Impeachment megathread Part 2

[emailking]

The Barron outrage might be one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen come from the right-wing twitter sphere.

Children should be off limits. She used him to make a point.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The Barron outrage might be one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen come from the right-wing twitter sphere.

Children should be off limits. She used him to make a point.

It was just a rather stupid play on words.  I'm sure the Republicans will manufacture plenty of outrage over it, but it's objectively not a big deal.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The Barron outrage might be one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen come from the right-wing twitter sphere.

Children should be off limits. She used him to make a point.

It was just a rather stupid play on words.  I'm sure the Republicans will manufacture plenty of outrage over it, but it's objectively not a big deal.

It isn't, but I worry that it might become part of the Republicans' new derailment tactics.

[Cinemark]

The Barron outrage might be one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen come from the right-wing twitter sphere.

Children should be off limits. She used him to make a point.

It was just a rather stupid play on words.  I'm sure the Republicans will manufacture plenty of outrage over it, but it's objectively not a big deal.

It isn't, but I worry that it might become part of the Republicans' new derailment tactics.

She apologized for it at the hearing. But, honestly, what she said was so inoffensive that I cant see it playing well as a tactic outside of people who are already outraged by the existence of these impeachment hearings.

[emailking]

I don't think it was appropriate. Put yourself in his shoes.

[Cinemark]

I don't think it was appropriate. Put yourself in his shoes.

I agree that we should leave the children of political figures out of politics unless they involve themselves in them. But the comment was so innocuous and the outrage so intense that it seems like a gas lighting campaign to distract people from what actually happened today.

[pbrower2a]

I’m getting a bad feeling with Schiff and Pelosi both not committing to impeachment today

The Democrats win several different ways, but all depend on either ousting the President or making Congressional Republicans look bad for defending  his corrupt, dishonest, erratic, and despotic conduct solely for partisan ends. Schiff and Pelosi have surely decided upon impeachment, and  the question is now of timing -- basically to ensure maximal damage to Trump and the .GOP.

Republicans can quash impeachment in the House quickly and with little difficulty with a strict vote on partisan lines. But even if Trump is not removed he will go down to defeat (the majority of Americans are better than he is), taking Republican members of both Houses of Congress with him.

The ultimate impeachment of this horrid President will be by the American electorate, as will be the ultimate censure of Republicans up for re-election eleven months from now.

You mean "Republicans can quash impeachment in the Senate..."--that is, by not convicting.  Republicans are outnumbered in the House.  

True. They can quash an impeachment that easily passes the House once it gets to the Senate. Such may be unwise, but I have seen much unwise behavior from Republicans lately and expect more of the same.

[Nyvin]

Think of the scale. I am saying it again. We don't have big, really "overwhelming" (like they wrote in Schiff's report) evidence to back these impeachment claims, just the excerpts of that phone call. Ken Starr wrote precisely how, when and where Lewinsky was giving a blowjob, and there was her skirt covered in Clinton's sperm, we had "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt) and Woodward and Bernstein and Nixon's tapes in Watergate, and now, we have "I would like to do us a favor" (not said word-by-word) and it's mostly all we have in Trump's impeachment inquiry. Democrats are playing pure politics now. Trump should be impeached not for this, but for Russian collusion in 2016 elections. Mueller got that "overwhelming" evidence, which Schiff couldn't. But even if, Mueller said that he is not able to state if the dealings of 2016 were exactly a "collusion".

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more.   Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about.   This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

When we compare that evidence to the evidence of Nixon or Clinton, it looks flimsy to me indeed. Sorry. The evidence of Mueller is speaking to me more.

I know that some judge said last time "presidents are not kings" - but in the reality they are kings, if they weren't kings they wouldn't be saying Nixon's famous words or Dick Cheney wouldn't have invented (with Antonin Scalia) "unitary executive doctrine" and not comply with Congress because they simply can.

You can say "This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law" to John Doe, but not to a American president since good few decades.

If you want stronger evidence then have the White House cooperate with the trial and turn over the documents and have the officials testify.   

