Impreach, censure or nothing???

[Doc]

So now that the "impeachment inquiry hearings" are over, anybody have a change of opinion? At least some of the "IMPEACH TRUMPERS" are changing their minds (LINK (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dem-reverses-course-on-impeachment-as-polls-show-declining-support-i-want-to-censure)), although likely not based on the hearing changing her opinion but more likely the lust for maintaining power.

So apparently the options are
1) "to impeach the MFer"
2) Censure
3) or do nothing.

For me personally, I want this to go to the Senate if for no other reason that my true belief in the justice system, where the accused can defend themselves in an actual impeachment hearing, rather than a one sided sham that was hosted by Adam Schiff and a bunch of cronies who had predetermined guilt. I want to know Schiff's role with the whistleblower, and where/how exactly the whistleblower got their information (since I am a stickler about National Security and am 99% sure what the individual did was a breach of National Security), what the Biden's did and how America is addressing corruption. And for clarity, I have no issue with America withholding aid for ANY reason the President deams. The QPQ is a bunch of garbage anyway since every president has done it and will do it. Anybody think Obama sent $1.7 billion to Iran and got nothing in return???

Of course Censure is about as worthless as teats on a bull. Odds are that is what is done but talk about a big let down. Its the biggest joke of all time. Look at who was censured recently and look at the results. This is akin to getting a sternly worded letter.

Then there is nothing, which IMO is the correct thing since there was no "crime". Of course I do not expect some to agree. Some believe there was a crime...but then many felt there was a crime before there was any allegation of a crime, before any discussions with Ukraine, etc.... Some believe the actual crime was the election of Trump.

[KSRBEvans]

I believe the Democratic House will impeach and the Republican Senate will acquit, and it will all happen before the New Hampshire primary.

This is all a supreme exercise in futility and a colossal waste of time and money. And to say I'm not a Trump fan is an understatement.

Voters will decide next year.

[suncat05]

There has to have been a real crime committed.
I have been a law enforcement officer on several different levels for approximately the last 40 years. I am pretty sure I know a crime when I see one. I don't see one with any of this impeachment hysteria. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.
If President Trump has committed a serious crime against the United States of America, then by all means investigate, indict, and bring him to trial before the Senate and lay out the foundation for his trial.
No one is above the law. Not even the President of the United States.
But I honestly don't see a crime. Not as it is being presented by the House Intelligence Committee. Not even a whiff of a crime.

[CitizenBBN]

Politically Trump wants a Senate trial. It's always been the mistake of impeaching. The House gets the first speech, but the Senate is the GOPs and they get to do the second round with no rebuttal.

They'll call the Bidens, the DNC person who met with Ukraine, etc. They'll do everything to make the case that Trump had good cause to do what he did, and whether you agree or disagree it's going to be a win for Trump.

As for what will happen, I think the Dems know they are about to hand the microphone to the GOP, who will not only acquit Trump but will hand him the pulpit, and that it's a mistake.

So I think they censure him, and claim they are doing so a) b/c the Senate will not "see that justice is served" or some such lingo, and b) b/c they need to "tend to the public's business, but the nation's future first" etc and so on. Basic political doublespeak.

It will do real damage to Biden to let the GOP have subpoena power and drag up a LOT of Ukraine and even Chinese stuff that absolutely does not pass the smell test, and he is still the favorite of the Democratic party establishment. Lindsey Graham has already put that shot across the bow, and they know they're walking into a kill zone if this goes to a live TV Senate trial.

And BEVans is utterly correct. No matter what you think of Trump this was always a futile, wasteful political exercise, as was Clinton's impeachment in the 90s.

This is the most serious of Constitutional steps, where one branch of our balanced government overturns a federal election and forcibly removes the other branch's leader from power. There is nothing more serious, and to use it in the 90s and today as a political tool is a sad statement on our nation's leaders.

It cost Gingrich and the GOP the House to do it, and rightly so, and it should cost the Democrats likewise. We're already in an election, the People should be the deciding judge in this case, not Congress and certainly not just a thin majority of Congress, which was the case with Clinton as well.

[Catonahottinroof]

One thing to note about a Senate trial, senators are not allowed to campaign for office during the trial. Just think of the havoc McConnell could reek on the democratic candidates for president should he prolong the trial?
I’m beginning to think there will be no impeachment vote now. The polls don’t support it and the senate trial will have subpoena power and will dig up where the bodies are buried.

[CitizenBBN]

They'll vote for censure. the problems inherent with impeachment haven't gone away. The case is weak at best, the polls show people weren't persuaded, red-state Democrats are risking a lot to vote for it (which is why they sidestepped the vote to start it) and if they do actually get enough votes they then turn the mic over to the GOP Senate to conclude things.

It's a loser, and Pelosi knew it, which is why she didn't want to do it barring a really persuasive case, which so far hasn't materialized.

[CitizenBBN]

Oh, and btw, even if they do prove everything they're accusing Trump of, it's still arguable if it's a crime. Fundamentally if Trump had legitimate reason to ask for Biden to be investigated, then it doesn't matter if there was a quid pro quo.

Just like with Biden asking for the prosecutor to be removed. if he did it for good policy reasons then it's not a crime. If he did it to protect a company paying his son big bucks for daddy's support then it's a crime.

Likewise if Trump did it to attack a political rival then its a possible crime (A little more gray than Biden's case but barely), but if he had good cause to ask Ukraine to investigate him then even with a quid pro quo it's not a crime b/c it was a President pursuing what he believed to be proper law enforcement.

and that's the trouble with prosecuting 99% of the corruption of Washington. You can even pay them outright for speeches etc., but you have to prove their motives. You have to be able to show they sold a vote, not that they voted their conscience, or that they prosecuted someone b/c of politics not b/c that person was really suspected of a crime.

