Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:44 pm 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.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:39 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:34 pm 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..."

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:23 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:01 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:50 pm

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."

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:44 pm 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.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:46 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:44 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:56 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:39 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:34 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:58 pm
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?

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:40 pm smh. Who can blame him?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:18 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:44 pm 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).

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:08 pm Because he cant just agree with us dummies.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:14 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:58 pm
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 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:17 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:18 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:44 pm 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.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:34 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:17 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:18 pm

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.