House Impeachment Inquiry

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Craig4

There's nothing secret about it. If he were out of the business entirely, he wouldn't have pitched his bedbug infested resort in Florida at the G-7.

Secretly meaning intentional subterfuge in the decision making, not just publicly promoting his hotels and resorts. Does anyone really think Donnie Jr and Eric are running things without Daddy's orders?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Secretly meaning intentional subterfuge in the decision making, not just publicly promoting his hotels and resorts. Does anyone really think Donnie Jr and Eric are running things without Daddy's orders?

Of course not; that would be absurd. Running such a business requires at least near human intelligence and Trump's nits who grew into lice don't have that.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Of course not; that would be absurd. Running such a business requires at least near human intelligence and Trump's nits who grew into lice don't have that.

Trump's narcissism would never permit him losing absolute control over his business. Never. That's why he refused to put it in a blind trust.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are half right. Trump is no angel though I can't tell if he is more dishonest than past presidents - just more blatant.

If you can't see the difference, there is no doubt this fits the "willful ignorance" category.

Originally Posted by psionl0

It seems that the purpose of the impeachment is simply to give him unfavourable publicity and hopefully make him lose the election. Making him face legal sanctions for his wrong doings seems almost irrelevant.

Yeah right. It's just fine for Presidents to blatantly profit from the job.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

...

The only way to dissuade future profiteers from seeking high political office is to make it costly for them by holding them legally accountable for their crimes.
We won't get another Trump if as a result of the Investigations Trump loses all his wealth.

This ^

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Where did you get this rubbish from?

There is no profit in becoming POTUS. It is extremely costly to run and this is the main reason why only the seriously wealthy can afford to try. Many ex-presidents have to go on the speaking circuit in order to service the debt they incurred from running for office.

Trump doesn't have to spend a dime on his defence. The Senate wouldn't vote against Trump if they had video footage of every crime that Trump was accused of.

Holey Moley!

Trump didn't spend any of his own money on his campaign.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Holey Moley!

Trump didn't spend any of his own money on his campaign.

I take everything that has been said at face value. Trump financed his campaign entirely from donations or raided his businesses in a non-transparent way. Trump still continues to hold offices of profit while serving as POTUS.

I don't know how illegal his activities are. If they were truly illegal then there is nothing to stop him being charged right now. The fact that he hasn't suggests that it is not as clear cut as people here want it to be.

None of that changes anything that I originally stated: Trump will not be impeached!!! This whole process is about votes. That may not be an illegitimate use of impeachment but don't pretend that it is about anything else.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by psionl0

...

I don't know how illegal his activities are. If they were truly illegal then there is nothing to stop him being charged right now.

...

You are not quite correct:

because there never was such a Grifter-in-Chief means that there is no Case Law on how to deal with him.
The biggest problem isn't evidence (there is plenty) but Standing:

who gets to sue when the President uses his position to direct business to his companies?
who gets to sue when Trump forces the Secret Service to spend millions at his Golf Clubs?

This is all stuff that is currently being asked of courts, and until we have an answer, pending lawsuits are stuck.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by psionl0

If they were truly illegal then there is nothing to stop him being charged right now.

Still not paying attention, huh?

Yeah, there's "nothing" to stop him being charged right now.....except, for example, the OLC memo that says exactly that: He can't be charged right now. Oh, and of course that little bitty fact that Robert Mueller even said he was abiding by that particular memo. You know, that's a pretty damned significant "nothing" you're ignoring.

I would recommend you start paying attention before posting anymore nonsense.

[Cabbage]

Oh, yeah, and I just thought it would be helpful to point out that this also implies you have no idea (in this particular case) that any impeachment of Trump would simply be about votes.

One thing I've noticed: Grifters are generally more successful with their con games when grifting people that don't bother to pay attention.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cory Lewandowski hearing today in front of the House Judiciary Committee is a painful joke.

The Republicans have Trump-lies-talking-points they are repeating one after the other in concerted effort: everything from the dossier was a Hillary fake to this is all a continuation of the witch hunt.

The Democrats have an uncoordinated weak response. Very frustrating to watch.

[AnonyMoose]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Cory Lewandowski hearing today in front of the House Judiciary Committee is a painful joke.

The Republicans have Trump-lies-talking-points they are repeating one after the other in concerted effort: everything from the dossier was a Hillary fake to this is all a continuation of the witch hunt.

The Democrats have an uncoordinated weak response. Very frustrating to watch.

Not only that, but it's really really really really really important to republicans that everybody be reminded every few minutes that Lewandowski is sitting in front of the committee voluntarily.

It's really really really important that we not forget he's volunteering his time.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Cory Lewandowski hearing today in front of the House Judiciary Committee is a painful joke.