In this case Biden's son's situation doesn't come close to passing the smell test. It's going to be hard, given GOP Powers to subpoena, to not make some kind of case that it was at least worth of investigation, which is what Trump asked for from Ukraine.

The Dems know this, thus their sudden hesitance to actually impeach.

[Doc]

I failed to phrase the poll question correctly. Should have been what do you think SHOULD happen, or want to happen.


They'll vote for censure. the problems inherent with impeachment haven't gone away. The case is weak at best, the polls show people weren't persuaded, red-state Democrats are risking a lot to vote for it (which is why they sidestepped the vote to start it) and if they do actually get enough votes they then turn the mic over to the GOP Senate to conclude things.

It's a loser, and Pelosi knew it, which is why she didn't want to do it barring a really persuasive case, which so far hasn't materialized.


Common sense says the democrats would be smart to censure but this has gone beyond that. Failing to get an impeachment vote after all this effort will be seen as an epic failure. Actually it will be beyond epic, especually when combined with the Meuller failure.

As for Pelosi, she got forced into it. I have no issue with that whatsoever. Wish more politicians would step out of party lines and follow their beliefs rather than a strict party vote. Republicans do it on a rare basis, democrats hardly ever.

[KSRBEvans]

What do I think should happen? The House has an Executive oversight function and should hold hearings that fulfill that function, as they do all the time (https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings). Then there should be an election where voters decide whether Trump stays or goes.

[kingcat]

What do I think should happen? The House has an Executive oversight function and should hold hearings that fulfill that function, as they do all the time (https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings). Then there should be an election where voters decide whether Trump stays or goes.

Amen

[Catonahottinroof]

Yes, as a matter of handling the country’s business, not the televised political farce this has become. Not to mention this Congress hasn’t done diddly poo legislatively.
What do I think should happen? The House has an Executive oversight function and should hold hearings that fulfill that function, as they do all the time (https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings). Then there should be an election where voters decide whether Trump stays or goes.

[CitizenBBN]

What do I want to happen?

for the House to impeach him, and have a Senate trial.

The impeachment will hurt several House democrats, or fracture their ranks, looking bad either way.

The Senate trial will be a GOP run affair and let them bring up the fact that it looks like the Bidens SHOULD be investigated, and probably not just for the Ukraine. It will give the GOP a response to the House investigation.

It may actually even show some people the real corruption of Washington when they see how things like the Biden/Burisma thing worked. At least a few.

But I don't think the House leadership is that foolish. They knew this whole thing would end badly for them, and are now negotiating behind the scenes between impeaching him and censuring him. We'll see how much muscle Pelosi has left against the more extreme membership.

[dan_bgblue]

I would like to see it go to the Senate. I believe it would give the Executive branch an honest opportunity to present their side and to call witnesses they were prevented from seeing in Shifty's circus.

[dan_bgblue]

Nadler (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nadler-brushes-off-van-drews-planned-jump-to-gop)

“
This is not political,” he said. “We should not be looking at those things. This is the defense of our democracy. Do we stay a democratic republic or do we turn into a tyranny?”

President Trump is going to turn the USA into a 3rd world autocracy all by himself, but he will enlist the help of the Russians and Ukrainians to make sure it goes off without a hitch.:confused0024:

[CitizenBBN]

Nadler (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nadler-brushes-off-van-drews-planned-jump-to-gop)

“

President Trump is going to turn the USA into a 3rd world autocracy all by himself, but he will enlist the help of the Russians and Ukrainians to make sure it goes off without a hitch.:confused0024:

Tyranny? Trump is once again undermining our democratic republic?

If you say it often enough it starts sounding like the truth I guess.

BTW, this has now shown us how to create the perfect fraud crime. Do whatever you want, pocket the money, and declare for President with the opposite party of the current POTUS. They can't investigate you b/c it's an impeachable offense, so you're off the hook.

[ukpumacat]

What do I think should happen? The House has an Executive oversight function and should hold hearings that fulfill that function, as they do all the time (https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings). Then there should be an election where voters decide whether Trump stays or goes.

Same. But honestly, NONE of this is a needle mover either way. We have reached a point where both sides (politicians, voters and the media) are so dug in that every single report, "evidence", etc is simply used by both sides to say, "See, this proves _________". Its all just fodder now. And the only people who will decide the race (independents/undecideds) are not moved either way. This is simply not what they care about.

[CitizenBBN]

Oh, they're moving some, but they're moving b/c, as you point out, they don't care about this, and feel like it's not showing much concern for what they do care about.

I agree with you both core bases are entrenched, but the middle is shifting a tad not b/c impeachment has persuaded them either way, but rather b/c it's persuaded them Washington (and the Dems in particular) don't care about them.

That is what cost the GOP in the Clinton impeachment, and so far it's playing out about the same with Trump's.

Americans by and large, esp. those in the middle, are smart enough to see this is just Washington DC naval gazing. it's a circle**** to be crass about it, where media and politicians and bureaucrats who all think their world is the center of every American's universe all self-obsess about things that by and large don't translate into any real change in the lives of Americans. And American's know it, and they don't like it.

The rabid bases of both sides eat it up, but the middle voters, who go vote but don't obsess about political news every day, don't like it. Pelosi and moderate politicans know this, but they got overruled. It toasted Gingrich and it's probably not going to do anything but hurt Democrats this time.

