Impeachment Megathread Part 3

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

This whole thing about a supposed "deal" for witnesses is a non-starter & non-sequitur. Republicans have more than 50 votes in the Senate. If they want to call Hunter Biden or whoever and make a mockery out of themselves and the proceedings, there is nothing stopping them from doing that, and it doesn't depend on Democrats at all.

Moreover, there has been nothing stopping them from doing that since the start. So if they actually wanted to do so, one would think that they would have done so already (hint - they don't actually want that, they are just using it as a scare tactic and to try to distract from the facts of the case about what Trump did).

Moreover, they can also call whoever they want to testify before committees. There is nothing stopping Lindsay Graham or whatever committee chairs from calling whoever they want to testify before Congress.

None of that depends on Democrats or Democratic votes, and the idea that it does is ludicrous.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

This whole thing about a supposed "deal" for witnesses is a non-starter & non-sequitur. Republicans have more than 50 votes in the Senate. If they want to call Hunter Biden or whoever and make a mockery out of themselves and the proceedings, there is nothing stopping them from doing that, and it doesn't depend on Democrats at all.

Moreover, there has been nothing stopping them from doing that since the start. So if they actually wanted to do so, one would think that they would have done so already (hint - they don't actually want that, they are just using it as a scare tactic and to try to distract from the facts of the case about what Trump did).

Moreover, they can also call whoever they want to testify before committees. There is nothing stopping Lindsay Graham or whatever committee chairs from calling whoever they want to testify before Congress.

None of that depends on Democrats or Democratic votes, and the idea that it does is ludicrous.

They are against it. But... The idea is that if there will be any witnesses, then both sides should be able to choose whoever they think are relevant.

For the sake of fairness, of course 

[Hindsight was 2020]

The thing that really gets me about both the Senate Republicans and posters like Russian Bear and Meclazine position on calling Hunter is how transparently bad faith it all is. Like say Hunter is guilty of of doing shady stuff in Ukraine that doesn’t absolve Trump of what he did. But they don’t care; the goal is to drag Hunter in front of the public and air all of his dirty launder to push both a massively bad faith “Trump was legitimately concerned about corruption” talking point and a cynical “everyone sucks so Trump shouldn’t be held accountable” argument. None of the grips they have with Hunter is legitimate grievances considering the crap they have tolerated from Trump be it hiding his taxes, the dozens of stories of diplomats using Trump businesses to gain favor, and don’t forget the nepotism from Jared, Ivanka, and Junior that make Hunter look like an anthill

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The more Pam Bondi and Eric Herschmann talk about Hunter Biden, the uglier this gets for Joe Biden's campaign.

If we get witnesses, the murky world of Hunter, and hence Joe Biden, will be laid bare.

Yeah! Look at this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-vice-president-biden-said-ukraine-should-increase-gas-production-then-his-son-got-a-job-with-a-ukrainian-gas-company/2019/07/21/f599f42c-86dd-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html
WaPo: As vice president, Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign
New Yorker: WILL HUNTER BIDEN JEOPARDIZE HIS FATHER’S CAMPAIGN?.
Joe Biden’s son is under scrutiny for his business dealings and tumultuous personal life

https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/1221920841627242498


Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

[GeorgiaModerate]

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Then HE SHOULD DO IT LEGALLY. 

Pardon the shout, but you have evidently not heard this the first 10 times that I and others have said it.

[7,052,770]

Also it's well sourced that Trump didn't care if Hunter were actually investigated or not, just that the announcement was made to hurt Joe's campaign. So that whole argument from the Trump side is a dud.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Then HE SHOULD DO IT LEGALLY.  

Pardon the shout, but you have evidently not heard this the first 10 times that I and others have said it.

See my post above his. When you realize it’s all done in bad faith and trolling then you see why they don’t engage on the substance. Most of them know he’s guilty but they don’t care and are just throwing out bs to find a talking point that sticks. For god sakes the person they had on senate floor attacking Hunter for his Ukraine dealings was the former Florida AG who dropped a Trump foundation fraud case and then got $25,000 in political donations from Trump himself shortly after. That should tell you how serious they are about “Hunter’s “corruption”

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/nathanlgonzales/status/1221869126639071233

I like it.  It will never happen, but I like it.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

If Marco Rubio doesn't vote for witnesses he's pretty much a complete punk.

I actually think Lyin' Ted and Lil' Marco won't vote in favor of bringing in witnesses. Those spineless cowards are worse than Trump in some ways, especially Mr. 'Constitutionalist' Cruz.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

This whole thing about a supposed "deal" for witnesses is a non-starter & non-sequitur. Republicans have more than 50 votes in the Senate. If they want to call Hunter Biden or whoever and make a mockery out of themselves and the proceedings, there is nothing stopping them from doing that, and it doesn't depend on Democrats at all.

Moreover, there has been nothing stopping them from doing that since the start. So if they actually wanted to do so, one would think that they would have done so already (hint - they don't actually want that, they are just using it as a scare tactic and to try to distract from the facts of the case about what Trump did).

Moreover, they can also call whoever they want to testify before committees. There is nothing stopping Lindsay Graham or whatever committee chairs from calling whoever they want to testify before Congress.

None of that depends on Democrats or Democratic votes, and the idea that it does is ludicrous.

