|
The Senate is never going to convict and remove Trump from office, so whichever articles they pick are kind of pointless. This is mostly a political gamble for 2020. Every channel -should- run the trial 24/7 so that all of the evidence is put right in front of the nation, which is gonna make it really hard for the Republicans in 2020. My only small remaining hope is that they drag out some witnesses during the trial that have some absolutely horrendous evidence on Trump and other Republicans (i.e. Parnas). I think that's the only way Trump is removed.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
mdemone posted:That wasn't my point. They're choosing articles of impeachment based on which ones they can most easily demonstrate. When the jury disagrees, who have you convinced? Your focus is the 3-4 most vulnerable Senators in the United States Senate, the ones most likely to lose reelection by voting to acquit. You do this by focusing your attention on the two biggest gimme articles of impeachment. It is plain that Trump has abused the power of his office and it is equally plain that he has obstructed the investigation into his behavior. Both of these are crimes, so that's what he'll be impeached for--and when Gardner/Collins/McSally/Tillis are asked to take public stands, it's going to make their lives much harder the following November. Convince the "convinceable" people, and you have won the battle you have been trying to win from day one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Your focus is the 3-4 most vulnerable Senators in the United States Senate, the ones most likely to lose reelection by voting to acquit. You do this by focusing your attention on the two biggest gimme articles of impeachment. It is plain that Trump has abused the power of his office and it is equally plain that he has obstructed the investigation into his behavior. Both of these are crimes, so that's what he'll be impeached for--and when Gardner/Collins/McSally/Tillis are asked to take public stands, it's going to make their lives much harder the following November. I guess I know this, it's just fuckin' frustrating as hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Maybe two GOP senators, maybe three will lose their jobs over this. It might be enough to take the Senate, I guess that's the best-case scenario. That's literally the hope yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:That's literally the hope yes. If the Democrats win the Senate in 2020, that likely means they won the White House as well, so I will take that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
SchrodingersCat posted:If the Democrats win the Senate in 2020, that likely means they won the White House as well, so I will take that. Don't be so sure. It's entirely possible to win both houses, and still have Trump win the EC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Mueller hosed up whatever impact his report should have had by hemming and hawing and refusing to say straight out that there was obstruction of justice. He was being a good soldier, but that is not what this country really needs right now and he did not step up beyond that. He let Barr and the media bury the actual content and is probably at home feeling sorry for himself when he's alone. Trying to impeach Trump on the Mueller count is legally sound, but from a political/PR front, it's probably too uncertain and feeds into the "WITCH HUNT" narrative the GOP wants to build. Most people seem to believe, rightfully or wrongfully, that the Report is not a smoking gun when it actually is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:But the selection of articles make it political rather than legal or moral. It's articles of impeachment that are about the democrats not liking Trump, rather than Trump being a criminal. This is the end result of a congress that was only willing to impeach because Trump started messing with democrats and were happy to just squawk and do nothing about the rest of his crimes. These are exactly the opposite: these are the articles that are about Trump violating the constitution, as opposed to Trump being a bad man with bad appointees and bad policy objectives. It is possible to disagree about whether it's good to refuse refugees entry into the country. I think it is a very bad thing to do, but not everyone agrees with me. Unfortunately it is clearly within the president's authority to decide. Unlike the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which was nominally "perjury is beneath a president's dignity" but was actually "adultery!! in the OVAL OFFICE!! cleanse our country of this CONCUPISCENT CRIMINAL!!", these articles are very narrowly "president did thing constitution said not to do". Pissed Ape Sexist posted:
Right. We know (like, we-this-thread know) that the president wanted assistance from Russia, but we can't prove he asked, prove he got it, or prove he knew he had it. The Mueller report, which could have been used to prove that, or at least as grounds for Congress to call more witnesses, was successfully spun by AG Barr; articles based on it, or even an inquiry based on it, would be 'political' and 'sour grapes' and 'overturning 2016' et cetera ad infinitum. See above re: refugees, and expand to immigration more generally, nazis being very fine people, &c. The only chance that impeachment has of not dying in the Senate is if enough Republicans think "oh, poo poo, when Michelle Obama becomes president, she'll use Our Savior Trump's precedent to do Horrible Things!!!!11one"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Don't be so sure. It's entirely possible to win both houses, and still have Trump win the EC. Trump wouldn't survive four years of Dem opposition in the House and Senate, he'd die of apoplexy before then. Then we would have President Pence, who is a much more conventional type of evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