Barring an "October Surprise" in the witnesses in a Senate trial, this just won't get traction with the middle voters who will decide the election (and who controls the House), and will likely rub them wrong altogether for having spent so much time on this versus health care, etc.

Of course John Bolton could be called and wreck Trump, but of course as a conservative that will wreck him with many if not most conservatives, and risk his career completely as even those who hate Trump still don't hire people who rat out their superiors in Washington, so that seems unlikely. Barring that, this has been a net loser for the Dems, and Pelosi and Schumer knew it from the start which is why they fought it.

[Catonahottinroof]

Trump has plenty of legitimate issues to be campaigned against from the left. The impeachment is over the top however and I think the voters who decide the election can see that very clearly.
To me, beat him on legit issues. The impeachment not only hurts their chances in the presidential election, it puts their control of the house in jeopardy in 2020 as well.

[CitizenBBN]

The last thing most any politican wants to do is run on issues, lol.

Their fear with Trump is that the economy keeps on going strong through November, which as people get close to the polls plays a strong factor. People don't like voting out prosperity.

Foreign policy wise most of those issues don't play well anyway, and Trump hasn't done anything there which will be a big wedge issue.

They need to focus on health care, but I don't think pure socialized medicine, cunningly now called "Medicare for all", will be a winner. That's why Biden is looking for something more Obamacare with additions.

Trump could easily lose, he's as likeable as a bastard at a family reunion and his negatives are as high as any POTUS ever, but Biden is just another old rich white guy to most voters, and a career politician, and 2 of the remaining top 3 candidates are true socialists.

Usually elections are won by the person who is just slightly more palatable than the other guy. It's a race to the bottom for both parties most of the time.

[ukpumacat]

Oh, they're moving some, but they're moving b/c, as you point out, they don't care about this, and feel like it's not showing much concern for what they do care about.


The average of polls have moved for people supporting impeachment over the last few months, including independents. You can see a great picture of that here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[Catonahottinroof]

I’m not sure if put my eggs in Nate Silver’s basket, considering how he muffed the 2016 presidential election.

The average of polls have moved for people supporting impeachment over the last few months, including independents. You can see a great picture of that here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[CitizenBBN]

The average of polls have moved for people supporting impeachment over the last few months, including independents. You can see a great picture of that here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Except that poll is meaningless. If every single Californian shifts to wanting Trump impeached it makes zero difference in projecting his electibility.

The only polls that matter politically are those of likely voters in battleground states where the outcome isn't already foregone. In those states the shift has been in Trump's favor. Even polls of total independents don't really tell us anything as independents on the coasts are way different from independents in the flyover.

Trump won't win the popular vote, but that was already a known situation. The question is if he can win Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.

And those numbers are with basically no response from Trump and the GOP. Frankly given the media "all in" for the Democrats the last 3 years, to a level I never imagined I'd see (and I'm a huge media cynic from way back), the numbers against Trump should be way higher across the board. his coverage is almost 100% negative everywhere but Fox News and of course talk radio, yet he stays in that roughly 50/50 range on most polls of most things.

If the Senate plays this right they could undo what little positives the Dems may have gotten from impeachment, and not hurt themselves any in the process. The House gets the first speech, but the GOP Senate gets the final word. That's why this was always a high risk move, and why Pelosi fought against it.

[ukpumacat]

I’m not sure if put my eggs in Nate Silver’s basket, considering how he muffed the 2016 presidential election.

Its not a "Nate Silver" thing. Its an average of polls.

Here is one from Fox News showing the same thing: https://theweek.com/speedreads/884450/new-fox-news-poll-support-impeaching-removing-trump-steady-50-percent

[ukpumacat]

Except that poll is meaningless. If every single Californian shifts to wanting Trump impeached it makes zero difference in projecting his electibility.

The only polls that matter politically are those of likely voters in battleground states where the outcome isn't already foregone. In those states the shift has been in Trump's favor. Even polls of total independents don't really tell us anything as independents on the coasts are way different from independents in the flyover.



This is exactly the point. The uptick of those favoring impeachment isn't coming from the coasts. Those people made up their minds a long time ago. In September, those against impeachment (when the Ukraine scandal was breaking) were 15% higher than those for it.
Now, there has been a 15 point swing. That didn't come from California.
Amongst Independents, those favoring impeachment has risen 10% since the end of September.
That isn't meaningless.

[ukpumacat]

Btw, just to be clear, like you I don’t think this will affect the election next year at all. In that sense the polls are meaningless.
A million things will happen before then. This won’t even be a blip at that point.
I was simply responding to the above quote about independents moving.
Obviously there is a difference from poll to poll. But overall, the collection of polls show independents have moved toward favoring impeachment in the last few months.
It’s like the guy on Fox and Friends said last week, “This poll (Fox News poll showing more agreeing with impeachment) surprises me because we’ve been hearing it was trending the other way”.
Exactly.

[Catonahottinroof]

And how did that average workout in 2016? Hence, not a lot of faith in his site, or any other.


Its not a "Nate Silver" thing. Its an average of polls.

Here is one from Fox News showing the same thing: https://theweek.com/speedreads/884450/new-fox-news-poll-support-impeaching-removing-trump-steady-50-percent

[Catonahottinroof]

and if you put a lot of stock in polls this should concern you if you are an ardent democratic voter....

https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-poll-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin-6776a580-9a0f-4362-a8a7-e6180f18ed14.html

[dan_bgblue]

If I were a dyed in the wool card carrying Trump supporter, and if I responded to polls, then I promise that I would vote for impeachment. Not because I want the president impeached, but because I want the conservatives in the Senate to have their chance to make the worthless democrats in the House look like what they are and do it in a way that the media cannot ignore or spin to their advantage.