They are against it. But... The idea is that if there will be any witnesses, then both sides should be able to choose whoever they think are relevant.

For the sake of fairness, of course 

They have a majority in the Senate. They can do whatever they want, the Dems have no way to stop it. If they want to call Hunter Biden + John Bolton to testify, they can do that and there is nothing the Dems can do to stop them. They don't need any assistance from the Dems to do so, they have the majority and can do so regardless of whatever the Dems may or may not think about it.

So either let them do that, or let them not. But the idea that it depends on the Dems is absurd.

If the GOP wants to do it, they will, if they don't then they won't - it is entirely up to them.

[Meclazine for Israel]

MSNBC.com

Lead host journalist starts Impeachment reporting conversations with:

"What do you think about the irrelevance of the Republicans arguments today?"

This guy is a mad supporter of the Democrats. Sad media coverage with foregone conclusions, but no initial story for people to make their own mind up.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Also it's well sourced that Trump didn't care if Hunter were actually investigated or not, just that the announcement was made to hurt Joe's campaign. So that whole argument from the Trump side is a dud.

No, it is not.

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Then HE SHOULD DO IT LEGALLY. 

Pardon the shout, but you have evidently not heard this the first 10 times that I and others have said it.

It is what the trial is about, isn't it? If the way Trump did it was illegal/impeachable or not.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221789190725283840

[GeorgiaModerate]

Also it's well sourced that Trump didn't care if Hunter were actually investigated or not, just that the announcement was made to hurt Joe's campaign. So that whole argument from the Trump side is a dud.

No, it is not.

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Then HE SHOULD DO IT LEGALLY. 

Pardon the shout, but you have evidently not heard this the first 10 times that I and others have said it.

It is what the trial is about, isn't it? If the way Trump did it was illegal/impeachable or not.

The non-partisan GAO concluded that it was NOT legal to withhold the aid.  But you know  that, and as others have said, you are repeating this stuff in bad faith.  I'll waste no more of my time trying to engage with you in good faith.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Let's make a deal.  Democrats agree to show up wearing underwear on their heads for the remainder of the year.  In return Republicans will allow Democrats to call relevant witnesses.

Hurr durr if the witnesses are so important why don't the Democrats take this deal hurr durr

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Then HE SHOULD DO IT LEGALLY. 

Pardon the shout, but you have evidently not heard this the first 10 times that I and others have said it.

Erm, it was done legally. No one is debating legality Jesus Christ.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Then HE SHOULD DO IT LEGALLY. 

Pardon the shout, but you have evidently not heard this the first 10 times that I and others have said it.

Erm, it was done legally. No one is debating legality Jesus Christ.

Erm, no it wasn’t

[Nyvin]

Also it's well sourced that Trump didn't care if Hunter were actually investigated or not, just that the announcement was made to hurt Joe's campaign. So that whole argument from the Trump side is a dud.

No, it is not.

Yes it is, it was directly part of Sondland's testimony and all references to the investigation just have Trump calling for a public announcement by Ukraine.

[Nyvin]

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Then HE SHOULD DO IT LEGALLY. 

Pardon the shout, but you have evidently not heard this the first 10 times that I and others have said it.

Erm, it was done legally. No one is debating legality Jesus Christ.

"Done legally" would've been pursuing the issue within the DOJ,  not pressuring a foreign leader to make a public announcement by withholding aid money.

[The Dowager Mod]

Aaaand we have reached the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of the argument.

[Crumpets]

Trump should be impeached if he did NOT want to investigate this shady stuff (obvious corruption if you ask me)!

Then HE SHOULD DO IT LEGALLY.  

Pardon the shout, but you have evidently not heard this the first 10 times that I and others have said it.

Erm, it was done legally. No one is debating legality Jesus Christ.

"Done legally" would've been pursuing the issue within the DOJ,  not pressuring a foreign leader to make a public announcement by withholding aid money.

Not to mention completely circumventing the US's legal attache in Ukraine by asking Zelensky to work directly with his personal lawyer.

[2016]

Alan Dershowitz just KILLED the Democrats case in one sentence.

A Quid Pro Pro is (even if there is one) is not an impeachable offense. Period!

GAME OVER MISTER SCHIFF

You couldn't read the Constitution, lousy Adam!

[Hindsight was 2020]

Alan Dershowitz just KILLED the Democrats case in one sentence.

A Quid Pro Pro is (even if there is one) is not an impeachable offense. Period!

GAME OVER MISTER SCHIFF

You couldn't read the Constitution, lousy Adam!

Ummm yes it total is especially in a corrupt context

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/1221948034004799488

Sen ERNST: "IA caucuses are this next Monday evening. And I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Demcaucus goers. Will they be supporting VP Biden at this point?"

IE - The goal of Senate Republicans is to produce a political hit job on Biden during the investigation...Great job Ernst.

[Nyvin]

Alan Dershowitz just KILLED the Democrats case in one sentence.

A Quid Pro Pro is (even if there is one) is not an impeachable offense. Period!

GAME OVER MISTER SCHIFF
You couldn't read the Constitution, lousy Adam!

Anything "can be" an impeachable offense.   There's no legal definition of "impeachable offense".   Congress can impeach someone for wearing mismatched clothes or anything they want, as long as they can get the votes for it.

Blanket statements from attorneys on matters of opinion don't mean anything.