The Republicans have Trump-lies-talking-points they are repeating one after the other in concerted effort: everything from the dossier was a Hillary fake to this is all a continuation of the witch hunt.

The Democrats have an uncoordinated weak response. Very frustrating to watch.

Frustrating?! I had to bail early lest I destroy my phone.

I *like* to think that after Trump is rightly relegated to the dumpster of history, more than a few Goopers will look back on their 'performance' in these times with at least a twinge of shame.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Frustrating?! I had to bail early lest I destroy my phone.

I *like* to think that after Trump is rightly relegated to the dumpster of history, more than a few Goopers will look back on their 'performance' in these times with at least a twinge of shame.

I admit I found myself muting the GOP and sometimes channel surfing. Fifteen minutes and you saw everything.

[Frank Newgent]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-disaster.html

Quote:

The main thrust of Berke’s very effective questioning was to demonstrate that Lewandowski, contrary to his testimony, knew that what Trump had asked him to do was wrong—and possibly criminal—which is why he concealed it from the public. But we should also pause, please, to just let the other key takeaway soak in: Lewandowski, on the same day he rolls out a Senate run, says in a nationally televised hearing that he has no duty to be truthful “with the media.” Someone who has been a paid contributor for CNN, then One America News Network, and who has appeared on Fox News and the Sunday talk shows seems to make a distinction between lying “to the media” and lying to the unsuspecting American public that consumes the media.

This is next-level gaslighting. The same witness who announced to the world that he owes a duty of truth under oath, but that he may lie to the press with impunity, is launching a run for high office. The person who spat the words “fake news” at his hearing, in response to questions he didn’t like, boasted about actually creating and disseminating fake news when caught in a lie. There is a special grade of nihilism required to dismiss all unflattering media stories as fake, but the nihilism of dismissing one’s own lies to the press as justified is truly astounding.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The Ukraine issue has been the straw that broke Pelosi's back - the impeachment inquiry is now officially official

[Puppycow]

Saw this by Frank Bruni in the New York Times, and I kind of agree:

Why a Trump Impeachment Should Terrify You

Quote:

What’s just and what’s wise aren’t always the same.

I'll just quote these two paragraphs from the middle of the piece as the main point:

Quote:

Any scenario is possible, including one in which impeachment redounds to Trump’s benefit and increases the chances of his re-election, because he paints himself a martyr, eludes conviction in the Senate, frames that as exoneration and watches his fans mobilize and turn out as never before. And a second Trump term wouldn’t just be the sadly suboptimal byproduct of a noble stand; it would be disastrous. Morally as well as practically, limiting this unfit, amoral, unsteady man’s time in the presidency takes precedence over any small cluster of sentences written centuries ago.

But while an impeachment’s impact on November 2020 is unknowable, its effect on us as a nation is almost certain. A dangerously polarized and often viciously partisan country would grow more so, with people on opposing sides hunkering down deeper in their camps and clinging harder to their chosen narratives as the president — concerned only with himself — ratcheted up his insistence that truth itself was subjective and up for grabs.

What I believe is almost certain is that the Senate will not have enough votes to remove the president from office.

I personally would like him to be removed from office, even if that means Pence, who I am no fan of, becomes president. But that's not going to be the end result of this process barring something I can't imagine or expect right now. Assuming that there are enough votes in the House to refer articles of impeachment to the Senate, the end result will still almost certainly be that the president remains in office. He may even try to spin that as some kind of vindication or exoneration. I don't know how this all works out politically in 2020. Whether it adds or subtracts any votes from Trump or his eventual opponent. If Trump is reelected though, I think that would be a tragedy. And the people who wanted this impeachment will be even more frustrated than ever if that's where we find ourselves on the morning of November 4th, 2020.

[Frank Newgent]

Somebody's gotta say it, I will... the Senate convicts Trump. It's a no-brainer.

I mean... he's an idiot. They'll have no choice.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Frank Newgent

Somebody's gotta say it, I will... the Senate convicts Trump. It's a no-brainer.

I mean... he's an idiot. They'll have no choice.

Are you serious? I'll assume you're serious.

What about partisan politics? Have you considered the influence of that?
The Senate will not convict because there are too many members of the president's party in the Senate. It's simply math. Republican Senators won't vote against Trump because that could hurt their own reelection chances.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Are you serious? I'll assume you're serious.

What about partisan politics? Have you considered the influence of that?
The Senate will not convict because there are too many members of the president's party in the Senate. It's simply math. Republican Senators won't vote against Trump because that could hurt their own reelection chances.

I'm not sure it's that simple. There is another kind of math you're not considering and that is election polling. These guys are going to do what keeps their own political careers alive. And they will turn on Trump in an instant if they believe it is the most politically smart thing to do.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm not sure it's that simple. There is another kind of math you're not considering and that is election polling. These guys are going to do what keeps their own political careers alive. And they will turn on Trump in an instant if they believe it is the most politically smart thing to do.

