Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

[twocoach]

I am also aware that they CAN. You arent breaking any news there. I am simply discussing my thoughts on what I hope that they do. It's a discussion board.

[twocoach]

In fact, if McConnell does hold a sham trial with no witnesses, then the Dems should rejoice.

They can go back to the well and call Parnas...and Bolton, and anyone else they want to. And if they have the dirt, they destroy not just Trump but the enablers as well.

Call them in what proceeding?

[ousdahl]

I suppose the only info that has been materially good for Trump was the news that his GOP homies were not gonna be impartial.

bear in mind, Parnas is under indictment. The dude got caught at the airport trying to flee the country, fer cryin out loud. Would he come clean and tell the truth as a matter of plea bargaining? Is he really gonna try to pull one on the Senate, too?

Well...that's a double-edged sword, no?

"Tell the Senate whatever it takes to get Trump convicted," and we'll go easy on you..."

well, I said come clean and tell the truth, not whatever it takes. Wouldn't that be effectively trying to pull one on the Senate, and land Parnas in even deeper shit in the long run?

[jfish26]

Good heavens.

[...]

i know it's frustrating and annoying and looks ugly, but it is demonstrably NOT the case that an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter. That's not a reasonable reading of this at all.

[...]

On one hand, you (and I don't mean this pejoratively) raise technical points suggesting that there's a reasonable way of looking at this that does not suggest partiality, railroading, bad faith and a general rejection of laws, principles, mores, norms, values, duty, etc.

On the other hand, the side it seems you'd take (with a gun to your head) is the one led by a guy who (a) says "I'm not impartial about this at all," and that "[e]verything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel", and so on and so forth, and (b) subsequently swore an oath to do "impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws."

So miss me, kindly, with the fig leaf stuff.

Again, I think this is frustrating. And I agree that justice would be far better served for everyone if ALL witnesses, including the President's "private" attorney were compelled to testify. Actually, I'd prefer it if they agreed to testify, but that's not going to happen.

[...]

tl;dr version: I don't like any of this any more than you do, but none of it violates any sort of "norms."

Well (thankfully), there aren't a ton of well-established norms here.

But I'm curious - you agree that justice would be better served if ALL witnesses testified. Why, then, the gymnastics about defending/justifying/excusing the White House's (and the supine Senate's) process?

[twocoach]

Because he cant just agree with us dummies.

[jfish26]

In fact, if McConnell does hold a sham trial with no witnesses, then the Dems should rejoice.

They can go back to the well and call Parnas...and Bolton, and anyone else they want to. And if they have the dirt, they destroy not just Trump but the enablers as well.

And this is, to me, one of the big mysteries here. At some point (and honestly, I've thought this point has already come), I'd expect McConnell and a significant number of other GOP senators to have heeded their own finely-tuned instincts for self-preservation (above whatever it is that's driving loyalty to Trump).

Particularly now, as public support for Trump continues to drop, and the legislature has realistically done nearly everything it can do in this term.

So, either (1) the "enablers" do not perceive themselves, or the GOP majority, to be in electoral jeopardy, or (2) there are motivations more important than keeping office (or the GOP majority).

[Shirley]

Trump has so captured the republican base that at this point if your desire is to be re-elected, politically speaking, there's no good reason for a republican to oppose Trump. Opposing Trump is unlikely to attract enough independents and right-leaning democrats to support you to make up for the Trump supporters who will abandon you. And that's assuming you survived your republican primary.

[Shirley]

smh. Who can blame him?

[DCHawk1]

In fact, if McConnell does hold a sham trial with no witnesses, then the Dems should rejoice.

They can go back to the well and call Parnas...and Bolton, and anyone else they want to. And if they have the dirt, they destroy not just Trump but the enablers as well.

Call them in what proceeding?

Whatever the fuck they want.

The House is a freaking dictatorship, unlike the Senate, where rules generally apply. They can investigate whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.

Think Benghazi.

[DCHawk1]

I suppose the only info that has been materially good for Trump was the news that his GOP homies were not gonna be impartial.

bear in mind, Parnas is under indictment. The dude got caught at the airport trying to flee the country, fer cryin out loud. Would he come clean and tell the truth as a matter of plea bargaining? Is he really gonna try to pull one on the Senate, too?

Well...that's a double-edged sword, no?

"Tell the Senate whatever it takes to get Trump convicted," and we'll go easy on you..."

well, I said come clean and tell the truth, not whatever it takes. Wouldn't that be effectively trying to pull one on the Senate, and land Parnas in even deeper shit in the long run?

Desperate men do desperate things.

[DCHawk1]

But I'm curious - you agree that justice would be better served if ALL witnesses testified. Why, then, the gymnastics about defending/justifying/excusing the White House's (and the supine Senate's) process?

There are several reasons, the most important of which is precedent. I think that we have all seen just how far people are willing to go to damage Trump, but very few of us have thought through what that means going forward, because we, generally, agree that Trump deserves to get got.

