports indicated that you advised them to take their concerns to the Staff attorney. Please explain.
Mr. Bolton, you referred to the Ukraine matter as "Guiliani' Drug Deal" - what did you mean by that?

How do you think he responds to questions like this and the emails that were produced by those who testified. Do you think he is going to say something that contradicts a Fiona Hill? Or emails he wrote or was part of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor Nancy: someone critical of Trump and the Republicans says that she gambled and lost.

Pelosi's goal was simple: To try to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's hand. Pelosi wanted to use her possession of the articles of impeachment to yield promises and/or compromises from McConnell -- most notably on the issue of witnesses being allowed to be called in the Senate trial.

Except that McConnell wasn't playing ball.

"There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure," McConnell said earlier this month. "We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats' turn is over. The Senate has made its decision." And McConnell backed up that no-negotiation position with a show of force: Announcing that he had secured the support of a majority of the Senate to begin the impeachment trial without any decision on witnesses.

Which left Pelosi hung out to dry. The leverage she imagined she possessed to get McConnell to accede to her wishes didn't exist. McConnell was perfectly happy waiting while Pelosi held on to the articles of impeachment, probably believing rightly that these sorts of delaying tactics would look like just more Washington funny business to the average person. And he knew that whenever she decided to send the articles over, he had a majority waiting to open the trial without any promises made on witnesses.

Never mind, Nancy ......... next time!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnnell/index.html

Republican pundits disgree and feel there will be a vote on witnesses that may get up to 12 GOP defectors and those same defectors will want to hear from at least 4 witnesses: Bolton, Duffy and Mulvaney among them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since the Democrats on this forum are interpreting Nancy caving in completely on transmitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate as some kind of victory, I have no doubt that they will claim that when the Senate votes by a substantial majority against Trump's removal from office, they will interpret that as a major victory because the Democratic senators voted to convict!

What else can they do because this is impeachment is not going to go anywhere in the Senate. The attempted coup will fail and Democrats will actually need to win an election if they want to replace Trump ......... such an alien concept for Democrats!

If, in the face of overwhelming additional evidence, the Senate chooses not to remove the President, as more news continues to drip out after the vote...and you know it will...it will make the GOP Senate totally complicit in the Presidents misdeeds. Voters are already seeing through this, GOP actions make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Republican Senators are screwed no matter what they do.

Trump wants them to dismiss the case without any trial, and he will turn on any Senators who vote to even have a sham trial. He will especially attack any Senator who votes to compel Bolton or Mulvaney or any other Administration official to testify, even if only to compel them to a deposition.

On the other hand, most voters even in Republican states, support a trial with witness testimony. If Republican Senators rubber-stamp Trump's actions without a legitimate trial, they will own whatever else comes out about Giuliani, Sondland, Perry, and Trump, and we all know that there is much more that will come out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hilarious to see Democrats presenting Pelosi as some sort of knight in shining armor after the fiasco with delaying the articles of impeachment.

The reality is that she totally caved when McConnell told her to go fly a kite and then Democratic senators told her enough was enough and that she has no say in what happens in the Senate.

Except now the people want witnesses.
#Nancywins

You'll get no witnesses. That was democrat's JOB in the House. You didn't prove your case.

I don't get this perspective. I am not an expert but I liken the House hearings to a grand jury indictment (enough evidence to proceed) and the Senate trial to a trial (deciding whether or not to convict). Why the h*** wouldn't they have witnesses at the TRIAL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Nancy: someone critical of Trump and the Republicans says that she gambled and lost.

Pelosi's goal was simple: To try to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's hand. Pelosi wanted to use her possession of the articles of impeachment to yield promises and/or compromises from McConnell -- most notably on the issue of witnesses being allowed to be called in the Senate trial.

Except that McConnell wasn't playing ball.

"There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure," McConnell said earlier this month. "We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats' turn is over. The Senate has made its decision." And McConnell backed up that no-negotiation position with a show of force: Announcing that he had secured the support of a majority of the Senate to begin the impeachment trial without any decision on witnesses.

Which left Pelosi hung out to dry. The leverage she imagined she possessed to get McConnell to accede to her wishes didn't exist. McConnell was perfectly happy waiting while Pelosi held on to the articles of impeachment, probably believing rightly that these sorts of delaying tactics would look like just more Washington funny business to the average person. And he knew that whenever she decided to send the articles over, he had a majority waiting to open the trial without any promises made on witnesses.

Never mind, Nancy ......... next time!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnnell/index.html

Republican pundits disgree and feel there will be a vote on witnesses that may get up to 12 GOP defectors and those same defectors will want to hear from at least 4 witnesses: Bolton, Duffy and Mulvaney among them.

Yeah, this is classic. R's bragging that Pelosi is transmitting the articles of impeachment just the way McConnell wants her to, but somehow since this standoff started it's looking more and more like there will be witnesses. I don't think the winner this round is clear just yet (until the rules are voted on) but I'm leaning towards Nancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Nancy: someone critical of Trump and the Republicans says that she gambled and lost.

