Impeachment Megathread Part 3

[Nyvin]

It sure sounds like it.
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1217215352754577409

Robert Hyde is the presumed GOP candidate in CT-5 too.

[Nyvin]

I think there will probably be witnesses but very few that the Democrats wanted while a lot of them will just be for Republican comfort like Hunter Biden, the whistleblower, etc.

Doubtful.

[Nyvin]

Nunez is part of the scandal, what a surprise.

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1220078337000906754

[Nyvin]

Depends on how slow or fast the managers use their time, but if they take 3 days then Trump's defense gets Saturday to present their case which would get more views than the Democrats because more people would be able to watch on a weekend.

Other than sports, Saturday is one of the worst days for TV viewership.

Yep,  main reason agencies do "Friday News Dumps" frequently with stuff they don't want the public to pay attention to.

[Nyvin]

The polls keep moving in the wrong direction for Trump:

https://twitter.com/ameliatd/status/1220348769931317249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctw...

Wait, nearly 20% of Republicans now support the conviction and removal of Donald Trump?   

We're getting there... 

This is hilarious! The Polls are a bit scewed right now because over the last Week and particularly over the last 2 Days everything is played on the Democrats turf with the House Managers making their case.
I expect Public Opinion to shift a bit once Trumps Legal Team can make their case

CNN is saying the same thing:

Republicans encouraged during lunch to be more available to press

Republicans have been much more visible over the last few breaks, and there is a reason for that.

According to two sources, during the Senate GOP lunch, Republican leaders encouraged their conference to be make themselves available during the breaks to the press in an effort to more publicly defend President Trump during a time when the entire public is focused on three days of Democratic arguments. According to one aide familiar with the discussion, constituents back home are calling lawmakers and expressing concern that no one on the Republican side is getting a chance to step in to defend Trump live on TV during the trial.

Remember: The rules will give the President a chance to defend himself, but right now, it’s the Democrats. The President’s defense team will start their presentations on Saturday and have 24 hours of their own to make their case. However, GOP lawmakers are hearing from constituents back home now who are watching and are surprised to see this playing out in a one-sided format at the moment.

What do you expect from Public Opinion when it's totally one-sided the last 48 Hours.

What exactly does Trump have for Defense?   What is their actual story going to be here?  So far all they do is complain about the process and don't address the actual issues whatsoever.

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/manlnthehoody/status/1220190924291969024?s=21

Actually, if the Republican survived I'm pretty sure s/he would vote to acquit.

"It was my fault for getting in the way of his bullet."

"I apologize to the President for moving. It was a perfect shot, and if I'd just stood still it would have killed me easily. President Trump may be the best shot in American history."

"Sen Collins thinks that the President openly shooting Senators is 'very inappropriate',  but won't comment on voting to remove from office."

[Nyvin]

Oh hey more posts from Romney’s hair and 2016 that don’t actually address the substance of the case.

Because there is no substance lol

Then what exactly is Trump's legal defense against the claims?  That shouldn't be a hard question.

[Nyvin]

Even if McConnell does call witnesses what do these Senate Democrats & House Democrats expect? Bolton is a REPUBLICAN. Yes, he might not like a lot of things Trump did & said but to think Bolton would literally stab his former boss in the back so that he could be removed from Office is really far-fetched. In what Universe do these Congressional Democrats (House & Senate) live in?

Wait, you acknowledge that Bolton's testimony might implicate Trump enough that he would be removed from office, but you just don't care? Wild.

To recap here are the possible arguments:

• Trump committed one of the most blatant impeachable offenses in American presidential history, and must be removed from office, regardless of the political consequences for whichever party. (the Democratic argument)
• Trump made a terrible error of judgment, but it does not rise to impeachment level. (No one is really making this argument.)
• Trump really is innocent, and there is evidence to back up this assertion. (No one is even attempting this argument.)
• DEMOCRATS ARE EVIL AND HATE AMERICA AND YOU!! FOR EVEN TRYING THIS!!!!1 (the Republican "argument")
• Trump is guilty, but who cares? I'm more concerned with beating the Democrats on the vote! (The "2016" argument?)