There are no high crimes or misdemeanors on the table to honestly charge the President with, which leaves only one motive for their actions and that is politics. They want him out of office and , as a group, can not vote him out, and they do not trust the American people to do the job for them, so they try a scandalous end run to try and make it happen. Boo on them

[CitizenBBN]

This is exactly the point. The uptick of those favoring impeachment isn't coming from the coasts. Those people made up their minds a long time ago. In September, those against impeachment (when the Ukraine scandal was breaking) were 15% higher than those for it.
Now, there has been a 15 point swing. That didn't come from California.
Amongst Independents, those favoring impeachment has risen 10% since the end of September.
That isn't meaningless.

Every poll I've seen of battleground states says exactly the opposite, that impeachment is turning against the Dems among independents. You can't use a national survey to then infer numbers for battleground states.

I presume, based on your statements, that California has lots of non-liberal non-left independents. If they coalesce more around impeachment then the numbers go up, but since their votes don't count in the key states it really doesn't matter.

In the long run though, this is the problem with statistics. It all depends on how you ask the question. When you ask people if Washington should drop impeachment and focus on real problems those numbers are staggeringly high.

So how can people be "for" impeachment yet want it dropped? B/c people aren't terribly rational, and no one poll tells the story of their thinking.

What the surveys about impeachment don't capture is that impeachment now, just like with the GOP and Clinton, undermines people's belief that the pursuing party cares about their needs. You end up wasting campaign time on issues that matter to them on something that in the end, as you said, doesn't matter.


Now, all that being said, I don't put much faith in any of the public polls. There are so many ways they can skew the results with the methodology, and I'm not even sure in the modern era if you can get any kind of quality data sample.

basically these things are done by spamming people. How many surveys do people stop and really take? The people who will do it are automatically creating selection bias, and I dont' know if there's really any way past that first step. Then when you add in all the other inherent issues, I really don't put much faith in polls unless you want to double or triple the margin of error. That's true even of polls I like, lol.

[CitizenBBN]

If I were a dyed in the wool card carrying Trump supporter, and if I responded to polls, then I promise that I would vote for impeachment. Not because I want the president impeached, but because I want the conservatives in the Senate to have their chance to make the worthless democrats in the House look like what they are and do it in a way that the media cannot ignore or spin to their advantage.

There are no high crimes or misdemeanors on the table to honestly charge the President with, which leaves only one motive for their actions and that is politics. They want him out of office and , as a group, can not vote him out, and they do not trust the American people to do the job for them, so they try a scandalous end run to try and make it happen. Boo on them

Oh, I want them to impeach him. Now the GOP gets to make their case.

The bad news is the Senate, being run by GOP Senators who are afraid of breaking a nail, much less getting in the mud, will probably just vote to dismiss the entire thing and be done with it without any witnesses or rebuttal.

I get their thinking, but it's a mistake. Never let your opponent have the last word if you have the option to avoid it.

[DanISSELisdaman]

It would probably be better for the country to just dismiss it and get on with things that really matter, but there's no such thing as working with the democrats, because they don't want to give Trump a win on anything. More than likely, if he is acquitted, they'll drum up some other bogus charge and try to impeach him again, so I say have a Senate trial and call Schiff, the Bidens and the so called whistle blower and dig through their dirty laundry till they find the stink!

[Catonahottinroof]

I would do the same. I’d lay it all out and call every witness necessary to embarrass the other side. Maybe then the 2 sides will learn to work together despite the differences that exist.

It would probably be better for the country to just dismiss it and get on with things that really matter, but there's no such thing as working with the democrats, because they don't want to give Trump a win on anything. More than likely, if he is acquitted, they'll drum up some other bogus charge and try to impeach him again, so I say have a Senate trial and call Schiff, the Bidens and the so called whistle blower and dig through their dirty laundry till they find the stink!

[ukpumacat]

I would do the same. I’d lay it all out and call every witness necessary to embarrass the other side. Maybe then the 2 sides will learn to work together despite the differences that exist.

I'm sure you know this but even that won't change minds on either side. Dems believe he's guilty and nothing will change that. Reps believe he is innocent and nothing will change that. And everyone else isn't paying attention.

That's a broad paintbrush but mostly true.

[Doc]

What a clown show...seriously. It is entertaining as hell. We have involked Elijah Cummings dancing with the angels, "nobody is above the law" dozens of times (except if you are here illegally), we have "a tryant", a constitutional crisis, undermining an election (by Trump, not by the party trying to overturn one), obstruction at an UNPRECIDENTED level (by Trump but not Schiff), the destruction of the constutution (odd coming from the people who want to do away with the electoral college), involked the will of the founding father (those racist slave owners who statues need to be torn down- amazinghow respected they are now for their wisdom), they even brought civil right movement into it (the GOP). It like watching 300 apes taking a dump then slingimg poo at each other.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm sure you know this but even that won't change minds on either side. Dems believe he's guilty and nothing will change that. Reps believe he is innocent and nothing will change that. And everyone else isn't paying attention.

That's a broad paintbrush but mostly true.

No doubt.

The only exception for those in the middle would be to lay out the Biden's corruption.

Was it technically illegal? Probably not, but clearly it's selling access and influence peddling, and I'm all for exposing that on either side of the aisle.

