GOP dogs won’t hunt

[Rexedgar]

Am I in the wrong thread? I thought the lie count with trump was two columns/threads down on the Vox, twitter and WP websites posted as fact.

These hearings are pretty simple to understand, you don’t need to be a fan of Trump to understand that this dog and pony show is all about politics and not about any truth.

I think so! Got your sunglasses?

 

[D_NATURED]

What saddens me is that more Americans aren’t aware of how utterly dishonest Adam Schiff with Nancy Pelosi pulling the puppet strings are. I watched that man, Schiff, outright lie on national television saying he didn’t know who the whistle blower is. I mean come on,,,, he and his staff helped this person prepare the complaint.

Oh no, he lied? Well, republicans never stand for that...from democrats.

 

[Ikari]

These hearings are pretty simple to understand, you don’t need to be a fan of Trump to understand that this dog and pony show is all about politics and not about any truth.

Seems that way. The GOP is spinning pretty hard in order to make this about anything but the truth.

 

[rjay]

Sure...as soon as Nancy actually impeaches Trump...and puts those 30 odd democratic seats up for grabs

Why should Trump give in first? What has Nancy put at risk at this point?

Are you referring to the 30 odd seats that voted for these public proceedings? There are a few Republican Senators who are not looking forward to having to defend their vote, whatever that vote happens to be.

 

[gdgyva]

Are you referring to the 30 odd seats that voted for these public proceedings? There are a few Republican Senators who are not looking forward to having to defend their vote, whatever that vote happens to be.

voting for public proceedings is ONE thing

voting for the actual articles of impeachment is something entirely different

those 30 odd democrats are in Trump country....and THAT vote puts them seriously at risk

so will that vote happen? and when? that is the question...

opcorn2:

 

[rjay]

voting for public proceedings is ONE thing

voting for the actual articles of impeachment is something entirely different

those 30 odd democrats are in Trump country....and THAT vote puts them seriously at risk

so will that vote happen? and when? that is the question...

opcorn2:

Not all that different. Sometimes a politician does what is right instead of what is politically expedient. These Democrats have already indicated a willingness to do that. I have not gotten such an indication from any one in the Senate thus far. We will have to wait on that one.

 

[NWRatCon]

And you know that how and what relevance would that hold at this point?

What, did your subscription to Trump Fantasy TV expire?

 

[calamity]

voting for public proceedings is ONE thing

voting for the actual articles of impeachment is something entirely different

those 30 odd democrats are in Trump country....and THAT vote puts them seriously at risk

so will that vote happen? and when? that is the question...

opcorn2:

"Trump country" is rapidly shrinking, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Eriech]

"Trump country" is rapidly shrinking, in case you haven't noticed.

We will see, won't we.

Bet it is bigger than it was......

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[SheWolf]

Republicans desperately try painting Trump’s Ukraine policy as normal. It won’t work.

The GOP dogs that won’t hunt



I guess they can always fall back on "triple hearsay."

How long can this last? That’s my question.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well now, why doesn't Devin Nunes or Jim Jordan convince Trump that in order to get to the truth, he has to stop obstructing justice and all the men he forbade to honor a subpoena and allow them to come forward and testify? Wouldn't it clear everything up really fast if the country could watch people that had first-hand knowledge testify? We don't even need all 10 or so that he blocked from testifying to come forward, all we need is one or two like Rudy Giuliani or John Bolton. They both had first-hand knowledge, it doesn't get any more first hand than those two. How about just one of the insiders with first-hand knowledge like Mick Mulvaney, why doesn't Trump allow him to testify?

Oh wait, I think I know. Trump knows very well that any witnesses that are willing to defy a subpoena will not hurt him. He knows that every GOP counterpoint will be that they all had only second-hand knowledge. That's why he won't let anyone testify.

If he's right then he should be EAGER to put some of those embargoed people in front of Congress.
Think of the victory lap he could have!

But we KNOW the real reason they're embargoed: He's ****ing TERRIFIED of what they will be compelled to admit.
He's behaving in public as if he has "The Case Cracker" but his mouth has been writing checks he can't cash for the duration.