As I've posted many times, if Republicans could somehow argue #3, or even default to #2, I'd respect them so much more? Instead, they're just being disgraceful.

C'mon! Give me a Break. Alan Dershowitz was on CNN a short while ago and said the Articles Dems put forward ain't "Impeachable". That's basically Point 2 you put forward here and I bet Kenneth Starr will do a similar thing making Senate Republicans more comfortable.

And no, I am argueing that Bolton if called wouldn't say anything that hurts Trump.

Asking again - What exactly IS the Republican's/Trump's legal strategy for the claims...not including vilifying Democrats everywhere and anywhere? 

Specifically the issues of what Trump did with the aid money and Ukrainian officials,  how are they framing that what they did was okay and it's okay for future presidents to do?

If the argument Dershowitz is saying it's not impeachable he must be saying it's okay for future presidents to do the same thing, isn't he?

[Nyvin]

Alan Dershowitz was on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" last Night and on FOX NEWS Sunday with Chris Wallace and both times he said quote "Even if the Allegations are true against Trump it's not impeachable"

Bottom Line:
Abuse of Power & Obstruction of Congress ain't impeachable offenses. Gotcha! Period! Game Over for House Democrats. Let the American People decide and not Congress for them.

And there is a fundamental Difference between the Clinton and the Trump Impeachment:

Bill Clinton purposefully LIED under OATH before a Grand Jury that he had nothing to do with this Woman (Lewinsky). The Witnesses who have come forward and were investigated by the House didn't do any of this.

Trump's impeachment attorney making a blanket statement of "not impeachable" doesn't really change much of anything you know?

Also - Isn't it pretty sad they can't even come up with an actual defense of what Trump did, they just have to say it's "not bad enough" to be impeached for?

Finally - If this isn't impeachable,  that means that future presidents can solicit election interference from foreign governments by withholding aid money.   How can anyone not see that as a very dangerous precedent?

[Nyvin]

I am still trying to figure out what the crime is with which he is charged.

It sounds like a scripted setup by the cops (Democrats) where they think they have a bank robber (Trump), don't know if a bank (Ukraine) was even robbed, don't know where he was and let's throw into Court and see if he confesses simply because we want him off the street.

Throwing this all into the senate without charges or evidence just seems way out of whack with a normal judicial process.

It just seems like the Democrats have had this fantasy since 2016. This is their big moment in the sun, and only time will tell if this pure politically motivated witch-hunt will pay dividends in November.

For if it does not, Adam Schiff will go down in history as a liar who gave the unlovable President Trump another 4 years in office.

You do realize there is no legal defense saying Trump "didn't" do what the Democrats are charging him with,  the legal defense is saying what Trump did wasn't "bad enough" to be impeachable.

Trying to argue Trump did nothing wrong is flat out denying reality at this point.    I hate to be frank, but the bolded parts do nothing but make you look like an idiot.

[Nyvin]

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
Toomey proposes a ‘one-for-one’ witness deal in Trump impeachment trial amid Bolton revelations

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.

Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a “one-for-one” deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called, according to the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump, the officials said.

Toomey has spoken about his idea with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and others, the officials added.

Toomey’s office declined to comment Monday.

Toomey, who is not up for reelection until 2022, is close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). He is not close with the president or top aides in the White House.

McConnell, however, is so far discouraging Toomey’s suggestion from becoming the party’s position. Instead, he told Senate Republicans during Monday’s lunch to wait on any witness deal proposal until after Trump’s legal team is done making its defense on the Senate floor, underscoring a position he has held for weeks, the officials said.

https://twitter.com/johncornyn/status/1221848126652321793
"Obvious choices  are Adam Schiff, Joe Biden and Hunter Biden for starters."


