Impeachment notes & tidbits

**JimZipCode** · 01-22-2020, 04:23 PM

Tried to get some actual work during the day yesterday, then took the boy to his karate class last night. Looks like I missed some juicy stuff, resulting in the Chief Justice trying making comments about decorum & respect.

This just occurred to me recently, sometime over the "impeachment break" between articles being adopted and them being sent to the Senate. Mitch's majority, coupled with the 2/3 requirement, gives him plenty of room to be "tactical" about potential removal yes-votes. What I mean is: suppose someone like Susan Collins, or another blue-state Repub, "needs" to have a yes-to-remove vote on their resume in this election year. With two articles and a 2/3 requirement, Mitch could let a couple Senators vote "yes" on one article, and another couple vote "yes" on the other article, and still maintain control of the process. The senators would get to go home to their constituents and run on how principled and independent their record is, while the national party still gets its win.

I'm not really suggesting there are 4 or 5 Repub senators who need to do something like that; establish their autonomy from Trump by the drastic step of lodging a vote to remove. I'm just noticing, if there were (the election year complicates everything), then the majority + the 2/3 requirement gives them plenty of wiggle room to allocate votes in such a way as to accomplish all their goals. Mitch is very sharp tactically; he'd have no trouble navigating such a route.

Obvsly their preference would be for a dominating win, a solid 52 votes to acquit. This is just speculative.

**BustOfPallas** · 01-22-2020, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by JimZipCode

Tried to get some actual work during the day yesterday, then took the boy to his karate class last night. Looks like I missed some juicy stuff, resulting in the Chief Justice trying making comments about decorum & respect.

This just occurred to me recently, sometime over the "impeachment break" between articles being adopted and them being sent to the Senate. Mitch's majority, coupled with the 2/3 requirement, gives him plenty of room to be "tactical" about potential removal yes-votes. What I mean is: suppose someone like Susan Collins, or another blue-state Repub, "needs" to have a yes-to-remove vote on their resume in this election year. With two articles and a 2/3 requirement, Mitch could let a couple Senators vote "yes" on one article, and another couple vote "yes" on the other article, and still maintain control of the process. The senators would get to go home to their constituents and run on how principled and independent their record is, while the national party still gets its win.

I'm not really suggesting there are 4 or 5 Repub senators who need to do something like that; establish their autonomy from Trump by the drastic step of lodging a vote to remove. I'm just noticing, if there were (the election year complicates everything), then the majority + the 2/3 requirement gives them plenty of wiggle room to allocate votes in such a way as to accomplish all their goals. Mitch is very sharp tactically; he'd have no trouble navigating such a route.

Obvsly their preference would be for a dominating win, a solid 52 votes to acquit. This is just speculative.

The whole thing is a pointless shit show. It's porno and lube for Trump haters.

**Vlad the lad** · 01-22-2020, 05:53 PM

Interesting to see how a liberal mind processes information

**bacchys** · 01-23-2020, 01:04 AM

Schiff made a telling point: there was no investigation of either Bidens or Burisma by any U.S. agency during all of this. What the Giuliani-Firtash scam alleges against all of them violates multiple U.S. laws, but despite the main actor in the conspiracy being in charge of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government and his appointees in charge of its law enforcement agencies none of them were looking into any of this.

**blah3** · 01-23-2020, 08:42 AM

Hmm, let’s compare shall we. We have the transcript of trumps call which clearly shows nothing and we have a video of Biden clearly admitting to threatening to withhold fund agreed to if they didn’t replace a Ukrainian official.

**Vlad the lad** · 01-23-2020, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

Hmm, let’s compare shall we. We have the transcript of trumps call which clearly shows nothing and we have a video of Biden clearly admitting to threatening to withhold fund agreed to if they didn’t replace a Ukrainian official.

You clearly would not qualify as a target dem voter.

**wickedsolo** · 01-23-2020, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by bacchys

Schiff made a telling point: there was no investigation of either Bidens or Burisma by any U.S. agency during all of this. What the Giuliani-Firtash scam alleges against all of them violates multiple U.S. laws, but despite the main actor in the conspiracy being in charge of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government and his appointees in charge of its law enforcement agencies none of them were looking into any of this.

Who would have investigated Biden and Burisma? When that was happening, Biden was VP. Why would Schiff, Nadler, or anyone from the Democratic Party investigate Biden?

**Dirt1** · 01-23-2020, 10:29 AM

So far, I haven't heard any Congressional Republicans or members of Trump's legal team deny any of the allegations. Are they going to stipulate that Trump did what the Democrats are alleging he did, but then argue that it doesn't rise to the level of Impeachment?

**BustOfPallas** · 01-23-2020, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

Hmm, let’s compare shall we. We have the transcript of trumps call which clearly shows nothing and we have a video of Biden clearly admitting to threatening to withhold fund agreed to if they didn’t replace a Ukrainian official.

Don't expect reason to factor into these TDS peoples heads. The denial that he is even in office won't let it sink in.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-23-2020, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

So far, I haven't heard any Congressional Republicans or members of Trump's legal team deny any of the allegations. Are they going to stipulate that Trump did what the Democrats are alleging he did, but then argue that it doesn't rise to the level of Impeachment?

Honestly, who cares? Abuse of power? Obstruction of congress? Give me a break. They'd be better off saying "we don't thing we can beat you in November and we don't like you, so we're using our power to get rid of you"

I'd at least respect the honesty.

**ravenmaniac4life** · 01-23-2020, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

So far, I haven't heard any Congressional Republicans or members of Trump's legal team deny any of the allegations.

lol

abuse of power? obstruction of Congress?

what is there to deny?

No offense, but it's comments like yours that drive me insane.

They didn't deny it...so...he's gotta be guilty!

Mueller didn't find a shred of evidence, but...that doesn't mean he's innocent.

Can you people hear yourselves?

**blah3** · 01-23-2020, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

So far, I haven't heard any Congressional Republicans or members of Trump's legal team deny any of the allegations. Are they going to stipulate that Trump did what the Democrats are alleging he did, but then argue that it doesn't rise to the level of Impeachment?

I think that’s due to the rules. Prosecutors get X number of hours to make their case, then the defense team gets to go. We’re still in the prosecutors time