 

[Jay59]

voting for public proceedings is ONE thing, voting for the actual articles of impeachment is something entirely different. Those 30 odd democrats are in Trump country....and THAT vote puts them seriously at risk, so will that vote happen? and when? that is the question...opcorn2:

Added punctuation. I hope don't mind.

If Friday goes like Wednesday did, Pelosi will have a difficult and uncomfortable situation. She said many times that impeachment had to be bipartisan, but nothing that has happened yet will convince a single Republican to cross the line. If she sends it on anyway, the McConnell would be well within his rights to put it to an immediate test vote in the Senate. If the majority does not vote to continue the issue is dead, dismissed for failure to state a legitimate cause of action. With not a single Republican from the House, how are the Democrats going to get three Senators to vote their way.

That's one side. The other is the radical wing who want Trump's head even if it means cheating. They get all the media attention, because that is the media's position. backing them is the reality of the 2020 election. The Democratic party promised their voters an impeachment if they delivered the House. The voters delivered the House, but the impeachment is proving elusive.

So, a tough decision. If they proceed with an obviously partisan impeachment, they run the risk of getting thrown back as trash. On top of that, the voters in Trump districts will have a say about the attempted railroad job. If they don't, the risk pissing off their most loyal and hard core supporters. I have no idea which way it will go. All I can say is that we should know by this time next week.

 

[jnug]

I don't know if the Righties have noticed, but the House now has a witness from OMB. Dots being connected. I can't believe we are still debating whether there will be an Impeachment vote in the House or not. There WILL be an Impeachment vote in the House IMO shifting the weight of burden in front of the American people to the Senate.

 

[maxparrish]

Republicans desperately try painting Trump’s Ukraine policy as normal. It won’t work.

The GOP dogs that won’t hunt

I guess they can always fall back on "triple hearsay."

While I have already concluded that Trump (most likely) demanded a quid pro quo from the Ukraine, I have not concluded that such is so undisputably venal as to demand impeachment or conviction.

There are degrees of culpability. On one pole there are Presidential actions made in the sincere belief that the interests of the United States are being served by a quid pro quo and, on the other pole, there can be Presidential actions that are made for non-political reasons of material personal gain (corruption). Between the two are actions made for purely political reasons.

Clearly this is not the Tea Pot Dome Scandal, nor is it even Watergate. Trump did not act out of material corruption, nor did he plot an illegal break-in or then plot to coverup a statutory crime through a bribe. Rather, he (at worst) made a political decision, no doubt for mixed reasons of both national and personal interest.

Of course it is constitutionally improper to delay funds, for any reason (including those of proper national interest). And its ethically improper for him to punish Ukraine because he believes they personally conspired against him. And, finally, it is improper for Rudi Giuliani to be pushing the Ukraine government for political reasons, outside the federal government chain of command. It may well be that Hunter Biden's political activities with Bursima are worthy of a review, but only through proper legal channels and for properly vetted reasons.

None the less, one should acknowledge that the fact that Trump had (in his mind) valid concerns and a right to pursue looking into suspicious activity with a suspicious foreign government is NOT exactly the kind of "high crime" and "misdemeanor" one associates with impeachment.

So, till that is addressed, whether or not there was a quid pro quo does not tell us if, in fact, Trump should be impeached for it.

 

[jnug]

While I have already concluded that Trump (most likely) demanded a quid pro quo from the Ukraine, I have not concluded that such is so undisputably venal as to demand impeachment or conviction.

There are degrees of culpability. On one pole there are Presidential actions made in the sincere belief that the interests of the United States are being served by a quid pro quo and, on the other pole, there can be Presidential actions that are made for non-political reasons of material personal gain (corruption). Between the two are actions made for purely political reasons.

Clearly this is not the Tea Pot Dome Scandal, nor is it even Watergate. Trump did not act out of material corruption, nor did he plot an illegal break-in or then plot to coverup a statutory crime through a bribe. Rather, he (at worst) made a political decision, no doubt for mixed reasons of both national and personal interest.