And it could hurt Biden some in the polls if it casts a general doubt on him and his integrity. People will vote for him b/c he seems safe and he can beat Trump. If they can make him less warm and safe feeling, dirty him up, that will help. It may also help to get the word out that what Trump did wasn't even eyebrow raising compared to what goes on, with Biden bragging about his involvement with a prosecutor being fired.

My guess is none of that happens however. Neither McConnell or Graham are mud wrestling politicians. I won't be at all surprised to see the Senate dismiss the whole thing with one vote to not even hold a trial.

And there's a case for that, IF they then follow up working on real policy issues. Work with Trump on some kind of health care proposal, pass it in the Senate using their "special" rules to get a simple majority vote and send it to the House. But I doubt they do that either. They'll sit around in their beltway bubble wondering why Americans don't really much care for either party's leadership.

[CitizenBBN]

What a clown show...seriously. It is entertaining as hell. We have involked Elijah Cummings dancing with the angels, "nobody is above the law" dozens of times (except if you are here illegally), we have "a tryant", a constitutional crisis, undermining an election (by Trump, not by the party trying to overturn one), obstruction at an UNPRECIDENTED level (by Trump but not Schiff), the destruction of the constutution (odd coming from the people who want to do away with the electoral college), involked the will of the founding father (those racist slave owners who statues need to be torn down- amazinghow respected they are now for their wisdom), they even brought civil right movement into it (the GOP). It like watching 300 apes taking a dump then slingimg poo at each other.

The sheer level of hyperbole and outright lying is stunning.

Pelosi invoking the spirit of the Founders and referencing God and prayer more than the Pope was particularly stunningly full of BS. I'm trying to think of a single policy she's supported which would be judged well by the Founders, and like you I'm pretty sure the Democratic party as a whole isn't really big on those old, nasty white privileged slavers as a group.

I'm just not sure who that message was for really. It sure wasn't for the Democratic base, which by and large isn't religious and certainly doesn't look to the Federalist Papers for guiding wisdom in this era. It wasn't for conservatives, who know she's completely full of it even though they do pray more often and believe in the wisdom of the Founders. Was it for independents? Libertarians? Who?

These claims of Trump as a tyrant, a king, etc. Man alive.

Obstruction of Congress? Seriously? What POTUS hasn't refused some request of a Congress with opposing party control since the beginning of the nation? The Congress is still waiting on the documents for Fast and Furious which weren't turned over by the Obama administration even after the DC circuit ordered their release.

Seriously, what PResident doesn't meet these standards for impeachment? What POTUS hasn't invoked privilege at least once in his term?

What President hasn't made foreign policy decisions for his own political benefit? Really? Every other president has been selfless and true in every decision? Go back and do some reading if anyone thinks that's true.

If "obstruction" is now simply not doing whatever Congress asks, and if any foreign policy act that influences an election is now impeachable, we won't have a POTUS hold office for a full term ever again.

[Catonahottinroof]

I think the majority of that is accurate. However, the right was humbled after Clinton’s impeachment. My hope is a similar outcome this time.
I'm sure you know this but even that won't change minds on either side. Dems believe he's guilty and nothing will change that. Reps believe he is innocent and nothing will change that. And everyone else isn't paying attention.

That's a broad paintbrush but mostly true.

[CitizenBBN]

I think the majority of that is accurate. However, the right was humbled after Clinton’s impeachment. My hope is a similar outcome this time.

It's certainly possible, and for the same reasons.

It's not something that polls capture well, b/c it's not a specific "I'm voting for A b/c of X" kind of thing. It's the broad perception that your current Representative is just part of the Beltway, not worrying about things that help their constituents. Doing that to impeach a guy you may have voted for on top of it is not a good recipe.

It also does the one thing Dems really don't want done in those districts: ties their local rep to the national party politics. The Democratic party at a national level has nothing in common with most of those swing district voter's beliefs. They win those seats by doing like they tried with Amy McGrath here in the Bluegrass.

They put her up b/c she's a veteran, and they portray her as being a passionate public servant, running b/c she heard the call, and they stay way away from the party platform other than broad talk about health care, the opiod crisis, etc.

They don't want her to be seen as "a vote for Pelosi" b/c Pelosi can't win dogcatcher in a red state. These kinds of things help tie those local reps to her and the national party, and that's not good for them.

Dems in pink districts and Repubs in baby blue districts both have to play hard on local politics and stay away from the national stuff.

This is how this hurts them. Not in obvious ways you get in poll questions but in broad feelings towards candidates IMO.

[Doc]

If "obstruction" is now simply not doing whatever Congress asks, and if any foreign policy act that influences an election is now impeachable, we won't have a POTUS hold office for a full term ever again.

My concern, and a nonpartisian one, is that the impeachment bar is now so low that impeachment will be the rule of the day, and meaningless. By the standards set by Schiff, Nadler, Schumer and Pelosi, Obama could have been impeached numerous times. Sicking the IRS on conservatives was clearly impeachable abuse of power. Obstruction of Congress on Fast and Furious also impeachable. FiSA abuse? Impeachable.. " I will have more flexibility after the election", also impeachable. Dems pulled this crap with federal judges, changing the requirement to a straight majority. How did that work for them? Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both appoved because of that rule change. GOOD JOB. Democrats don't learn that what is good for the goose is goood for the gander. Personally I hope the GOP does not play tit for tat and impeach the democrstic president, but I would not blame themif the did, and did it just out of spite

[CitizenBBN]

My hope, both as a conservative and American, is that this hammers the Dems in the House elections. If both the GOP and the Dems lost the House after pulling one of these partisan impeachments maybe future politicians would heed the message more.

