The Republicans are using arguments which may get you fined if you use them in traffic court:
Well, Well, Well — look at this.
It appears that Giuliani sent a couple of now-indicted Russian gangsters over to meet with Ukrainian officials to send a message — announce an investigation, or lose your foreign aid.
I know mainstream Republicans will attempt to spin this out. They’ll deny it at first, but when in becomes incontrovertible…I can’t wait to see what they’ll come up with.
Yes. Would those in charge of the Watergate hearings have permitted Nixon to require that George McGovern’s son be called to testify about some nebulous alleged wrongdoing?
No. It was clear that the purpose of the Watergate hearings was to examine the conduct of Nixon and his underlings. Distractions about claimed offenses committed by Nixon’s electoral opponent, or by that opponent’s offspring, would never have been permitted to take up the time of the nation.
There is one incontrovertible, undeniable fact that I hope Dems will make again and again and again:
Only one person in the entire government has the power to order military aid withheld once Congress has approved its release. Only one.
Or they’ll welcome it because those guys aren’t Trump. NO COLLUSION! It was all Rudy, all the time! We told you Trump was NO COLLUSION!!
Parnas seems like the kind of guy who will say whatever to get whatever. As a witness, he’s not a very good one.
He can say anything he wants but, unless he provides documentary evidence that what is he is saying is true, it won’t count for much, I feel.
And, of course, that documentary evidence - if it exists - will be worth a pretty penny so he’s going to hold out to auction it off to the highest bidder.
There’s still time for him to flip back the other way. Manafort did. I’d keep my optimism low on the Parnas front until we’ve got screenshots of text messages in front of the Senate.
I was fighting speeding! I hate speeding, and would never do it! Everyone claiming that I sped is part of a conspiracy against me!
People drive cars all of the time. This was no different!
They can go with multiple charges in the same impeachment proceeding. That’s what they did in 1974.
What’s hard to prove about the babies in motherfucking cages?? The evidence of massive child abuse is in the public domain. As for where the responsibility lies, just ask up the chain of command where the orders came from. Think anyone’s gonna fall on their sword for Trump?
This is something that hits people at a much more visceral level than the Ukraine extortion or obstruction of justice. The Dems should fucking use that.
The “give them enough rope and let them hang themselves” strategy – ie, giving the Republicans want they want so that they look stupid in public – doesn’t seem to work anymore. It appears to be impossible to look so stupid that it causes your base to re-think their alliance.
What does the kids in cages charge look like?
I’m with you but lots of rebupkis actually like the kids in cages, and now they have a past practice argument to rely on.
Right. If there is any chance at all of swaying public opinion enough that Republican Senators actually feel pressure to do their jobs and fairly evaluate evidence, the House is going to have to lay out a relatively simple, easy-for-the-public to understand narrative that directly implicates the President. The child separation policy is horrible, but it’s too easy to muddy the narrative with stories of the hordes of people swamping our borders, and so forth.
The House needs to stick to one or two stories, stay within the bounds of those stories, and direct the questioning of witnesses in a way that lays out each step of the malfeasance as unequivocally as possible. Hill’s testimony is a good example of how to tell this story well.
Politico has an interesting article on what may be a plausible path to conviction in the Senate. Supposedly all it would take would be 3 Republican Senators agreeing to a secret ballot.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911
How plausible is this? It strikes me that it could lead to an indefinite deadlock.
GOP to argue Trump’s “state of mind” on impeachment
A New York “state of mind”? Florida, now? Georgia on his mind?
They’re the real speeders!
I don’t know about plausible, but I don’t like it at all. Impeachment is an extremely serious matter, and there should be as much visibility and transparency as humanly possible. I understand the desire to provide Republicans a path toward voting honestly, but I think the stakes are too high and the process too serious to keep the final, dispositive vote under wraps.
If you told me that there were exactly two choices: vote in the open and Trump is acquitted for certain, or vote in secret and he is guaranteed a conviction, I would seriously struggle with it. I worry about the precedent a secret vote would set, and how it might be used in the future.
Or that Congress is welcome to initiate an investigation into Biden and Burisma any time they like.
But fuck no, Republicans shouldn’t be able to point to the giant squirrel and make this about anything other than what it was – Donald J. Trump using the power of his office in an attempt to smear a political rival who is currently beating him in the polls and influence the next election.
Yeah, but what he is saying is pretty consistent w/ what EVERYONE else is saying, and who has gone on record to contradict it? Alone, it may be insufficent, but it is well corroborated, and uncontradicted. Says SOMETHING about its probative value.
Plus, even if folk succeed in portraying him as a lying scumball, one’s willingness to surround oneself with lying scumballs is net exactly a sure route to exoneration.
A secret ballot in the Senate could make removal much, much more likely:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911
“It would take just three Republican senators to turn the impeachment vote into a secret ballot.”
The way it would work is the following, according to the article: the Senate sets their own rules for impeachment, per the Constitution. Rules need a majority vote. Three Republicans would be enough to prevent a majority vote on the rules, and they could condition their support for setting the rules upon making the vote secret.
Probably a long shot, but certainly worth exploring.