Of course it is constitutionally improper to delay funds, for any reason (including those of proper national interest). And its ethically improper for him to punish Ukraine because he believes they personally conspired against him. And, finally, it is improper for Rudi Giuliani to be pushing the Ukraine government for political reasons, outside the federal government chain of command. It may well be that Hunter Biden's political activities with Bursima are worthy of a review, but only through proper legal channels and for properly vetted reasons.

None the less, one should acknowledge that the fact that Trump had (in his mind) valid concerns and a right to pursue looking into suspicious activity with a suspicious foreign government is NOT exactly the kind of "high crime" and "misdemeanor" one associates with impeachment.

So, till that is addressed, whether or not there was a quid pro quo does not tell us if, in fact, Trump should be impeached for it.

Its worse than Tea Pot Dome and worse than Watergate. Even worse, unless checked DonDon will continue to walk out on that limb of risk and carry all of us with him. He can't help himself. He never could.

 

[calamity]

Added punctuation. I hope don't mind.

If Friday goes like Wednesday did, Pelosi will have a difficult and uncomfortable situation. She said many times that impeachment had to be bipartisan, but nothing that has happened yet will convince a single Republican to cross the line. If she sends it on anyway, the McConnell would be well within his rights to put it to an immediate test vote in the Senate. If the majority does not vote to continue the issue is dead, dismissed for failure to state a legitimate cause of action. With not a single Republican from the House, how are the Democrats going to get three Senators to vote their way.

That's one side. The other is the radical wing who want Trump's head even if it means cheating. They get all the media attention, because that is the media's position. backing them is the reality of the 2020 election. The Democratic party promised their voters an impeachment if they delivered the House. The voters delivered the House, but the impeachment is proving elusive.

So, a tough decision. If they proceed with an obviously partisan impeachment, they run the risk of getting thrown back as trash. On top of that, the voters in Trump districts will have a say about the attempted railroad job. If they don't, the risk pissing off their most loyal and hard core supporters. I have no idea which way it will go. All I can say is that we should know by this time next week.

No one cares about Trump voters. There aren’t many left anyway.

 

[gdgyva]

Added punctuation. I hope don't mind.

If Friday goes like Wednesday did, Pelosi will have a difficult and uncomfortable situation. She said many times that impeachment had to be bipartisan, but nothing that has happened yet will convince a single Republican to cross the line. If she sends it on anyway, the McConnell would be well within his rights to put it to an immediate test vote in the Senate. If the majority does not vote to continue the issue is dead, dismissed for failure to state a legitimate cause of action. With not a single Republican from the House, how are the Democrats going to get three Senators to vote their way.

That's one side. The other is the radical wing who want Trump's head even if it means cheating. They get all the media attention, because that is the media's position. backing them is the reality of the 2020 election. The Democratic party promised their voters an impeachment if they delivered the House. The voters delivered the House, but the impeachment is proving elusive.

So, a tough decision. If they proceed with an obviously partisan impeachment, they run the risk of getting thrown back as trash. On top of that, the voters in Trump districts will have a say about the attempted railroad job. If they don't, the risk pissing off their most loyal and hard core supporters. I have no idea which way it will go. All I can say is that we should know by this time next week.

i think your timeline is off...maybe way off

Pelosi can continue this inquiry well into 2020....delay hoping something else may turn her way

i think that is her plan right now

Delay until absolutely necessary to make the FINAL decision....

And she is dipping her toes in the hot water now

 

[Jay59]

No one cares about Trump voters. There aren’t many left anyway.

:lamo Tell me that next year.

Let's just say there are more now than four years ago and let it go with that.

 

[Jay59]

i think your timeline is off...maybe way off. Pelosi can continue this inquiry well into 2020....delay hoping something else may turn her way, i think that is her plan right now. Delay until absolutely necessary to make the FINAL decision....And she is dipping her toes in the hot water now

There are two things that argue against that. First, the election requires campaigning and it is looking like a difficult year for the Democrats. Party unity is very low and Republican unity is at a record high. That counts with donations, volunteers and in the get-out-the-vote phase. Pelosi is looking a the real possibility of losing the House in 2020.

The second reason is that it's not working. This whole farce was aimed at public opinion, which hasn't budged. They promised an impeachment to stir up the vote in 2018. That's not the same as hearings on impeachment that seem to be going nowhere. If anything, it's causing Republicans to rally around Trump.