Schiff och Hunter? OMG, please, make it happen.


Disclaimer. I know it is not likely, but LMAO , I'm pissing my pants already!

Call Schiff as a witness would be so embarrassing for Republicans, it would just look childish.

[Nyvin]

Also it's well sourced that Trump didn't care if Hunter were actually investigated or not, just that the announcement was made to hurt Joe's campaign. So that whole argument from the Trump side is a dud.

No, it is not.

Yes it is, it was directly part of Sondland's testimony and all references to the investigation just have Trump calling for a public announcement by Ukraine.

[Nyvin]

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Then HE SHOULD DO IT LEGALLY. 

Pardon the shout, but you have evidently not heard this the first 10 times that I and others have said it.

Erm, it was done legally. No one is debating legality Jesus Christ.

"Done legally" would've been pursuing the issue within the DOJ,  not pressuring a foreign leader to make a public announcement by withholding aid money.

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/1221948034004799488

Sen ERNST: "IA caucuses are this next Monday evening. And I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Demcaucus goers. Will they be supporting VP Biden at this point?"

IE - The goal of Senate Republicans is to produce a political hit job on Biden during the investigation...Great job Ernst.

[Nyvin]

Alan Dershowitz just KILLED the Democrats case in one sentence.

A Quid Pro Pro is (even if there is one) is not an impeachable offense. Period!

GAME OVER MISTER SCHIFF
You couldn't read the Constitution, lousy Adam!

Anything "can be" an impeachable offense.   There's no legal definition of "impeachable offense".   Congress can impeach someone for wearing mismatched clothes or anything they want, as long as they can get the votes for it.

Blanket statements from attorneys on matters of opinion don't mean anything.   

[Nyvin]

The more Pam Bondi and Eric Herschmann talk about Hunter Biden, the uglier this gets for Joe Biden's campaign.

If we get witnesses, the murky world of Hunter, and hence Joe Biden, will be laid bare.

Yeah! Look at this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-vice-president-biden-said-ukraine-should-increase-gas-production-then-his-son-got-a-job-with-a-ukrainian-gas-company/2019/07/21/f599f42c-86dd-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html
WaPo: As vice president, Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign
New Yorker: WILL HUNTER BIDEN JEOPARDIZE HIS FATHER’S CAMPAIGN?.
Joe Biden’s son is under scrutiny for his business dealings and tumultuous personal life

https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/1221920841627242498

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Re:this

Graham seems to agree with me on this one.


https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1221940321925451777
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1221940323540180992


"If one can find a scintilla of evidence about Biden corruption in Ukraine, the House case falls apart."

Yes, one can!
Yes, it does!

Why specifically pursue the Bidens though?  Why is that the only corruption in Ukraine Trump cares about?   Also why is the public announcement so important and not the investigation itself?   Why have Trump's personal lawyer pursue the issue?   Why not involved the DOJ?   Why would Trump withhold the aid money without notifying Congress?   

[Nyvin]

Sekulow is killing it.

Just a darling performance.

We know that Trumpism breaks your moral spine.

CNN's Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin though makes a great Point though quote:"The President will be aquitted no matter what Bolton says if he has to testify".

That is my View as well. These endangered Senators in the Fall like McSally, Gardner, Ernst, Tillis and Collins can't afford to lose the Republican Base which is firmly behind the President.

So, this whole thing by Schiff & Schumer isn't about "Finding about the Truth" during the potential witness phase. This is all about so their respective Campaign Committees can run Ads saying "You aquitted the POTUS despite being guilty". That's what this is all about and that's not what it should be IMO.

This goes along with the absolute crazy, absurd, god awful argument of "Well Republican Senators are all cultic fanatics loyal to Trump, so Trump will never be voted out of office...so wtf are Democrats even doing charging him in the first place???"

