squeegee already knew that. Welcome to the Dope.
It takes 67 votes, but there will only be 49 or so.
Are the sportsbooks making odds? Romney and Murkowski are likely to show integrity, I’d guess. Any others?
There is also the view that they are bringing reality, that they are behaving in a righteous manner, regardless of the fronting and fixing the other side wants to engage in.
These things are only a done deal to losers, not that you are one. But generally speaking, the “done deal” is a republican spin on this, because they want to hide in the shadows. “Done deal” is their deepest fantasy. Screw them and their fucking wet dreams.
The republicans are choosing to burn their party in public and for history with gaslighting and lies, fear and threats. “Done deal” would imply that there is no cost or reckoning, and that the dems are just acting quixotically and without meaning for the country. I don’t think so.
All the documents in this administration will be public in not too long. The “secrecy” of this moment is a bubble that will burst. What do the public performances of rebupkis look like then, maybe a few months from now?
NETA: I deliberately omitted Susan Collins from the tiny list of GOP Senators who might show integrity and — coincidence! — clicked to Google News to find that the Hypocrite from Maine has just confirmed that she no longer even pretends to be a fan of Truth, Justice, or America. She’s just a contemptible bag of pure partisanship like the rest of her ilk.
Almost the entire GOP is beyond redemption.
PredictIt impeachment markets.
Romney convict at $0.15. Murkowski convict at $0.24.
Holy Schiff. This is amazing. Going to find a recording of Schiff’s current remarks and play them on the way home.
“That’s one hell of a Russian intelligence coup: They got the President of the United States to cover for their own interference in our election. I would submit to you that in the entire length of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had no such success.”
The rules of the Senate ban rudeness (apparently).
If she’s a stickler for the rules, that’s to the favor of people who want the law to win.
I too enjoy inviting people that I don’t know over to dinner and order those strangers to fire my employees.
I’d do it more often but I keep running out of employees!
Well, yes, they are undoubtedly doing that, but I just meant in terms of what they can gain/use from the trial going forward until the election.
Trump has known Lev Parnas for many years. So he was hardly imposing on a stranger to do his dirty work.
I suspect that Sage Rat’s use of “stranger” there was meant ironically. 
Apologies if this has already been posted. Trump was apparently caught on tape saying this, in reference to Ambassador Yovanovitch:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/politics/trump-phone-call-ukraine-ambassador/index.html
I have to say I’m only like 85% sure he was using the phrase “take her out” as a figure of speech meaning “fire her”.
The rest of my answer did address that.
Any savvy dem is not looking to the removal of dt as the goal right now. It’s about the damage to the rebupkis. Removal may be impossible, but the opposition party is melting down intellectually, and ethically. Why should that not inform the dems agenda?
Last I looked it was two opposiong parties. If one of them is lame and failing in their jobs and flailing about in public, and they are my opposition, I’m looking for the death of that party. I hope that doesn’t sound cruel. I don’t mean to hurt Susan Collins feelings but we have to move on, preferably in a democracy.
I’m 99% sure that a man who was saying “take her out” to a gang of mobsters, to people who… at that table… could not possibly execute the President’s orders through the system of government… did not mean “fire her”.
“A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman – two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York.”
Yeah, I posted before I bothered to get the whole context. I’m pretty much with you now. And Parnas was in contact with that guy who claimed to have a connection in her security detail. And she was hastily recalled “for her safety”.
So. Yeah. He wanted her killed.
Fuck him. I hope he’s finally realizing that he is now, and always has been, nothing more than a tool for these horrible people to help them get their way. I hope he sees the lie that his life has been, and how he’s been, and still is, completely complicit with everything that is happening. I hope he sees himself as part of the problem; if he does, there’s still hope for him.
At best it has “Won’t no one rid me of this turbulent priest” feel, doesn’t it?
(Shout out to kaylasdad99 who yelled at all of us once for getting the quote wrong. Sheesh! Ya happy? 
)
“Sources familiar with the recording said the recording was made during an intimate April 30, 2018…”
That’s a full year before she was actually removed. Am I mistaken in the timing of the scheme starting in early 2019? Or did it go back even further?
Yes. And it definitely indicates it wasn’t Trump who was convincing Parnas why Y. had to be removed… Parnas was convincing Trump.
Now why… and for whom… would Parnish want such a thing?
With all these Republican Senators wandering about, doing crossword puzzles, marathon eyeball rolling…see any of them taking notes? Paying attention to a point they might like to sternly rebut?