Politics: The Trump Impeachment Thread

[bamamc1]

So the Senate voted unanimously in support of the House requiring the White House to furnish the full, un-redacted, whistleblower report to Congress. While that is encouraging; sometime smells fishy about this. Why would the Senate Republicans willingly cooperate in this matter? They must know that the report is not as damning as the media and most Democrats believe it to be. McConnell and his cronies are not stupid, they obviously know something the Democrats don't know and so does Trump.

That should tell you right there. A second hand account? Wasn’t on the call? I suggest to the President, smashing devices with a hammer, bleach bit, a corrupt FBI, those seem to be legal. PS “I told them to fire the SOB.” Biden.

 

[rolltide_21]

I have concerns about moving forward with impeachment.

For one thing, it will probably wind up just being symbolic. The Democrats control the House 235-199 with one Republican turned independent. So they will probably get the 218 votes needed to impeach him.

But to remove him from office, they need 67 votes in the Senate. There are only 47 Democrats in the Senate. So you need at least 20 Republicans to vote him out of office. (I wouldn’t bet my life on Manchin voting guilty, though he doesn’t run again until 2024).

I think it would take a lot to get a huge number of Republicans to go against Trump. Most of them come from states Trump won easily in 2016. There will be 23 Republican seats up in 2020, including two special elections in Arizona and Georgia. Pretty sure they don’t want a primary challenge.

For that matter, is the Senate even required to hold a trial if he is impeached?

I think the whole thing could result in making Trump a martyr and galvanize his base. If the Democrats nominate someone too far left, it could tilt the balance to re-elect him.

And since the whole Ukraine mess involves Joe Biden, it could uncover some dirt they don’t want uncovered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You and I are thinking along the same lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bamacpa]

I have believed for some time that Trump's base would support him if they watched him execute a nun on live TV.

I have concerns about moving forward with impeachment.

For one thing, it will probably wind up just being symbolic. The Democrats control the House 235-199 with one Republican turned independent. So they will probably get the 218 votes needed to impeach him.

But to remove him from office, they need 67 votes in the Senate. There are only 47 Democrats in the Senate. So you need at least 20 Republicans to vote him out of office. (I wouldn’t bet my life on Manchin voting guilty, though he doesn’t run again until 2024).

I think it would take a lot to get a huge number of Republicans to go against Trump. Most of them come from states Trump won easily in 2016. There will be 23 Republican seats up in 2020, including two special elections in Arizona and Georgia. Pretty sure they don’t want a primary challenge.

For that matter, is the Senate even required to hold a trial if he is impeached?

I think the whole thing could result in making Trump a martyr and galvanize his base. If the Democrats nominate someone too far left, it could tilt the balance to re-elect him.

And since the whole Ukraine mess involves Joe Biden, it could uncover some dirt they don’t want uncovered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I have concerns about moving forward with impeachment.

For one thing, it will probably wind up just being symbolic. The Democrats control the House 235-199 with one Republican turned independent. So they will probably get the 218 votes needed to impeach him.

But to remove him from office, they need 67 votes in the Senate. There are only 47 Democrats in the Senate. So you need at least 20 Republicans to vote him out of office. (I wouldn’t bet my life on Manchin voting guilty, though he doesn’t run again until 2024).

I think it would take a lot to get a huge number of Republicans to go against Trump. Most of them come from states Trump won easily in 2016. There will be 23 Republican seats up in 2020, including two special elections in Arizona and Georgia. Pretty sure they don’t want a primary challenge.

For that matter, is the Senate even required to hold a trial if he is impeached?

I think the whole thing could result in making Trump a martyr and galvanize his base. If the Democrats nominate someone too far left, it could tilt the balance to re-elect him.

And since the whole Ukraine mess involves Joe Biden, it could uncover some dirt they don’t want uncovered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This has been my fear all along. In the meantime, Warren and Sanders come up with a loser like a "wealth tax"...

 

[gtowntide]

That should tell you right there. A second hand account? Wasn’t on the call? I suggest to the President, smashing devices with a hammer, bleach bit, a corrupt FBI, those seem to be legal. PS “I told them to fire the SOB.” Biden.

With all due respect, I really don't understand what you're saying here.

 

[crimsonaudio]

So the Senate voted unanimously in support of the House requiring the White House to furnish the full, un-redacted, whistleblower report to Congress. While that is encouraging; sometime smells fishy about this. Why would the Senate Republicans willingly cooperate in this matter? They must know that the report is not as damning as the media and most Democrats believe it to be. McConnell and his cronies are not stupid, they obviously know something the Democrats don't know and so does Trump.

Hadn't thought about the repubs playing along for this reason - what if the doc is nothing? What if this is all an elaborate setup to cut the dems off at the knees?