SchrodingersCat posted:Trump wouldn't survive four years of Dem opposition in the House and Senate, he'd die of apoplexy before then. yeah and we would probably work with him until he was voted out in 2024. id rather have trump either get booted now or more likely get voted out in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
SchrodingersCat posted:Trump wouldn't survive four years of Dem opposition in the House and Senate, he'd die of apoplexy before then. A Democratic Senate would mean Donny gets no more judges either, so that would be a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:The only chance that impeachment has of not dying in the Senate is if enough Republicans think "oh, poo poo, when Michelle Obama becomes president, she'll use Our Savior Trump's precedent to do Horrible Things!!!!11one" The only chance that impeachment has of not dying in the Senate is if McConnell somehow crosses that particular finish line first.* * absolutely not an endorsement of aggressive brain amoebas Pissed Ape Sexist fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Dec 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:yeah and we would probably work with him until he was voted out in 2024. id rather have trump either get booted now or more likely get voted out in 2020. That would be optimal, but optimal is rarely attained. I don't think Trump gets booted. I think at this point there is a >50% chance he gets voted out in 2020, which is better than I felt a month ago. I think 2020 is going to be a really good bellwether of the direction our country is moving in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
SchrodingersCat posted:That would be optimal, but optimal is rarely attained. same. i think the last two elections and just polls in general plus trumps general gently caress ups have helped me feel better. i doubt he will get removed but i think the trial will be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
The purpose of this all is to air it out to the public as much as possible. If and when there are presidential debates, questions can be brought up that the public will remember about Trump being a corrupt, obstructive person who is rat loving the country. Our best hope is who ever the Dem nominee is, they’ll be able to hold Donnys feet to the fire in debates. And that we also make sure that Ken Bone is kept away at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Are they seriously saying that there was no obstruction?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Are they seriously saying that there was no obstruction? Who do you mean by "they"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Obstruction of Congress sounds like “Of course the President wanted to fight the witch hunt Congress is doing! He was justified!” versus “Justice” And Mueller is probably sipping Mai Tais not giving a care about what he left behind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Fox News' website headline right now is "Baseless and Partisan". I am sure the irony of that being the first thing you see when you load their website has not occurred to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Trump isn't getting removed from office via impeachment. It was never going to happen, and still isn't going to happen. I can't figure out how/where this idea got legs........ The endgame has always been potentially flipping some senate seats and improving 2020 presidential election odds for the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Trump isn't getting removed from office via impeachment. It was never going to happen, and still isn't going to happen. this is certainly the smart prediction, but given what we've learned without a single document being handed over and without questioning trump's cabinet, don't rule out some shocking revelations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Trump isn't getting removed from office via impeachment. It was never going to happen, and still isn't going to happen. I assume it got legs because he should be impeached and some people are still under the illusion that justice is something that exists?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:this is certainly the smart prediction, but given what we've learned without a single document being handed over and without questioning trump's cabinet, don't rule out some shocking revelations. I can't envision any evidence that comes to light that causes a Republican Senate to vote to remove the president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Trump isn't getting removed from office via impeachment. It was never going to happen, and still isn't going to happen. In theory we shouldn't be doing things like moving for impeachment, inquiring about impeachment, or actually impeaching unless we think we're going to accomplish both impeachment and removal. It shouldn't be a publicity stunt. The goal of bringing someone to trial shouldn't be to make them look bad, it should be because we, the bringer, think the someone should be convicted. (We expect a DA who knows they have no case, never mind one that is certain the accused is innocent, to dismiss charges, for example.) (In practice I called my (Democratic) congressperson on a regular basis to ask him to support each and every move towards impeachment, because it was important to me that my representative show support for the idea even though I knew impeachment was never going to happen in a Republican-held House. But that's why we talk about "how removal might actually be accomplished.