Impeachment Megathread Part 3

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Back on today's vote for witnesses, I think it would be more politically-prudent for Murkowski to vote FOR rather than AGAINST.  

She's in a pretty unique position where she can vote against the majority of her caucus, appeal to the moderates of her constituency, and still be assured that the vote fails in a 50/50 tally.  Ditto for Collins. I can't think of any other scenario where that would be the case other than during an impeachment trial.  

Also, here's an interesting little blurb from a freshly-posted article via Newsweek:

Is it absolutely clear that the Vice President has no vote?

This brings up the last scenario, the wackiest of all. It's not an "absurd" possibility, Goldman says, though it might be "absurdist."

Remember that during the Andrew Johnson impeachment, there was no sitting vice president. (Johnson had been vice president and ascended to the presidency upon Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant.) So this issue did not arise.

As the Bill Clinton impeachment trial approached, Goldman says, Vice President Al Gore raised the possibility of participating in some manner. But Sen. Byrd told him not to.

Still, what if President Trump sent Vice President Pence to the Senate floor? In the case of a 50-50 vote on witnesses, Pence could cast the tie-breaking vote—citing Article I, Section 3, Clause 6—preempting the possibility of the chief justice casting the critical vote. Then the outcome would depend on whether the chief justice permitted Pence's vote, and on the phrasing of the ensuing points of orders.

Given the uncertainties in the rules, and the level of partisanship in play, this last scenario would be "wild, but not outrageous," says Goldman.

I do wonder what would happen if Trump decided to send Pence down to the Capitol in light of a tie.  

But that's really the last I'll say regarding a potential tie -- it isn't even a certainty at this point and it's almost certain that it won't change the outcome.

[7,052,770]

Never in the history of Oil and Gas companies has someone with such low credentials and chemical dependency been employed on such a high salary to a board.

You are shockingly clueless, even by the standards of this thread.

[emailking]

Clearly, no one can provide a satisfactory answer as to how or why the chemically dependent son of Joe Biden received an Oil & Gas board position in a country that was being investigated for corruption by the USA.

That's because no one knows what the answer is, including you. Your best guess as to what happened isn't necessarily the answer. Also, just because you can't think of an alternative explanation, does not mean there isn't one.

That in itself needs an investigation to discover what happened to uncover any evidence of wrongdoing.

Maybe. If Trump had engaged the proper channels to have it investigated, we wouldn't be here.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Never in the history of Oil and Gas companies has someone with such low credentials and chemical dependency been employed on such a high salary to a board.

You are shockingly clueless, even by the standards of this thread.

If Biden is the nominee and lose, don't say you weren't warned about "muh emails Hunter" 

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Clearly, no one can provide a satisfactory answer as to how or why the chemically dependent son of Joe Biden received an Oil & Gas board position in a country that was being investigated for corruption by the USA.

That's because no one knows what the answer is, including you. Your best guess as to what happened isn't necessarily the answer. Also, just because you can't think of an alternative explanation, does not mean there isn't one.

That in itself needs an investigation to discover what happened to uncover any evidence of wrongdoing.

Maybe. If Trump had engaged the proper channels to have it investigated, we wouldn't be here.

Nobody "knows" either why Trump wanted to investigate Hunter. May be he was thinking about the country! Right?

Come on, guys. It is just how it works in corrupt countries. It is pretty damn clear why a corrupt pro-Russian gas firm employed Hunter. No one in Ukraine would touch the son of VP. You're in denial, OMG 

[Hindsight was 2020]

Clearly, no one can provide a satisfactory answer as to how or why the chemically dependent son of Joe Biden received an Oil & Gas board position in a country that was being investigated for corruption by the USA.

That's because no one knows what the answer is, including you. Your best guess as to what happened isn't necessarily the answer. Also, just because you can't think of an alternative explanation, does not mean there isn't one.

That in itself needs an investigation to discover what happened to uncover any evidence of wrongdoing.

Maybe. If Trump had engaged the proper channels to have it investigated, we wouldn't be here.

Nobody "knows" either why Trump wanted to investigate Hunter. May be he was thinking about the country! Right?