If they do this and get away with it politically then we'll see even more of it, and it's insane. This isn't voting to condemn a President you dont' like, this is the most severe Constitutional step available for one branch to overrule the other. It was meant to be reserved only for cases of a President going utterly off the rails.

It's the "break glass in case of emergency" option, the one where you burn your own crops to stop the oncoming army. Nothing Trump has done, or nothing Obama did, etc. has risen to that level.

The POTUS claiming privilege and ignoring Congress happens all the time. It either gets settled politically in a negotiation, sometimes with the assistance of the judiciary, and otherwise is solved in the next election.

[CitizenBBN]

Random thoughts from the day:

1) Supposedly Trump damaged national security, despite the fact that even anti-Trump witnesses all had to concede that Trump has been more supportive of Ukraine than the previous administration. So he did more to thwart Russia, and somehow simultaneously endangered national security in a pro-Russian fashion. Brit Hume's insight on this was great.

2) Nadler terming another Representative's speech "Russian propaganda" proves the gloves are off and this country is heading towards something that makes mugging MAGA hat wearing people look like firm handshakes. I was stunned a Chairman would do that.

3) Tulsi Gabbard must have the most chaffed buttocks in America sitting on that fence so hard. What kind of gutless wonder are you to vote "present" on impeachment?

4) We've just impeached a President for temporarily withholding aid that was actually given and calling for an investigation that never happened. Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" has nothing on this one.

5) Pelosi, who has dressed in black and called on the Founders, God and the tooth fairy this week in her claims this isn't about politics and is a defense of the Constitution, has decided to not send the articles to the Senate until she can somehow insure a "fair trial" in the Senate. My copy of the document says the House impeaches but the Senate conducts the trial.

Nancy, the Senate stood by while you decided how you would conduct your part, including some seriously questionable procedural maneuvers. Now it's up to them to decide how to do theirs. What hubris, what hypocrisy to claim this isn't politics.

6) IMO the Dems even claiming this isn't politics is going to hurt them on its face. People aren't THAT stupid, everyone knows these things are ALL about politics, on both sides. To claim so vociferously and with such faux piety that they are somehow doing the work of the Lord, the Founders, and maybe Lincoln makes them look so completely phony, and I think that hurts them.

[Catonahottinroof]

People who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Many of the same democrats who sat in on the charging phase of Clinton in the 90s were front and center today....

Random thoughts from the day:

1) Supposedly Trump damaged national security, despite the fact that even anti-Trump witnesses all had to concede that Trump has been more supportive of Ukraine than the previous administration. So he did more to thwart Russia, and somehow simultaneously endangered national security in a pro-Russian fashion. Brit Hume's insight on this was great.

2) Nadler terming another Representative's speech "Russian propaganda" proves the gloves are off and this country is heading towards something that makes mugging MAGA hat wearing people look like firm handshakes. I was stunned a Chairman would do that.

3) Tulsi Gabbard must have the most chaffed buttocks in America sitting on that fence so hard. What kind of gutless wonder are you to vote "present" on impeachment?

4) We've just impeached a President for temporarily withholding aid that was actually given and calling for an investigation that never happened. Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" has nothing on this one.

5) Pelosi, who has dressed in black and called on the Founders, God and the tooth fairy this week in her claims this isn't about politics and is a defense of the Constitution, has decided to not send the articles to the Senate until she can somehow insure a "fair trial" in the Senate. My copy of the document says the House impeaches but the Senate conducts the trial.

Nancy, the Senate stood by while you decided how you would conduct your part, including some seriously questionable procedural maneuvers. Now it's up to them to decide how to do theirs. What hubris, what hypocrisy to claim this isn't politics.

6) IMO the Dems even claiming this isn't politics is going to hurt them on its face. People aren't THAT stupid, everyone knows these things are ALL about politics, on both sides. To claim so vociferously and with such faux piety that they are somehow doing the work of the Lord, the Founders, and maybe Lincoln makes them look so completely phony, and I think that hurts them.

[DanISSELisdaman]

My concern, and a nonpartisian one, is that the impeachment bar is now so low that impeachment will be the rule of the day, and meaningless. By the standards set by Schiff, Nadler, Schumer and Pelosi, Obama could have been impeached numerous times. Sicking the IRS on conservatives was clearly impeachable abuse of power. Obstruction of Congress on Fast and Furious also impeachable. FiSA abuse? Impeachable.. " I will have more flexibility after the election", also impeachable. Dems pulled this crap with federal judges, changing the requirement to a straight majority. How did that work for them? Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both appoved because of that rule change. GOOD JOB. Democrats don't learn that what is good for the goose is goood for the gander. Personally I hope the GOP does not play tit for tat and impeach the democrstic president, but I would not blame themif the did, and did it just out of spite

This is the true danger of all of it!

[CitizenBBN]

This needs to be Trump's campaign on this issue:

After the event concluded, the president tweeted a picture of himself with the words, "In reality, they're not after me. They're after you. I'm just in the way."

[dan_bgblue]

This needs to be Trump's campaign on this issue:

After the event concluded, the president tweeted a picture of himself with the words, "In reality, they're not after me. They're after you. I'm just in the way."

Outstanding, and the picture of him needs to show him in clothing that looks like he has been attacked by a rabid bear.

[CitizenBBN]

Outstanding, and the picture of him needs to show him in clothing that looks like he has been attacked by a rabid bear.

Seriously, it should be his slogan, or at least secondary to Keep America Great.

