• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dead'

Chomsky

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
85,273
Reaction score
71,920
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Republicans would hold a full impeachment trial because they do not have the votes to dismiss charges against President Trump immediately.
Click to expand...

"Have you given up on the idea that the Senate Republican majority is going to vote to dismiss this case right away?" Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Graham Sunday.

"That's dead for practical purposes," the South Carolina Republican responded. "The idea of dismissing the case early on is not going to happen. We don’t have the votes for that."
Click to expand...
Source: (Washington Examiner) We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dead'

With this loss, it appears Trump & McConnel have fully capitulated to actually having a trial.

Looks like Round 1 went to Pelosi, and soon we'll see who gets Round 2 (witnesses).
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (Washington Examiner) We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dead'

With this loss, it appears Trump & McConnel have fully capitulated to actually having a trial.

Looks like Round 1 went to Pelosi, and soon we'll see who gets Round 2 (witnesses).
Click to expand...

Despite the suggestion it could happen, I never expected it would.

The Republican's (IMO most anyway) want to give the impression of a fair process, in contrast to the "unfair" process leading to a purely partisan vote in the House to Impeach.

I expect McConnel to push for a vote of not guilty after whatever evidence is entered by the House and the President's defense team.

I am not sure that there will be many actual witnesses, but one never knows.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Despite the suggestion it could happen, I never expected it would.

The Republican's (IMO most anyway) want to give the impression of a fair process, in contrast to the "unfair" process leading to a purely partisan vote in the House to Impeach.

I expect McConnel to push for a vote of not guilty after whatever evidence is entered by the House and the President's defense team.

I am not sure that there will be many actual witnesses, but one never knows.
Click to expand...

the "unfair process in the House" was all right wing smear.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (Washington Examiner) We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dead'

With this loss, it appears Trump & McConnel have fully capitulated to actually having a trial.

Looks like Round 1 went to Pelosi, and soon we'll see who gets Round 2 (witnesses).
Click to expand...

Dismissing the impeachment outright was always the least likely outcome. More likely is they'll vote to keep out relevant evidence and witnesses. We'll see.

What I find fascinating is how little interest in legacy they have. They want the imprimatur of respectability that acquittal brings with it, yet are determined to trash that imprimatur at every available opportunity.
 
Cardinal said:
Dismissing the impeachment outright was always the least likely outcome. More likely is they'll vote to keep out relevant evidence and witnesses. We'll see.

What I find fascinating is how little interest in legacy they have. They want the imprimatur of respectability that acquittal brings with it, yet are determined to trash that imprimatur at every available opportunity.
Click to expand...

One of the traits of a power-hungry person or group is their interest in maintaining their power, right now, regardless of the long-term consequences.
 
Phys251 said:
One of the traits of a power-hungry person or group is their interest in maintaining their power, right now, regardless of the long-term consequences.
Click to expand...

What they want is the respectability of an institution while trashing it simultaneously. Probably the strongest example of this is the DOJ. Trump knew that if he could subvert the DOJ to his will he'd have a powerful tool for persecuting his political enemies, and that the announcement of any such investigation would carry incredible significance and gravitas. But the thing is that the DOJ has (had) such respectability because it was not utilized as a tool of naked, political aggression. So now the DOJ has just announced an investigation into Comey, and rather than getting the "Oh man, Comey is in trouble now" response they were hoping for, the country is roundly laughing at them instead.

And so here we are now with the Senate phase of impeachment. They want the gravitas that comes with acquittal, but since they've acted so completely unseriously with their responsibilities...going so far as to announce on television that they wouldn't be impartial...that nobody can take such an acquittal seriously.

The fact is that an institution is only as serious as the seriousness the current occupant imbues it with, and Republicans are painfully ignorant of that.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Despite the suggestion it could happen, I never expected it would.

The Republican's (IMO most anyway) want to give the impression of a fair process, in contrast to the "unfair" process leading to a purely partisan vote in the House to Impeach.

I expect McConnel to push for a vote of not guilty after whatever evidence is entered by the House and the President's defense team.

I am not sure that there will be many actual witnesses, but one never knows.
Click to expand...
I might agree with all your points. The quantity of witnesses will be substantially dependent upon the public fervor the Dems can build. If they don't get the public moving, McConnel would be well served to end this as quickly as possible, rather than allow it to fester as it currently is.
 