Pelosi's goal was simple: To try to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's hand. Pelosi wanted to use her possession of the articles of impeachment to yield promises and/or compromises from McConnell -- most notably on the issue of witnesses being allowed to be called in the Senate trial.

Except that McConnell wasn't playing ball.

"There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure," McConnell said earlier this month. "We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats' turn is over. The Senate has made its decision." And McConnell backed up that no-negotiation position with a show of force: Announcing that he had secured the support of a majority of the Senate to begin the impeachment trial without any decision on witnesses.

Which left Pelosi hung out to dry. The leverage she imagined she possessed to get McConnell to accede to her wishes didn't exist. McConnell was perfectly happy waiting while Pelosi held on to the articles of impeachment, probably believing rightly that these sorts of delaying tactics would look like just more Washington funny business to the average person. And he knew that whenever she decided to send the articles over, he had a majority waiting to open the trial without any promises made on witnesses.

Never mind, Nancy ......... next time!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnnell/index.html

Republican pundits disgree and feel there will be a vote on witnesses that may get up to 12 GOP defectors and those same defectors will want to hear from at least 4 witnesses: Bolton, Duffy and Mulvaney among them.

Citation for this .......

and if it is a figment of your imagination, it does not count as a valid citation!

[Anonymous]

Dear Nancy is a great strategist ....... I mean she is a legend in her own mind as a great strategist.

Why would she embark on this foolhardy exercise to hold the articles of impeachment when she has zero leverage to enforce it? All that happened is that she ended up caving when senators from her own party criticized her for her dumb move. McConnell made her eat crow.

[Anonymous]

What were the Democrats thinking, or expecting? Pelosi was previously a bad House Speaker, and during all throughout the Obama years the Democrats themselves were looking to end Pelosi. Yet here we are yet again, and her gamble to hold the articles has completely backfired. Not surprising she fumbled the ball yet again, and now the Democrats must be re-reminded about why they were previously trying to push her out. Pelosi knows she should have never gone for impeachment, but she had to do it to feed the rabid far left faction that has taken over the party. They claimed that she should have withheld the articles to obtain some leverage. Well, we can all see that was a fantasy. Pelosi obtained no leverage, the American public now cares very little about the impeachment, and now the trial risk spilling over into the Democratic primaries where Warren and Sanders are running. Unfortunately nfor Warren and Sanders, they'll be stuck in Washington during the trial and won't be able to campaign. What a debacle in terms of timing and outcome because of Pelosi's gaffe. There is higher probability now that the Democrats will be stuck with Joe Biden with Warren and Sanders may be kneecapped from campaigning. Trump will now get pardoned and Democrats will fracture once the bases for Bernie and Warren learn that Pelosi's stupid gamble has backfired and will prevent their candidates from running l. McConnell has just been given a nuclear weapons to destroy the Democrats for 2020 if he makes the trial drag into the Dem primaries. The Dem base will implode due inter tribal fighting. The Dems should have either a) just focused on winnining the election or b) gotten done the impeachment as fast as possible. Too bad Pelosi, due to her record of poor judgement, caved into the fringe left's strategy that is now threatening to inflict serious damage on the Dems' 2020 chances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Senate is going to have a legitimate trial and at least 4 witnesses will be compelled to testify; or at a minimum, Bolton will, though don't be surprised if Lev Parnas becomes a witness to testify as well.

If Bolton does in fact testify and it goes consistent with Fiona Hill's testimony, the GOP are going to have a hard time not removing Trump from office. Even if the Senators that are in purple states vote to remove and there aren't enough total to remove, it will be a stain on the GOP that the 2020 elections will settle in terms of control of the Senate and White House.

Yes, Trump had 62 million voters in 2016. He likely has fewer than that now. But there are 285 million voters who will be awakened by such a travesty.

I wouldn’t be so sure that Bolton’s testimony will go the way you think.
I agree with the pp - good job staying optimistic. Right now, it’s all that you’ve got.

I don't trust Bolton, either. I think he has all kinds of "insider" and longterm professional considerations that will lead to a far more nuanced testimony than the outcome-shifting bombshell we might hope for.

Bolton is boxed in by Fiona Hill's and Vindman's testimony, and to some extent by Sondland's, because they all agree that Sondland brought up the investigations as a demand to the Ukrainian delegation at the White House and Bolton reacted strongly against him doing so. We also now have reports that Bolton and Esper met with Trump and asked him to release the security assistance and Trump refused. Bolton can't credibly deny that those things happened. Maybe he could try to blame it all on Giuliani and Sondland and Perry and Mulvaney, but only idiots would believe that they were not acting on Trump's instructions.

Well, that's exactly what I mean. Unless he's throwing flames in words and tone, Trump and his supporters will claim "nothing to see here."

[Anonymous]

What happens if Trump exercises executive privilege ........ please only informed opinions on what the legalities are in such a situation as opposed to outright speculation.