Kansas Crimson

Mjl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:31 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:26 am but for real, thanks. I was trying to understand her strategy.

I just wonder if it'll backfire. I dunno if now's the time to get cute, considering how concerned republicans are about DuE pRoCeSs! but hey, republicans have already been bitching about due process either way, so what difference does it make?

"insisted on actual testimony" probably rings louder in history than, "hastily acquitted in kangaroo court."

it's wild how many Mericans are apparently either indifferent or opposed to hearing from the individuals in question. Can we get Barr up there too?

I'm not sure I understand how it would backfire - instant death in the Senate with no witnesses called is the worst political outcome for the Democrats.

which would rally the respective base more next November:

- an instant death in the Senate that pisses off and energizes the lefties, or

- a democratic breach of DuEpRoCeSs! that pisses off and energizes the righties?

DC, you seem to assume the latter? But it may not do the damage expected, considering the righties are already pissed off about due process, regardless of any real basis in truth or fact or how the process is actually going. I think a calculated breach of process by dems is even wise.

Democrats (surprise!) are prone to being a bunch of play-too-nice pussies, and Republicans (even bigger surprise!) are being a bunch of bush league douchers. In that regard, I suppose I can't fault dems for trying to, you know, ensure a fair trial -- which seems to be the last thing Trump and his cronies want.

You're assuming that the only two constituencies are the Republicans and the Democrats. But those two constituencies are irrelevant. No one in either camp is going to change his mind based on the trial or lack thereof.

The key constituency is the 40% of independents who A.) are already tiring of the whole mess and B.) generally crave normalcy.

Pelosi is gambling, expecting Trump to explode before independents turn on the whole mess irreversibly. Given Trump's volatility, that might be a smart bet, but it's a gamble nonetheless.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 7:46 am
Democrats (surprise!) are prone to being a bunch of play-too-nice pussies, and Republicans (even bigger surprise!) are being a bunch of bush league douchers. In that regard, I suppose I can't fault dems for trying to, you know, ensure a fair trial -- which seems to be the last thing Trump and his cronies want.

BTW, lulz

lulz

I know, right?

It is a gamble.

Do you think independents would be more moved by insistence on relevant witnesses at trial? Or by a hasty acquittal?

#impotus

Geezer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:38 am#impotus

I heard George Conway isn't a "real" conservative.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:33 am It is a gamble.

Do you think independents would be more moved by insistence on relevant witnesses at trial? Or by a hasty acquittal?

ALL relevant witnesses?

McConnell offered the 1999 rules already. What was good enough fer Bill ain't good enough fer Trump?

Also, if you wanted more witnesses, you coulda, you know, called them in the house that you actually control.

Feral wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:48 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:38 am#impotus

I heard George Conway isn't a "real" conservative.

That's not wut you heard.

You should send "him" money, though.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:38 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:33 am It is a gamble.

Do you think independents would be more moved by insistence on relevant witnesses at trial? Or by a hasty acquittal?

ALL relevant witnesses?

McConnell offered the 1999 rules already. What was good enough fer Bill ain't good enough fer Trump?

Also, if you wanted more witnesses, you coulda, you know, called them in the house that you actually control.

cuz of course all of them woulda showed up

wasn’t bolten subpoenaed, and waiting on court ruling about whether he could/should comply?

Which is it Nancy? She said people now have a spring in their step after the impeachment vote, but still saying it's a sad day for the country. And what's with her "quid pro quo" about withholding the impeachment papers from the Senate. So many contradictions.

Side note: If Trump is found not guilty in a Senate trial, and down the road he repeats what he did, could he be tried again or would that be considered double jeopardy? lol

The folks have a spring in their step because it’s the holiday season.

Folks don’t care about the impeachment because it don’t affect the folks lives. If it don’t effect the folks lives the folks don’t care about it.

The folks care about the season and being with family and eating ham and twas the night before Christmas.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:15 pm The folks have a spring in their step because it’s the holiday season.

Folks don’t care about the impeachment because it don’t affect the folks lives. If it don’t effect the folks lives the folks don’t care about it.

The folks care about the season and being with family and eating ham and twas the night before Christmas.

Your tax dollars were used for a political campaign. This would set a precedent that that's ok. Yes, it affects you and them.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:38 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:33 am It is a gamble.

Do you think independents would be more moved by insistence on relevant witnesses at trial? Or by a hasty acquittal?

ALL relevant witnesses?


McConnell offered the 1999 rules already. What was good enough fer Bill ain't good enough fer Trump?

Correct. It's a completely different magnitude of obstruction. Can't compare the two.

Also, if you wanted more witnesses, you coulda, you know, called them in the house that you actually control.

Seems right - are the rules for forcing someone to testify any different in the senate trial than the house hearings? If not, this is the only thing that bothers me about the Dems approach

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:40 am You're assuming that the only two constituencies are the Republicans and the Democrats. But those two constituencies are irrelevant. No one in either camp is going to change his mind based on the trial or lack thereof.

The key constituency is the 40% of independents who A.) are already tiring of the whole mess and B.) generally crave normalcy.

Pelosi is gambling, expecting Trump to explode before independents turn on the whole mess irreversibly. Given Trump's volatility, that might be a smart bet, but it's a gamble nonetheless.

Or she believes that the trial should actually contain witnesses and testimony per the "due process" that the Republicans have whined for over the last months.

And make no mistake, the testimony favors the Democrats here. If John "This Was a Drug Deal" Bolton or Mick "Get Over It" Mulvaney take the stand then it will make Republicans look that much worse when they ignore the testimony and vote 100% against impeachment.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:38 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:33 am It is a gamble.

Do you think independents would be more moved by insistence on relevant witnesses at trial? Or by a hasty acquittal?

ALL relevant witnesses?

McConnell offered the 1999 rules already. What was good enough fer Bill ain't good enough fer Trump?

The 1999 rules were modified from what it was in the beginning. Schumer wants the rules which were in effect during/end of trial. Knowing that Moscow Mitch is a weasel there is no guarantee that he would allow for the same motions that happened during the 1999 trial, after it started.

Also, if you wanted more witnesses, you coulda, you know, called them in the house that you actually control.

Aren't the Repubs complaining that the President couldn't mount a defense in the House (even though they were invited to participate but declined)? Bring on those who can exonerate, if any exist!!

Fine by me, but then...no one asked me, because...


The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:38 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:33 am It is a gamble.

Do you think independents would be more moved by insistence on relevant witnesses at trial? Or by a hasty acquittal?

ALL relevant witnesses?

McConnell offered the 1999 rules already. What was good enough fer Bill ain't good enough fer Trump?

Also, if you wanted more witnesses, you coulda, you know, called them in the house that you actually control.

How many witnesses were called that didn’t appear?

Bolton is waiting on a court decision on which branch deserves his loyalty, right?

And Rudy got subpoenaed but he’s too busy servicing Japhy, right?

Do you really think we shouldn’t hear from those dudes?

And why is the full, unredacted transcript not in play? Would that not clear up an awful lot in a hurry? Why was protocol breached by storing it on some other super secret database, anyway?