Trump doesn't get to stone wall everything and then have the trial go "Well, flimsy evidence!"  (Not that the evidence we have now is flimsy by any means).

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The comment wasn't even attacking Barron. Once again, the Republican tactic is to distract and deflect, rather than to address Trump's crimes.

[emailking]

She didn't intend it as an attack, but that's the effect. He's a child. If he heard that, he might think there's something wrong with his name. Or that it's somehow wrong for him to be the President's son.

[Nyvin]

She didn't intend it as an attack, but that's the effect. He's a child. If he heard that, he might think there's something wrong with his name. Or that it's somehow wrong for him to be the President's son.

It was a dumb play on words.    It's absolutely meaningless in the bigger picture though and changes nothing.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Honestly it's much more damaging for Barron for the White House to try to spin him into a culture wars martyr than the comment itself is.

I suppose that's the risk inherent in mentioning him at all in hearings but, you know, Republicans could just play it honest and... ignore it.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

She didn't intend it as an attack, but that's the effect. He's a child. If he heard that, he might think there's something wrong with his name. Or that it's somehow wrong for him to be the President's son.

It might expose him to the horrifying truth: he's named after John Barron.

(Joking on the forum aside, she should have punned on John Barron- who is not a minor, even if he act like one all the time - and not brought Barron Trump into it at all.)

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202435070239428608

Why does Mr. Trump feel the need to edit and explain his "perfect call"?

Perhaps we've been hearing him wrong (it's happened before with "whiner"), and it was a "perfidious call". Those big words can really give him trouble, after all.

[gottsu]

Think of the scale. I am saying it again. We don't have big, really "overwhelming" (like they wrote in Schiff's report) evidence to back these impeachment claims, just the excerpts of that phone call. Ken Starr wrote precisely how, when and where Lewinsky was giving a blowjob, and there was her skirt covered in Clinton's sperm, we had "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt) and Woodward and Bernstein and Nixon's tapes in Watergate, and now, we have "I would like to do us a favor" (not said word-by-word) and it's mostly all we have in Trump's impeachment inquiry. Democrats are playing pure politics now. Trump should be impeached not for this, but for Russian collusion in 2016 elections. Mueller got that "overwhelming" evidence, which Schiff couldn't. But even if, Mueller said that he is not able to state if the dealings of 2016 were exactly a "collusion".

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more.   Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about.   This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

When we compare that evidence to the evidence of Nixon or Clinton, it looks flimsy to me indeed. Sorry. The evidence of Mueller is speaking to me more.

I know that some judge said last time "presidents are not kings" - but in the reality they are kings, if they weren't kings they wouldn't be saying Nixon's famous words or Dick Cheney wouldn't have invented (with Antonin Scalia) "unitary executive doctrine" and not comply with Congress because they simply can.

You can say "This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law" to John Doe, but not to a American president since good few decades.

If you want stronger evidence then have the White House cooperate with the trial and turn over the documents and have the officials testify.   

Trump doesn't get to stone wall everything and then have the trial go "Well, flimsy evidence!"  (Not that the evidence we have now is flimsy by any means).

He can stonewall it, because he also simply can do it, because he's the president - that's the politics here. Democrats are also playing politics, but they are fighting a losing battle, they have no real leverage over Trump to force him to cooperate with Congress.

Think of the scale. I am saying it again. We don't have big, really "overwhelming" (like they wrote in Schiff's report) evidence to back these impeachment claims, just the excerpts of that phone call. Ken Starr wrote precisely how, when and where Lewinsky was giving a blowjob, and there was her skirt covered in Clinton's sperm, we had "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt) and Woodward and Bernstein and Nixon's tapes in Watergate, and now, we have "I would like to do us a favor" (not said word-by-word) and it's mostly all we have in Trump's impeachment inquiry. Democrats are playing pure politics now. Trump should be impeached not for this, but for Russian collusion in 2016 elections. Mueller got that "overwhelming" evidence, which Schiff couldn't. But even if, Mueller said that he is not able to state if the dealings of 2016 were exactly a "collusion".

