Impeachment megathread Part 2

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Per TPM: on a FOX News appearance this morning, Devin Nunes claims that the number from which he took the call was, to his understanding, from Parnas' wife and that he didn't know to whom he was talking on the other end.

“I got a call from a number that was Parnas’ wife,” he said. “I remember talking to someone, and I did what I always do which is that if you don’t know who they are, you put them to staff, and you let staff work with that person.”

Strange, considering that (a) there were multiple calls between "Parnas' wife" and Nunes per the phone records, (b) one of those calls lasted a reported eight minutes, and (c) why is "Parnas' wife" speaking to Nunes in the first place?

[Nyvin]

What a disaster for Democrats. They've boxed themselves in to having to hold a vote, which now is almost certain to be a bipartisan vote against impeachment in both the House and Senate. They've given up on garnering any GOP support and are having instead to work to limit the losses within their own ranks.

It will fail in the Senate, but that's not a disaster for the Democrats.  The GOP was never going to support impeaching Trump no matter what he did or how much evidence there was.  They've now made it abundantly clear that they put party over country, which will hurt them among the group of voters who actually care about such things.  Or at least it should; if it doesn't, there's no hope left for this country.

True that impeachment was always going to fail in the Senate. However the expectation at the start of this process was that Democrats would at least be able to keep their caucus unified, pick off a few votes among GOP House members, and get Romney/Collins/Murkowski in the Senate.

They've now failed to get any "smoking gun" evidence, and are now racing to get this process over with before public support starts to collapse. With such a rushed and shoddy process, they are going to have difficulty keeping their caucus together in the House, and there will likely be Dem Senators voting to acquit in the Senate. Trump can then crow that there was a bipartisan acquittal, and will be right to do so.

I'd really love to know what a "smoking gun" would be if nothing we've seen so far isn't one.

[DINGO Joe]

Per TPM: on a FOX News appearance this morning, Devin Nunes claims that the number from which he took the call was, to his understanding, from Parnas' wife and that he didn't know to whom he was talking on the other end.

“I got a call from a number that was Parnas’ wife,” he said. “I remember talking to someone, and I did what I always do which is that if you don’t know who they are, you put them to staff, and you let staff work with that person.”

Strange, considering that (a) there were multiple calls between "Parnas' wife" and Nunes per the phone records, (b) one of those calls lasted a reported eight minutes, and (c) why is "Parnas' wife" speaking to Nunes in the first place?

Maybe they were trading recipes for a Ukrainian delicacy....like uh, borscht.  Yeah, borscht.

[7,052,770]

What a disaster for Democrats. They've boxed themselves in to having to hold a vote, which now is almost certain to be a bipartisan vote against impeachment in both the House and Senate. They've given up on garnering any GOP support and are having instead to work to limit the losses within their own ranks.

It will fail in the Senate, but that's not a disaster for the Democrats.  The GOP was never going to support impeaching Trump no matter what he did or how much evidence there was.  They've now made it abundantly clear that they put party over country, which will hurt them among the group of voters who actually care about such things.  Or at least it should; if it doesn't, there's no hope left for this country.

True that impeachment was always going to fail in the Senate. However the expectation at the start of this process was that Democrats would at least be able to keep their caucus unified, pick off a few votes among GOP House members, and get Romney/Collins/Murkowski in the Senate.

They've now failed to get any "smoking gun" evidence, and are now racing to get this process over with before public support starts to collapse. With such a rushed and shoddy process, they are going to have difficulty keeping their caucus together in the House, and there will likely be Dem Senators voting to acquit in the Senate. Trump can then crow that there was a bipartisan acquittal, and will be right to do so.

I'd really love to know what a "smoking gun" would be if nothing we've seen so far isn't one.

Remember when they said as long as Trump didn't explicitly ask for a favor, it was all OK. Then they mindwiped that idea once it came out that he did ask for one. Any "smoking gun" we could come up with would suddenly no longer count to Republicans if turned out Trump actually did it.

[roxas11]

What a disaster for Democrats. They've boxed themselves in to having to hold a vote, which now is almost certain to be a bipartisan vote against impeachment in both the House and Senate. They've given up on garnering any GOP support and are having instead to work to limit the losses within their own ranks.

It will fail in the Senate, but that's not a disaster for the Democrats.  The GOP was never going to support impeaching Trump no matter what he did or how much evidence there was.  They've now made it abundantly clear that they put party over country, which will hurt them among the group of voters who actually care about such things.  Or at least it should; if it doesn't, there's no hope left for this country.

