Given the number of things that have happened in the past few years that I would have found unimaginable just four years ago, I’m not prepared to rule out anything at this point. For instance, I could imagine that the price of the last few votes to remove Trump might be that the judgment of the Senate extend no further than removal itself.
So a stray sentence in an AP story caught my eye:
:eek:
The article is unclear on exactly which interview they are referencing, tho. Anyone got eyes on that?
ETA: Thanks RTFirefly!
This one with Judge Jeanine, t think.
I don’t see the significance, its not like he would have any problem lying. Seems like a really dumb gotcha to harp on the fact that he didn’t actually say no.
Oops, that link had the short clip. Here is the full two minute answer.
I think we’re at the point now where we can edit the Thread title to remove the words “associates may have”.
This would be a more accurate title.
Technically, Manafort has only been convicted or pleaded about things unrelated to the campaign. Everything else is gossip.
Lol
I did not suggest changing the title to “Trump has been convicted of Coordinating with Russians”
I think more and more the reason for hiding the tax returns is Russian ties. Plus he was figuring he was going to lose anyway so no need to let that kind of info out there .
Like, I get that Republicans have lost their gawddamned minds over judges, but mark my words, there is going to be a serious effort on the liberal side to impeach each and every judge that Trump has nominated (sorry Gorsuch and Kavanaugh fans!) depending on just how deep down the collusion rabbit hole we go.
I very much doubt that.
First of all, if there’s even a hint of any potential grounds to impeach Gorsuch, it’s eluded me. Sure, he was the beneficiary of Mitch’s steal of Merrick Garland’s seat, but that’s not grounds for impeachment.
Second, even if the House Dems went off their collective rockers and impeached Gorsuch, there’s the matter of getting 67 Senate votes to remove him from the Court.
a) Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.
b) Can you imagine the deluge of bad media the Dems would get for this? Even lefty outfits like Mother Jones would be going, “WTF, dudes? Have you lost your minds?” Let alone mainstream media. Would be a total political self-kill.
Third, to the extent that the left is advocating for a response to the Garland/Gorsuch theft, the response being advocated is cranking the Supreme Court up to 11. Justices, that is.
Fourth, while there is some appetite in the House for doing the sort of investigation of Kavanaugh that should have been done before his confirmation vote, it’s just that. It will surely turn up good reason that he shouldn’t have been confirmed, but that’s not the stuff of impeachment charges; that’s a much higher bar. If an investigation turns up grounds for his removal from the Court, then there might be a push for impeachment. But some pretty serious shit would have to be turned up for Congress to take the notion seriously that Kavanaugh might warrant impeachment.
IOW, I can’t rule out the possibility of Kavanaugh getting impeached, but the odds are overwhelming, IMHO, that the House will never take it up.
Refresh my memory: Does attempted rape count as “pretty serious shit”?
:sigh:
Good luck in impeaching him over it, while there’s little evidence of it other than Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony.
That should have been enough to keep him off the Supreme Court in the first place, and almost did. But I made the point that there’s a pretty big jump between what might keep a prospective Justice off the Court in the first place, and what it takes to impeach him once he’s there.
I don’t like it, and you don’t like it, but we can’t wish the world to be a different place that’s more reasonable to deal with than the one we’re actually living in.
I don’t understand why “chosen by a president working with Russia to destabilize the country” is not reason enough.
I think Donny Two-scoops is finally learning how to be a politician.[ul]
[li]Answering a question without answering the question[/li][li]Answering a question with what you wish had been asked[/li][li]Moving goalposts – “When I said Mexico was going to pay for the wall I didn’t mean they would be sending a check.”[/li][/ul]Thing is, he’s not very good at it yet.
Hey, MAGAts, how’s that ‘drain the swamp’ thing working out for ya?
I don’t think so, I think he is just a dumbass that forgot to actually say no. “Are you a Russian asset” is not something you try to finesse your way around, true or not you say no. That people are acting like its a huge gotcha that he didn’t say no is pretty ridiculous.
Nothing new, but a revealing timeline nonetheless.
Perjury. Lying to Congress under oath. Tough to prove, but that’s what real investigations (not the Republicans’ pretense of one) find out.
ETA: Never mind, you said Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.
Because the President doesn’t get to confirm his nominees; the Senate does. And even if you conclusively demonstrated that every single member of the committee that voted to approve the nominee was bribed, blackmailed or otherwise coerced into approving an unsuitable candidate (which for Kavanaugh isn’t exactly improbable), all that would mean is that those members would be investigated and potentially removed from office and/or prosecuted depending on the circumstances. You’d still be stuck with a shitty judge unless you could demonstrate that the judge him- or herself was corrupt or otherwise compromised.