For the negative ads, the ones you run in black and white, that's the focus,

"They're not after me. They're after you. I'm just in the way". That's how you close those ads, then you go to a full color shot of Trump at a rally with "Keep America Great".

It's marketing gold. It ties in perfectly with the "Deplorables" comment and the obvious message from the coastal elites and their media that people in the flyover are stupid and wrong and just need to do as they're told. The condescension is palpable, people here know it, and this plays right to it.

[CitizenBBN]

Alan Dershowitz, Who I continue to point out is one of the great LIBERAL minds of our age, and lifelong Democrat, on this absolutely unfathomably unconstitutional move to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate:

"It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people. Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people," he added.

"Denying him and the American people that fundamental right might serve the temporary interests of the Democratic party, and academics who support it, but would do violence to the rule of Constitutional law that is supposed to serve all Americans, regardless of party or ideology."

But since this is Trump, he doesn't deserve rights.

As I've said, it's the reckless and emotion driven response to Trump that is the real danger to our nation. He's just a man, not a demon from Hell. Suspending all of the precedents, rules, procedures and laws of the land to simply "get him" is the real danger. People have become unhinged at a man based mostly on his personality and not his actual deeds, and they've lost sight of our principles in the name of those same principles.

[CitizenBBN]

Mitch only helping himself in Kentucky at this point, as he is very deft at these things.

"Some House Democrats imply they are withholding the [impeachment] articles for some kind of leverage," McConnell said. "I admit, I'm not sure what leverage there is in refraining from sending us something we do not want. Alas, if they can figure that out, they can explain."

Says it pretty plainly. There's no leverage here. If I'm Mitch I tell Pelosi to sit on the articles till next November for all he cares. Don't meet with her, don't have your staff chat, nada. The house has its role, the Senate has its role, and the Senate absolutely does not answer to the House in this situation.

Politically this is a GOP winner to sit and wait her out, b/c you can just keep moving forward and it does you no harm at all. Meanwhile the Dems look hypocritical and weak and it makes the whole thing look just as political as it is.

I must admit though, watching these machinations is interesting.

[dan_bgblue]

Trump also highlighted the quote that, for my money, is the matching bookend to Schumer’s “six ways from Sunday” prophecy. This one came from Rep. Al Green from Texas, who said last May he was “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.”


Can’t have that. Whatever it takes, can’t have that. (https://nypost.com/2019/12/21/donald-trumps-theyre-after-you-tweet-says-it-all-goodwin/)

[Catonahottinroof]

I think that is a good bit of the left’s hysteria with Trump. He’s beatable with a good candidate, not a bat$hit crazy candidate with loon ideas. Unfortunately, the Democrats don’t have a good candidate at the moment.....

Trump also highlighted the quote that, for my money, is the matching bookend to Schumer’s “six ways from Sunday” prophecy. This one came from Rep. Al Green from Texas, who said last May he was “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.”


Can’t have that. Whatever it takes, can’t have that. (https://nypost.com/2019/12/21/donald-trumps-theyre-after-you-tweet-says-it-all-goodwin/)

[Doc]

Mitch only helping himself in Kentucky at this point, as he is very deft at these things.

"Some House Democrats imply they are withholding the [impeachment] articles for some kind of leverage," McConnell said. "I admit, I'm not sure what leverage there is in refraining from sending us something we do not want. Alas, if they can figure that out, they can explain."

Says it pretty plainly. There's no leverage here. If I'm Mitch I tell Pelosi to sit on the articles till next November for all he cares. Don't meet with her, don't have your staff chat, nada. The house has its role, the Senate has its role, and the Senate absolutely does not answer to the House in this situation.

Politically this is a GOP winner to sit and wait her out, b/c you can just keep moving forward and it does you no harm at all. Meanwhile the Dems look hypocritical and weak and it makes the whole thing look just as political as it is.

I must admit though, watching these machinations is interesting.

I am no Micth fan but have to say he is playing it perfectly

[Catfan73]

I still think Mitch is playing it about as horribly as he possibly could.

On the bright side for the GOP, Biden probably just signed his letter of resignation saying he wouldn’t be opposed to a Republican Veep. It’s probably down to Sanders and Warren.

[CitizenBBN]

Nah, this is exactly what Mitch should do. Proud of him. Just ignore it and let it set there. Like he said, what leverage is there in refusing to send the Senate something they don't want in the first place?

Meanwhile he just keeps on pushing those judicial appointments through.

Anyone expecting Biden to not have a long series of bad statements and later "clarifications" hasn't watched his career very close. He's a walking machine of bad comments.

IMO his worst comment of the week was saying he'd ignore a Congressional subpoena to the impeachment trial. Isn't that exactly what Trump is being impeached for, obstruction of Congress? So with Biden we can save time and just impeach him BEFORE he's elected. :)

Of course what it shows is how silly the charge is to begin with, as every President has at times refused Congressional subpoenas, and they either go to court or negotiate a deal, but no POTUS has ever just saluted and done what he's told, and Biden's comment proves just how silly it is as a charge.

[CitizenBBN]

And Trump at least has a case re the subpoena. There is executive privilege, separation of powers, etc. Biden is just a normal citizen right now, and has no basis to refuse.

And if they do call witnesses, him and Hunter are relevant. The most underused argument against all this is pretty simple: Trump is the chief LEO of the land, and if there is probable cause for him to call for an investigation, then he's done absolutely nothing wrong. The fact that Biden may have been a political rival in some future date wouldn't provide any protection as that doesn't give you immunity.

If there's cause to call for their investigation, and it's pretty clear there's enough to at least call for an investigation, then Trump's actions, while benefiting him politically, are also justified.