I think that in the next week, Pelosi will have to decide to push the vote or abandon the idea of impeachment this term. It may take a few days for the decision to become evident, but it should be obvious by Thanksgiving recess. With the RC looming before then, it may go quickly. Indeed, the decision may already be made.

 

[NWRatCon]

This bears repeating in light of today's hearings:

Just to reiterate: 1) the identity of the whistleblower is both protected and irrelevant. Every lawyer on that panel knows this. 2) Hearsay is perfectly permissible and credible - especially in the absence of unavailable witnesses. Again, every lawyer on the panel knows this. 3) Success of a prohibited action is not required for malfeasance (e.g., obstruction, extortion, bribery), only an attempt is required. Again, every lawyer knows this.

I expect more of the same here and at the hearing. BTW, the GOP's counsel is a buffoon.

 

[NWRatCon]

Today the White House released a transcript of a previous call. This defense is so ridiculous it is hard to describe. "See, officer, here's a video of all of the red lights I didn't run today." Or "But mom, here's all the times I didn't lie about stealing cookies from the cookie jar." "Yes, I was there, and yes I had bloodstains on my clothes, but they didn't find the butcher knife in my hand, it was still in his back, so of course I'm not guilty."

 

[Mr Person]

WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER! RABBLE RABBLE LIE RABBLE DISTORT DEFLECT RABBLE LIE, RABBLE! RABBLE!

To that BS....



I'd like to hear a coherent explanation from the GOP of why they want the whistleblower to testify, one which takes account of all the other things they've said. Until very recently they were insisting we should simply ignore him because he doesn't have first hand information. We've since been hearing from witnesses with first hand information that further backs up the whistleblower, just like their own edited memo did. So why, after telling us we shouldn't listen to the whistleblower and after hearing from people with first hand information, are we being told we need to hear from the whistleblower?

Substantively, the whistleblower's role is done. He revealed what he heard. Now we're hearing from the people who witnessed various parts of these events. What could they do but put on political theater about the whistleblower? The substantive question is what happened, per the people who actually witnessed it, and then whether he should be removed from office for what happened; the whistleblower has nothing to add to that at this point. That is, even if he did act out of political motivation, what he reported in fact happened in reality. If it did in fact happen, then his motivation for telling someone that he heard it had happened becomes irrelevant to the questions before congress.

Consider the common snitch. Let us say a crackhead who has been threatened with death by his dealer, to whom he owes $200. The crackhead, wanting to save his bacon or perhaps wanting revenge on the dealer, goes to the police and eventually helps take the dealer down in a sting. His motivation is not some pure desire to improve the community, but this has nothing to do with the question of whether the dealer sold crack illegally. Or change the facts. The snitch is taking down his dealer's rival. Still doesn't change anything, does it? The question is the same no matter the motive of the informant.

(One should also consider the context here, which is that the GOP has flopped from one defense to another, regularly contradicting itself; Lindsey Graham tries to make it look like the Dems are hiding things with "we need the transcripts!", and then when they release the transcripts, he tries to show strength with "I'm not going to be reading any transcripts." It's the reverse is what's going on with their shifting approach to the whistleblower).

But really, we know the answers:
"Nobody should hear from the whistleblower because second hand information." ---> Political theater to be used for lying.
"We MUST hear from the whistleblower or else the Democrats are hiding things." ---> Political theater to be used for lying.
"We MUST get the transcripts or else the Democrats are hiding things" ---------------> Political theater to be used for lying.
"I will not be reading any transcripts because this is political theatre" -----------------> Political theater to be used for lying.

This will really shock you, but the very same people who told self-contradictory lies in defense of Trump for the last three years have no problem following along with the GOP's contradictory lies in defense of Trump. In fact, they're happy to, because they take the most petty of sadistic pleasures in the fact that their lies might piss off an honest liberal somewhere.







I certainly wouldn't object to a deal: whistleblower testifies and they get their chance to try to distract people with political theatre about his alleged motives, BUT in exchange, Trump orders everyone he has stonewalling to fully cooperate and he himself answers questions under oath and orally.