If the dems are right, this will effectively end his presidency. But if they're wrong, this will effectively give Trump 2020.

 

[Bazza]

[h=1]Trump's ‘transcript’ of Ukraine call unlikely to be verbatim
[/h]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Details from a phone call made by Donald Trump that has led the U.S. House of Representatives to launch a formal impeachment inquiry against the president isn’t likely to come from a recording or be verbatim, former White House and national security officials say.

Instead, because of standard White House protocol for handling phone calls between the president and other world leaders, a transcript is likely to be put together from written notes by U.S. officials who listen in.

Standard practice when a president is talking to a foreign leader is not to make a recording but to have at least two and sometimes more note-takers from the National Security Council (NSC) on the call, a former senior NSC official told Reuters. Those note-takers are themselves usually Central Intelligence Agency officers on assignment to the NSC, he said.
Their notes serve as the principal record of such calls, the former official said. He was not aware of any electronic recordings made by the U.S. government on calls between Trump and other world leaders.

(more at the linked story)

 

[92tide]

Hadn't thought about the repubs playing along for this reason - what if the doc is nothing? What if this is all an elaborate setup to cut the dems off at the knees?

If the dems are right, this will effectively end his presidency. But if they're wrong, this will effectively give Trump 2020.

i may be wrong, but i think you are giving these guys way too much credit, they are not that bright. just like in the movie [all the president's men]

Bob Woodward:
The story is dry. All we've got are pieces. We can't seem to figure out what the puzzle is supposed to look like. John Mitchell resigns as the head of CREEP, and says that he wants to spend more time with his family. I mean, it sounds like bull[crap], we don't exactly believe that...

Deep Throat:
No, heh, but it's touching. Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

 

[92tide]

[TWEET]1176631193279913985[/TWEET]

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1176631193279913985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1176631193279913985&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F

 

[NationalTitles18]

[h=1]Trump's ‘transcript’ of Ukraine call unlikely to be verbatim
[/h]



(more at the linked story)

Fine and dandy if the original notes, unredacted, are released. I trust no one in this administration to be truthful about what is in those notes.

 

[92tide]

Fine and dandy if the original notes, unredacted, are released. I trust no one in this administration to be truthful about what is in those notes.

the "transcript" will be like barr's "summary" of the mueller report.

 

[92tide]

some of the strategery

[TWEET]1176693520159170560[/TWEET]

https://twitter.com/ccadelago/status/1176693520159170560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1176693520159170560&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F2019%2F09%2F25%2Fcold-grey-pre-dawn-open-thread-delicious-schadenfreude%2F

 

[GrayTide]

Hadn't thought about the repubs playing along for this reason - what if the doc is nothing? What if this is all an elaborate setup to cut the dems off at the knees?

If the dems are right, this will effectively end his presidency. But if they're wrong, this will effectively give Trump 2020.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, Brad makes a good point that this could be an elaborate ruse to force the Dems to show their hand and pursue impeachment. I would not be surprised if the whistleblower was working with the WH. I know there are some on here that do not believe Trump and the Republicans are not smart enough to orchestrate something like this. Trump realizes that a failed impeachment will energize his base and, his non supporters will once again see the Dems have been outmaneuvered.

 

[TrueCrimson7]

Scenario 1: Trump bribed Ukraine quid pro quo.
Scenario 2: Trump discussed Biden situation with Ukraine but definitely no quid pro quo.
Scenario 3: Scenario 2 but with quid pro quo left up to interpretation.

Scenario 1 comment: Agree with posters above. Trump has a history of withholding tax returns he believes may hurt his election and now re-election bids. Why would he so quickly (with senate republicans) push to release this if there was a smoking gun? This does not seem right.

Scenario 2 comment: Trump discussed Biden situation as his duty to make sure Biden had not broken any laws (commendable) or to potentially gain fodder for a general election (sounds more likely). It would be difficult to prove it as a high crime, particularly with the argument that he was just fulfilling his duty.

Scenario 3 comment: Vague language about Biden and foreign aid money in the same conversation that will be described as proof of conspiracy by those who want impeachment, but without a clear quid pro quo for those who do not. Most likely scenario. Trump would not be removed from office by the senate, and he would come out stronger for the general election.

The notes of the conversation will be like minutes of a board meeting. Not verbatim, but inclusive of the topics of discussion. Only in scenario 1 does he get removed and I find it unlikely that it would be in the notes as such. We'll see how it plays out.

 

[Bazza]

Probably doesn't mean anything but I'm hearing reports that the whistle blower has a political bias, didn't even hear the phone call, and has the same lawyer shared by Democratic operatives.

