Sure, but then I’d have to admit I was wrong. Rather fight it out.
Take heart, take heart. Here is a story in Vox, about a year old, but it explains the increased voter turnout in the 2018 mid-term election. Republicans had record turnout in 2018 – but Democratic turnout was much higher. Even in the off-off-year election just a couple weeks ago that turned Virginia blue, voter turnout, especially for the Dems, remains at record highs.
I don’t think that is going to change in 2020. The key is to not fall for all the disinformation that will be put out by the Russians, the Saudis and others, aided by Republicans. They’re all on the same team now. As a country, we are so easy to manipulate. They all know that.
Yes, and those results are why I still have hope. And why I think letting the Republicans play the fool on a national stage can only be of benefit. The hard core of Trump supporters will probably never change, but there’s still a chance for other citizens to stand up and help fix things. But we need to keep pushing - complacency will only help the Trumpeteers.
But, as always, there is a chance it could all blow up in our faces.
Sure, but Will spill on them and they’ll have to disown him aggresively or be weem and helping a crook.
Trump Will call witnesses on that issue and show his take on it.
A party should do what is best for the country regardless of the electoral outcome, sure.
Impeachment, as it stands now, Will fall, hard. The evidence is weak and it will shift the narrative will shift to the “unfair” democrats. Again, regardless of Trump’s guilt, that’s what’ll happen.
“Weem”? And no, he won’t “spill on them”, nor will he be seen as a crook by those who aren’t already committed to the GOP false narrative.
Given the number of people who are now convicted felons due to lying under oath to protect Trump, I don’t think he’s going to find “witnesses” willing to “show his take on it” easily. Maybe Nunes will jump in.
There is already a substantial amount of evidence for it, and the White House/DOJ are currently actively defying subpoenas in order to block further witnesses from testifying and documents from being released (including emails - hmm, there’s something about not releasing emails under subpoena that rings a bell…). If the evidence were weak, why would Trump and Barr literally commit crimes to stop testimony demonstrating it?
Man, what did I write???:smack:
I meant: *Sure, but it will spill on them and they’ll have to disown him aggresively or be seen as a helping a crook.
(I’m sure you still disagree, but at least it’s better)
friedo, I understand Roberts will rule on evidentiary matters, but is his role limited in this?
As an example and AIUI, Roberts could rule on the relevance of Trump’s lawyers calling, say, Christopher Steele, finding Steele’s testimony to be irrelevant to the issue of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing – but then the Senate can vote and overrule Roberts’ ruling.
Do I have this all wrong?
Okay, that makes more sense. Don’t worry - we’ve all had our gibberish moments. 
Remember when Trump said he knew more than his generals? This is the essence, or part of it at least, of Trump. You think he consulted with anyone before coming up with the idea that NATO was obsolete and we should pull out? I don’t. Same idea here. Trump knows all or can figure it out himself. Do keep in mind though that these comments of mine are just things that have occurred to me. I’m not saying I believe them unequivocally. Just food for thought.
Yeah, okay, shirked is too much. But if the Dems weren’t so eager to get this over with, that could have gone to court to try and get people to testify. That’s what I’m getting at.
Sure, there are more simple explanations. I acknowledge that fully. But sometimes, more complex explanations turn out to be correct. I’m just throwing out ideas here, that’s all. And keep in mind, far from all the details are known at this point. Again, the Dens should have tried to get more testimony. Hopefully Bolton and the rest will be in front of the committees, either at the trial or part of additional oversight.
This could be directed at me as well, I suppose. Hopefully I’ve just made it clear that I am not trying to twist myself into anything, rather to simply suggest othet possibilities that may well be borne out, if all the facts are known at some point. In addition to the fact that I know full well that Trump is pretty fuckin’ far from an okay guy.
I don’t expect Bolton to know more about the fundamentals of this than his crew did. He might be aware of other topics other than Ukraine that they should investigate, but probably wouldn’t volunteer that on his own, without some targeted questions.
You’ll have to get into Trump’s crew of loyalists to get anything worthwhile. But, at the same time, they’ll all either lie or plead the 5th, so there’s not much value in talking to them, really. You need documents that they touched, texts, and the like. With that, you might get one to flip, since he knows he’s in trouble. Minus it and you’re just looking into the face of omerta.
Bearing in mind that this is not a court of law,
Wouldn’t have witnesses plead the 5th or otherwise obfuscate be informative in and of itself?
I’m thinking of something along the lines of:
You don’t have to testify, but we are free to draw inferences from your refusal to answer questions
You sound concerned.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Your O appears to depend upon propositions that do not have any basis in reality.
WHat new ‘fact’ would it take to show the president in a good light? Simply putting a hold on the funds was illegal in and of itself - there is a proper method to go about doing that if there was a legitimate need for it to be held up.
Face it - you keep hoping there is some legitimacy for his actions where none exists - if there were some - he would be providing that information and this entire mess would be behind us.
Who said anything about showing the president in a good light? I am merely saying since we haven’t heard from numerous others involved, like Bolton, Pompeo, Perry, and Pence, among others, that we don’t know the whole story. So naturally I can’t give you a new fact. It would be pure guessing, and what’s the use in that? Anyway, I agree with the rest.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. I am hoping for one thing only when it comes to Trump: that he be gone as soon as possible. These things have occurred to me, so I brought them up. Nothing more
I am 100% behind the idea that reality is the best place to be. After all, as Woody Allen once quipped, it’s the only place you can get a good steak. 
But in situations where I don’t know all the facts, I’m not going to fill them in and pretend I know the whole reality.
About that…