Come on, guys. It is just how it works in corrupt countries. It is pretty damn clear why a corrupt pro-Russian gas firm employed Hunter. No one in Ukraine would touch the son of VP. You're in denial, OMG 

Yes we do stop trolling

[ilikeverin]

Back on today's vote for witnesses, I think it would be more politically-prudent for Murkowski to vote FOR rather than AGAINST. 

I'm not sure; I could see her voting against, just to avoid setting up a situation where Roberts would be perceived as picking a side in a tied situation.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Back on today's vote for witnesses, I think it would be more politically-prudent for Murkowski to vote FOR rather than AGAINST. 

I'm not sure; I could see her voting against, just to avoid setting up a situation where Roberts would be perceived as picking a side in a tied situation.

Or Present, which would have the same effect (the motion would fail 49-50).

[Nyvin]

But that doesn't matter, because Republicans' priority was to make Obama a one-term president from the day he was inaugurated.  They wanted him to fail.  Rush Limbaugh said as much, and Glenn Beck almost single-handedly transformed the GOP into a party of bumbling conspiracy theorists.  Republicans were uniformly opposed to Obama's proposals while Pelosi and Reid had to drag moderate Democrat cowards kicking and screaming every time they tried to get something passed.

Many Democrats have opposed President Trump since day one, and want him to be a less-than-one-term president from the day he was inaugurated. They wanted him to fail. Rachel Maddow and MSNBC has transformed the Democratic party into a party of bumbling consipiracy theorists. Democrats were uniformly opposed to Trump's proposals, while Ryan and McConnell had to drag Republicans kicking and screaming every time they tried to get something passed.

And you know who else had a "priority" to make the incumbent President into a one-termer? Democrats who opposed G W Bush, G H W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower - and every other Republican President back to Abraham Lincoln.

And Republicans who opposed Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, FDR... and every other Democratic President back to the start of the party.

Why? Because the job of the opposition is to oppose.

What "conspiracy theories"?   There are no conspiracy theories against Trump,  there's substantial cases of corruption that have had the FBI do cases against him and have the SDNY hold lawsuits against him.   WTF is "conspiracy" about any of that?   

These aren't crazy "what if's" stories that are being made up, these are things that are being proven true time and time again!

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Back on today's vote for witnesses, I think it would be more politically-prudent for Murkowski to vote FOR rather than AGAINST. 

I'm not sure; I could see her voting against, just to avoid setting up a situation where Roberts would be perceived as picking a side in a tied situation.

Voting to allow witnesses isn't really picking a side.  Without witnesses, this isn't really a trial.

Murkowski can do what she wants, but Roberts doesn't have to answer to voters.  He'll get a few nasty opinion polls from the losing party and move on.  The main difference between Roberts and the other conservative justices is he cares a little bit about the court's image as an objective institution.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

But that doesn't matter, because Republicans' priority was to make Obama a one-term president from the day he was inaugurated.  They wanted him to fail.  Rush Limbaugh said as much, and Glenn Beck almost single-handedly transformed the GOP into a party of bumbling conspiracy theorists.  Republicans were uniformly opposed to Obama's proposals while Pelosi and Reid had to drag moderate Democrat cowards kicking and screaming every time they tried to get something passed.

Many Democrats have opposed President Trump since day one, and want him to be a less-than-one-term president from the day he was inaugurated. They wanted him to fail. Rachel Maddow and MSNBC has transformed the Democratic party into a party of bumbling consipiracy theorists. Democrats were uniformly opposed to Trump's proposals, while Ryan and McConnell had to drag Republicans kicking and screaming every time they tried to get something passed.

And you know who else had a "priority" to make the incumbent President into a one-termer? Democrats who opposed G W Bush, G H W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower - and every other Republican President back to Abraham Lincoln.

And Republicans who opposed Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, FDR... and every other Democratic President back to the start of the party.

Why? Because the job of the opposition is to oppose.

What "conspiracy theories"?   There are no conspiracy theories against Trump,  there's substantial cases of corruption that have had the FBI do cases against him and have the SDNY hold lawsuits against him.   WTF is "conspiracy" about any of that?   

These aren't crazy "what if's" stories that are being made up, these are things that are being proven true time and time again!

The thing is, you can call Rachel Maddow a hack but she isn't a conspiracy theorist.  Definitely not on the same level as Glenn Beck.