True that impeachment was always going to fail in the Senate. However the expectation at the start of this process was that Democrats would at least be able to keep their caucus unified, pick off a few votes among GOP House members, and get Romney/Collins/Murkowski in the Senate.

They've now failed to get any "smoking gun" evidence, and are now racing to get this process over with before public support starts to collapse. With such a rushed and shoddy process, they are going to have difficulty keeping their caucus together in the House, and there will likely be Dem Senators voting to acquit in the Senate. Trump can then crow that there was a bipartisan acquittal, and will be right to do so.

I don't care if the Dems had all smoking gun evidence in the world
They could have had the Best impeachment process of all time and the GOP would still not have given them a single vote. The GOP was never going to support impeaching trump and anybody who thinks Mitt Romney is suddenly about to pull a McCain and vote against trump is fooling themselves

I agree with one of the poster who said Nixon would have never have resigned in today's political environment. Back then the GOP voted to start an impeachment inquiry against A president who was far more popular than Trump is right now and Nixon had just won a huge landslide.

Unlike with Trump the american people did not even support the impeachment inquiry against Nixon yet despite all of that the Republicans were willing to hold him accountable and vote for the inquiry against him anyway

that would never happen today and Jim Jordan would be running complaining about the process while Nixon would have gotten away with all of his crimes

[Frodo]

What a disaster for Democrats. They've boxed themselves in to having to hold a vote, which now is almost certain to be a bipartisan vote against impeachment in both the House and Senate. They've given up on garnering any GOP support and are having instead to work to limit the losses within their own ranks.

It will fail in the Senate, but that's not a disaster for the Democrats.  The GOP was never going to support impeaching Trump no matter what he did or how much evidence there was.  They've now made it abundantly clear that they put party over country, which will hurt them among the group of voters who actually care about such things.  Or at least it should; if it doesn't, there's no hope left for this country.

True that impeachment was always going to fail in the Senate. However the expectation at the start of this process was that Democrats would at least be able to keep their caucus unified, pick off a few votes among GOP House members, and get Romney/Collins/Murkowski in the Senate.

They've now failed to get any "smoking gun" evidence, and are now racing to get this process over with before public support starts to collapse. With such a rushed and shoddy process, they are going to have difficulty keeping their caucus together in the House, and there will likely be Dem Senators voting to acquit in the Senate. Trump can then crow that there was a bipartisan acquittal, and will be right to do so.

I don't care if the Dems had all smoking gun evidence in the world
They could have had the Best impeachment process of all time and the GOP would still not have given them a single vote. The GOP was never going to support impeaching trump and anybody who thinks Mitt Romney is suddenly about to pull a McCain and vote against trump is fooling themselves

I agree with one of the poster who said Nixon would have never have resigned in today's political environment. Back then the GOP voted to start an impeachment inquiry against A president who was far more popular than Trump is right now and Nixon had just won a huge landslide.

Unlike with Trump the american people did not even support the impeachment inquiry against Nixon yet despite all of that the Republicans were willing to hold him accountable and vote for the inquiry against him anyway

that would never happen today and Jim Jordan would be running complaining about the process while Nixon would have gotten away with all of his crimes

^^^^^

Truth. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

What a disaster for Democrats. They've boxed themselves in to having to hold a vote, which now is almost certain to be a bipartisan vote against impeachment in both the House and Senate. They've given up on garnering any GOP support and are having instead to work to limit the losses within their own ranks.

It will fail in the Senate, but that's not a disaster for the Democrats.  The GOP was never going to support impeaching Trump no matter what he did or how much evidence there was.  They've now made it abundantly clear that they put party over country, which will hurt them among the group of voters who actually care about such things.  Or at least it should; if it doesn't, there's no hope left for this country.

True that impeachment was always going to fail in the Senate. However the expectation at the start of this process was that Democrats would at least be able to keep their caucus unified, pick off a few votes among GOP House members, and get Romney/Collins/Murkowski in the Senate.

They've now failed to get any "smoking gun" evidence, and are now racing to get this process over with before public support starts to collapse. With such a rushed and shoddy process, they are going to have difficulty keeping their caucus together in the House, and there will likely be Dem Senators voting to acquit in the Senate. Trump can then crow that there was a bipartisan acquittal, and will be right to do so.

I'd really love to know what a "smoking gun" would be if nothing we've seen so far isn't one.

A (D) after his name.

[DINGO Joe]

Trump and Nunes could literally nuke the city of Miami, shoot twenty two starving orphans, strip nude at a press conference, and admit to wanting a mass murder of pet dogs and still have the unconditional support of at least 3/4 of the GOP senate and House.

3/4s seems a little low.

