It would be an embarrassing strategy under normal circumstances. To his supporters, it paints him as a victim and that is all they care about.
Donald Trump - All things impeachment.... | Acquitted in the Senate
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
- Status
Depends on whether it continues to be a farce or whether the GOP find they’ve bitten off more than they can chew.
0 gop senators will vote for impeachment. This whole thing is pointless.
Would you prefer his behaviour went by without any sort of official condemnation?
I'd prefer they impeach him for things that people care about.
Do you think they should impeach him for tweeting Fredo at Cuomo?
I find that people don't care about most things in general when it comes to politics. Doesn't mean impeachment shouldn't have happened. Anyways, more than 50% of people think he should have been impeached so that's good enough in the current times.
You really don't get it do you? (smh)
Hilarious.
Personally I think it’s a bad idea to impeach him for the serious stuff “that people care about”, because it will go exactly the same way and he will be acquitted in the senate. At least this way, if he’s out of office this year he will be facing an absolute tonne of criminal charges as a Democratic appointed AG can appoint a special counsel to investigate the corruption of the previous Administration and the likes of Trump, Barr, Pompeo, Mnunchin, Mulvaney will have none of their political instruments to obstruct justice.
If he gets re-elected this year and the Democrats hold the house then they’ve got nothing to lose and they can go for a much slower impeachment process making sure that everything goes right through the courts this time.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Don’t underestimate Murkowski. She does not talk too much, but she is the most independent voter from Republican senators. If it goes to a vote, I see her voting for witnesses to be allowed (Collins and Romney are all talk, so I don’t trust them voting for witnesses). Agree that in a draw, SJ Roberts will allow the witnesses.
And I explained in more detail what I meant in another post and you still spouted your "bollocks" comment like a troll.
Go ahead and keep euphemistically reducing the point I explained in further detail if you want but the fact is, most people are not paying attention to this and the idea that people have more time to pay attention to impeachment now than in 1970 is as you would so eloquently spout "bollocks".
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The difference is that people can follow simple stuff. Only people who read twitter or watch msnbc all day can even tell you what the impeachment charges are.
So you think impeachment is only a process that should happen if it’s simple enough for the lowest common denominators to follow?
I think there's plenty to impeach him on and they chose poorly.
None of the previous stuff was as provable beyond a doubt as this one is : phone call recording, transcript, high profile witnesses. That's why he is not even denying it.
The reason they used impeachment in this case is because they found out Trump was corruptly using Congressionally allocated funds to pressure a foreign state into announcing a sham investigation into a political opponent and impeachment was literally the only tool they had to expose it and stop him as the whistleblower had already tried every protocol available to them through the executive branch and intelligence community but found their concerns had been stonewalled.
If they didn‘t use impeachment, Trump would have continued unperturbed.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Gives some insight into Bolton's intentions:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/john-bolton-wont-give-anything-away-free/605614/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/john-bolton-wont-give-anything-away-free/605614/
Well, his lawyers are media talking heads aren't they? Populism at its finest I bet.
I didn’t say people have more time, but they certainly have much easier ways of keeping up to date with events now than they did back then, and back then people still managed just fine.
As for whether most people are paying attention, given that only around 57% of eligible voters actually even bothered to vote in 2016, that’s hardly either a surprise or a major issue. The people who are paying attention and putting pressure on their senators are very interested, as are many primary voters, donors etc.
Montana doesn't have analysts.
What would be a good thing to impeach him on in your view? Border cages?
Sorry but this is nonsense! Pelosi was loathe to impeach the Orange Turd and they resisted impeaching him till he absolutely gave them no option. They simply had to act once the whistle-blower complaint was made.
Maybe a lot of Americans don't care a whole lot about it but that's not the issue.
Trump abused his power in a blatant way.
They had to act.
There's the 3. That's all you get folks, Mitch'll have the rest rounded up.
Who would have thought John Bolton would be the Dems wet dream 
Wet dream indeedWho would have thought John Bolton would be the Dems wet dream
Even if nothing comes of it, they still have to hold him accountable. And no impeachment has ever led to conviction and removal so it's not like there is some gold standard we can go by. It will also be important for historical purposes because Trump's legacy will always have impeachment. The guy's a megalomaniac so he deserves it.
I have absolutely no idea what their angle is at this point? Are they straight on to: yes he did it, yes it probably was wrong but who cares?
Another one of Trump's dopey lawyers apparently made the case for witnesses by suggesting "we won't know if any of these allegations are true because there are no witnesses to substitute them".
They don't really care about making an argument for the impeachment jury. They know Trump is not getting removed whatever they say or don't say. They simply want to confuse the public. Well, that has been the republican go-to tactic for many many years.
I'm recording Dershowitz for whenever I get insomnia. I bet if they filmed the room half the people are asleep.
So Ken Starr was arguing that we should not impeach Trump because it has become too common to impeach a President and it hurts the country?? The Ken Starr ?
Wet dream indeed
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Anything short of jack nicholson i ordered the code red on live telly will not be enough to send the don packing
Would still be great to have witnesses though, as it would make the GOP Senators squirm in the lead up to elections (as well they should)
- Status