[Middle-aged Europe]

This is something I just found on Facebook, thought I share:

ALL THE WITNESSES: Ok we all agree. This is what happened.

REPUBLICANS: None of you were in the room!

BOLTON: *raises hand* Well I was in the...

REPUBLICANS: Who asked you?! Shut up! You’re a liberal pawn!

BOLTON: Um... I’m actually I’m a lifelong Republican and I was literally Trump’s national security advi...

REPUBLICANS: Shut your mustache! Somebody bring back the first national security advisor.

FLYNN: *in orange jumpsuit* Hey sorry guys I’m in jail lol.

REPUBLICANS: What? Why?

FLYNN: For lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation.

REPUBLICANS: Well what idiot told you to do that?!

FLYNN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! No one believes either of you!

KELLY: *raises hand* I believe them. And I was Trump’s Chief of sta...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Let’s talk to the current chief of staff. Who is he?

MULVANEY: *raises hand* It’s me. Sort of. Well, I'm the act...

REPUBLICANS: sh**t. Never mind.

PARNAS: *raises hand* I was also in the room. In fact, here’s a cell phone video of the President saying that...

REPUBLICANS: Wait what?! How in hell did you sneak a cell phone into a meeting with the President?

PARNAS: It was easy I just walked right in and...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! You’re a criminal!

PARNAS: Correct. So I just walked right into...

TRUMP: I don’t know him.

PARNAS: And here’s 500 pictures of me with the President because we’re besties.

REPUBLICANS: Wait... What idiot introduced you to the President??

PARNAS: His personal lawyer.

REPUBLICANS: Cohen??

COHEN: *also in orange jumpsuit* Hey no sorry guys I’m in jail too. Oops.

REPUBLICANS: Why?

COHEN: For campaign finance violations.

REPUBLICANS: Whose campaign?

COHEN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Who was the campaign chair??

MANAFORT: *also in orange jumpsuit* Yeah. Me. Also in jail. Heyyyy.

REPUBLICANS: IS EVERYBODY IN JAIL?!?

PARNAS: It was Giuliani.

YOVANOVITCH: Giuliani! That’s the guy who had me fired from my job!

REPUBLICANS: Who are you??

YOVANOVITCH: I was the ambassador to Ukraine.

REPUBLICANS: Wait, you had her fired? Do you work for the government??

GIULIANI: Nope. But I figured no one really follows any rules around here so...

REPUBLICANS: Well who is the ambassador to the European Union??

SONDLAND: *raises hand* It's me. I was also in the roo...

REPUBLICANS: F@$&!!!

PUTIN: *rubs his bare chest*

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

From CNN's live impeachment thread:

Sen. Lamar Alexander just spoke to a small group of reporters about his decision to vote against witnesses and documents.

"I concluded after nine long days, and hearing 200 video clips of witnesses from the House, I didn't need any more evidence, because I thought it was proof the President did what he was charged with doing, but it didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I didn't need any more evidence to make my decision," he said.

He said he made his decision about the vote during this past week.

"I thought about it, but I wanted to wait until the very last minute because around here you never know what might happen. You might get a surprise during the question and answer period," he said.

CNN asked him about the distinction he made between inappropriate conduct and impeachable conduct. Here's how he responded:

"Impeachable conduct is a very high bar. It's treason, bribery, it's high crimes and misdemeanors. And to me, an error in judgment, an inappropriate and improper telephone call or action doesn't add up to treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.
Alexander said he thinks it was "inappropriate and wrong for the President to do what he did — and I think it was proved."

He added: "The question is whether you apply capital punishment to every offense. And I think in this case, I think the answer is no, let the people make that decision... and especially since the election begins Monday."

[BlueSwan]

This is something I just found on Facebook, thought I share:

ALL THE WITNESSES: Ok we all agree. This is what happened.

REPUBLICANS: None of you were in the room!

BOLTON: *raises hand* Well I was in the...

REPUBLICANS: Who asked you?! Shut up! You’re a liberal pawn!

BOLTON: Um... I’m actually I’m a lifelong Republican and I was literally Trump’s national security advi...