[Crumpets]

Trump and Nunes could literally nuke the city of Miami, shoot twenty two starving orphans, strip nude at a press conference, and admit to wanting a mass murder of pet dogs and still have the unconditional support of at least 3/4 of the GOP senate and House.

"If the President doesn't have the legal authority to nuke Miami, shoot starving orphans, strip nude at a press conference, and murder pet dogs en masse, then we might as well just throw the Constitution in the shredder."

[forgotten manatee]

You think that holding up military aid to a foreign partner in an active war with one of our adversaries, and conditioning that aid on that foreign partner getting involved in our elections is OK? You don't think inviting foreign interference in our elections and potentially destabilizing Europe's eastern flank rises to the level of an impeachable offense? If not, what does? I'm asking that honestly. Please explain why none of this rises to the level of an impeachable offense, and is any way comparable to what happened in the 1990s.

What is "impeachable offense" can be everything and nothing, just what the House will (politically) decide is, I wrote it earlier. And these are even not my own words, Gerald Ford was much earlier to say this. It can be wearing a tan suit when holding a press conference or overriding and lying to Congress, getting illegal kickbacks and increasing unilaterally defense budget to get USA into a World War III.

All the things Trump did in Zelensky case are bad, Trump broke law multiple times and he deserves to be punished, but I don't think impeachment would do good here, mostly because we all know that Senate will acquit him. Pelosi's efforts are just not practical. It would have been successful if Democrats would have 67 seats in Senate like Republicans would had 67 seats in 1999.

I fundamentally disagree with your thinking. Impeachment, even if it fails in the Senate, will forever tarnish Trump's legacy. Its a bad look that no president aspires for. At the very least, the Democrats are doing the right thing by not rolling over -- it will serve as a warning for future presidents. Plus, I refuse to believe the House GOP would have done anything different if they had uncovered something bad about Obama in 2011.

I'll also note that my initial question was for Badger, who never answered, which makes me strongly suspect that cowardly blue avatars have nothing to say.

[Pericles]

You think that holding up military aid to a foreign partner in an active war with one of our adversaries, and conditioning that aid on that foreign partner getting involved in our elections is OK? You don't think inviting foreign interference in our elections and potentially destabilizing Europe's eastern flank rises to the level of an impeachable offense? If not, what does? I'm asking that honestly. Please explain why none of this rises to the level of an impeachable offense, and is any way comparable to what happened in the 1990s.

What is "impeachable offense" can be everything and nothing, just what the House will (politically) decide is, I wrote it earlier. And these are even not my own words, Gerald Ford was much earlier to say this. It can be wearing a tan suit when holding a press conference or overriding and lying to Congress, getting illegal kickbacks and increasing unilaterally defense budget to get USA into a World War III.

All the things Trump did in Zelensky case are bad, Trump broke law multiple times and he deserves to be punished, but I don't think impeachment would do good here, mostly because we all know that Senate will acquit him. Pelosi's efforts are just not practical. It would have been successful if Democrats would have 67 seats in Senate like Republicans would had 67 seats in 1999.

I fundamentally disagree with your thinking. Impeachment, even if it fails in the Senate, will forever tarnish Trump's legacy. Its a bad look that no president aspires for. At the very least, the Democrats are doing the right thing by not rolling over -- it will serve as a warning for future presidents. Plus, I refuse to believe the House GOP would have done anything different if they had uncovered something bad about Obama in 2011.

I'll also note that my initial question was for Badger, who never answered, which makes me strongly suspect that cowardly blue avatars have nothing to say.

Badger is the ultimate RINO so the blue avatar is misleading. However actual Republican posters are struggling to defend Trump.

[gottsu]

You think that holding up military aid to a foreign partner in an active war with one of our adversaries, and conditioning that aid on that foreign partner getting involved in our elections is OK? You don't think inviting foreign interference in our elections and potentially destabilizing Europe's eastern flank rises to the level of an impeachable offense? If not, what does? I'm asking that honestly. Please explain why none of this rises to the level of an impeachable offense, and is any way comparable to what happened in the 1990s.

What is "impeachable offense" can be everything and nothing, just what the House will (politically) decide is, I wrote it earlier. And these are even not my own words, Gerald Ford was much earlier to say this. It can be wearing a tan suit when holding a press conference or overriding and lying to Congress, getting illegal kickbacks and increasing unilaterally defense budget to get USA into a World War III.

All the things Trump did in Zelensky case are bad, Trump broke law multiple times and he deserves to be punished, but I don't think impeachment would do good here, mostly because we all know that Senate will acquit him. Pelosi's efforts are just not practical. It would have been successful if Democrats would have 67 seats in Senate like Republicans would had 67 seats in 1999.

