The Dems aren’t counting on the GOP doing them favors. Based on the testimony given there clearly was a quid pro quo or blackmail situation. The case could be made stronger, or weaker, with further testimony from those with more knowledge, but the case is pretty clear as is. The trial is a sham in the sense the outcome is predetermined. There is more than just the transcript that has been testified to.
The questions to Guiliani wouldn’t be about what Trump told him while he was working for the State Department. The questions would be what did Guiliani do while he was working for the State Department. Did he try to pressure them into backing Trump’s claims? Who did he meet with and what was the content of those meetings? What did he tell them? What did he promise? As a representative of the US Government and the Executive branch, those are not subject to personal lawyer confidentiality. Those are questions and issues relating to the country, not an individual. At least in my opinion. Which matters not at all.
I wasn’t onboard with impeaching the guy until recently. Those acts you are talking about don’t rise to the level of impeachment to me. The executive branch needs to have broad latitude in executing the duties of the office. Removing sanctions is solely within their purview. Election finance crimes are rampant, and while that isn’t an excuse, doesn’t rise to impeachment level crimes. Lying? Not a chance. Unless it is under oath.
If you are going to insist he was doing impeachable things from day 1 you are feeding into the argument that all of this, including the most serious crimes, are truly a political hack job. Let’s reserve impeachment for the most egregious of acts. Impeachment is going to be the new weapon of choice and that is dangerous.
And the Republicans have clearly shown us what the result of subpoenas would have been: Tie them up in court until after the end of the 2020 elections.
Let’s say that there was a (partial) transcript of Don Corleone directing someone to “Make him an offer he can’t refuse”. Are you saying that the people involved in or overhearing that conversation (and subsequent conversations related to it), shouldn’t be able to testify as to what they believed the Don meant because there was a transcript? Nobody actually said to put a horse head in the bed and terrorize the guy. Printed words without context are not very useful if the speaker is deliberately being vague to protect himself.
re: They’ve been looking to impeach him from day 1.
Since this is one of the tasks of Congress - oversight of the Executive branch - of course they have been. That he gives them so much reason to is not their fault.
Trump had been president for 977 days when the impeachment inquiry began. Democrats took control of the House roughly 200 days before the inquiry began. Claiming “the left has been trying to impeach him since day one” makes you sound like a conspiracy theory nutjob. Talk about a lack of credibility.
Dislike of the president does not equal “trying to impeach” the president. First he had to get caught doing something of highly questionable illegality. And whaddaya know – he did.
If you elect an arsonist to be the fire chief, because you think that the fire chief’s job is to make coffee then that’s fair, but it’s also wrong.
Among other things the President is tasked with ensuring the integrity of the elections. And one might note that that’s pretty central to our system of government. One might even say that there almost nothing more integral than that.
Do you believe that Donald Trump spends more time, as President, ensuring that our elections are contested fairly, honestly, and in accordance with law and statute or trying to figure out how to cheat and help others to do so and convince them to help him cheat?
That last “ET” is revealing. The magazine would be abbreviated as “CT.” I think he’s referring to “Evangelism Today,” which doesn’t exist; but he doesn’t understand that there’s a distinction between Evangelism and all of Christianity.
We’ll see what happens, now that he’s called Billy Graham’s magazine “Far left”: will people side with Trump, or with Christianity and Graham’s legacy?
Franklin Graham criticized the editorial, indicating that he continues to support Trump. But I wonder whether his father, Billy Graham, would have done so. Billy Graham seemed careful to avoid being too closely identified with any political party.
DT’s 6 pager came just after the first “coordination” meeting between the WH and Mitch. What motivated that letter?
Up until now, Republicans have spun the storylines. No real harm can come to them for this.
Anyone that has lied, to date, under oath, is in jail (mostly).
Did Mitch suggest to DT and staff, that he doesn’t have a lock on the Senate if the members are bound by an oath? It may be a bigger underlying issue than what we are seeing and hearing. I think it is possible that some senators may feel forced to convict based on the actual truth rather than have a perjury hanging over them individually, waiting for the day that it comes back to haunt them.
Yes, the common theme at SDMB is that the republicans will die on this hill [or whatever term you wish] but that may not be a foregone conclusion. It most certainly would require some “coordination” to mitigate. Convicted, but not removed? Still a very bad outcome for trump and company.
I’m thinking that 6 pager was a last ditch effort to keep the impeachment from approaching an oath-bound situation.
Granted, if my timeline is wrong, my thoughts are probably off base as well. But its hard to ignore the recent pushback from important sources as this thing progresses.
I’m not going down this path with you. You clearly think Trump should have been impeached from the get go. I’m telling you that feeds directly into the narrative that you’ve been looking for reasons to support that desire from the start. I cannot help you see it differently. We have a difference in opinion on what rises to the level of impeachment. Mine is different than yours. Let’s just leave it at that, okay?
Interesting view, but would Senators really be guilty of *perjury *if they swore an oath to be impartial even though they already had their minds made up?
And … given the obstacles in holding the president responsible for his far more obvious breach of the public confidence, how would any of these perjuries be made to come back and haunt anyone? Half the voting public has shown a remarkable tolerance for low ethics.
I don’t think the oath carries any weight with Republican senators. McConnell has said as much openly. (And I believe perjury applies only to testimony given under oath – there’s no way to judge a juror’s openness to hearing facts and being impartial.)
If Pelosi and Schumer are negotiating on the rules of the trial, I’d love to see them hold out for a secret ballot. I’d love to see how many R’s vote their conscience if they don’t have any fear of Trump. (Personally, I would consider 51 votes for conviction to be a moral victory. It may be possible with an open ballot…probable with a secret one.)
I think you’re right. I think there’s going to be a lot of hooting, chest thumping, and branch shaking as Trump and his co-conspirators try to reassure themselves of their solidarity. In truth, there is a real risk of conviction and they are terrified. Pressure on the Senate will determine the outcome, either way.