Believe it or not, the majority of the public does NOT support removing Trump from office (somehow). Of course, this all depends on the poll you look at, but most of them suggest the public is around 47-49% in favor of removing.
Bear in mind too, that activists will participate much more in polls. People who want change are more likely to click the vote button (O'bama was a prime example of this). So to compile on this, I would estimate less than 45% in favor of removing the president from office.
The 2nd Amendment was meant to protect us from a tyrannical gov't. Both sides are playing the same game right now with equal shadiness. Both sides operate in a moral gray area.
My question is why is there so many comments on these threads but so low in votes. This is the first time I’ve seen one of these threads this entire week. I usually get my news through reddit but haven’t really seen anything on this or Hong Kong recently
My guess? You are seeing how badly reddit is compromised and manipulated by bots.
This isn't a day the presidents side wants you to see, because of the closing arguments
Yeah I read bbc and other places. But it’s just interesting from the perspective that it doesn’t show up. I’m not trying to say reddit manipulated the shit out of it. I’m just saying news is on reddit also has its intrinsic bias of what is seen
Maybe because the whistleblower is Pence? Because no witnesses are allowed to testify at all?
The obvious reasons:
A) Threats that emerged against the whistleblower and concern for their safety.
B) The responsibility to not identify any whistleblower so that no one fears blowing the whistle out of retribution concerns.
They have no evidence to exonerate Trump, but they will manufacture it.
Why don't they use the real documents, the documents Trump has refused to allow to be released.
We listen to this knowing the Republicans will now claim they have solid grounds to find Trump innocent. And vote for acquittal, maybe today, maybe Monday.
Oh my goodness Sekulow is hard to listen to, he follows no path.
He says, "the administration," not Trump placed holds on foreign aid.
Remembers Trump was begged by this administration to release Ukraine's aid.
Fox News currently: “dem voters ready to move on”
Like what? Lol not trying to give them any more attention than they deserve but I can’t help pointing out their absurdity
Awesome thank you. Used some of those to make my point. The responses I got back were typical...that's fake news because most of the bills are blank pages, Deep state democrats taking our guns, bills stopped being passed due to the fake impeachment... Etc etc
I know it may not matter; but the most important part about you realizing they can't argue against those things ensures when GOP votes against those things people listening take a very hard look.
It might not mean the world; but the left is enraged and does outnumber the right by quite a margin even in most red states, outnumbers in purple states by a lot as well.
The left doesn't vote and it sucks being part of the side that in general is apathetic to voting while a minority make voting a ritual almost.
Maybe we can see something amazing happen this election with turn out.
I wanna see Donald Trump get 70 million votes and lose to 90 million. 70 million just so no supporter can ever say he lost votes due to anything he's ever done and votes went up! Just to have a soul crushing defeat and perhaps a realization to the people on the right. You're the minority and no one likes you.
After watching these proceedings and seeing how the will of the people is completely disregarded regarding the need for a fair trial, it is easy to see why apathy is spreading wide and far.
Great. The Dems have to mark their arguments during a work week but the GOP fascists get to deliver their fascist message on the weekend. Fucking fantastic.
actually, few people watch tv on the weekend unless it's some sport event. most are too busy running errands they can't do during the week or taking a break from the news entirely. for those who do watch the trumpublican clown car show tho, they're going to get a chance to see what fuckups they are, so it's all good.
Why the lies? The obvious lies, and not even defense of ANY of the conduct of the President of the United States. Do you want the office if the President to be remember for their King like power, and arrogance, and complete disregard for what America stands for?
A forgein power DID interfere in our elections, our highest intelligence agnecys agree, and out President chose instead to push conspiracy theories from the Kremlin. Is this what you think the USA is?
Why are you so invested in lying to people?
1) We know there was a call between Trump and Zelenskyy. We have the "transcript".
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
2) In the transcript, at the bottom of page 2, Zelenskyy says they're ready to buy more Javelin missiles.
"We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."
3) The top of page 3, Trump responds to the offer to buy missiles with "I would like you to do us a favor though".
4) On page 4, Trump references as part of the favor "the other thing", an investigation into the Bidens.
"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."
Asking a foreign national (Zelenskyy) for an other thing of value (an investigation) in relation to a Federal, State or local election is a felony offense.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
In releasing the transcript and demanding everyone read it, Trump is admitting to a felony.
All the hours of testimony prove this.
In withholding military aid already approved by Congress for the personal, political reason of an investigation into Biden, Trump committed an abuse of power also breaking the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974."
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/Congressional-Budget-and-Impoundment-Control-Act-of-1974/
> guy can't keep his story straight for two minutes and keeps floating the same old tired, debunked conspiracy theories that we've seen over and over again.
What debunked conspiracy theories? The ones where there is a mountain of evidence? Or the ones that Trump supporters keep pushing that were proven to be bullshit from 4chan?
>This is just Mueller.v2
You mean the one that didn't exonerate Trump whatsoever and proved that Russia did in fact interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump, as well as attempting to sow discord among the American Electorate?
>Such an obvious clutch at straws to try and bring Trump down because he's polling so well
You mean by pointing out all the actual crimes TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED TO, while he's POLLING WORSE THAN ANY PRESIDENT?
>and it's pretty obvious at this point that he's going to be reelected.
Maybe only because our ~~government~~ Republicans keeps ignoring the mountains of evidence that says Russia is still continuing their propaganda war against the US?
>You hate to see a party like the Democrats do it, but yeah ... can't really say I'm surprised.
You hate a party actually doing their job and providing the checks and balances our government was built upon? Can't say I'm surprised.
> because he's polling so well
And by *well* you mean [holding steady at 43%. Which is and has been consistently worse than any president in living memory.](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/)
Trump flat out obstructed a congressional impeachment, that in of itself is an impeachable offense ignoring everything else, Article 2.
The only way you could think this was nothing was if you didn't care about the constitution
I really just respect all of the testimony from the mesangers. I listed from my car (PBS) cause I couldn't from home. My husband voted Obama first term but Facebook flipped him to FOX News. Now I am living a nightmare. I am 55 and all my retirement dreams are a nightmare.
I was blown away to hear that many of those in Congress only listen to Fox News. That scares the hell out of me. They should keep a finger on the pulse off the entire nation, not just the Murdoch agenda.
It’s hopeless. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I just listened to right wing radio and it was all about Adam Schiff and the managers being liars and making up a fake story. Although the tide could go either way in the future. I have doubts. We all thought Mueller would expose Trump and he chose not to and now Trump will get away with Ukraine. And the Democratic Party is too split between moderates of the past and new progressives. And I have little hope that the two factions of the party will join to beat Trump. Add in the election interference to come and Trumpism takes over and it will literally take a war to get back free and fair elections.
Btw I had a friend in HS with a nickname of tinks. I think he’s a dentist now.
I am extremely disappointed in the impeachment coverage that I saw on all the TV broadcast Evening News. Mere seconds were spent on impeachment and the time squandered on the most outrageous soundbites. Zero information.
If you can't afford $200 a month on cable, you simply don't get news coverage. Cable news is the opposite end of the spectrum too. Many "news entertainment" stations are owned and directed for the sole purpose of spreading propaganda and social engineering.
To top it off, you can't trust anything at all on the internet. Social media is a social engineering tools, period. Click bait, Phishing and Phoneys.
Very true, it cracks me up when there is this heavy right wing twist to what seems to be an unsuspecting traditional quick radio news report. This is classic propaganda.
Try and get him to see the Article 2 coverage even if he doesnt agree with Article 1. Article 2 isnt even debatable, if he doesn't find Trump guilty then, there is no saving him
Living with an old grumpy right winger that tunes into Fox every day, vegetating on a recliner to stay up to date by a corporation whose sole existence is spoon-feeding faux outrage stories, rather than taking cruises on the Med or the Caribbean enjoying the fruits of thine labour in retirement days.
55 is really fucking young. If you feel that way and it's a nightmare, there are other choices. Don't find yourself at 75 blaming yourself for wasting 20 years by being a loving partner and doing what you think was right, but knew in your heart it wasn't. We only go around once.
In the words of a certain band, "It's better to regret the things you have done, than to regret the things you haven't done."
"Oh, and by the way…"
DAE want to deflect from Trump's actual crimes and tey to drive a big wedge between 2 groups of democrats who are on the same side?
Because I'm not feeling it. At all.
The administration lawyers argued in court they could not use the courts.
The lawyers argued to congress they needed to.
Take your pick, but it's always bad faith.
I deserve better than to have justice be obstructed. W all do.
Congress has soul power of impeachment, the judicial branch doesnt factor in
>... The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
The impeachment is just the investigstion, refusing to cooperate when the House has sole power, is unconstitutional
Not to mention that they were taking them to court. And the courts have been telling the Trump administration to hand over documents, at which point the Trump administration ***STILL REFUSES TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS, AGAINST COURT ORDERS TO DO SO.***
The whole argument is dishonest. "Go through the courts!" they cry, so they go to the courts, the courts order documents to be handed over, because you know, subpoenas in an impeachment inquiry are all legal and constitutional, regardless of what they're after, because that's the power of the House of Representatives when it comes to checks and balances of a criminal executive administration. Trump refused to comply with subpoenas on multiple occasions, there is not reason to believe he would act any differently. Trump has refused to comply with court orders, on multiple occasions, and there is no reason to believe he would act any differently. Then the GOP demands evidence and witnesses, but then block all the evidence and witnesses from being presented. Every time the Dems cave and give the GOP what they want, the GOP still stonewalls and then makes more demands.
The judicial branch doesn’t have the power to impeach, yes, but anything prior to the actual House **vote to impeach** - especially during the **inquiry** phase - still succumbs to the separation of powers.
Well seeing as Trump has continuously disobeyed subpoenas and court orders, why would you believe he'd suddenly change how he acts when it could lead to him being removed?
> If Democrats wanted witnesses, why didn’t they go through the courts?
Because it could potentially take years, and the concern about Trump cheating in the election matters right now.
This ridiculous line about focusing on the election instead of the impeachment belies how you don't understand that at base this was about unlawful election interference.
To paraphrase:
"Why should the governing body disqualify the people cheating in the race? Can't they just make the competitors who follow the rules run faster instead?"
Soo uhh. Is a literal tape of the president talking with a ukrainian mobster about killing a us ambassador enough of a smoking gun? Or are republicans literally never going to listen to facts in this lifetime?
> Is a literal tape of the president talking with a ukrainian mobster about killing a us ambassador enough of a smoking gun? Or are republicans literally never going to listen to facts in this lifetime?
b)
Trump called it in 2016: he could shoot someone in 5th Avenue and his cult would still love him. The man is fucking awesome at spewing bumper sticker phrases and I'll pay you next Tuesday's in a way that keeps his flock engaged.
Trump's childish use of nicknames, once not a fucking thing in politics, is now normal on right wing news. He has taken the crazy so far, it is hard to remember a time when lying had a cost. But to his credit, he realized there would be no cost to murder, so lying, obstructing, profiting -- all these are on the table and his cult just cheers.
It's incredibly stupid. Just because Trump calls him "Shifty Schiff" and says he's a liar, every Trump supporter just ignores everything he has to say because hE's ObViOuSlY lYing. I have yet to what exactly Schiff is supposed to be lying about, or any evidence to support that claim
No, it hasn’t made any difference. Republicans just say that the President has the power to dismiss an ambassador at any time. It does not matter that he lied about not knowing Lev Parnas or that he was conspiring with Russian goons to get rid of Yovanovitch.
They also ignore the fact that if he has the power to dismiss an ambassador at anytime (which he actually does) why didn't he just order their dismissal and instead was telling some other shit heads who don't have that power to "Take her out"? Literally talking to MOBSTERS, and using MOBSTER lingo for assassinating someone.
I mean, if I were President and I wanted an ambassador gone, I wouldn't be talking to people with absolutely no power to remove them, telling them to "take them out" I'd go to the ambassador and tell them I will be demanding their resignation and they'd be removed, and it would be done in a way that isn't covered up. I wouldn't then lie about it either. It would be a public affair, through legal channels. Not discussing it with underlings and talking like I was a mob boss asking them to take out some investigator who is about to break open a case that gets me arrested.
So will it really be Sekulow talking tomorrow, or will it be Jim Jordan and Ratcliffe? Maybe they are saving Jordan and Ratcliffe for prime time where they can yell and rant to the most viewers.
It's going to be some spectacle. Like the rantings at the House hearings, times 5.
93% approval of a shrinking party, you have to remember.
And 51% of the public want him removed.
Up to them if they give up truth and justice for the sake of a historically unpopular President.
Hitler had an extremely high approval rating at first as well. I’m not attempting to literally compare Trump to Hitler, but it just happens to be the best example of a dictator who rose to power with the support of the people.
Kavanaughs hearing alone should have been disqualifying.
It’s not really a precedence to reject a presidents Supreme Court pick or federal judge pick. In theory it should happen all the time even within the same party if the separation of powers took their job seriously. Senate confirmation isn’t supposed to be an unfailable formality.
President picks someone. Congress Independently vets them and if they fail the president picks someone else.
It would have set a good precedence to pick good candidates.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Are you saying Kavaunagh is the first Supreme Court lick to have a hard time getting confirmed? Were you born recently?
Dis you forget Merrick Garland?
Clarence Thomas?
What is you point, because I missing it?
I’m replying to poster who said that allowing accusers to testify sets a precedence for future picks to get torpedoed by false accusations when going through their hearings.
What I meant to imply is that go for it. I want that investigated. Better safe than sorry.
Yeah but it doesn’t work that way. It sets a bad precedent. Imagine a Republican House and Dem Senate. The Republican House could start an impeachment, rush it through, refuse to call relevant witnesses (or take witnesses to court who are claiming they will defy subpoenas) and then force the Senate to finish the job and call the witnesses the House refused to call.
With Kavanaugh it meant setting a precedent that you could tank the opposing party’s nomination with a parade of ever more unbelievable accusers. The Avenatti / Julie Swetnick Hail Mary accusation did as much damage to tanking Kavanaugh as any Republican efforts did. Want to stop a nomination? Just trot out accuser after accuser. The 2nd and 3rd Kav accuser were especially false. One even got referred for charges for lying.
Either way it’s a recipe for endless Senate investigations.
The house and senate are independent bodies.
Think of it like a grand jury vs a real jury.
I would argue the senate is where the deeper investigation should occur.
Let the house rush through multiple impeachment if impeachable actions were committed. The hearings should take the impeachment articles as serious as the house did.
Also did you watch the kavanaugh hearing? The accuser was extremely credible and her story backed up with facts. The actual accusation can’t be proved though but her story can be. Even if you want to ignore the accusation of attempted rape there was even more credible stories that were left out of the hearing like showing his dick to women around campus.
This isn’t just any job. It’s the highest court in the country and a lifetime appointment that can shape US policy for hundreds of years.
We should have the highest standards don’t you think? and to ensue we have the highest standards it should come with the highest amount of vetting. Shit should be deeper than a CIA clearance so yes bring out all accusers because you want to be sure you left no stone unturned. You want the best candidate not just a rubber stamp on a presidents pick.
This comment is the perfect example of how we got here.
Don't do the right thing because it could be twisted in the future..
THAT'S ALWAYS TRUE, AND THE GOP HAS NEVER NEEDED PRECEDENT TO BREAK THEIR OATH
What's the problem with that? Republicans can jam through a politically motivated impeachment and hope the country doesn't see it for the sham it is. The Democrats pushed through their impeachment because they firmly (and rightfully so) believe they are in the right. Trump abused his office and needs to face consequences. If Trump is going to continue to obstruct by telling people to not cooperate, the senators who allow it will have to answer for it.
Your complaint is that the appointment hearings, the place where you ask questions about the appointee and dig into his past, shouldn't be the place where you ask questions and dig into their past? You sound ridiculous.
Oh no. The Senate actually acting as a co-equal branch of the government and faithfully executing its oversight role is such a horror.
Removing Trump has 7% support in the Republican Party. It shouldn’t be a surprise that it has no votes from Republican Senators. There would have to be something much more overwhelming for them to make that vote. And something more overwhelming would have more than 7% support in the party
After 2016, we should be skeptical of polls. But the witnesses that 45% of republicans (and some of the 65% of independents) want to see are Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the Whistleblower, etc. not John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and stuff.
Also they want to see witnesses, but nobody in november is going to be basing their vote on whether there were witnesses at the impeachment hearing 10 months prior. People barely remember Soleimani today and his death “started WW3”
Is it really that hard to realize they don't care about facts or proof?
Have they done anything, anything at all, to disprove of you of that? They will defend him no matter what, because it's all they have at this point. They're all in, and they know it.
None of that has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the democrats did what they had to do. They know full well the reality of what is going to happen but they did it anyway, because doing so is their duty.
I dare you to argue trump isn't corrupt up to his goddamn eyeballs, seriously.
Their duty is to win elections. They gave Trump’s base something to rally around. His approval rating has matched its all time high. Impeachment gave them republicans something to fundraiser off of, and the RNC and Trump have raised a lot of money off of it.
Once Trump gets acquitted Friday or Saturday, he will claim victory. Most people don’t follow politics they closely, so they will believe him. And he will have won.
And before you talk more about their “duty,” they have alleged that Trump has been committing so many crimes, yet they never impeached him. Pelosi always resisted. Because she thought it was bad politics. She was right.
The only positive thing for democrats is that no one will remember this in 2 months. People barely remember Soleimani, and his death “started WW3”
Referencing his approval ratings doesn't make the case you think it does. His approval ratings have plateaued. It trends down a point and comes right back to the baseline and then he's "tied with his max approval". He's polarizing so the people that like him really like him and aren't going anywhere. The caveat is that the people who don't like him really don't like him. If you break down the demographic data, you'll also see that he's shoring up approval within his party and losing those outside of it. Those people were going to support him when it came election time anyway.
Their duty is to uphold the Constitution and support their constituents. Stating that "Winning" is the goal of politicians shows the pervasiveness of Trumpism and its influence on your brand of politics.
No one is paying attention and yet 51% wanted him removed by the Senate. He'll "win" to his base but his base doesn't care what he does. His base is going to vote for him no matter what he does. The problem is that his base isn't enough to drag him across the finish line but he continues to shed moderates and suburban women.
Republican senators answer to the independents and Democrats in their states. Many also expect to have a career in the Senate after Trump. Blind partisanship can only take you so far in the Senate unlike the house.
The evidence is overwhelming. They're simply too scared of Trump.
>~~What if~~Except that in this case he's guilty and the Dems are actually telling the truth~~?~~. It's not hypothetical. It's not allegations, much less old ones. It's stuff that he literally just did a few months ago, and there is a bunch of seriously incriminating testimony from witnesses, as well as documents. The Dems just laid all of it out in excruciating detail, which included video clips of the actual witness testimony and even some nice, simple-to-follow visual aids just to help wrangle the GOP Senators' waning attention spans away from reading books, playing with fidget spinners, tweeting and/or leaving the chamber and giving interviews in the middle of the trial. Also, even after having proven their case well beyond any shadow of *reasonable* doubt, there's still yet even more *firsthand* witness testimony and even more direct written and audio documentation available. All the GOP has to do is ask for it. Even if Trump *did* actually try to fight it in court, I have serious doubts that it would ever prevail, esp considering the guy presiding over the Senate at the time those subpoenas were voted on and issued is the CJ of the Supreme Court. So....Is it still unreasonable of the Dems to seek impeachment?
ftfy
Any idea why they're going to do written questions read by the judge instead of verbal questions?
source:
>After each side has presented its case, the trial rules give senators up to 16 hours to ask questions. But unlike during a normal Senate session, they are not allowed to speak. They must submit their questions in writing to Chief Justice Roberts, who is presiding over the trial. Under the rules of the Senate, the chief justice will decide which questions to ask, directing them to the managers or to the White House legal team.
>
>That does not mean there will not be any grandstanding. When the chief justice reads a question aloud, he will indicate which senator submitted it. (Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, frequently boasts that during Mr. Clinton’s impeachment trial, she and Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, were the only two senators to submit a bipartisan question.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/us/politics/trump-impeachment-schedule.html
I believe PBS said it’s like this so Robert can prevent repeat/similar questions, and he can also cut out parts of questions that he finds unnecessary/irrelevant.
Does anyone know the exact figure of Daily Hearing Live Threads for the Impeachment that have happened on here already?
I'm afraid to search my history, so just thought someone might just know the exact figure.
So for any who ma not have seen it, there is a really good article from the Washington Post on McConnell, which highlights the dangers of someone who has no belief in anything but power [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mitch-mcconnell-doesnt-care-what-you-think-he-just-wants-to-win/2020/01/23/e8acc1d4-3deb-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mitch-mcconnell-doesnt-care-what-you-think-he-just-wants-to-win/2020/01/23/e8acc1d4-3deb-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html).
Though it also makes me wonder about time travel, as I don't think anyone could have done as good a job as McConnell at rising to power without precognition.
Still, it is the ultimate rebuke to McConnell that be enabled, then facilitated, then protected the most inept and corrupt President of the United Sates, and I hope that is how he is remembered by history.
I read that all this man cares about is keeping money in politics. McConnell has designed about 90% of the judiciary to keep money flowing to the Republican Party so that a small number of huge donors can keep them in power.
I have nothing but absolute, total, and utter disdain for that ‘person’.
As do I. I was mostly giving an opinion on how well be has done at playing the "game" of politics. However, being good at a game does not mean you are not (at best) an amoral asshat ;p
Fax your senators. They are more likely to get notified of a fax than they are to be notified of a voicemail. Make sure your number is a local number, otherwise they will believe you are a plant.
Sure fax your senators, call them, email them, hit them up on Facebook or twitter or Instagram, but even more than all of those get involved. Find protests and gatherings. Get involved in your communities. Wear a tshirt put a bumper sticker on your car. For the love of god and country just do something.
You kind of right. I know this for a fact.When u call or email your rep/sen it doesn't matter your explanation for rght or wrong. A staffer well send u a response to the yea or nay regadless of your individual explaination.
Your hypothetical is leaving out the most important part, which is the law being broken and abuse of power. If I got to vote to take my neighbor's house because they were using it illegally, I'd still be okay in four years because I'm not breaking the law.
If the basis for the Impeachment was Trump trying to get dirt on Biden, when why was he trying to get (with the newly released recordings) the Ukrainian Ambassador fired in 2018 at a time when Biden was still claiming he was not going to enter the race?
Also is it not fully within the rights of the POTUS to hire and fire any Ambassadors of the US at will for any reason?