I fundamentally disagree with your thinking. Impeachment, even if it fails in the Senate, will forever tarnish Trump's legacy. Its a bad look that no president aspires for. At the very least, the Democrats are doing the right thing by not rolling over -- it will serve as a warning for future presidents.

What Democrats are doing is an art for art's sake.  

Who cares about Trump legacy? Trumpists know better what Trump's legacy will be, Democrats already have known opinion about him, so what's the big deal? You can care about legacy of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Franklin D. Roosevelt, but not Donald Trump.

It isn't easy to write another post like this to me. I wish I would, most certainly wish that I would live in a world in which people like Trump are being put straight into jail for Mueller report findings, but that kind of world don't exist, so Trump will stay untouched, and the only way of separating him from the office of POTUS is beating him in 2020 election.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/6/20993403/impeachment-hearing-trump-congress-david-jolly

I can’t tell you how many Republican members of Congress have told me, “I’m just trying to keep my head down and not get noticed.” They see all the excitement stirred up by people like Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes but at least half the caucus wants to stay the hell out of the media. They’re not looking to make a name through this, they’re looking to survive this.

I struggle with whether some of their behaviors are an intentional decision on their part to engage in either misdirection, or to overlook the facts because they have a fealty to the president or because they want to put a stake in the ground in right-wing media or because it just works in their districts. Or are some of them just duped into it by following the leader?

I honestly don’t know. It’s probably a mix of all of the above.

The Republican Party is in long-term trouble. The demographics of the nation are shifting away from hardcore Republican conservatism and they’re basically doubling down on that while relying on these rigged elements of the system to help them keep power. That’s not a good place to be in.

The reason Trump won was because he brought in populism, not conservatism. I don’t see who follows that. Who’s the populist in the Republican Party that comes next? I don’t see one. I think it’s a return to conservatism and largely white male flyover state conservatism, which statistically just isn’t going to put Republicans in office a decade from now.

Look, I know Lindsey Graham well. We traveled the world together. I had enormous respect for him. The one area where I would say Lindsey has been more honest than any other Republican is in how he made the pivot.
He said, “This guy [Trump] beat me. He won. The voters chose him and my job is to reflect the will of the people, so therefore I’m going to protect this president and do everything I can in his defense.” At least he acknowledged that he was flipping for reasons of public opinion and politics within the party.
I would say the others have just kind of scurrilously made this shift and smiled about it because they don’t care. It’s even more unprincipled than what we saw from Lindsey Graham.

I say all the time since 2017 that GOP is in trouble when it comes to federal politics in future. Nice to see voices confirmating that.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

By far the chippiest hearing we've had so far during these proceedings.

Lots of interruptions, "points of order", even a few jabs (Gohmert seeming to imply some seedy deals between Democrats and HJC counsel Berke).

2020 gonna be fun, y'all.

[GeorgiaModerate]

By far the chippiest hearing we've had so far during these proceedings.

Lots of interruptions, "points of order", even a few jabs (Gohmert seeming to imply some seedy deals between Democrats and HJC counsel Berke).

2020 gonna be fun, y'all.

TBH, I'd prefer to go back to the days when politics was boring.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

More fireworks.  

Ranking member Doug Collins seemed to take offense to HIC Dem counsel Goldman's implication that Sondland's large donation to the Trump campaign was essentially a "pay to play" type arrangement.  Collins warned Goldman to "be careful" as Goldman has apparently donated money to the Democratic Party.  Goldman seemed slighted by this, himself, and in attempting to respond, Rep. Gaetz spoke up and admonished Goldman for being "unelected" and covering for Schiff.  Nadler put down the gavel and reminded Mr. Gaetz that he was not recognized. 

Like I said, I don't think I've ever seen one of these hearings get so heated.  

[GeneralMacArthur]

What even is going on right now?  I'm listening in and it's some sort of staged conversation between two Republicans?

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

What even is going on right now?  I'm listening in and it's some sort of staged conversation between two Republicans?

It's Republican counsel questioning HIC minority counsel Steve Castor.

Whereas the HJC majority counsel tore into Castor and lobbed very few softballs at HIC majority counsel Goldman, the minority counsel for the HJC hasn't asked a single question of Goldman and is basically having a chat with Castor.

It's all for the sound-bytes.

[gottsu]

It's all for the sound-bytes.

And for nothing more. They whether want to please their constituents with that or personally hop on this Republican bandwagon and be safe in DC for cynical reasons.

But the hearings will resume in a few minutes.

EDIT:

"I haven't seen anything like this"™ - seems to be the one and only GOP response now.

