US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,691
    Likes Received:
    5,457
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Holy shit, a rational reply to someone disagreeing with you, on the internet?!? You need to post here more, bro. :yesway:
     
    Thaeon, USMarine75 and zappatton2 like this.
  2. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,691
    Likes Received:
    5,457
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    I read summaries this morning.

    Odd that this release is timed with Pelosi's decision to send the impeachment to the Senate. I can't figure out how this would be more beneficial than just releasing these right away... but it's hard to not at least consider that her strategy here was to intentionally lose a fight she knew she was going to, but then just release a barrage of evidence afterwards that badly undercuts the GOP's position to damage their credibility, once they were well and truly entrenched...? Idunno though, I can't see how that would necessarily be more effective than playing to win from day one, unless she was 100% sure it was a foregone conclusion that she couldnt get subpoenaed witnesses.
     
    sleewell likes this.
  3. sleewell

    sleewell SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    michigan
    she probably knows more is coming.
     
  4. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,691
    Likes Received:
    5,457
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Romney has come out saying he's in favor of subpoenaing Bolton.

    On one hand, that's just one Republican vote... But on the other, I think getting anyone to stick their neck out was the hard one on this, and I wouldn't be surprised if Collins and Murkowski follow in pretty short order. That would leave it a 50-50 split with Pence as the tiebreaking vote (CAN he vote as the tiebreaker in an impeachment trial, considering he's next in the chain of command if Trump is removed) and you would need only one other vote to force McConnell to call witnesses.
     
    bostjan likes this.
  5. zappatton2

    zappatton2 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    842
    Likes Received:
    600
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    My exact reaction to that as well. Kudos, Captain Butterscotch!!
     
  6. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,533
    Likes Received:
    3,799
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    The VP cannot vote in the impeachment trial, and, historically, hasn't voted on anything to do with impeachment proceedings, but with things the way they are now, who knows! I don't think it'll make any difference, though, since you'd need 17 or more republican senators to change their minds as a result of witness testimony. If Trump himself got in front of the Senate and testified that he purposely withheld the Ukraine money to get an investigation opened on the Bidens, and also admitted that the investigation would likely be bogus, I honestly don't see 20 Republicans jumping ship. And no other testimony could possibly be a stronger scenario than that.
     
    vilk likes this.
  7. Randy

    Randy Full on Friendship!™ Super Moderator

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    7,469
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
  8. sleewell

    sleewell SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    michigan
    Lev parnas on maddow tonight. They claim he implicates trump, pence, pompeo, barr and nunes.


    More docs were just released too.... is the damn breaking?
     
  9. Randy

    Randy Full on Friendship!™ Super Moderator

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    7,469
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    CNN further trying to sow seeds of discontent and effect outcomes, first with the leading questions during the debate, then with selectively 'leaking' the post-debate exchange between Warren and Bernie. For how 'anti-Trump' CNN is, they're sure working overtime to guarantee another 4 years of him.

    Parnas interview is bombshell after bombshell but lead story in CNN is still the hot mic. :rolleyes:
     
  10. sleewell

    sleewell SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    michigan
    trying to think of a reason why the gop is so loyal to trump at this point. if they all stuck together, grew a spine and made the case why trump needed to go that would be a lot better of a look for them instead of going down with this ship. anyone who took over for him could get the same judges and tax cuts approved.

    is there any possibility that russia is paying them off? it's seems like the people who used to have principles who have now lost them all would need something in exchange rather than just the possibility of re election. heck it even happens to the ones who are not seeking re election, you would think they would have the courage to speak up. graham said show me proof of a quid pro quo and it would change my mind. overwhelming proof now exists and his new position is i wont look at it, this all should be dismissed. there are so many examples of this happening. one of them talks like they might stand up and do the right thing and then a few days go by and they do a complete 180 to protect trump. i don't think that just happens without money being exchanged.
     
  11. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    4,734
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
    sleewell likes this.
  12. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,691
    Likes Received:
    5,457
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    I definitely agree testimony is pretty unlikely to effect the outcome of the trial. I think it still matters for two reasons though.

    1) If nothing else, if John Bolton testifies under oath that Trump ordered aid to Ukraine blocked until they re-opened the Burisma investigation and specifically linked it to the Bidens, then we now have that in the public record, from a first person source directly involved, and not on hearsay or supposition, as the GOP has argued to defend Trump. That's not nothing.