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Why is Pelosi supporting Trump's trade deal on the same day she calls up two articles for impeachment?? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Don't be so sure. It's entirely possible to win both houses, and still have Trump win the EC. It's possible, but not with someone like Trump Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million. Granted that has nothing to do with who gets elected, but it's telling. He won by getting a narrow majority in four states. Something like 100,000 votes decided the election out of 123,000,000 or like 0.005% (numbers representative, not necessarily accurate) He has only become less popular as time has gone on, and will not be going against a historically unpopular opponent, and won't have the media implying that it's impossible for him to win this time. While it's not impossible for him to win his barriers are a lot higher than they were in 2016 when he had a ~25-30% chance of winning
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Why is Pelosi supporting Trump's trade deal on the same day she calls up two articles for impeachment?? Because she sucks and the Democratic establishment would rather Trump get re-elected than an actual progressive become President.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
There is a world where Trump is removed from office, but it requires his approval to collapse and for the party as a whole to turn on him like what happened in South Korea. 30% approval isn't that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Why is Pelosi supporting Trump's trade deal on the same day she calls up two articles for impeachment?? Probably because it benefits rich people and fucks over the poors I'm assuming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:It's possible, but not with someone like Trump Trump got 63 million votes in 2016, while Democrats in house elections in 2018 got 60 million votes. Trump is toast in 2020
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:There is a world where Trump is removed from office, but it requires his approval to collapse and for the party as a whole to turn on him like what happened in South Korea. 30% approval isn't that point. people forget how quickly public support just collapsed in SK. I doubt there is anything letting Trump get below 20-25%, but a collapse isn't exactly unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Why is Pelosi supporting Trump's trade deal on the same day she calls up two articles for impeachment?? My best guess is they think it'll defuse some of the partisan framing of impeachment? That's all I got. It ain't much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Why is Pelosi supporting Trump's trade deal on the same day she calls up two articles for impeachment?? In theory, its to attack the idea that the democrats aren't getting anything done In reality, its decorum poisoning
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:people forget how quickly public support just collapsed in SK. I doubt there is anything letting Trump get below 20-25%, but a collapse isn't exactly unprecedented. I'd wager with such a strong propaganda mechanism in place there is NOTHING that could happen to every tank support like what happened with Nixon. Since truth is mutable and determined by party handlers, his supporters will never have to deal or reconcile with counter-information that may upset them and cause them to lose support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
the focus going forward needs to be pressure on the vulnerable republicans in the senate to make sure the trial is exhaustive and includes the ability to call new witnesses
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:I'd wager with such a strong propaganda mechanism in place there is NOTHING that could happen to every tank support like what happened with Nixon. very true, but you assume Fox News' interest is completely inseparable from Trump's. FN is in the game for the long term, and if they see a necessity to front run selling out Trump, they will take it along with some (but not all) of Trump's core support
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Trump publicly feuding with Fox News and Fox responding in kind would probably cause his support to collapse but there's no way Trump would turn on Fox News smiley face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Trump got 63 million votes in 2016, while Democrats in house elections in 2018 got 60 million votes. Trump is toast in 2020 This reminds me of the classic line repeated over and over by GOP during the impeachment...that the democrats are trying to remove the president that 63 million americans voted for (can't say a majority or even most Americans lol)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Articles released: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6567-read-the-articles-of-impeachme/5d0f5a8d150481cbb981/optimized/full.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
RandomBlue posted:Probably because it benefits rich people and fucks over the poors I'm assuming. The Democratic party right now is what the Republican party was in the 1960s. Our politics have moved that far to the right. The Democrats also don't seem to realize that the Republicans fully intend to destroy them, and are playing at  . The Republicans know that America is trending progressive and anti-rich, and are fighting for their lives, which is why they are fully inviting foreign interference and money.
SchrodingersCat fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Dec 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:38
|
|