[President Johnson]

Ted Cruz is a complete laughingstock, he now spreads a debunked conspiracy theory and is doing the bidding of an Ex-KGB agent and protect a guy who accused his father of killing JFK and insulted his wife.

Ted Cruz backs debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine meddled in 2016 election

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, from Texas, is the latest Senate Republican to echo a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.

In a Sunday interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Cruz said there is “considerable evidence” that Ukraine, as well as Russia, interfered in the presidential election.

[...]

State Department officials have reported to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they are unaware of evidence of Ukrainian interference. Fiona Hill, a former White House adviser on Russia, called it a “fictional narrative” fueled by Russian propaganda during her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings.

"These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes," Hill said, adding that Russian forces have put in millions of dollars to advance those narratives. "When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us, degrade our institutions and destroy the faith of the American people and our democracy."

Full Article

[gottsu]

Ted Cruz is a complete laughingstock, he now spreads a debunked conspiracy theory and is doing the bidding of an Ex-KGB agent and protect a guy who accused his father of killing JFK and insulted his wife.

Ted Cruz backs debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine meddled in 2016 election

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, from Texas, is the latest Senate Republican to echo a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.

In a Sunday interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Cruz said there is “considerable evidence” that Ukraine, as well as Russia, interfered in the presidential election.

[...]

State Department officials have reported to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they are unaware of evidence of Ukrainian interference. Fiona Hill, a former White House adviser on Russia, called it a “fictional narrative” fueled by Russian propaganda during her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings.

"These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes," Hill said, adding that Russian forces have put in millions of dollars to advance those narratives. "When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us, degrade our institutions and destroy the faith of the American people and our democracy."

Full Article

He talks what his constituents want to hear or he is just cynical? What do you think?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Ted Cruz is a complete laughingstock, he now spreads a debunked conspiracy theory and is doing the bidding of an Ex-KGB agent and protect a guy who accused his father of killing JFK and insulted his wife.

Ted Cruz backs debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine meddled in 2016 election

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, from Texas, is the latest Senate Republican to echo a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.

In a Sunday interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Cruz said there is “considerable evidence” that Ukraine, as well as Russia, interfered in the presidential election.

[...]

State Department officials have reported to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they are unaware of evidence of Ukrainian interference. Fiona Hill, a former White House adviser on Russia, called it a “fictional narrative” fueled by Russian propaganda during her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings.

"These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes," Hill said, adding that Russian forces have put in millions of dollars to advance those narratives. "When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us, degrade our institutions and destroy the faith of the American people and our democracy."

Full Article

He talks what his constituents want to hear or he is just cynical? What do you think?

Both.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I as an objective Democrat is not buying these hearings on impeachment; Pelosi said in 2016, when Speaker Ryan was investigating Benghazi, that Congress can walk and chew bubblegum; consequently, instead of $$$ on wall and food stamps, Dems are wasting time on impeachment. If Pelosi loses the Speakership, she wont be missed, she will go into retirement, thus Minority Leader Stenya will ascend

Do nothing Pelosi, where SF has the highest homelessness in the country

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1204205650294845440

[Virginiá]

I as an objective Democrat is not buying these hearings on impeachment; Pelosi said in 2016, when Speaker Ryan was investigating Benghazi, that Congress can walk and chew bubblegum; consequently, instead of $$$ on wall and food stamps, Dems are wasting time on impeachment. If Pelosi loses the Speakership, she wont be missed, she will go into retirement, thus Minority Leader Stenya will ascend

Do nothing Pelosi, where SF has the highest homelessness in the country

Do you honestly expect a member of Congress (speaker or not) of a divided Congress with an opposition POTUS, in modern day hyper-polarized America, to fix homelessness in her district? That is a state issue if I ever heard of one, and something that Congress can try and help with on a more general level, but still, that just won't happen these days, because Congress is fundamentally broken and has been for years.

And the House has passed bills, but they are ignored by the Senate and Trump wouldn't sign them anyway, unless they are exactly what he wants. I'm looking for fresh leadership myself but this is some real dumb criticism of her.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am indicting Biden who was endorsed by AA Southern Dems over the opposition of Civil Rights leadership Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and Oprah who were looking at Fresh leadership and Kamala Harris. Sharpton for sure wanted Harris. Bernie if he wins IA, NH, NV, Cali, MN, ME, Va and MI and IL will become nominee. The Ukraine scandal has Biden's fingerprints all over them.

But, I was talking about passing a budget and pass the wall funding and see if you can get something out of Trump, not cut food stamps if they give him money for the wall. The budget impasse is redundant