Rudy admitted to a reporter that it was him. No cite right now (crappy Tapatalk app); saw a Twitter screenshot on Hardball this evening.
Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Interesting, thanks nelliebly. I was thinking off the Nixon/Agnew thing but I didn’t know how it all went down.
No, it’s not. Trying to discredit a witness is not the same as trying prevent or coerce a witness’s testimony.
Per wiki
Why would the Dem controlled House approve Dotard’s pick?
Trump would prefer an Acting VP, no need for messy hearings and confirmations…
I did have one good laugh over it tonight. There was a back and forth between talking heads, and one said Pence would never resign because he viewed his position in the administration as all part of god’s plan for him.
The other talking head replied, “Maybe we’re watching that play out right now.”
So was Guiliani** just doing his patriotic duty by spreading bullshit conspiracy theories about Marie Yovanovitch, the Ukraine Ambassador, just before she was due t testify about what she knew about Trump’s dealings in the Ukraine?
His intention was NOT to influence her testimony? Jail him.
** I read somewhere the Guiliani, being the idiot that he is, has basically confessed to being the asshole who spread this bullshit.
Actually, a replacement VP would have to be approved by a majority vote in both houses of Congress. In the extremely unlikely event that Pence leaves/dies/is booted and it looks likely that Trump is about to go down in the Senate, I don’t see any way in hell that the House would approve Trump’s hand-picked successor.
No. It’s clearly to discredit her. If they had sent the dossier to her house, then I would suspect that they were trying to influence her testimony.
I think a secondary goal, if not primary, is to make an example of what they can do to people who cross Trump. It’s not only to intimidate her, it’s to intimidate anyone else thinking of testifying.
Democrats are not petulant babies and would be far more amenable towards getting someone to lead the country in a time of unrest.
That said, they wouldn’t rubber stamp someone who was tainted with the administration’s corruption or some total right wing wacko, but they would compromise on an inoffensive centrist to be a placeholder until the 2020 election.
That’s why I think Mittens stepped up. Dog strapped to the top of a car be damned, he thinks he can be that compromise choice.
It would also position him very well to be Republicans’ nominee for 2020 – and I do believe he’d beat Warren.
Well, probably to a degree. I personally think Trump is mostly just super happy with a general strategy of saying everyone who disagrees with him is a dishonest scumbag so his allies can have a handle to hold.
I’m still intrigued by the rumor I’ve read/heard that Moscow Mitch was the one who encouraged Trump to publish that call summary. Mitch had to have known how damning it was.
I keep imagining that moment when Trump realized the jaws of the trap had snapped shut behind him, leaving him no escape.
I buy your logic in many respects, including Romney‘s desires and the likelihood that the moderate Republicans and Democrats who would otherwise vote against Trump would probably support Romney against Warren. But I think there is a fatal flaw to the plan, which is that the hardcore Trumpkins would revolt and vote Trump as a write-in or stay home. They would see this as a coup by establishment Republicans to wrest back control of the party, and unlike many of their other insane conspiracy theories, they wouldn’t be totally off base to feel that way.
My impulse is to hope that the Republicans are screwed for a long long time as a result of this dynamic, but another part of me sounds a note of caution that after four years of a Democratic president they will be hungry enough to get Warren or whomever out that they will accept a more conventional Republican nominee. In 2020 though? No way. And it’s not like Trump would be campaigning for Romney in that scenario.
I’m no fan of David Brooks, but his point was that the Senate would not convict, the country’s attention would shift away from the real issues America faces, Trump would be strengthened and more likely to win re-election. Many Democrats think Brook’s points are correct, but that by now it would be corrupt or immoral NOT to impeach.
And anyway, is a Pence Presidency something to hope for? (President Pelosi, OTOH, has a very nice ring to it! 
)
I’d put this up a couple days ago - fast moving story!
Obviously, the second part is my speculation only.
By the way, over at 538 they’ve started keeping track on the polling about impeachment. Overall numbers, plus partisan breakdown.
At the moment, it’s 46.7% of all Americans supporting impeachment, and 45.1% who don’t.
79.6% of Democrats, 41.9% of independents, and 12.1% of Republicans support impeachment, of those polled.
I assume very few of that 20% of Democrats who oppose impeachment will vote for Trump because they are mad about impeachment. So that leaves a majority who are either for impeachment or will still vote against Trump next year even if the Senate fails to remove him. So the upshot is that it doesn’t really change the status quo except that some Democrats are nervous about doing it.
Good question. (And thanks to everyone who pointed out my error re: Senate confirmation.)
Referring again back to the Watergate era, Carl Albert, the Speaker, could have delayed indefinitely the confirmation process for VP, which would have left him next in line for the Presidency if Nixon had died or were to resign (as he eventually did). Albert refused to do so, however, because he thought it wrong that a Democrat should assume the presidency when the US had elected a GOP president and VP. Still, with Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House, it would have been easy to refuse confirmation of Nixon’s choice. The divisions between the GOP and the Dems in Congress could hardly have been more bitter, yet the majority and minority leaders agreed on House Minority Leader Gerald Ford and, in fact, gave Nixon no choice in the matter, according to Albert.
Back to 2019, I suppose the Dems could refuse to confirm, but there are risks there, too. If the Senate doesn’t vote for removal, what would the Dems gain by refusal to confirm?
And a thought: should Trump become so loony it’s clear even to the GOP he’s unable to fulfill his constitutional duties, it’s the VP and 14 members of the cabinet who’d have to remove him from office. I’m not sure what happens if there IS no VP because the House Dems refuse to approve one. The 25th Amendment sure doesn’t say.