That would be like saying "Well the NYPD and NYDOJ are both horribly corrupt and evil, so what's the point of charging anyone with a crime?"

You charge someone with a crime because they did something wrong...you don't excuse them because the authorities are in with the criminals.   What kind of justice system would that be???

[Nyvin]

You know from a political standpoint having the GOP votedown witnesses and acquiting Trump is more likely to rally the public against them than calling witnesses and still acquitting

I'm not so optimistic. I don't think the American public will care about or even remember any of this by election day, even if it does upset a plurality or majority of them in the near-future.

It's still a better outcome than the acquittal somehow guaranteeing Trump's re-election, which I don't see happening under any circumstance for the same reasons.

They cared enough about Hillary's email server to not elect her president.

[Nyvin]

Dershowitz seriously argued that if the president believes that him staying in power is in the public interest, then he should be allowed to do whatever he thinks is necessary to attain that goal and therefore a quid pro quo is not impeachable.

Can someone please tell me why this clown is so highly respected despite routinely making a fool of himself since the 90's?  Is it just because he successfully defended a man who killed two people or is it something else?

So Trump can shoot the Dem candidate in the face during the first debate and that'd be perfectly okay with Mr Dershowitz. 

[Nyvin]

"If his election is in the public interest, then nothing he does in the pursuit of his election is illegal or impeachable."
- Alan Dershowitz, basically

So he could lock up the Democratic candidate, and that would not be illegal? He could rig the election, and that would not be impeachable?

Today, Alan Dershowitz! A man whose moral reasoning would destroy Western civilization.

Lock upp anybody? Rig the election? Rob a bank?


You are attacking a straw man built upon another straw man.


Dershowitz said that non-illegal quid pro quos with "mixed" motives can't be impeachable. Did anyone here actually watch the trial (except wulfric and that Indian girl)?

You clearly didn't listen to it yourself.   He started out saying that legal quid pro quos aren't impeachable...and then moves on to say that as long as the President believes his re-election is in the public interests then any quid pro quo that helps his re-election can't be illegal, thus not impeachable.

[Nyvin]

For my Democratic Friends on the other side of the aisle

Then Senator Joe Biden in 1999 "The Senate does not need to hold a Full Blown Trail"

https://static.politico.com/1e/c3/c1f5b0e64288babbba06da2e401a/0247-001.pdf

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1223057646401609733

Presidential Candidate Joe Biden in Iowa 2020:

"The Senate needs to hold a Full Blown Trail"

You cannot make this up Uncle Joe the way it suits you. Time to hold accountable!

Joe Biden isn't in the Senate.

[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!

[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!

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.

Please. Even Slate knows that Rachel Maddow has descended into conspiracy theory madness:
https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/rachel-maddow-mueller-report-trump-barr.html

Everything in her mind is about Russia, Russia, Russia! - even when it has nothing to do with Russia. She’s the left’s Glenn Beck.

Did you know that Frank Luntz dictates everything to the Republican Party? Must be true - Rachel Maddow said so!

Did you know Anthony Weiner was hacked! Must be true - Rachel Maddow said so!

Did you know something something Russia caused Trump to try to make a deal with North Korea? Must be true - Rachel Maddow said so!

https://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2017/05/why-does-rachel-maddow-so-often-embrace-fringe-conspiracy-theories

Are you trying to suggest Trump hasn't done anything unlawful or corrupt?   Taking snippets of news reports and trying to make her into a full fledged conspiracy theorist is a huge jump.

[Nyvin]

Democrats need to take a step back and take a victory lap.

At this point, even Republicans accept the fact that Trump did exactly what he was accused of.

This, on its own, is a huge victory.

More witnesses is not going to change anything when the fact has already been established.

Republicans can now risk voting to acquit a criminal at their own peril.

Also the fact that the uncalled witnesses could be called in for testimony later or release their information publicly closer to the election and it might end up being even more damaging to the Republicans.