    2) It will have the potential to have a VERY big impact on the way the outcome of the trial is perceived. If we get testimony from senior Trump advisors with direct knowledge that the allegations behind the impeachment are essentially true, but the Senate still votes to not convict (doubly so if it's not a party-line vote and, say, 51 senators including four Republicans vote guilty, and we have a majority just not 2/3 support for removal) then the public perception of the impeachment trial will be different than if we get a straight party-line vote and no new information - it'll be a lot harder to argue that this was a "partisan witch hunt" and the Dems were just "trying to overturn 2016" when there's strong evidence that Trump was guilty that comes out in the trial. In turn, it'll look like the Senate Republicans were solely looking to protect him for political reasons. That's likely to damage Trump in the 2020 elections, if the impeachment trial is broadly seen as a miscarriage of justice, and it's also likely to cost the Republicans a few seats in the Senate. If things break right, it's possible we start 2021 with a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and while minorities still have a LOT of power to block, it means whatever the eventual Democratic nominee's platform is has a much better chance of being passed into law.

    I guess, also, 3) - a majority of Americans DO think Trump did something impeachable, even if there's disagreement on whether he should be impeached, or merely voted out. There's something to be said for going to as great lengths as possible to demonstrate the facts of the case, in light of highly probable wrongdoing.

    The GOP base loves Trump, and Trump isn't afraid to wield his Twitter account to attack people he sees as disloyal. If it happens, it'd have to be an en masse abandonment, because short of that no one wants to stick their neck out.

    Only problem is, the branch charged with enforcing GAO decisions is, wait for it... the Executive branch.
     
    zappatton2 likes this.
  13. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    4,734
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
  14. Randy

    Randy Full on Friendship!™ Super Moderator

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    7,469
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
  15. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    4,734
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    I honestly think Pelosi and Schiff have taken it into consideration, and Roberts wouldn’t oppose it. Every time I think Pelosi doesn’t know what she’s doing, she surprises me.
     
  16. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    4,734
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    Oh good grief, Trump got Ken Starr for his legal team....
     
  17. Thaeon

    Thaeon Cosmic Question Asker

    Messages:
    1,756
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    I'm not holding my breath that the Senate is going to go along with any of that agreeably. They'll try to fight it, and Trump with create a media frenzy with. Calling democrats corrupt for using the law to support their case. Turn it around though, and he'd be scrambling at the opportunity to take any advantage he could. He's already not above lying through is teeth. Including about things that people honestly don't give a shit about. Its like he wants to spin a yarn just to see where it takes him. Like he's reading a book of fiction he plans to adopt and sell as real.
     
  18. Science_Penguin

    Science_Penguin SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    335
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Location:
    Nowhere
    And Alan Dershowitz... Soon as I was told what's on his resume, it became one of those "The Onion is now obsolete" moments.
     
  19. sleewell

    sleewell SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    michigan
    pelosi holding the articles back was a good move. a lot of new information came out in that time and if she sent them right away bitch mcconnel would have moved to dismiss or held a very quick "trial". now that seems much less likely.


    unrelated but hilarious. did you hear that trump told the Indian prime minister that at least they didn't have China on their border? (India and China share more than 2,000 miles of border). Apparently the Indian prime minister's eyes bulged when he said that and they basically have withdrawn from working with trump since.
     
  20. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,691
    Likes Received:
    5,457
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    The complication, I think, is that I believe any decision Roberts made can be overturned by a simple majority of the Senate. If the Democratic Senators moved to have McConnell and Graham barred from serving as jurors because they'd made public statements saying they'd already made their minds up and had no intention of being impartial no matter what evidence was presented, Roberts' most likely course of action, IMO, would be to put the matter to a Senate vote (he has the option to either rule but possibly be overturned by simple majority, or defer the question to the Senate to vote, where he'd likely only be the tiebreaking vote), where I'm SURE regardless of their personal feelings there wouldn't be three Republicans willing to vote to have "biased" Republicans thrown out, and the question of whether McConnell or Graham could vote on whether or not they should be disqualified would itself be a procedural question likely to be decided by majority vote, unless there's an existing precedent I'm unaware of.

    Or, in the words of Hemingway, "Yes, isn't it pretty to think so."
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.