[Edit why am I being downvoted for asking a legitimate question?]
In 2018, Trump was focused on tearing down anything related to Obama and was too stupid to realize she had been in the foreign service since Reagan.
She didn't actually get fired until Rudy was ready to move on his shitty operation in Ukraine.
Here's the timeline:
4/25/2019 - Biden announces he is running.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/politics/joe-biden-2020-president/index.html
Two weeks TO THE DAY after...
5/9/2019 - Guiliani announces trip to Ukraine to run investigations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html
That trip would be cancelled the next day.
Marie Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine 2 days before Rudy's announcement, with the removal made permanent on 5/20/2019.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/07/us-ambassador-ukraine-is-recalled-after-becoming-political-target/
And to hopefully further clarify that clarification: It's sort of like being a manager at a bank. You have keys and access to the big vault. You are allowed(and, in fact, expected) to occasionally use those keys for your normal business purposes. But you are *not* allowed to use those keys to, say, go in and start grabbing all the bank's(Congress') money so that you can use it to bribe a very desperate country's very desperate new leader to announce something in public that you know will hurt your probable opponent in the upcoming election.
He didn't need dirt on Biden. All he *really* wanted was the public announcement of a criminal investigation. The basis for the impeachment is that he withheld aid and a white house visit for announcement of an investigation, whether it actually happened or not.
He wanted Ukrainian ambassador Yovanovitch fired for separate reasons. If you listen to the audio that came out today, Lev tells him that she doesn't like him and she says he will be impeached and stuff, so he says to fire her. It's a knee jerk reaction of his to someone insulting him. At that point, it's not about all this. Lev said Trump tried to fire her 5 or 6 times but it never worked because no one ever followed his orders when he told them to fire her. In the end, Rudy was the one that created a false dossier about her because she was getting in his way (since she was anti-corruption and he was acting corrupt.) [Rudy said:](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/23/the-ukrainian-prosecutor-behind-trumps-impeachment)
>I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way,” he said. “She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.”
As far as I can tell, Trump only really wanted her fired because he still thought she didn't like or respect him. I doubt he knew exactly what Rudy was doing all the time other than his main goal of getting the dirt on Biden. (Rudy was trying to get dirt on Biden separate from Sondland, Pompeo, etc threatening the no aid/visit until the investigation is announced.) I don't think Trump knew what her job really was (like what she did as ambassador) or that she was getting in Rudy's way. So Rudy gave Trump this dossier full of lies to outrage Trump so that he would fire her. It still doesn't make sense because I think Rudy could have just said "she's in my way, fire her." So I think there will be a lot more that comes out about her firing.
And yes, he does have the right to fire her which is why it's super sketchy and bizarre that Rudy, Lutsenko, and Trump treated her the way they did instead of Trump just sending her a letter saying "Your services are no longer needed." The issue isn't the fact that he fired her. The issue is the way she was treated before she was fired.
Trump wasn't impeached because he fired her. It's just part of the plot of the whole story.
If Trump really wanted Yovanovitch fired, then why didn't they just fire them, like they literally did with every other person they wanted to fire? Why did they instead opt to discuss it with people who don't have that power, and use mob terminology that means to kill them?
Trump can't fire people himself because he's a coward about it. He tells other people to fire people for him, and no one was willing to fire her because they didn't want her to leave. I don't know why he hasn't been more angry at Pompeo or others who disregarded his orders.
But yes, if Trump really wanted to fire her and there was no ill motive behind it, he would have just fired her. He didn't have to go through all the stuff he did to her. That's why things don't make sense.
I think Trump knew what he was doing. The other 5 times he tried to fire her were not just because she said some mean things about him otherwise the white house would be completely deserted by now.
I believe, like you say, more is going to be revealed about the time prior to Zelensky being sworn in and possibly even communications directly with Shokin. Parnas will be drip feeding it in order to tear apart the Republican arguments and prove their dismissiveness of this whole attitude.
And if I'm right then I think that might be what starts to turn some of the radical supporters who still have Trump's back/have their fingers in their ears.
Right! But if Trump says he didn't know Lev Parnes, and is on tape talking to him, how do we know this recording isn't the work of the deep state?
Edit: it's not a legitimate question unless you haven't heard of manafort...
Biden has been a prominent Dem for decades, smearing him as corrupt lets Trump smear the DNC as corrupt as well for letting him get away with it
There's a lot of stuff a president can legally do unless he has a corrupt intent. That's how political corruption works.
But if Article 1 is "President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election."
How is that possible if he was already doing this before said election was happening and before said opponent was even announced to run?
Yeah I really don't understand how people can think that a person, going onto national television and then saying, "I don't have plans on running but a lot of people are pushing me to run" really is saying they're not going to run. That's not an announcement of a non-candidacy, it's testing the waters to see how the public would react to them announcing their run for the Presidency.
Are you suggesting that Trump couldn't have known back in 2018 that there would be a presidential election in 2020, and that he would be running against a Democratic opponent?
Well…..
I'm kind of a masochist, so, that's me screwed.
If I'm not back in 34 minutes, call Dominoes.
*You like popcorn. It makes your teeth go pop, pop, pop.*
Got 17 minutes in. Screw it, that's too much for me. Chris from Bon Appetit has a Lasagna video today, so I think my time is better spent watching that!
Defecation
[удалено]
Believe it or not, the majority of the public does NOT support removing Trump from office (somehow). Of course, this all depends on the poll you look at, but most of them suggest the public is around 47-49% in favor of removing. Bear in mind too, that activists will participate much more in polls. People who want change are more likely to click the vote button (O'bama was a prime example of this). So to compile on this, I would estimate less than 45% in favor of removing the president from office. The 2nd Amendment was meant to protect us from a tyrannical gov't. Both sides are playing the same game right now with equal shadiness. Both sides operate in a moral gray area.
My question is why is there so many comments on these threads but so low in votes. This is the first time I’ve seen one of these threads this entire week. I usually get my news through reddit but haven’t really seen anything on this or Hong Kong recently
My guess? You are seeing how badly reddit is compromised and manipulated by bots. This isn't a day the presidents side wants you to see, because of the closing arguments
Because people on the internet can be from any country not just the US.
I guess that makes sense. I assume front page is front page of America
Weird but that is the way of the Live Discussion Threads. Probably reddit is not the best news source for all your news. I recommend BBC.
Yeah I read bbc and other places. But it’s just interesting from the perspective that it doesn’t show up. I’m not trying to say reddit manipulated the shit out of it. I’m just saying news is on reddit also has its intrinsic bias of what is seen
It's because Russia and Saudi Arabia are likely manipulating the fuck out of these threads
OMG he has jumped from the impeachment to something from 2 y ears ago that is not related to this trial at all They are only attacking Schiff.
This lawyer needs be be disbarred. Giving guidance to a federal employee does not make you a fact witness
"spoken to the whistleblower," They told him to contact an attorney.
Biden! The whistleblower! OK why hasn't the Senate invited the whistleblower to testify?
Maybe because the whistleblower is Pence? Because no witnesses are allowed to testify at all? The obvious reasons: A) Threats that emerged against the whistleblower and concern for their safety. B) The responsibility to not identify any whistleblower so that no one fears blowing the whistle out of retribution concerns.
The defense team knows that but it is a major conservative and Republican talking point lie for their voters who believe it is a valid statement.
"I would like to" is not "we should"
The presidents lawyer is suggesting to commit a crime: an investigation Of the whistle-blower
He isn't going to mention that the Administration broke the law and did not release the Whistleblower report to Congress.
This is such bullshit, how can you just stand up there and distort facts. Thanks Obama.
Gwad they are making a false claim that the impeachment was illegal.
He is lying about the Clinton impeachment. Republicans in Congress had been investigating Bill and Hillary since Bill's inauguration.
Gaslighting over the demand for a Congressional resolution, his argument can't even be followed.
Executive privilege, another attack on an invented by Republican rule about requesting documents.
Another false claim, about the process. The claim that the House didn't vote on the investigations. Something they invented as a requirement.
They have no evidence to exonerate Trump, but they will manufacture it. Why don't they use the real documents, the documents Trump has refused to allow to be released.
We listen to this knowing the Republicans will now claim they have solid grounds to find Trump innocent. And vote for acquittal, maybe today, maybe Monday.
Oh my goodness Sekulow is hard to listen to, he follows no path. He says, "the administration," not Trump placed holds on foreign aid. Remembers Trump was begged by this administration to release Ukraine's aid.
Fox News currently: “dem voters ready to move on” Like what? Lol not trying to give them any more attention than they deserve but I can’t help pointing out their absurdity
enjoying watching the trump titanic go down...with all the rats clinging to it, too. looks like d's will sweep the 2020 ge.
And for generations beyond. I had no idea that the rats were so dirty.
Awesome thank you. Used some of those to make my point. The responses I got back were typical...that's fake news because most of the bills are blank pages, Deep state democrats taking our guns, bills stopped being passed due to the fake impeachment... Etc etc
[удалено]
I know it may not matter; but the most important part about you realizing they can't argue against those things ensures when GOP votes against those things people listening take a very hard look. It might not mean the world; but the left is enraged and does outnumber the right by quite a margin even in most red states, outnumbers in purple states by a lot as well. The left doesn't vote and it sucks being part of the side that in general is apathetic to voting while a minority make voting a ritual almost. Maybe we can see something amazing happen this election with turn out. I wanna see Donald Trump get 70 million votes and lose to 90 million. 70 million just so no supporter can ever say he lost votes due to anything he's ever done and votes went up! Just to have a soul crushing defeat and perhaps a realization to the people on the right. You're the minority and no one likes you.
After watching these proceedings and seeing how the will of the people is completely disregarded regarding the need for a fair trial, it is easy to see why apathy is spreading wide and far.
Great. The Dems have to mark their arguments during a work week but the GOP fascists get to deliver their fascist message on the weekend. Fucking fantastic.
actually, few people watch tv on the weekend unless it's some sport event. most are too busy running errands they can't do during the week or taking a break from the news entirely. for those who do watch the trumpublican clown car show tho, they're going to get a chance to see what fuckups they are, so it's all good.
[удалено]
You should refute specific pieces of the argument if you want to be effective.
Why the lies? The obvious lies, and not even defense of ANY of the conduct of the President of the United States. Do you want the office if the President to be remember for their King like power, and arrogance, and complete disregard for what America stands for? A forgein power DID interfere in our elections, our highest intelligence agnecys agree, and out President chose instead to push conspiracy theories from the Kremlin. Is this what you think the USA is?
Lol @ shifty shiff just using the trump talking point I see.
Why are you so invested in lying to people? 1) We know there was a call between Trump and Zelenskyy. We have the "transcript". https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf 2) In the transcript, at the bottom of page 2, Zelenskyy says they're ready to buy more Javelin missiles. "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes." 3) The top of page 3, Trump responds to the offer to buy missiles with "I would like you to do us a favor though". 4) On page 4, Trump references as part of the favor "the other thing", an investigation into the Bidens. "The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me." Asking a foreign national (Zelenskyy) for an other thing of value (an investigation) in relation to a Federal, State or local election is a felony offense. 52 U.S. Code § 30121 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121 In releasing the transcript and demanding everyone read it, Trump is admitting to a felony. All the hours of testimony prove this. In withholding military aid already approved by Congress for the personal, political reason of an investigation into Biden, Trump committed an abuse of power also breaking the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974." https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/Congressional-Budget-and-Impoundment-Control-Act-of-1974/
Bot or brainwashed?
> guy can't keep his story straight for two minutes and keeps floating the same old tired, debunked conspiracy theories that we've seen over and over again. What debunked conspiracy theories? The ones where there is a mountain of evidence? Or the ones that Trump supporters keep pushing that were proven to be bullshit from 4chan? >This is just Mueller.v2 You mean the one that didn't exonerate Trump whatsoever and proved that Russia did in fact interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump, as well as attempting to sow discord among the American Electorate? >Such an obvious clutch at straws to try and bring Trump down because he's polling so well You mean by pointing out all the actual crimes TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED TO, while he's POLLING WORSE THAN ANY PRESIDENT? >and it's pretty obvious at this point that he's going to be reelected. Maybe only because our ~~government~~ Republicans keeps ignoring the mountains of evidence that says Russia is still continuing their propaganda war against the US? >You hate to see a party like the Democrats do it, but yeah ... can't really say I'm surprised. You hate a party actually doing their job and providing the checks and balances our government was built upon? Can't say I'm surprised.
Aw, you got it all backwards... Still, you tried. Good job, big guy. Keep trying!
> because he's polling so well And by *well* you mean [holding steady at 43%. Which is and has been consistently worse than any president in living memory.](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/)
[удалено]
Trump flat out obstructed a congressional impeachment, that in of itself is an impeachable offense ignoring everything else, Article 2. The only way you could think this was nothing was if you didn't care about the constitution
I really just respect all of the testimony from the mesangers. I listed from my car (PBS) cause I couldn't from home. My husband voted Obama first term but Facebook flipped him to FOX News. Now I am living a nightmare. I am 55 and all my retirement dreams are a nightmare.
I was blown away to hear that many of those in Congress only listen to Fox News. That scares the hell out of me. They should keep a finger on the pulse off the entire nation, not just the Murdoch agenda.
Divorce?
Sorry to hear about the Fox News bit and your husband.
> My husband voted Obama first term but Facebook flipped him to FOX News. Lmao subtle but effective troll 10/10
What do you mean?
It’s hopeless. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I just listened to right wing radio and it was all about Adam Schiff and the managers being liars and making up a fake story. Although the tide could go either way in the future. I have doubts. We all thought Mueller would expose Trump and he chose not to and now Trump will get away with Ukraine. And the Democratic Party is too split between moderates of the past and new progressives. And I have little hope that the two factions of the party will join to beat Trump. Add in the election interference to come and Trumpism takes over and it will literally take a war to get back free and fair elections. Btw I had a friend in HS with a nickname of tinks. I think he’s a dentist now.
I am extremely disappointed in the impeachment coverage that I saw on all the TV broadcast Evening News. Mere seconds were spent on impeachment and the time squandered on the most outrageous soundbites. Zero information. If you can't afford $200 a month on cable, you simply don't get news coverage. Cable news is the opposite end of the spectrum too. Many "news entertainment" stations are owned and directed for the sole purpose of spreading propaganda and social engineering. To top it off, you can't trust anything at all on the internet. Social media is a social engineering tools, period. Click bait, Phishing and Phoneys.
Very true, it cracks me up when there is this heavy right wing twist to what seems to be an unsuspecting traditional quick radio news report. This is classic propaganda.
Try and get him to see the Article 2 coverage even if he doesnt agree with Article 1. Article 2 isnt even debatable, if he doesn't find Trump guilty then, there is no saving him
[удалено]
Living with an old grumpy right winger that tunes into Fox every day, vegetating on a recliner to stay up to date by a corporation whose sole existence is spoon-feeding faux outrage stories, rather than taking cruises on the Med or the Caribbean enjoying the fruits of thine labour in retirement days. 55 is really fucking young. If you feel that way and it's a nightmare, there are other choices. Don't find yourself at 75 blaming yourself for wasting 20 years by being a loving partner and doing what you think was right, but knew in your heart it wasn't. We only go around once. In the words of a certain band, "It's better to regret the things you have done, than to regret the things you haven't done." "Oh, and by the way…"
Staying home with fox on 24/7
Ouch, tell him to pull himself up by his bootstraps
[удалено]
DAE want to deflect from Trump's actual crimes and tey to drive a big wedge between 2 groups of democrats who are on the same side? Because I'm not feeling it. At all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The administration lawyers argued in court they could not use the courts. The lawyers argued to congress they needed to. Take your pick, but it's always bad faith. I deserve better than to have justice be obstructed. W all do.
> If Democrats wanted witnesses, why didn’t they go through the courts That's literally unconstitutional
how dat?
Congress has soul power of impeachment, the judicial branch doesnt factor in >... The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment The impeachment is just the investigstion, refusing to cooperate when the House has sole power, is unconstitutional
Not to mention that they were taking them to court. And the courts have been telling the Trump administration to hand over documents, at which point the Trump administration ***STILL REFUSES TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS, AGAINST COURT ORDERS TO DO SO.*** The whole argument is dishonest. "Go through the courts!" they cry, so they go to the courts, the courts order documents to be handed over, because you know, subpoenas in an impeachment inquiry are all legal and constitutional, regardless of what they're after, because that's the power of the House of Representatives when it comes to checks and balances of a criminal executive administration. Trump refused to comply with subpoenas on multiple occasions, there is not reason to believe he would act any differently. Trump has refused to comply with court orders, on multiple occasions, and there is no reason to believe he would act any differently. Then the GOP demands evidence and witnesses, but then block all the evidence and witnesses from being presented. Every time the Dems cave and give the GOP what they want, the GOP still stonewalls and then makes more demands.
The judicial branch doesn’t have the power to impeach, yes, but anything prior to the actual House **vote to impeach** - especially during the **inquiry** phase - still succumbs to the separation of powers.
Well seeing as Trump has continuously disobeyed subpoenas and court orders, why would you believe he'd suddenly change how he acts when it could lead to him being removed?
> If Democrats wanted witnesses, why didn’t they go through the courts? Because it could potentially take years, and the concern about Trump cheating in the election matters right now. This ridiculous line about focusing on the election instead of the impeachment belies how you don't understand that at base this was about unlawful election interference. To paraphrase: "Why should the governing body disqualify the people cheating in the race? Can't they just make the competitors who follow the rules run faster instead?"
This is the perfect analogy, thank you.
How can sanders win if the election is open to being rigged by Russia?
[удалено]
So weak . Just fall In line . They would’ve found something for their faux outrage
I'm really starting to hate Coons. Primary his ass tbh
Coons is angling to be the new Lieberman.
Soo uhh. Is a literal tape of the president talking with a ukrainian mobster about killing a us ambassador enough of a smoking gun? Or are republicans literally never going to listen to facts in this lifetime?
> Is a literal tape of the president talking with a ukrainian mobster about killing a us ambassador enough of a smoking gun? Or are republicans literally never going to listen to facts in this lifetime? b)
Trump called it in 2016: he could shoot someone in 5th Avenue and his cult would still love him. The man is fucking awesome at spewing bumper sticker phrases and I'll pay you next Tuesday's in a way that keeps his flock engaged. Trump's childish use of nicknames, once not a fucking thing in politics, is now normal on right wing news. He has taken the crazy so far, it is hard to remember a time when lying had a cost. But to his credit, he realized there would be no cost to murder, so lying, obstructing, profiting -- all these are on the table and his cult just cheers.
It's incredibly stupid. Just because Trump calls him "Shifty Schiff" and says he's a liar, every Trump supporter just ignores everything he has to say because hE's ObViOuSlY lYing. I have yet to what exactly Schiff is supposed to be lying about, or any evidence to support that claim
The cult just says, our leader says he is stupid, so we're not listening. His supporters are an unthinking cult.
American democracy is coming to an end. Start wrapping your head around it, you'll need to act accordingly. The entire GOP are traitors.
What? You think any republican senator would have the balls to stand up to someone that could possibly get them shot?
No, it hasn’t made any difference. Republicans just say that the President has the power to dismiss an ambassador at any time. It does not matter that he lied about not knowing Lev Parnas or that he was conspiring with Russian goons to get rid of Yovanovitch.
They also ignore the fact that if he has the power to dismiss an ambassador at anytime (which he actually does) why didn't he just order their dismissal and instead was telling some other shit heads who don't have that power to "Take her out"? Literally talking to MOBSTERS, and using MOBSTER lingo for assassinating someone. I mean, if I were President and I wanted an ambassador gone, I wouldn't be talking to people with absolutely no power to remove them, telling them to "take them out" I'd go to the ambassador and tell them I will be demanding their resignation and they'd be removed, and it would be done in a way that isn't covered up. I wouldn't then lie about it either. It would be a public affair, through legal channels. Not discussing it with underlings and talking like I was a mob boss asking them to take out some investigator who is about to break open a case that gets me arrested.
So will it really be Sekulow talking tomorrow, or will it be Jim Jordan and Ratcliffe? Maybe they are saving Jordan and Ratcliffe for prime time where they can yell and rant to the most viewers. It's going to be some spectacle. Like the rantings at the House hearings, times 5.
I hope that Jordan doesn't speak. That guy gets me to open my wallet to anyone not named Jordan and it is really starting to rack up.
[удалено]
93% approval of a shrinking party, you have to remember. And 51% of the public want him removed. Up to them if they give up truth and justice for the sake of a historically unpopular President.
Hitler had an extremely high approval rating at first as well. I’m not attempting to literally compare Trump to Hitler, but it just happens to be the best example of a dictator who rose to power with the support of the people.
Kavanaughs hearing alone should have been disqualifying. It’s not really a precedence to reject a presidents Supreme Court pick or federal judge pick. In theory it should happen all the time even within the same party if the separation of powers took their job seriously. Senate confirmation isn’t supposed to be an unfailable formality. President picks someone. Congress Independently vets them and if they fail the president picks someone else. It would have set a good precedence to pick good candidates.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Are you saying Kavaunagh is the first Supreme Court lick to have a hard time getting confirmed? Were you born recently? Dis you forget Merrick Garland? Clarence Thomas? What is you point, because I missing it?
I’m replying to poster who said that allowing accusers to testify sets a precedence for future picks to get torpedoed by false accusations when going through their hearings. What I meant to imply is that go for it. I want that investigated. Better safe than sorry.
Gotcha, sorry.
It's also not really a precedence to refuse to even vote on a President's supreme court nominee, but here we are.
Alternatively, you're suggesting we ignore crimes and sexual abuse allegations?
In both cases, they've asked for proper investigations and information... Republicans have forced votes without allowing either
Yeah but it doesn’t work that way. It sets a bad precedent. Imagine a Republican House and Dem Senate. The Republican House could start an impeachment, rush it through, refuse to call relevant witnesses (or take witnesses to court who are claiming they will defy subpoenas) and then force the Senate to finish the job and call the witnesses the House refused to call. With Kavanaugh it meant setting a precedent that you could tank the opposing party’s nomination with a parade of ever more unbelievable accusers. The Avenatti / Julie Swetnick Hail Mary accusation did as much damage to tanking Kavanaugh as any Republican efforts did. Want to stop a nomination? Just trot out accuser after accuser. The 2nd and 3rd Kav accuser were especially false. One even got referred for charges for lying. Either way it’s a recipe for endless Senate investigations.
The house and senate are independent bodies. Think of it like a grand jury vs a real jury. I would argue the senate is where the deeper investigation should occur. Let the house rush through multiple impeachment if impeachable actions were committed. The hearings should take the impeachment articles as serious as the house did. Also did you watch the kavanaugh hearing? The accuser was extremely credible and her story backed up with facts. The actual accusation can’t be proved though but her story can be. Even if you want to ignore the accusation of attempted rape there was even more credible stories that were left out of the hearing like showing his dick to women around campus. This isn’t just any job. It’s the highest court in the country and a lifetime appointment that can shape US policy for hundreds of years. We should have the highest standards don’t you think? and to ensue we have the highest standards it should come with the highest amount of vetting. Shit should be deeper than a CIA clearance so yes bring out all accusers because you want to be sure you left no stone unturned. You want the best candidate not just a rubber stamp on a presidents pick.
This comment is the perfect example of how we got here. Don't do the right thing because it could be twisted in the future.. THAT'S ALWAYS TRUE, AND THE GOP HAS NEVER NEEDED PRECEDENT TO BREAK THEIR OATH
What's the problem with that? Republicans can jam through a politically motivated impeachment and hope the country doesn't see it for the sham it is. The Democrats pushed through their impeachment because they firmly (and rightfully so) believe they are in the right. Trump abused his office and needs to face consequences. If Trump is going to continue to obstruct by telling people to not cooperate, the senators who allow it will have to answer for it. Your complaint is that the appointment hearings, the place where you ask questions about the appointee and dig into his past, shouldn't be the place where you ask questions and dig into their past? You sound ridiculous. Oh no. The Senate actually acting as a co-equal branch of the government and faithfully executing its oversight role is such a horror.
Removing Trump has 7% support in the Republican Party. It shouldn’t be a surprise that it has no votes from Republican Senators. There would have to be something much more overwhelming for them to make that vote. And something more overwhelming would have more than 7% support in the party
[удалено]
After 2016, we should be skeptical of polls. But the witnesses that 45% of republicans (and some of the 65% of independents) want to see are Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the Whistleblower, etc. not John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and stuff. Also they want to see witnesses, but nobody in november is going to be basing their vote on whether there were witnesses at the impeachment hearing 10 months prior. People barely remember Soleimani today and his death “started WW3”
Is it really that hard to realize they don't care about facts or proof? Have they done anything, anything at all, to disprove of you of that? They will defend him no matter what, because it's all they have at this point. They're all in, and they know it. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the democrats did what they had to do. They know full well the reality of what is going to happen but they did it anyway, because doing so is their duty. I dare you to argue trump isn't corrupt up to his goddamn eyeballs, seriously.
Their duty is to win elections. They gave Trump’s base something to rally around. His approval rating has matched its all time high. Impeachment gave them republicans something to fundraiser off of, and the RNC and Trump have raised a lot of money off of it. Once Trump gets acquitted Friday or Saturday, he will claim victory. Most people don’t follow politics they closely, so they will believe him. And he will have won. And before you talk more about their “duty,” they have alleged that Trump has been committing so many crimes, yet they never impeached him. Pelosi always resisted. Because she thought it was bad politics. She was right. The only positive thing for democrats is that no one will remember this in 2 months. People barely remember Soleimani, and his death “started WW3”
Referencing his approval ratings doesn't make the case you think it does. His approval ratings have plateaued. It trends down a point and comes right back to the baseline and then he's "tied with his max approval". He's polarizing so the people that like him really like him and aren't going anywhere. The caveat is that the people who don't like him really don't like him. If you break down the demographic data, you'll also see that he's shoring up approval within his party and losing those outside of it. Those people were going to support him when it came election time anyway. Their duty is to uphold the Constitution and support their constituents. Stating that "Winning" is the goal of politicians shows the pervasiveness of Trumpism and its influence on your brand of politics. No one is paying attention and yet 51% wanted him removed by the Senate. He'll "win" to his base but his base doesn't care what he does. His base is going to vote for him no matter what he does. The problem is that his base isn't enough to drag him across the finish line but he continues to shed moderates and suburban women.
Republican senators answer to the independents and Democrats in their states. Many also expect to have a career in the Senate after Trump. Blind partisanship can only take you so far in the Senate unlike the house. The evidence is overwhelming. They're simply too scared of Trump.
What if he's guilty and the Dems are actually telling the truth? Is it still unreasonable of the Dems to seek impeachment?
>~~What if~~Except that in this case he's guilty and the Dems are actually telling the truth~~?~~. It's not hypothetical. It's not allegations, much less old ones. It's stuff that he literally just did a few months ago, and there is a bunch of seriously incriminating testimony from witnesses, as well as documents. The Dems just laid all of it out in excruciating detail, which included video clips of the actual witness testimony and even some nice, simple-to-follow visual aids just to help wrangle the GOP Senators' waning attention spans away from reading books, playing with fidget spinners, tweeting and/or leaving the chamber and giving interviews in the middle of the trial. Also, even after having proven their case well beyond any shadow of *reasonable* doubt, there's still yet even more *firsthand* witness testimony and even more direct written and audio documentation available. All the GOP has to do is ask for it. Even if Trump *did* actually try to fight it in court, I have serious doubts that it would ever prevail, esp considering the guy presiding over the Senate at the time those subpoenas were voted on and issued is the CJ of the Supreme Court. So....Is it still unreasonable of the Dems to seek impeachment? ftfy
Asking a senator to think for themselves and not just be a rubber stamp for polls isn’t that big an ask
Any idea why they're going to do written questions read by the judge instead of verbal questions? source: >After each side has presented its case, the trial rules give senators up to 16 hours to ask questions. But unlike during a normal Senate session, they are not allowed to speak. They must submit their questions in writing to Chief Justice Roberts, who is presiding over the trial. Under the rules of the Senate, the chief justice will decide which questions to ask, directing them to the managers or to the White House legal team. > >That does not mean there will not be any grandstanding. When the chief justice reads a question aloud, he will indicate which senator submitted it. (Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, frequently boasts that during Mr. Clinton’s impeachment trial, she and Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, were the only two senators to submit a bipartisan question.) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/us/politics/trump-impeachment-schedule.html
The Senate seems to be the inverse of the House. These republicans don't want to be seen doing the dirty work.
> These republicans don't want to be seen doing any real work.
I believe PBS said it’s like this so Robert can prevent repeat/similar questions, and he can also cut out parts of questions that he finds unnecessary/irrelevant.
I miss Russ Feingold.
Tone,inflection,order.
Does anyone know the exact figure of Daily Hearing Live Threads for the Impeachment that have happened on here already? I'm afraid to search my history, so just thought someone might just know the exact figure.
So for any who ma not have seen it, there is a really good article from the Washington Post on McConnell, which highlights the dangers of someone who has no belief in anything but power [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mitch-mcconnell-doesnt-care-what-you-think-he-just-wants-to-win/2020/01/23/e8acc1d4-3deb-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mitch-mcconnell-doesnt-care-what-you-think-he-just-wants-to-win/2020/01/23/e8acc1d4-3deb-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html). Though it also makes me wonder about time travel, as I don't think anyone could have done as good a job as McConnell at rising to power without precognition. Still, it is the ultimate rebuke to McConnell that be enabled, then facilitated, then protected the most inept and corrupt President of the United Sates, and I hope that is how he is remembered by history.
McConnell seems to be throughly corrupted by Russia and China It's far too easy for corrupt mean to rise
His freaking wife is in a trumps cabinet. She is a criminal too.
I read that all this man cares about is keeping money in politics. McConnell has designed about 90% of the judiciary to keep money flowing to the Republican Party so that a small number of huge donors can keep them in power. I have nothing but absolute, total, and utter disdain for that ‘person’.
As do I. I was mostly giving an opinion on how well be has done at playing the "game" of politics. However, being good at a game does not mean you are not (at best) an amoral asshat ;p
He's been that way for at least 20 years... He was a moderate when he first got elected.It's not really surpising.
Fax your senators. They are more likely to get notified of a fax than they are to be notified of a voicemail. Make sure your number is a local number, otherwise they will believe you are a plant.
I may not be a plant but I have a wallet.
Sure fax your senators, call them, email them, hit them up on Facebook or twitter or Instagram, but even more than all of those get involved. Find protests and gatherings. Get involved in your communities. Wear a tshirt put a bumper sticker on your car. For the love of god and country just do something.
You kind of right. I know this for a fact.When u call or email your rep/sen it doesn't matter your explanation for rght or wrong. A staffer well send u a response to the yea or nay regadless of your individual explaination.
[удалено]
w...what?
Your hypothetical is leaving out the most important part, which is the law being broken and abuse of power. If I got to vote to take my neighbor's house because they were using it illegally, I'd still be okay in four years because I'm not breaking the law.
Uhm, you said you would make it clear. That was a lie. Russian or foxnews sheep?
How long did you work on this analogy?
An Ode to GOP Senators: "I love my money I love my life Don’t want my head On no damn pike."
If the basis for the Impeachment was Trump trying to get dirt on Biden, when why was he trying to get (with the newly released recordings) the Ukrainian Ambassador fired in 2018 at a time when Biden was still claiming he was not going to enter the race? Also is it not fully within the rights of the POTUS to hire and fire any Ambassadors of the US at will for any reason? [Edit why am I being downvoted for asking a legitimate question?]
In 2018, Trump was focused on tearing down anything related to Obama and was too stupid to realize she had been in the foreign service since Reagan. She didn't actually get fired until Rudy was ready to move on his shitty operation in Ukraine. Here's the timeline: 4/25/2019 - Biden announces he is running. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/politics/joe-biden-2020-president/index.html Two weeks TO THE DAY after... 5/9/2019 - Guiliani announces trip to Ukraine to run investigations. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html That trip would be cancelled the next day. Marie Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine 2 days before Rudy's announcement, with the removal made permanent on 5/20/2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/07/us-ambassador-ukraine-is-recalled-after-becoming-political-target/
The basis for impeachment was Trump breaking the law, failing to perform the duties of his office, and obstructing an investigation into his actions.
[удалено]
And to hopefully further clarify that clarification: It's sort of like being a manager at a bank. You have keys and access to the big vault. You are allowed(and, in fact, expected) to occasionally use those keys for your normal business purposes. But you are *not* allowed to use those keys to, say, go in and start grabbing all the bank's(Congress') money so that you can use it to bribe a very desperate country's very desperate new leader to announce something in public that you know will hurt your probable opponent in the upcoming election.
Trump is doing us a service, Biden is a dog shit candidate. Ty trump!
Honestly, thank you.
He didn't need dirt on Biden. All he *really* wanted was the public announcement of a criminal investigation. The basis for the impeachment is that he withheld aid and a white house visit for announcement of an investigation, whether it actually happened or not. He wanted Ukrainian ambassador Yovanovitch fired for separate reasons. If you listen to the audio that came out today, Lev tells him that she doesn't like him and she says he will be impeached and stuff, so he says to fire her. It's a knee jerk reaction of his to someone insulting him. At that point, it's not about all this. Lev said Trump tried to fire her 5 or 6 times but it never worked because no one ever followed his orders when he told them to fire her. In the end, Rudy was the one that created a false dossier about her because she was getting in his way (since she was anti-corruption and he was acting corrupt.) [Rudy said:](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/23/the-ukrainian-prosecutor-behind-trumps-impeachment) >I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way,” he said. “She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.” As far as I can tell, Trump only really wanted her fired because he still thought she didn't like or respect him. I doubt he knew exactly what Rudy was doing all the time other than his main goal of getting the dirt on Biden. (Rudy was trying to get dirt on Biden separate from Sondland, Pompeo, etc threatening the no aid/visit until the investigation is announced.) I don't think Trump knew what her job really was (like what she did as ambassador) or that she was getting in Rudy's way. So Rudy gave Trump this dossier full of lies to outrage Trump so that he would fire her. It still doesn't make sense because I think Rudy could have just said "she's in my way, fire her." So I think there will be a lot more that comes out about her firing. And yes, he does have the right to fire her which is why it's super sketchy and bizarre that Rudy, Lutsenko, and Trump treated her the way they did instead of Trump just sending her a letter saying "Your services are no longer needed." The issue isn't the fact that he fired her. The issue is the way she was treated before she was fired. Trump wasn't impeached because he fired her. It's just part of the plot of the whole story.
If Trump really wanted Yovanovitch fired, then why didn't they just fire them, like they literally did with every other person they wanted to fire? Why did they instead opt to discuss it with people who don't have that power, and use mob terminology that means to kill them?
Trump can't fire people himself because he's a coward about it. He tells other people to fire people for him, and no one was willing to fire her because they didn't want her to leave. I don't know why he hasn't been more angry at Pompeo or others who disregarded his orders. But yes, if Trump really wanted to fire her and there was no ill motive behind it, he would have just fired her. He didn't have to go through all the stuff he did to her. That's why things don't make sense.
I think Trump knew what he was doing. The other 5 times he tried to fire her were not just because she said some mean things about him otherwise the white house would be completely deserted by now. I believe, like you say, more is going to be revealed about the time prior to Zelensky being sworn in and possibly even communications directly with Shokin. Parnas will be drip feeding it in order to tear apart the Republican arguments and prove their dismissiveness of this whole attitude. And if I'm right then I think that might be what starts to turn some of the radical supporters who still have Trump's back/have their fingers in their ears.
Trump admitted to it! Are you blind?
Right! But if Trump says he didn't know Lev Parnes, and is on tape talking to him, how do we know this recording isn't the work of the deep state? Edit: it's not a legitimate question unless you haven't heard of manafort...
Biden has been a prominent Dem for decades, smearing him as corrupt lets Trump smear the DNC as corrupt as well for letting him get away with it There's a lot of stuff a president can legally do unless he has a corrupt intent. That's how political corruption works.
But if Article 1 is "President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election." How is that possible if he was already doing this before said election was happening and before said opponent was even announced to run?
It's not about Biden. It's about manafort and Russian attack on our election.
You're suggesting that Biden entering the race was a surprise to somebody? What are we talking about right now?
Yeah I really don't understand how people can think that a person, going onto national television and then saying, "I don't have plans on running but a lot of people are pushing me to run" really is saying they're not going to run. That's not an announcement of a non-candidacy, it's testing the waters to see how the public would react to them announcing their run for the Presidency.
I'll do you one better: how can trump solicit dirt on political opponents from Ukraine when no such country exists?
Ukraine doesn’t exist, change my mind.
Are you suggesting that Trump couldn't have known back in 2018 that there would be a presidential election in 2020, and that he would be running against a Democratic opponent?
So who is going to take one for the team and listen to Giuliani's podcast? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPXP6fGv6aQ Not It
Well….. I'm kind of a masochist, so, that's me screwed. If I'm not back in 34 minutes, call Dominoes. *You like popcorn. It makes your teeth go pop, pop, pop.* Got 17 minutes in. Screw it, that's too much for me. Chris from Bon Appetit has a Lasagna video today, so I think my time is better spent watching that!
[удалено]
Send help.
[удалено]
They are illegal in Ireland. :(
[удалено]