Cardinal said:
Dismissing the impeachment outright was always the least likely outcome. More likely is they'll vote to keep out relevant evidence and witnesses. We'll see.

What I find fascinating is how little interest in legacy they have. They want the imprimatur of respectability that acquittal brings with it, yet are determined to trash that imprimatur at every available opportunity.
Click to expand...
Legacy? They long since have given up any of the noble qualities that could make for a positive legacy!

If the story were to become a book, it might be called: "Profiles in Cowardice"
 
Chomsky said:
I might agree with all your points. The quantity of witnesses will be substantially dependent upon the public fervor the Dems can build. If they don't get the public moving, McConnel would be well served to end this as quickly as possible, rather than allow it to fester as it currently is.
Click to expand...

Well, as you probably know, my problem has been with this idea that the accused has some duty to prove their innocence.

My position is that it is up to the prosecution to show guilt, and the defense only needs to counter any evidence that points to actual guilt.

IMO Trump's best defense is to stay off the stand, put as few rebuttal witnesses on as necessary, and let the Senate vote on the what the House presented.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (Washington Examiner) We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dead'

With this loss, it appears Trump & McConnel have fully capitulated to actually having a trial.

Looks like Round 1 went to Pelosi, and soon we'll see who gets Round 2 (witnesses).
Click to expand...
Right now, each side wants rating attracting witnesses. Democrats want Bolton and Mulvaney, Republicans want the Biden's and the WB.

I think the Democrats should take Cruz up on his offer in the witness for witness bargain. The Biden's aren't the best speakers, but there's nothing there that's criminal. It would be a huge disaster for the Republicans, because it would give the appearance that the Republicans are concerned that Biden will beat Trump this year. It would also serve the House's interest in that whether Bolton confirms their narrative of Trump's motives, or simply asserting executive privilege to each question would be horrible optics.

My guess is that won't happen though. It would be awesome, but each side is afraid of the unknown. What's more likely is both sides recalling some of the House witnesses, then maybe getting some of the documents previously blocked by the WH as a sort of compromise and/or Michael Duffey testifying.
 
mafia and mafia-like dudes never wanna go to court and have witnesses testify.

and if they get that far they usually intimidate the witnesses.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, as you probably know, my problem has been with this idea that the accused has some duty to prove their innocence.

My position is that it is up to the prosecution to show guilt, and the defense only needs to counter any evidence that points to actual guilt.

IMO Trump's best defense is to stay off the stand, put as few rebuttal witnesses on as necessary, and let the Senate vote on the what the House presented.
Click to expand...
Yep. And let's not forget this is a political trial, not a legal trial. There's far too much possible political hazard at hand, to muck-around necessarily or extraneously. I'd simply do the minimal political moves get to the point of an "acquittal" vote, and move-on to the upcoming election. Who knows what type of black swan can raise its head when playing with fire?
 
MovingPictures said:
Right now, each side wants rating attracting witnesses. Democrats want Bolton and Mulvaney, Republicans want the Biden's and the WB.

I think the Democrats should take Cruz up on his offer in the witness for witness bargain. The Biden's aren't the best speakers, but there's nothing there that's criminal. It would be a huge disaster for the Republicans, because it would give the appearance that the Republicans are concerned that Biden will beat Trump this year. It would also serve the House's interest in that whether Bolton confirms their narrative of Trump's motives, or simply asserting executive privilege to each question would be horrible optics.

My guess is that won't happen though. It would be awesome, but each side is afraid of the unknown. What's more likely is both sides recalling some of the House witnesses, then maybe getting some of the documents previously blocked by the WH as a sort of compromise and/or Michael Duffey testifying.
Click to expand...
Despite perhaps Trump's possible protestations, I'd be surprised if the GOP really want the Biden's to testify - despite their claiming they do (ostensibly to rile their base).

I don't see bringing hostile witnesses (Biden's) as a good thing, because you never know what they may say!
 
Chomsky said:
Despite perhaps Trump's possible protestations, I'd be surprised if the GOP really want the Biden's to testify - despite their claiming they do (ostensibly to rile their base).