 

[92tide]

some background info about all of the biden "connections" to this

[TWEET]1127260366952517632[/TWEET]

https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1127260366952517632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1127260366952517632&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F3%2F

[TWEET]1127265131098824704[/TWEET]

https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1127265131098824704

[TWEET]1175171139007655936[/TWEET]

https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/1175171139007655936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1175171139007655936&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F3%2F

 

[NationalTitles18]

the "transcript" will be like barr's "summary" of the mueller report.

Exactly.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, Brad makes a good point that this could be an elaborate ruse to force the Dems to show their hand and pursue impeachment. I would not be surprised if the whistleblower was working with the WH. I know there are some on here that do not believe Trump and the Republicans are not smart enough to orchestrate something like this. Trump realizes that a failed impeachment will energize his base and, his non supporters will once again see the Dems have been outmaneuvered.

Not much would surprise me anymore.

Scenario 1: Trump bribed Ukraine quid pro quo.
Scenario 2: Trump discussed Biden situation with Ukraine but definitely no quid pro quo.
Scenario 3: Scenario 2 but with quid pro quo left up to interpretation.

Scenario 1 comment: Agree with posters above. Trump has a history of withholding tax returns he believes may hurt his election and now re-election bids. Why would he so quickly (with senate republicans) push to release this if there was a smoking gun? This does not seem right.

Scenario 2 comment: Trump discussed Biden situation as his duty to make sure Biden had not broken any laws (commendable) or to potentially gain fodder for a general election (sounds more likely). It would be difficult to prove it as a high crime, particularly with the argument that he was just fulfilling his duty.

Scenario 3 comment: Vague language about Biden and foreign aid money in the same conversation that will be described as proof of conspiracy by those who want impeachment, but without a clear quid pro quo for those who do not. Most likely scenario. Trump would not be removed from office by the senate, and he would come out stronger for the general election.

The notes of the conversation will be like minutes of a board meeting. Not verbatim, but inclusive of the topics of discussion. Only in scenario 1 does he get removed and I find it unlikely that it would be in the notes as such. We'll see how it plays out.

Congress decides what behaviors constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" as well as what evidence is sufficient to impeach and/or convict. It seems we could have video and audio of Trump engaging in scenario one or worse and some would not care.

Probably doesn't mean anything but I'm hearing reports that the whistle blower has a political bias, didn't even hear the phone call, and has the same lawyer shared by Democratic operatives.

Imagine that. That tells me that the whistleblower is not in on any potential ruse since the propaganda machine is in full swing against him/her. That idea can be thrown out.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

NOTE:
I don't want to make this thread about me in any way, but there are two reasons I haven't posted near so much lately:
1) I took a much needed vacation and got in the rest of the 50 states I'd missed
2) I've been suddenly having some very weird problems with my memory, which as you can imagine is probably far more frightening for me than for the average person
I'm getting checked for some stuff on October 7 as part of my 'damn boy, you're 50' checkup.

=============================================

Predictions from anyone here on how this plays out?
Politics really is like college football in a lot of ways.


PREDICTION ON 9/25/19
House? Impeaches in a mostly party line vote (might be some Rs in toss-up districts that vote for it)
Senate? Acquits in a mostly party line vote
2020? Dems keep the House, win the White House, win the Senate

 

[crimsonaudio]

i may be wrong, but i think you are giving these guys way too much credit, they are not that bright.

Oh, I agree - it would be somewhat surprising, but then again, not so much.

I think we can all agree that, like it or not, Trump has outmaneuvered the dems since 2016. He's done things, said things, tweeted things that few politiicans would ever consider, due to thoughts of political suicide, yet here he is.

Please don't mistake that for admiration - it's not - but he's stayed ahead of the dems since the election. I just don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that this was planted in order to embarrass the dems and make them gun shy in the future regarding impeachment - akin to inducing them into doing it on his terms, as he knows it's a one-shot deal.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

the "transcript" will be like barr's "summary" of the mueller report.

Here's what probably would have happened, which is why I think this is the right move by Pelosi:

1) I'll give ya the whole unedited transcript tomorrow
2) Barr releases a 'summary' of the call - outcry ensues
3) Barr releases 'redacted copy' of the call - outcry ensues
4) Barr then basically says, 'You're gonna have to go to court to get the actual transcript.'


Pelosi cut that off at the starting point, and there was a sound reason for it.


FTR: we can debate and back and forth, and I'm one of those of the view that impeachment is a very serious thing - as is obstruction of justice by the head of the Executive Branch. So I actually would have been in favor of this if we had clear cut OOJ in the Mueller investigation (note: I did not read the report so maybe it was there), then impeach him.


In this particular case, there is literally no gray area. The President of the United States asked a foreign government to interfere in an election in order to help him maintain power. As more than one conservative has said, "If that's not an impeachable offense, nothing is."