I don't doubt they would turn on Trump the instant it became the choice that helped them keep their job.

I just really doubt that the Rebublican base would turn on Trump for anything.

And so long as the large majority of GOP voters are in bed with Trump, so is the senate.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I don't doubt they would turn on Trump the instant it became the choice that helped them keep their job.

I just really doubt that the Rebublican base would turn on Trump for anything.

And so long as the large majority of GOP voters are in bed with Trump, so is the senate.

Well, it remains to be "sussed out". The Senate moved forward with the demand that the Report be released. Is this calculation on their part, knowing that it's going to get released regardless of Barr/Trump shenanigans? In other words are they just trying to get ahead of the story and will revert to abject partisanship.

There are cracks showing in the foundations of Trump's support in the Senate. Not just the above but on both votes (largely for show) to deny him his emergency declaration (better known as Trump's Pilfering of Military Funds) to finance his wall. A dozen GOP Senators voted with the Dems the first time. This week's vote has only eleven Republicans but only because Rubio was absent; he was the twelfth and there's no reason to think he's changed his mind.

Now, these aren't Impeachment votes, but there are certainly enough GOP Senators who are willing to make a cosmetic show of things. Could go no where... it'll depend on whether Mitch threatens to tighten the purse strings on the re-election funds, but it could be an indication of shell-shock within the party. By the time the GOP hustled Nixon out of office, both parties were just plain worn out. This is going to get more vicious and more tiring over the next few months.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I don't doubt they would turn on Trump the instant it became the choice that helped them keep their job.

I just really doubt that the Rebublican base would turn on Trump for anything.

And so long as the large majority of GOP voters are in bed with Trump, so is the senate.

This.
It would take 67 Senators to remove a president. 47 are Democrats, so that means you need 20 Republicans to turn on their president. There would have to be a shift of opinion in the Republican base for that to become conceivable.

Here's a headline I saw a couple days ago:
Senate GOP vows to quash impeachment articles

To be sure, these are individual Senators speaking for themselves, but it still seems like a long, long shot at best.

There's also the matter that no poll has yet shown a majority of registered voters favor impeachment.

https://www.pollingreport.com/

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump's power is very much one of perception - always was for his entire life.

IF Republicans see he at risk, he is at risk - it might only take one major setback for the GOP to swap him out for Pence.
And the fact that as soon as Pelosi cried "Impeachment" Trump handed over all transcripts and complaints shows that he is in the defensive; and there is no clear path for him to get into the offense again before 2020.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So many people are so quick to jump ahead using the GOP narrative today as if nothing could possibly change.

History of the Nixon impeachment demonstrates these things are not static.

You watch, that Trump narrative is getting stale. Maybe all it needs is someone standing up and pointing out the Emperor has no clothes.

[Puppycow]

Time will tell. I hope you are right.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This.
It would take 67 Senators to remove a president. 47 are Democrats, so that means you need 20 Republicans to turn on their president. There would have to be a shift of opinion in the Republican base for that to become conceivable.

Here's a headline I saw a couple days ago:
Senate GOP vows to quash impeachment articles

To be sure, these are individual Senators speaking for themselves, but it still seems like a long, long shot at best.

There's also the matter that no poll has yet shown a majority of registered voters favor impeachment.

https://www.pollingreport.com/

Accorting to the article it takes four GOP Senators to break with the party and vote with dignity in order to even consider the trial workable. Moscow Mitch will abuse his powers as majority leader to the greatest extent possible, to ensure as few pieces of evidence are presented. It'll be a show trial where a good deal of the jury is there to find the defendant innocent.

Not mere "not guilty", but "innocent". If it comes to a trial in the Senate, that's what Moscow Mitch will be after.

Of course such a sham of a trial could well backfire on GOP. Such blatant abuse of power over something this important might peel away a little more support still. Plus there's always the risk of losing those few crucial Seantors out of a group of 53, making his abuse of power ineffective.

McHrozni

[The Great Zaganza]

There is no such thing as a verdict of innocence.
But that hasn't stopped Trump and his sTrumpets from claiming "Total Vindication".

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This.
It would take 67 Senators to remove a president. 47 are Democrats, so that means you need 20 Republicans to turn on their president. There would have to be a shift of opinion in the Republican base for that to become conceivable.

It's recently been claimed that 30 Republican Senators would vote to impeach ... IF the vote were secret.

Quote:

A longtime adviser to Republicans has claimed that if the tally were held in secret, 30 Republican senators would vote to remove President Trump from office.

Mike Murphy, who has worked as a senior adviser to now-Sen. Mitt Romney and the late Sen. John McCain, appeared Wednesday on MSNBC and said that if the Democratic-led House votes to impeach the president and the Senate acquits him, it could spell political damage the Republican Party in 2020.

“I can tell you this, one Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump,” Murphy said.

It's all about loyalty to the party. Or at least the appearance of loyalty.

[JoeMorgue]

That's just a new version of "The Lurkers all agree with me" card with a sprinkle of "People really agree with me, they are just embarrassed/scared to say so."

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm not sure it's that simple. There is another kind of math you're not considering and that is election polling. These guys are going to do what keeps their own political careers alive. And they will turn on Trump in an instant if they believe it is the most politically smart thing to do.

Problem is there's no data on that. The 2018 midterm was practically treated as the "Did we really mean to elect Trump?" election with all the focus being on whether or not candidate who were "close" (nebulous as that term is) to Trump go re-elected or not and I don't remember a real consensus being reached.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Of course such a sham of a trial could well backfire on GOP. Such blatant abuse of power over something this important might peel away a little more support still. Plus there's always the risk of losing those few crucial Seantors out of a group of 53, making his abuse of power ineffective.

McHrozni

This. Make them own it.

It's not just the Senate that will be looking at Trump, it's the entire electorate. And they'll see the evidence against Trump as well. If it's plainly clear that Trump is guilty, that will be public knowledge.

So let them stand up and publicly vote to support the guy who everyone else thinks is guilty. Make them own it.

Until now, all these GOP senators have gotten off lightly, because Trump and Moscow Mitch have been stonewalling every attempt to make the senate do its damn job. But this is one thing they probably can't stonewall. So now it's time for these senators to decide if they have any principles at all, or if they're just toadies for a criminal president.

Make them own it.

[Marcus]

So far, there is no smoking gun, making this more of a Clinton type event than a Nixon type event. If the Dems vote for impeachment in the house, they are really just shooting themselves in the foot, probably insuring Trumps reelection. Unless of course something more substantial comes to light, something that would peruade the Republicans to turn on him.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Marcus

So far, there is no smoking gun, making this more of a Clinton type event than a Nixon type event. If the Dems vote for impeachment in the house, they are really just shooting themselves in the foot, probably insuring Trumps reelection. Unless of course something more substantial comes to light, something that would peruade the Republicans to turn on him.

If you don't consider notes showing and Trump himself even admitting that he asked a foreign leader to start an investigation into a political opponent, a smoking gun, what do you need?

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

So far, there is no smoking gun, making this more of a Clinton type event than a Nixon type event. If the Dems vote for impeachment in the house, they are really just shooting themselves in the foot, probably insuring Trumps reelection. Unless of course something more substantial comes to light, something that would peruade the Republicans to turn on him.

A "smoking gun" is circumstantial evidence strong enough that a reasonable person can only reach one plausible conclusion, and we have that plus a confession. A "so what" defense is not the same thing as a reasonable doubt about what happened.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If you don't consider notes showing and Trump himself even admitting that he asked a foreign leader to start an investigation into a political opponent, a smoking gun, what do you need?

It's a value judgement really. By now we have all heard the conversation, my opinion is that it won't be enough to convince Republicans to vote to convict Trump in the Senate. Therefor we have a Clinton type event, the House impeaches but the Senate does not convict. Trump claims exoneration and uses it to forward the narrative that he is being persecuted, leveraging this into a win over Biden or Warren. I'm not saying this necessarily will happen, but I see it as a definite possibility.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

It's a value judgement really. By now we have all heard the conversation, my opinion is that it won't be enough to convince Republicans to vote to convict Trump in the Senate. Therefor we have a Clinton type event, the House impeaches but the Senate does not convict. Trump claims exoneration and uses it to forward the narrative that he is being persecuted, leveraging this into a win over Biden or Warren. I'm not saying this necessarily will happen, but I see it as a definite possibility.

This doesn't even remotely resemble a Clinton-type offense, so I'm not sure why anyone would use that as a predictive model.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

A "smoking gun" is circumstantial evidence strong enough that a reasonable person can only reach one plausible conclusion, and we have that plus a confession. A "so what" defense is not the same thing as a reasonable doubt about what happened.

Nixon's case was a smoking gun. So much so that he resigned before he could be convicted by the Senate. I just don't think this will happen here.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Nixon's case was a smoking gun. So much so that he resigned before he could be convicted by the Senate. I just don't think this will happen here.

Trump's conversation with Zelensky after ordering the military aid to be withheld is a smoking gun, too, but Trump just thinks that he's allowed to shoot people.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

This doesn't even remotely resemble a Clinton-type offense, so I'm not sure why anyone would use that as a predictive model.

I'm not trying to equate the two offenses, I'm equating the two outcomes. I'm saying that I'm predicting that, like Clinton, if he is impeached by the house he will not be convicted by the senate.