Leaking the details of head-of-state-to-head-of-state calls was unthinkable before Trump. Now it's routine -- and was LONG before the Zelensky call. And no one cares...cuz Trump!

Executive privilege serves an important function, and dismissing that function -- cuz Trump! -- only damages the republic going forward.

The same goes for the House trying to dictate conditions to the Senate. McConnell had no choice but to rebuff Pelosi -- in order to protect the prerogatives of the Senate. Now that he can do whatever he wants, and has protected the Senate's co-equal status, he should allow witnesses in the interest of justice.

[DCHawk1]

smh. Who can blame him?

Gee, why wouldn't we just let a desperateattentionwhore testify on live TV?

[DCHawk1]

In fact, if McConnell does hold a sham trial with no witnesses, then the Dems should rejoice.

They can go back to the well and call Parnas...and Bolton, and anyone else they want to. And if they have the dirt, they destroy not just Trump but the enablers as well.

And this is, to me, one of the big mysteries here. At some point (and honestly, I've thought this point has already come), I'd expect McConnell and a significant number of other GOP senators to have heeded their own finely-tuned instincts for self-preservation (above whatever it is that's driving loyalty to Trump).

Particularly now, as public support for Trump continues to drop, and the legislature has realistically done nearly everything it can do in this term.

So, either (1) the "enablers" do not perceive themselves, or the GOP majority, to be in electoral jeopardy, or (2) there are motivations more important than keeping office (or the GOP majority).

Trump has had some of the highest daily/weekly approval numbers of his presidency over the last couple of weeks.

[DCHawk1]

Because he cant just agree with us dummies.

Well put.

[jfish26]

But I'm curious - you agree that justice would be better served if ALL witnesses testified. Why, then, the gymnastics about defending/justifying/excusing the White House's (and the supine Senate's) process?

There are several reasons, the most important of which is precedent. I think that we have all seen just how far people are willing to go to damage Trump, but very few of us have thought through what that means going forward, because we, generally, agree that Trump deserves to get got.

Leaking the details of head-of-state-to-head-of-state calls was unthinkable before Trump. Now it's routine -- and was LONG before the Zelensky call. And no one cares...cuz Trump!

Executive privilege serves an important function, and dismissing that function -- cuz Trump! -- only damages the republic going forward.

The same goes for the House trying to dictate conditions to the Senate. McConnell had no choice but to rebuff Pelosi -- in order to protect the prerogatives of the Senate. Now that he can do whatever he wants, and has protected the Senate's co-equal status, he should allow witnesses in the interest of justice.

But doesn't the precedent issue cut both ways? For instance, unless something changes dramatically in the next 2-3 weeks, we're about to nuke the idea of abuse of power as an impeachable offense.

[Shirley]

[jfish26]

In fact, if McConnell does hold a sham trial with no witnesses, then the Dems should rejoice.

They can go back to the well and call Parnas...and Bolton, and anyone else they want to. And if they have the dirt, they destroy not just Trump but the enablers as well.

And this is, to me, one of the big mysteries here. At some point (and honestly, I've thought this point has already come), I'd expect McConnell and a significant number of other GOP senators to have heeded their own finely-tuned instincts for self-preservation (above whatever it is that's driving loyalty to Trump).

Particularly now, as public support for Trump continues to drop, and the legislature has realistically done nearly everything it can do in this term.

So, either (1) the "enablers" do not perceive themselves, or the GOP majority, to be in electoral jeopardy, or (2) there are motivations more important than keeping office (or the GOP majority).

Trump has had some of the highest daily/weekly approval numbers of his presidency over the last couple of weeks.

I enjoy his citations of consistent approval among the (shrinking) group of those who self-identify as Republicans.

[DCHawk1]

If it occurs again that a president of one party is impeached by a House of the other party, which rushes through an impeachment proceeding, refusing to wait until privilege issues can be adjudicated or negotiated, largely because of electoral concerns, and then sends it to the Senate of the president's party for trial, then yes, perhaps this will be seen as a precedent.

[DCHawk1]

And this is, to me, one of the big mysteries here. At some point (and honestly, I've thought this point has already come), I'd expect McConnell and a significant number of other GOP senators to have heeded their own finely-tuned instincts for self-preservation (above whatever it is that's driving loyalty to Trump).

Particularly now, as public support for Trump continues to drop, and the legislature has realistically done nearly everything it can do in this term.

So, either (1) the "enablers" do not perceive themselves, or the GOP majority, to be in electoral jeopardy, or (2) there are motivations more important than keeping office (or the GOP majority).

Trump has had some of the highest daily/weekly approval numbers of his presidency over the last couple of weeks.

I enjoy his citations of consistent approval among the (shrinking) group of those who self-identify as Republicans.

I dunno.

According to Gallup, when he was elected in 2016, 25% of voters identified as Republicans, while 28% identified as Republicans last month -- same as the Democrats.

[Geezer]

How appropriate the Ken Baylor University Starr and Alan Jeff Epstein Dershowitz have joined forces to defend Donald Trump University.