Impeach Trump Y/N

update: 50% achieved, 2 targets remain

2 likely not possible because no one wants to be 51. it will be more than 51 or fail.

operation "two birds with one stone"

we're gonna need a miracle

It's a relief to finally see the NYT run "GOP in Disarray" headline.

these op-ed writers in the NYT seem to believe there's a better way:

Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.

But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.

Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html

trump lawyer finally getting down to the burisma/hunter biden details now

The Biden/Burisma thing is just so perplexing. Even if everything the Trump people have intimated is true, so what? How does that exonerate Trump? What does that have to do with Trump? Have they ever even given a shitty reason for investigating Biden? It's all so Lionel Hutz. "Hunter Biden got a job at Burisma. Burisma! Ergo, we kept hundreds of millions of dollars from Ukraine because they didn't investigate him. I rest my case."

It's not so perplexing when you consider they don't have to defend Trump, just provide enough cover for the Senate to acquit without too much damage. Muddying the waters and both sidesing it may be their best option.

Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), an influential conservative in the Senate, has spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial, with one called by Republicans and one by Democrats, according to three Republican officials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/toomey-proposes-a-one-for-one-witness-deal-in-trump-impeachment-after-bolton-revelations/2020/01/27/ec405d5c-414b-11ea-aa6a-083d01b3ed18_story.html

i dare the republicans to call rudy

Is Collins still able to pull that little stunt? I thought the way she always caved on every bluff kind of undermined her credibility.

Stuck on the Republican show and tell for the last half hour so missed Starr. Did i miss anything?
Sounds from what I'm hearing now as though its just been doubling down on wghat in normal circumstances would be long since debunked irrelevant stories.

Is your America broken?

Even if everything the Trump people have intimated is true, so what?
How does that exonerate Trump?

it doesn't. the president is accused of holding back taxpayer funds to a military ally for a personal political favor. the biden stuff is immaterial to the thing trump is being accused of. they know that.

What does that have to do with Trump?

because most people don't care about the technical, legal scope of the accusations or proceedings. it's more about the perception of right vs wrong, who is corrupt, who is fighting against corruption. trump's lie has already resulted in a bunch of people who think that trump was acting patriotically in ukraine to expose the corruption of the bidens (and by extension, all evil democrats). but the real value in muddying the waters is in all the other people who reduce the whole impeachment down to "it's trump vs biden, and they're both wrong" or "i don't know exactly what's happening, just that it involves biden and trump and biden's son"

They are hoping to create enough smoke so that when Russia hacks a trove of Hunter Biden's personal emails, that the media will play along again.

Is your America broken?

yes?

was gonna say, what kind of question is that

My America has a first name, it's "B-O-L-O-G-N-A."

Would just think that if this was an ideal healthy situation, basing your entire legal argument on an already exposed lie might equate to contempt of court or something.

But since it seems to be being allowed to stand things might just be a little warped. Like.

I start watching...and hit the couch and fall asleep. Anyway, caught about an hour while making dinner. Are they going to impeach Obama? Do they have the votes?

Obama out of the White House now!!!!

trump's lie has already resulted in a bunch of people who think that trump was acting patriotically in ukraine to expose the corruption of the bidens

honestly I kinda doubt too many of them even buy that line. I think a lot of them see it as the overtly political move that it obviously was and that you have to make the "it's about exposing corruption" argument for posterity, much in the same way a person can dodge taxes by being semi-honest in ways that are semi-legal. they don't care if Trump breaks the rules because politics is like sports to them

aaaaaaand here comes dershowitz!! class act!!

please die on camera, and then fall face first and land in McConnell's lap

and repeat, like dominoes

i'm surprised that i haven't been riveted by this

I've been thinking about that, and I'm not sure that's possible anymore. I thought I would be too--nothing. The problem, obviously, is that everybody knows everything immediately, long before the actual trial begins. Compare that with Alexander Butterfield in 1973 (July 16, so I may have been watching, but was too young in any case to have much understanding)--I don't think you can have a moment anymore like when he acknowledged the taping system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeQXopJ5U-Q

one big thing that makes it less riveting is that you've probably been familiar with the main events, evidence, and arguments about them for weeks, months, and years in some cases.