REPUBLICANS: Shut your mustache! Somebody bring back the first national security advisor.

FLYNN: *in orange jumpsuit* Hey sorry guys I’m in jail lol.

REPUBLICANS: What? Why?

FLYNN: For lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation.

REPUBLICANS: Well what idiot told you to do that?!

FLYNN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! No one believes either of you!

KELLY: *raises hand* I believe them. And I was Trump’s Chief of sta...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Let’s talk to the current chief of staff. Who is he?

MULVANEY: *raises hand* It’s me. Sort of. Well, I'm the act...

REPUBLICANS: sh**t. Never mind.

PARNAS: *raises hand* I was also in the room. In fact, here’s a cell phone video of the President saying that...

REPUBLICANS: Wait what?! How in hell did you sneak a cell phone into a meeting with the President?

PARNAS: It was easy I just walked right in and...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! You’re a criminal!

PARNAS: Correct. So I just walked right into...

TRUMP: I don’t know him.

PARNAS: And here’s 500 pictures of me with the President because we’re besties.

REPUBLICANS: Wait... What idiot introduced you to the President??

PARNAS: His personal lawyer.

REPUBLICANS: Cohen??

COHEN: *also in orange jumpsuit* Hey no sorry guys I’m in jail too. Oops.

REPUBLICANS: Why?

COHEN: For campaign finance violations.

REPUBLICANS: Whose campaign?

COHEN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Who was the campaign chair??

MANAFORT: *also in orange jumpsuit* Yeah. Me. Also in jail. Heyyyy.

REPUBLICANS: IS EVERYBODY IN JAIL?!?

PARNAS: It was Giuliani.

YOVANOVITCH: Giuliani! That’s the guy who had me fired from my job!

REPUBLICANS: Who are you??

YOVANOVITCH: I was the ambassador to Ukraine.

REPUBLICANS: Wait, you had her fired? Do you work for the government??

GIULIANI: Nope. But I figured no one really follows any rules around here so...

REPUBLICANS: Well who is the ambassador to the European Union??

SONDLAND: *raises hand* It's me. I was also in the roo...

REPUBLICANS: F@$&!!!

PUTIN: *rubs his bare chest*

Would be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.

[BlueSwan]

From CNN's live impeachment thread:

Sen. Lamar Alexander just spoke to a small group of reporters about his decision to vote against witnesses and documents.

"I concluded after nine long days, and hearing 200 video clips of witnesses from the House, I didn't need any more evidence, because I thought it was proof the President did what he was charged with doing, but it didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I didn't need any more evidence to make my decision," he said.

He said he made his decision about the vote during this past week.

"I thought about it, but I wanted to wait until the very last minute because around here you never know what might happen. You might get a surprise during the question and answer period," he said.

CNN asked him about the distinction he made between inappropriate conduct and impeachable conduct. Here's how he responded:

"Impeachable conduct is a very high bar. It's treason, bribery, it's high crimes and misdemeanors. And to me, an error in judgment, an inappropriate and improper telephone call or action doesn't add up to treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.
Alexander said he thinks it was "inappropriate and wrong for the President to do what he did — and I think it was proved."

He added: "The question is whether you apply capital punishment to every offense. And I think in this case, I think the answer is no, let the people make that decision... and especially since the election begins Monday."

It’s funny how Lamar Alexander is seemingly totally cool with Trump constantly lying about this and totally cool with other republicans trying to make this about the democrats, when indeed he acknowledges that Trump is completely guilty.

[Sir Mohamed]

GOP goes through 5 stages of Trumpism:

1. It's a total lie, never happened, fake news

2. Ok, it happened, but isn't a big deal

3. Ok, might be a big deal, but it's not illegal

4. Alright, it's illegal, but Hillary and Obama blahblahblah, so it's ok.

5. Get over it, libtard, you're just a sore loser!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Since Senator Alexander was speaking about those questions, it seems like a good point to share this:

https://twitter.com/Nuchnibi/status/1223033384127074306

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

WaPo Live>>>

Trump is ‘a clear and present danger,’ Pelosi says in new talking points

With the end of Trump’s Senate trial appearing to be near, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is continuing to encourage allies to press the case against him.