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more.   Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about.   This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

When we compare that evidence to the evidence of Nixon or Clinton, it looks flimsy to me indeed. Sorry. The evidence of Mueller is speaking to me more.

I know that some judge said last time "presidents are not kings" - but in the reality they are kings, if they weren't kings they wouldn't be saying Nixon's famous words or Dick Cheney wouldn't have invented (with Antonin Scalia) "unitary executive doctrine" and not comply with Congress because they simply can.

You can say "This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law" to John Doe, but not to a American president since good few decades.

Sorry, but this is a stupid argument.  Presidents may want to act like kings, but they are NOT kings.  Just because they attempt to assert additional power beyond the level to which they are entitled, that does not make the extension of power legitimate.  Impeachment is a defined Constitutional mechanism to place a check on such executive overreach.

A "defined Constitutional mechanism" which is dead since impeachment of Clinton.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Pelosi speaking this morning at 9am EST concerning the impeachment inquiry. 

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202573673863008256

[MasterJedi]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202573673863008256

They're going to make it about Hunter Biden and not Trump. They don't care.

[gottsu]

Pelosi speaking this morning at 9am EST concerning the impeachment inquiry. 

I don't have high hopes about that. I think she will be attacking Trump for not complying with Congress and outline a plan for a further impeachment proceedings, what else she can say?

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202573673863008256

They're going to make it about Hunter Biden and not Trump. They don't care.

I haven't seen any calls for Pelosi to testify until this tweet.  Is Trump just throwing out big names from the Democratic Party?  In that case, I anticipate Chuck Schumer and AOC will testify too!  Maybe even RBG!  

It's happening, guys! #draintheswamp

Seriously though, this piece of pure poetry just follows Trump's usual MO:

- "It's us vs. THEM.  And they HATE you and America!"

- There are secret Democrat forces running things.  

- These Dems are probably names you've heard of.  They're bad people.

- I actually want to be impeached.  

[Crumpets]

Pelosi speaking this morning at 9am EST concerning the impeachment inquiry. 

I don't have high hopes about that. I think she will be attacking Trump for not complying with Congress and outline a plan for a further impeachment proceedings, what else she can say?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is an announcement on scheduling the final impeachment vote in the House, and that's something.

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202573673863008256

They're going to make it about Hunter Biden and not Trump. They don't care.

I haven't seen any calls for Pelosi to testify until this tweet.  Is Trump just throwing out big names from the Democratic Party?  In that case, I anticipate Chuck Schumer and AOC will testify too!  Maybe even RBG!  

It's happening, guys! #draintheswamp

Seriously though, this piece of pure poetry just follows Trump's usual MO:

- "It's us vs. THEM.  And they HATE you and America!"

- There are secret Democrat forces running things.  

- These Dems are probably names you've heard of.  They're bad people.

- I actually want to be impeached.  

It's some even more pathetic yet magically more effective version of just going an anti-Semitic tirade. At this point, that would be easier and get the same effect.

[gottsu]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202573673863008256

They're going to make it about Hunter Biden and not Trump. They don't care.

I haven't seen any calls for Pelosi to testify until this tweet.  Is Trump just throwing out big names from the Democratic Party?  In that case, I anticipate Chuck Schumer and AOC will testify too!  Maybe even RBG!  

It's happening, guys! #draintheswamp

Seriously though, this piece of pure poetry just follows Trump's usual MO:

- "It's us vs. THEM.  And they HATE you and America!"

- There are secret Democrat forces running things.  

- These Dems are probably names you've heard of.  They're bad people.

- I actually want to be impeached.  

That means Trump uses Newt Gingrich's "Republican Revolution" strategy which has proved to be successful.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Pelosi speaking now.  

No specific date for a full House vote on impeachment.  Pelosi basically gave the judiciary committee the official go-ahead to proceed with articles of impeachment.

This puts to rest any discussion of censure vs. impeachment. 

[gottsu]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.