the expected future is a let down

The problem, obviously, is that everybody knows everything immediately, long before the actual trial begins.

oops, clemenza already said it

& that the counter argument is basically crime can't be seen to be crime when it's done by people who are above the law.
& to see that as not being very conducive is treasonous. So you should be very ashamed of yourself go sit on the naughty step and let him continue because God gave him to us. Amen etc

Senate Democrats, who have been holding daily 11 a.m. news conferences during President Trump’s impeachment trial, used their time with reporters on Tuesday to serve up a little dramatic outrage over “the nerve and the gall” of President Trump’s legal team.

“Give me a break!” declared Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, referring to Jay Sekulow, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer. “He has the nerve and the gall to get up there and say that there is no eyewitness testimony when we know that John Bolton has eyewitness testimony and is willing to testify?”

(Mr. Schumer initially flubbed this line, using Hunter Biden’s name instead of Mr. Bolton’s. But his colleagues quickly corrected him, and he regrouped for the cameras.)

i see that one of the main goals for trump - get everyone to associate the bidens with the impeachment and trump's corruption - has succeeded

Also, that Schumer is not very camera-ready.

He's got them doing his evil Bidens.

its not riveting because we know the ending already

just amazes me that not only does Trump resort to the "I know you are but what am I" defense every fucking time, but it actually kinda works!

Democrat politicians need to abandon the pretense and just take a paige from Chrissy Teigen and call him a "pussy ass bitch" at every opportunity.

such a nasty lady

is it too much to ask for mr. trump's tax returns?

um, do you realize he's in the middle of audit right now? you can't release tax returns in the middle of an audit! and he gets audited 100% of the time, so

cause Obama weaponized the IRS against his opponents

after the conclusion of the opening argument, everyone was suddenly allowed to speak again.

Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, bipartisan allies who have twice worked together to bring an end to government shutdowns, were deep in conversation. Ms. Collins is likely to break with her party to call for witnesses to testify.

In the back corner of the chamber, Senators Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, and Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee were also having a lively talk; both could be seen gesturing. Ms. Sinema is viewed as someone who might cross party lines to vote to acquit Mr. Trump; Mr. Alexander has expressed openness to joining with Democrats to subpoena witnesses. They sat together for nearly 10 minutes after the proceedings concluded — sadly, out of earshot of the reporters staring from the gallery up above.

"psst. psst! hey, manchin! wanna play a little game called "who is more evil?"

take california

Breaking: Sen. Dianne Feinstein became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit President Trump despite serious concerns about his character. https://t.co/82GoQkmpAB

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) January 28, 2020

the whole "we're not here to upend the will of the voters" argument is so goddamn stupid. if Trump is removed it's not like the office goes to Hillary Clinton (who, I might point out, got a lot more votes than Trump)

just being reasonable and bipartisan

It's a bullshit argument, they'll use it to justify whatever they want to do. Need to block a SC nominee? Well ya see we believe the American people should have a say in it. No, not the American people who voted in 2012, fuck them; I'm talking about the American people who will vote in 2016. Need to keep your guy in office? Well ya see we believe the American people should not have their vote overturned. No not the American people who voted in 1996, fuck them: I'm talking about the American people who voted in 2016.

Why........ would Feinstein do this

Maybe she's sick of being a senator

because she's an amoral institutionalist

She does not say she is "leaning towards" acquittal. Not even close. pic.twitter.com/sM6LULrRL7

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) January 28, 2020

that headline is ... a bit weird. she's always said she was likely to acquit and did not support impeachment by the house. the statement that is new is her saying she is *less* likely to acquit based on what she's heard.

she's terrible though, don't get me wrong.

the people should judge, if they're not struck from the voting rolls

can we replace her with Annette Bening