“Talking points” distributed by her office on Friday label Trump “a clear and present danger to our democracy and national security interests” and say he “put himself before country and must be held accountable.”

The talking points also argue that Trump has “established a pattern of corruptly soliciting foreign interference into our elections to benefit his reelection.”

“Congress must act with a sense of urgency to protect the integrity of the 2020 elections and defend our Constitution,” Pelosi encourages her allies to argue.

Bloomberg>>>

Democrat Resigned to Acquittal, No Witnesses (10:21 a.m.)

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, a member of Democratic leadership, said his party is “resigned” to the Republican-led Senate acquitting Trump without calling any additional witnesses, a vote expected to happen on Friday.

“We are resigned to this happening,” Durbin said. “It’s clear after all the days we spent on this: Republicans are afraid of a trial and afraid of the truth.”

Durbin said he doesn’t think Chief Justice John Roberts would weigh in to break a tie on the vote to call witnesses.

[ilikeverin]

Back on today's vote for witnesses, I think it would be more politically-prudent for Murkowski to vote FOR rather than AGAINST. 

I'm not sure; I could see her voting against, just to avoid setting up a situation where Roberts would be perceived as picking a side in a tied situation.

Voting to allow witnesses isn't really picking a side.  Without witnesses, this isn't really a trial.

Murkowski can do what she wants, but Roberts doesn't have to answer to voters.  He'll get a few nasty opinion polls from the losing party and move on.  The main difference between Roberts and the other conservative justices is he cares a little bit about the court's image as an objective institution.

I'm not disagreeing that that's how you or I might see the situation, but the fact is that the Republican officeholders are clearly casting the idea of having witnesses as partisan and political (even though, I agree, it seems like a very reasonable things to want to do) and are telling Republicans that it is. I would imagine the Chief Justice would like to avoid making a decision that will be seen by one half of the country (no matter which way he decides) as "partisan" and "unfair", and I'd imagine that Murkowski would prioritize shielding him from that over the vague but unlikely possibility that he would force witnesses.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Democats’ breakfast today: Humble pie, sour grapes, and egg on their face. Scrumptious. Acquit 45!

Change your screen name

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

The Democats’ breakfast today: Humble pie, sour grapes, and egg on their face. Scrumptious. Acquit 45!

Change your screen name

Don’t say I never did anything for you. Lol

[Farmlands]

The Democats’ breakfast today: Humble pie, sour grapes, and egg on their face. Scrumptious. Acquit 45!

As expected, you're not even bothering with the substance of the impeachment, when you'd be damn well crying foul if this happened with a Democratic president. For most republicans nowadays, it's unmistakably all about owning the libs and nothing else matters. It's really a bleak state of affairs, that I hope, for the sake the country, it ends soon.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

NyT Live>>>

Trump revels in an awkward moment between impeachment managers.

President Trump on Friday suggested there was discord among two House impeachment managers, based on the end of the Senate trial’s question and answer session Thursday night when two of the managers appeared to want to answer the same question.

“They are fighting big time!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1223250897414905856
 

The dynamics between Mr. Nadler and Mr. Schiff have been tense at times during the Senate trial.

At one point last week, Mr. Schiff stepped in to respond to a reporter’s question at a news conference, cutting Mr. Nadler off.

[MT Treasurer]

Romney should have told Tillis or Ernst to vote for Witnesses or he would personally campaign for a third-party candidate in the senate race. The filing deadline for the primaries seems to have passed for those races so it may have worked.

Lmao, I’m sure the thought of Mitt Romney coming to IA and NC and endorsing random nobodies for Senate has Tillis and especially Ernst quaking in their boots.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

NyT Live>>>

Trump revels in an awkward moment between impeachment managers.

President Trump on Friday suggested there was discord among two House impeachment managers, based on the end of the Senate trial’s question and answer session Thursday night when two of the managers appeared to want to answer the same question.

“They are fighting big time!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1223250897414905856
 

The dynamics between Mr. Nadler and Mr. Schiff have been tense at times during the Senate trial.

At one point last week, Mr. Schiff stepped in to respond to a reporter’s question at a news conference, cutting Mr. Nadler off.

House managers were woefully mediocre. No cohesion. I was skeptical when Trump announced his team, but they crushed it.