I don't see bringing hostile witnesses (Biden's) as a good thing, because you never know what they may say!
Click to expand...
The same applies to the Democrats.

If you thought Mueller was a difficult witness, wait until you get Bolton up there. But, that's the thing. If he claims executive privilege because of the WH, that would be horrible optics.

The witnesses will be tough, but the documents shouldn't be. If you can't get Republicans agreeing to subpoena the material the State Department and OMB refused to turnover, then they will be conceding they understand Trump to be guilty.
 
Cardinal said:
Dismissing the impeachment outright was always the least likely outcome. More likely is they'll vote to keep out relevant evidence and witnesses. We'll see.

What I find fascinating is how little interest in legacy they have. They want the imprimatur of respectability that acquittal brings with it, yet are determined to trash that imprimatur at every available opportunity.
Click to expand...

If the ask for Z to investigate Biden is on the phone call transcript, which is the reason for this impeachment, a wittiness can say nothing to change the dialogue. The "whistle blower" wasn't even a party to the call. What could a wittiness possibly say, to change the mind of a single senator? They all know what was said in the phone call. The only thing that is in question, is what was in Trumps mind, when the call took place. He claims that he was given evidence that Biden and Burisma was corrupt, and he wanted it investigated. He went as far as to want Z to state publicly that Burisma and Biden were being investigated, to box him into doing it. If that was what Trump believed, he was within his scope to do this. Why did Pelosi want to rush the impeachment through? So she can say "It's forever"? Or does she know that the Durham investigation is going to prove Trump right? That there was a movement afoot to keep him out of the WH, and a back up plan as "insurance" if he got elected?
 
MovingPictures said:
The same applies to the Democrats.

If you thought Mueller was a difficult witness, wait until you get Bolton up there. But, that's the thing. If he claims executive privilege because of the WH, that would be horrible optics.

The witnesses will be tough, but the documents shouldn't be. If you can't get Republicans agreeing to subpoena the material the State Department and OMB refused to turnover, then they will be conceding they understand Trump to be guilty.
Click to expand...
When this far behind, I think the risk-reward is definitely worth putting him on the stand.
 
I would like the trial stretched out for months and for Republicans in the Senate to stop acting like cowards.

Clearly, these are the most relevant witnesses for the defense:

Both Bidens and President Obama. Was there a legitimate basis for concern of the Vice President Joe Biden using $1 Billion US dollars demanding the firing of the prosecutor investigating his son receiving millions of dollars from a Ukraine company "within 6 hours?" Since Biden said this was Obama's decision, President Obama also is a fact witness. Also, we should hear whether Joe Biden or his son are lying - his son claiming he told his father - and his father saying he didn't.

Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi, their staff members - political and Congressional - plus their lawyers, all their lawyers and staffers notes, files and emails - to determine if there was any influencing witnesses and to fully explore if there is an exculpatory evidence - since Republicans were not allowed any witnesses, the President not allowed to have any lawyer asking questions, and the President unable to subpoena evidence.

Every member of the President's staff and the management staff of every executive branch of government so that all of them can tell their opinions, any gossip they heard and speculations - since the case is based hearsay, opinions and gossip. We must hear the hearsay, opinions and gossip from everyone - not just Trump haters the Democrats pick.

Every person living who has taught constitutional law at any university. The Democrats declared that opinions and arguments on constitutional law isn't just for opening and closing arguments, but such opinions are to be sworn fact testimony under oath. Therefore, everyone who taught constitutional law in any law school is equally qualified to the witnesses the Democrats called for the impeachment.

Every ambassador for the USA still living - current or former - to tell their opinion under oath of President Trump on foreign policy, since the Democrats in the House determined and made an impeachment based upon opinions of ambassadors on foreign policy.

All of Obama's staff to determine why team Obama refused any military aid to Ukraine on behalf of Russia. Also, to be questioned of any conversations any of them has with any Russia or anyone else with any foreign government on any occasion.