If someone is sheriff and they think the other guy running for the office is running drugs, they can't investigate that even if they have some cause?

A VP's son, who is by all accounts not all that accomplished, suddenly gets a $500-$600K per year position on the board of directors of a company for which he has no knowledge whatsoever, and that company is closely tied to a foreign government that is under the direct policy control of that VP daddy. Come on guys, please. Can we at least all agree this was nothing but the buying of access? Now if Joe didn't do anything wrong then fine, but at a minimum it's clearly buying access. They put Hunter on there,and later a friend of the Bidens, to help gain access and curry favor with Biden.

It's how DC works, and it's pretty blatant. Add to that Biden's bragging of getting a Ukranian prosecutor fired and there's already probable cause to at least request an investigation, and if that's the case then Trump has done nothing wrong, even if it was of benefit to him as well.

[Catonahottinroof]

I do find it fascinating that the left would hang Trump if possible over pointing out Biden’s own “quid pro quo”.

[CitizenBBN]

Those on the other side see it as somehow changing the topic, but it is not.

If Trump had a legitimate reason to want to investigate Biden, then there can't be a high crime. The POTUS is absolutely within his power to investigate people or call on foreign powers to investigate people, even if that investigation does also benefit him politically.

Obviously no POTUS is screaming for investigations of political allies, donors, etc., but they aren't required to, nor does being a rival give anyone immunity.

The same is true of Congress. The party in power investigates the other party, not their own. there weren't going to be hard hitting hearings on Fast and Furious with Dems in charge, likewise they would never have investigated Iran Contra had it been Carter in office. Same for the GOP.

So sure politics is part of this, but Iran Contra was a legit investigation and not abuse of power even though it was clearly politically motivated.

But if the investigation itself has legitimate grounds, it's OK. Same BTW for Trump's thing and FISA, the question clearly being if it was legitimate and had some kind of evidence or cause..

Frankly, there's a lot more evidence to want the Bidens investigated over Ukraine than there is evidence to investigate Trump and Russian collusion. Large sums of money we KNOW changed hands with the Bidens, with Trump all they had was apparently some speculation over drinks in a bar.

I have no doubt Trump wanted Biden investigated to show the DNC and Dems are dirty with foreign money and influence, given for 3 years that's been the attack on him by those same people, but that's not a crime if it's also true.

[Catfan73]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/29/opinions/secret-ballot-trump-senate-impeachment-trial-alexander/index.html

Thought this was interesting. Although if Mitch is a Russian asset like WaPo says, it’ll never happen.

[CitizenBBN]

Everyone who disagrees with the Left and their media propagandists is a Russian asset. lol. Ironic given that they are closest to the Russian ideology than anyone.

Surprisingly you don't have to be a traitor or agent of a foreign power to have the gall to disagree with the Democratic party. Mitch is a Republican with a Republican President. So, and stay with me here, he's pretty dang likely to find ways to support the President.

Likewise the House is decidedly not Republican, and is thus likely to find ways to hurt the President if they can.

It used to just be called "politics". Now it's a Russian plot. Crafty those Ruskies. I think it all started when they got James Bond to drink Vodka martinis. The infiltration started there, and now we have this mess. :)

[CitizenBBN]

And no, there is no chance they use a secret ballot. First they have to get the articles, which is still iffy. Second Mitch will likely put a vote to dismiss before the Senate with no trial if he has the votes, and the whole thing blows away.

But if Trump insists on a trial, and he might, then I assure everyone it will be as pro-Trump as Mitch can make it and get away with it, just as the House process was as anti-Trump as they could be and get away with it.

It's politics, that's how the game is played.

[Catonahottinroof]

I have a feeling Trump will insist on a trial simply because of his penchant for getting back at those who ridicule and embarrass him. He will see that as his chance to do so.

[dan_bgblue]

I have a feeling Trump will insist on a trial simply because of his penchant for getting back at those who ridicule and embarrass him. He will see that as his chance to do so.

I think you are correct and as an old goat that would not readily accept being slandered and "impeached" by those that use fake news to do their dirty work, I would want my say in court to show the voters that the opposition is not fit to hold office.

And get off my lawn you young punks.

[Catfan73]

I have a feeling Trump will insist on a trial simply because of his penchant for getting back at those who ridicule and embarrass him. He will see that as his chance to do so.

He absolutely should. In fact if I had witnesses that could clear my name I would insist on it.

[CitizenBBN]

I think Trump wants a trial, and some Senators do as well so they can call the Bidens, etc. The thing is that Mitch and Graham are much more strategic and much more reserved, and don't want a spectacle. They may nix having one with witnesses so Shumer can't jump up and down about calling Bolton etc.

They seem to want this to just go away, but I think they'll have to talk Trump down to do it.

[dan_bgblue]

In this issue, they are smarter and less vindictive than me, but I counter with ""if it was Mitch and Graham who had had their chestnuts roasted daily by the socialist darlings of the US house of representatives, and the American mass media, would they be so logical and forgiving""?

[Doc]

I think Trump wants a trial, and some Senators do as well so they can call the Bidens, etc. The thing is that Mitch and Graham are much more strategic and much more reserved, and don't want a spectacle. They may nix having one with witnesses so Shumer can't jump up and down about calling Bolton etc.

They seem to want this to just go away, but I think they'll have to talk Trump down to do it.


Except they can do that without a trial. What he did was against the law and the DOJ has the responsibility to look into it. Don't need to do it in an impeachment trial, can do it on its own.