Everything’s complicated for the simple-minded.
325
Well, Goooolly Mr. Trump, sir! I just love you soooo much, I wanted to vote “NO” twice.
…Toadying maggot.
I’ll be over it Wednesday, if the House Democrats do right by the history books.
Well, the committee voted to impeach. Next week the House will vote to impeach. Then it goes to the Senate. The Senate will vote to acquit.
Then we will hear THE WITCH HUNT IS OVER! TOTAL EXONERATION! LOCK UP THE DEMS! I SHOULD BE PRESIDENT FOR LIFE!
For some reason I can only hear that as Trevor Noah’s Trump voice.
That’s true, but 200 years from now schoolkids will learn that today’s Americans were not in lockstep with the con. It’s something.
What the Democrats need most of all is an impeachment manager capable of giving a closing argument that is so clear and eloquent that even when the Senate acquits the American public will know the truth. Who is up to the challenge? Schiff showed he can argue the case, but he’s not that exciting. I’m thinking former prosecutor Eric Swalwell. In his questioning he’s shown a clear ability to expose Trump’s misdeeds and knock down White House and Republican arguments.
No surprise here, but jeez… :smack:
Source: WaPo
“Whatever kind of trial it wants.” So… MAGA hats for all the Senators? Scantily-clad vixens to pass out refreshments? An applause-track? Bells, whistles, and sound effects? Why not just hold the hearing on the floor of a sports arena and open the stands to screaming Trumpniks?
At this point, I am thinking about how in the history books it would read -
“While the house voted to impeach the president for his conduct, it did not send the articles to the senate for trial - due to the overwhelming reports by the Senate republicans that they had already decided the outcome and were directly coordinating with the executive branch on how to insure said outcome”.
this would leave Trump impeached - but not convicted OR acquitted.
nothing changes his being impeached - but it takes away any reality for him to say “he was aquitted”. He’ll of course say it anyway.
It would most likely be in Trump’s interests to either:
-
Order McConnell to make the Senate trial as speedy as possible (since he apparently can order Mitch around);
-
Use the Senate trial as his chance to subpoena Pelosi or Biden or whoever else he wants to subpoena, assuming he or Barr can do that, for whatever purpose he wants.
Easy response: Republicans want to hide their votes in the middle of the night; Democrats want everyone to see how they vote.
and unless things change a lot between now and November 2020 the history books will also say Trump was a 2 term president. I don’t see any Dem beating him, certainly not Biden.
Trump didn’t win the electoral college by a whole lotta votes, you know. Things have to change a little.
the only way Trump loses is if the Dems have a much higher turnout than 2016. This impeachment is going to give Trump a bigger turnout of his base. It’s great for him to get people ticked off and vote for him.
I would bet that Trump’s vote is maxxed out, where it was in 2016, and that the Democrats could do better. Time will tell, certainly.
I like the John Dean idea that it would take away Trump’s ability to crow about acquittal. However, if you saw Doug Collins’ phony rant last night, about how this all must be about politics since Nadler (gasp!) postponed the vote until this morning, if they do this Collins and the rest will have a real reason to support this idea. So on, balance, I’m against that. Also, I don’t see how the Dems make the case that they can open the hearings up again if Mulvaney, etc do eventually agree to or are compelled to testify. No, I’m afraid they lost their chance to hear from the others when they rushed through the whole thing. But I do expect the Dems to continue oversight, so hopefully we will hear from that despicable crew at some point.
The UK election results scare me a little in terms of how the presidential election might go next year. From what I’ve read, the majority of Brits would prefer to remain in the EU but they elected by a big majority the people who want to see it exit.
I’d agree that they have fair readings that in and of themselves often, but not always, are bias-free.
I’ve been watching MSNBC since its inception, and I am damn glad it exists to counterbalance Fox News and the like. But they engage in propaganda of their own. This doesn’t even scratch the surface, but how many times a night do you see a full-on debate between two politicians from both sides of the aisle? Oh, they have Republicans on all the time, but not those who are willing to defend Republicans. People like Bill Kristol and Steve Schmidt, who are willing to call out Trump and Company for what they are. One might make the argument that there is no defense of the Republican party as it exists today, and for the most part, I would be one of them. But if you cut politicians out entirely, that leaves the people on MSNBC’s shows free reign to say whatever they please, knowing that there will be no one there to rebut them.
The point is, nothing is truly “both sides” when you have politicians (as opposed to just pundits) from only one of those sides.
I won’t hold MSNBC responsible for a failure to have intelligent worthy republicans on defending the potus. You seem to imply they don’t want to have them on. The hosts I see would give up a finger to have them on for real answers. But they are trolling. How do you deal with trolls? Trolling is a big deal here, right? So we all have that in common here. Why is MSNBC biased for being in the position of having to defend itself from trolls? DO you watch CNN? They have had a troll problem by trying to accomodate bad actors and liars.
“Bias” to me is stealthy, obscure, and disingenuous. I don’t see it in MSNBC. There is a lot of it around for good comparative examples too.