The trial should last at least until mid October - and every Senator should be required to remain in the Senate chamber 6 days a week until the conclusion. Democrats want this to be center stage of their 2020 campaign. Give it to them. Have their candidate's campaign, if a Senator, generally limited to this issue. Any who refuse to attend any session should be dragged back in leg irons by US Marshals. Give the Democrats what they want - their 2020 campaign is based upon the impeachment trial entirely.
 
mrdeltoid said:
If the ask for Z to investigate Biden is on the phone call transcript, which is the reason for this impeachment, a wittiness can say nothing to change the dialogue. The "whistle blower" wasn't even a party to the call. What could a wittiness possibly say, to change the mind of a single senator? They all know what was said in the phone call. The only thing that is in question, is what was in Trumps mind, when the call took place. He claims that he was given evidence that Biden and Burisma was corrupt, and he wanted it investigated. He went as far as to want Z to state publicly that Burisma and Biden were being investigated, to box him into doing it. If that was what Trump believed, he was within his scope to do this. Why did Pelosi want to rush the impeachment through? So she can say "It's forever"? Or does she know that the Durham investigation is going to prove Trump right? That there was a movement afoot to keep him out of the WH, and a back up plan as "insurance" if he got elected?
Click to expand...

Did you intend for "wittiness" to be clever?
 
mrdeltoid said:
If the ask for Z to investigate Biden is on the phone call transcript, which is the reason for this impeachment, a wittiness can say nothing to change the dialogue. The "whistle blower" wasn't even a party to the call. What could a wittiness possibly say, to change the mind of a single senator? They all know what was said in the phone call. The only thing that is in question, is what was in Trumps mind, when the call took place. He claims that he was given evidence that Biden and Burisma was corrupt, and he wanted it investigated. He went as far as to want Z to state publicly that Burisma and Biden were being investigated, to box him into doing it. If that was what Trump believed, he was within his scope to do this. Why did Pelosi want to rush the impeachment through? So she can say "It's forever"? Or does she know that the Durham investigation is going to prove Trump right? That there was a movement afoot to keep him out of the WH, and a back up plan as "insurance" if he got elected?
Click to expand...

There is no whistle blower. There is a gossip monger and we need to know the name of everyone that person talked to and communicated with - no exceptions - to explore if there is any exculpatory evidence since President Trump was allowed NO pre-trial investigation ability in terms of subpoenas and questioning witnesses.

Don't make the extra stupid claim the whistleblower didn't hear the telephone conversation so isn't a witness. Virtually no witness the Democrats called had heard the phone call. So don't pretend that is even relevant because the Democrats in the House declared hearing the telephone conversation is irrelevant to who is called as witnesses.
 
MovingPictures said:
The same applies to the Democrats.

If you thought Mueller was a difficult witness, wait until you get Bolton up there. But, that's the thing. If he claims executive privilege because of the WH, that would be horrible optics.

The witnesses will be tough, but the documents shouldn't be. If you can't get Republicans agreeing to subpoena the material the State Department and OMB refused to turnover, then they will be conceding they understand Trump to be guilty.
Click to expand...

The argument that abuse of power isn't a crime pretty much concedes that trump is guilty.
 
Chomsky said:
Despite perhaps Trump's possible protestations, I'd be surprised if the GOP really want the Biden's to testify - despite their claiming they do (ostensibly to rile their base).

I don't see bringing hostile witnesses (Biden's) as a good thing, because you never know what they may say!
Click to expand...

Bringing "hostile witnesses" whose hand was in the taxpayer money cookie jar is the perfect witness. One of the two articles of impeachment is 100% entirely about Joe Biden. Literally, the Democrats claim Trump should be impeached for merely asking that how Joe Biden spent a billion dollars of tax dollars to protect his son be investigated. Whether that was legitimate for Trump to do is entirely based upon what Joe and Hunter Biden did.

To claim the Biden's aren't relevant? WTF? They are who Democrats claim are the victims of Trump's "crime!" It's like claiming the alleged victim of a robbery or rape case isn't a relevant witness.
 
Cardinal said:
The argument that abuse of power isn't a crime pretty much concedes that trump is guilty.
Click to expand...

:roll: I suppose in theory a more stupid sentence could be written.

"Despite Vegans think eating meat is a crime, my client did not commit a crime eating a hamburger." Your conclusion, that client committed the crime of eating a hamburger.

"Abuse of power" is just a political slogan, nothing else. It is anything anyone with any power does that another person doesn't like. Nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom