The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[GaryPinC]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There's NO chance all of it gets done by 2020, I do not disagree. But they don't need it all. They need one or two trials to make their case stick in the minds of voters. 

 

The OIG report was delayed for the purposes of the election -- a move which I disagree with entirely then and now. But that's the play they're running because they knew two things: 

1) The impeachment gambit was going to be run, and this is the ultimate "Trump" card. 

2) The evidence uncovered (despite Horowitz having no teeth) will fundamentally transform the narrative and set the stage for Durham. 

 

 

 

Was the OIG report delayed by the Republicans or by democratic efforts?  Okay, one or two trials.  Can the Democrats keep it to inconsequential underlings?  What if Horowitz's evidence doesn't fundamentally transform the narrative?  Certainly the MSM is going to fight that tooth and nail.  Again, my bigger point is the GOP needs to do better handling this situation.

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The side with the better story, backed by the most evidence. 

 

That's not the DNC's story. Their story is tired, played out, and has been seen before (many times). 

familiarity breeds comfort.  But, I certainly hope you're right

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I honestly do not know. Over Thanksgiving I got to chat with some relatives from the very blue Boston area, one of them is an attorney. Let's just say that in their opinion (so anecdotal)  the Democrats are idiots (they are Democrats) and this is all a charade.

If I had to guess (and it is only a guess) I'd say most people are tired of this. They have had enough of #OrangeManBad and a do-nothing Congress. That is only my guess though. 2020 will tell a bigger tale one way or the other.
 

Good to hear, thanks.  I think the one universal truth is we are all tired of this.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GaryPinC said:

Was the OIG report delayed by the Republicans or by democratic efforts?

 

The report was delayed because new evidence kept coming to light which required Horowitz to reinterview people. That's the official explanation. The truth is that it was allowed to be slow rolled because it's part of Trump's strategy to get the DNC to expend all their ammunition before he drops it. They could have rolled it out the day of the call to the Ukraine in July, one day after Mueller. 

 

But chose to keep their powder dry (and set a trap they knew the DNC couldn't resist). 

 

2 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Okay, one or two trials.  Can the Democrats keep it to inconsequential underlings? 

 

24+ high ranking members of the DOJ/FBI have been fired/demoted/resigned because of what Horowitz has already found. It won't be low level people indicted, even if they try to argue they're low level, the facts won't let them get away with that. Look at Clinesmith. He was described as a low level FBI employee -- when he was the head FBI attorney on the Russia investigation. 

 

They'll try. It won't work. 

 

4 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

What if Horowitz's evidence doesn't fundamentally transform the narrative?  

 

It already has. The evidence put into OS by Horowitz's teams (the texts, for example) are tough to argue with. There will be more in his report, even if his conclusion / summary is watered down, we are still going to see new testimony which either will or will not line up with the evidence already in OS. If it doesn't, and most won't, then it's going to force the democrats/media on the defensive rather than the offensive. They'll have to shift three years worth of bull#### to try to reframe it as harmless. 

 

And while they're trying to move bull#### mountain, the roll out will continue unabated. 

 

6 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Certainly the MSM is going to fight that tooth and nail.  Again, my bigger point is the GOP needs to do better handling this situation.

 

The MSM is complicit in the Russian lie. They have to fight it tooth and nail and will. 

 

But they won't be able to rectify their 2016-2018 positions (which said the dossier was verified, the FISAs were legally obtained et al) with the new evidence and news cycle. They'll ignore it while they get hammered by social media, independent journalists and the Trump campaign team which has a much larger war chest than all the DNC's candidates combined. 

 

one example:

https://mobile.twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1202675292499611649

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

********************

 

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

"I need a favor, though" 

 

So this proves one of two things.  

1.  You didn't read the transcripts

2.  You're a ***** liar.

 

Which is it.  

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So this proves one of two things.  

1.  You didn't read the transcripts

2.  You're a ***** liar.

 

Which is it.  

 

how is this a mutually exclusive option?

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

58 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

I'm skeptical, although it is possible.

If Nancy has control of the dollars, they will vote as she says.  Now honestly? I wouldn't be shocked if she says vote against it (behind closed doors) simply because it is an absolute loser  (in more ways than one).  It would have to be some of the 30-somethings that will not get reelected if they do vote for impeachment voting against it, and then Nancy can come out with "Well, we tried."



 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I'm skeptical, although it is possible/.

If Nancy has control of the dollars, they will vote as she says.  Now honestly? I wouldn't be shocked if she says vote against it (behind closed doors) simply because it is an absolute loser  (in more ways than one).  It would have to be some of the 30-somethings that will not get reelected if they do vote for impeachment voting against it, and then Nancy can come out with "Well, we tried."

hell, they (Greene?) have already said that they are going to keep the investigations going (paraphrased). they have already voted three times to impeach him, why not just keep the shitrade going all through his presidency.

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

hell, they (Greene?) have already said that they are going to keep the investigations going (paraphrased). they have already voted three times to impeach him, why not just keep the shitrade going all through his presidency.

I am pretty sure it is more than three times, but I get your point.

I read something today about the Democrats banking on retaking the Senate and not losing the House and just keep impeaching him through 2024. SMH Sounds like a winning strategy! Makes me wonder what they are smokin' that they "think" winning the Senate is going to happen? Goodness knows there is no "impeachment fatigue" among rational Americans who have seen Trump thoroughly investigated and noticed that the Democrats have nothing on him.

What happens in a few weeks when another government shutdown is imminent? Does everybody play nice? Does Nancy get blamed? Do the Rs get blamed? Should be interesting to watch. 
 

[Foxx]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I am pretty sure it is more than three times, but I get your point.

I read something today about the Democrats banking on retaking the Senate and not losing the House and just keep impeaching him through 2024. SMH Sounds like a winning strategy! Makes me wonder what they are smokin' that they "think" winning the Senate is going to happen? Goodness knows there is no "impeachment fatigue" among rational Americans who have seen Trump thoroughly investigated and noticed that the Democrats have nothing on him.

What happens in a few weeks when another government shutdown is imminent? Does everybody play nice? Does Nancy get blamed? Do the Rs get blamed? Should be interesting to watch. 
 

Universe save us if the Dems win the Senate in 2020 and retain the House. they will surely remove him if that is the case.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I am pretty sure it is more than three times, but I get your point.

I read something today about the Democrats banking on retaking the Senate and not losing the House and just keep impeaching him through 2024. SMH Sounds like a winning strategy! Makes me wonder what they are smokin' that they "think" winning the Senate is going to happen? Goodness knows there is no "impeachment fatigue" among rational Americans who have seen Trump thoroughly investigated and noticed that the Democrats have nothing on him.

What happens in a few weeks when another government shutdown is imminent? Does everybody play nice? Does Nancy get blamed? Do the Rs get blamed? Should be interesting to watch. 
 

 

23 of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs in 2020 are GOP

 

26 of the 35 were Dem in 2018

 

it's hard to gain in a year where you have the majority of the seats.

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

23 of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs in 2020 are GOP

 

26 of the 35 were Dem in 2018

 

it's hard to gain in a year where you have the majority of the seats.

True.
 

Big difference between 18 and 20 is that Trump will be on the ballot. That will increase turnout in key areas. 

[Bray Wyatt]

18 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Universe save us if the Dems win the Senate in 2020 and retain the House. they will surely remove him if that is the case.

 

They would need to get to 60 dems to remove him which i dont think will happen

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

They would need to get to 60 dems to remove him which i dont think will happen

67

[row_33]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

67

 

i don't trust the GOP to do the right thing if weaseling-out would seem like a good immediate tactic... 

 

 

[Foxx]

25 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

They would need to get to 60 dems to remove him which i dont think will happen

 

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

67

right, two thirds of the complete Senate are needed to convict.

 

however.... there is a little known loophole here that not too many are aware of. only two thirds of senators in attendance at the vote is required to convict. thus, 67 is not the immovable object everyone might think. if only 75 Senators show up to vote, a mere 50 votes are required to convict. not that i think that will/would happen but, i do have a severe distrust of all things elite so....

Edited December 5, 2019 by Foxx

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

i don't trust the GOP to do the right thing if weaseling-out would seem like a good immediate tactic... 

You are not alone.  There only possible concern for them might be the pitchforks and torches outside their homes if they did betray the Republican base and turn on President Trump. The GOP base is armed, so it might give them a slight pause. 

[Bray Wyatt]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

67

 

Ah thanks, after typing it I remembered 2/3 but then heard some where someone say 60 recently so went with that. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Right now, there is not a single story about impeachment on any of my browsers from yahoo news (my homepage).  Normally it is loaded with anti-Trump articles.  Things that make you go hmmmm 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1202696969551921152