The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[keepthefaith]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

"Never before, in the history of the republic, have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal, political favors from a foreign government."

 

Is it that Trump supporters simply think the above is bogus/hot air?  Or do they just not care and turn a blind eye even if they think he did do what he is being accused of, perhaps by citing other presidents who they think did the same or worse?  

 

I'd hope it's mostly the former.  

 

Not a Trump voter here, not in 2016.

 

One big flaw (there are several) in the dems impeachment proceedings is their stance of Biden being characterized as a political opponent.  That completely disregards the fact that Biden's actions in Ukraine and the desire to investigate him, his son, Burisma, missing aid money and Ukraine support for Hillary by Ukranian government officials substantially pre-dates him becoming a candidate for President. 

 

Why should Biden be given a pass just because he is in a political campaign?  

Edited December 5, 2019 by keepthefaith

[DC Tom]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

But Pamala Karlan knows that "us" means "me". Must be those numerous degrees that she has have enlightened her.

 

Yes, Trump was using the royal "we," because he's a monarchist.  Just like he was using the royal "our country." 

 

Again...preconceived notions.  Which are not evidentiary.  

 

(Yes, I know you know.  I'm telling Tibs.)

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Nancy Pelosi’s dramatic statement about how they must move forward with articles of impeachment for Trump because the founders would want them to (or whatever hot mess she was babbling about) was just a hot mess.

 

Truly.

 

Nobody was surprised that they’d move forward (Nadler has been bragging about doing it since 2017), and ultimately it came across as a Hail Mary of sorts. Mollie Hemingway noticed something else very telling coming from several reporters this morning:

 

 

 

 

Democrats are in trouble.

 

We know it.

 

They know it.

 

Even the media know it.

 

But you know, Ben Franklin and they have a heavy heart and stuff.

I understand Ben texted her about it.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited December 5, 2019 by B-Man

[GaryPinC]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Democrats are in trouble.

 

We know it.

 

They know it.

 

Even the media know it.

 

But you know, Ben Franklin and they have a heavy heart and stuff.

 

The democrats aren't in trouble.  They have the upper hand.  From the minute they stopped humming and hawing and Pelosi decided to proceed this was going to be the end result.  Turn it over to the republican Senate and politicize the hell out of it with help from the media of course.

How hard will it be for the media to proclaim bias and a corrupt process when Lindsey Graham says and does things like this?

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/469992-lindsey-graham-basks-in-the-impeachment-spotlight 

 

“I’m not going to read these transcripts. The whole process is a joke,” Graham declared in an impromptu hallway press conference.

  

So, conservatives decry how if GOP were doing the things Schiff and dems did during impeachment there would be a media uproar?  Well, it'll happen for sure in the Senate if the GOP isn't intelligent and careful about how they do this.  They need to be more respectful of the process and carefully plan the trial as the media will be working against them.  If GOP senators had brains they would have the media believe they would be willing to impeach.  Graham or some other GOP sen already declared a few weeks ago that if it gets to the Senate Trump won't be convicted.  Those on here who enjoy how much Trump gets the media and far left riled up?  Well, don't look now but Pelosi and Schiff are doing the same to the GOP.  Big difference will be the media coverage.  

 

Repubs better grow up real fast, realize what's at stake and very carefully plan this to undermine the propaganda.  They need to play the game far better, they are getting beaten badly.

 

The endgame is very simple here:  lack of impeachment the fault of the Senate GOP (see inflammatory quotes from Graham et al), give Dems control of government in 2020.  You can even leverage all Trump's judicial appointments to that end.  

 

IG report and Barr?  Well if they can water down the IG report enough, they can and will demonize Barr's work as biased and politically motivated.

 

Things have been delayed so much already, if Dems can stretch it to the elections and win, then it all goes away, just 4 years later.  Ah, that darned government red tape!

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

So you really think those three law professors are insane?  

 

Insane? Probably. Idiots? Definitely.

 

2 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

A medical examiner called to the stand in a murder case is not a fact witness.

 

They can be - bad example.

 

Should have gone with a S.A.N.E. or an expert on racial bias in identification as not being a fact witness.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, GaryPinC said:

 

The democrats aren't in trouble.  They have the upper hand. 

 

Incorrect. By almost every measure.

 

1 minute ago, GaryPinC said:

Big difference will be the media coverage.  

 

Which is why your analysis is incorrect. The media's credibility is lower than Congress's at this point -- both of which are lower than Trump's. 

 

The people are tuning the media out. The only people still relying on the media to get their information are either partisans interested in having their partisan opinions confirmed, or those not paying attention. 

And the people NOT paying attention, have had every chance to pay attention to the Ukraine nonsense and have rejected it outright. 

 

It's a losing issue, and the dems are bleeding votes in battle ground states and within the African American community (who know when someone is being set up by the cops). 

 

This has been a disaster for the dems on every level. 

 

And when/if it gets to the Senate, that will only be exacerbated because they will lose all power.

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot..."

 

What Trump actually said.  "Us" and "our country" are the antithesis of asking for a personal favor.

 

Now hold on, I thought the "expert" clarified that Trump was using the royal "we", after retroactively granting a (misspelt) title of nobility to his child!

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

 

As a matter of fact I know a paranoid schizophrenic who is fully aware that he's insane.  Some do know and some don't.  No need to paint with such broad strokes.  

They are highly partisan actors, not insane; and they were cherry picked by Schiff and company for exactly that reason.

 

One of them had pressed for the President’s impeachment over his tweets in 2017.  
 

They are anti-Trump resisters, and were used for theater, to lend their credentials to this sham.

 

The a president of the United States is not only permitted, but rather required to conduct foreign policy within the standards set forth by international treaties we are a party to. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[GaryPinC]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Incorrect. By almost every measure.

 

 

Which is why your analysis is incorrect. The media's credibility is lower than Congress's at this point -- both of which are lower than Trump's. 

 

The people are tuning the media out. The only people still relying on the media to get their information are either partisans interested in having their partisan opinions confirmed, or those not paying attention. 

And the people NOT paying attention, have had every chance to pay attention to the Ukraine nonsense and have rejected it outright. 

 

It's a losing issue, and the dems are bleeding votes in battle ground states and within the African American community (who know when someone is being set up by the cops). 

 

This has been a disaster for the dems on every level. 

 

And when/if it gets to the Senate, that will only be exacerbated because they will lose all power.

 

I don't disagree with your thinking, but that's in a purely intelligent rational world.  I would say people are intellectually and emotionally tired of the entire situation, are definitely tuning out, but will track the media blurbs from a distance.   And that will favor the Democrats UNLESS a vast majority of the country agrees with you about MSM credibility.

 

And that's a hell of a risk to take.  Which is why I say Repubs need to get their heads our of their asses and realize they need to plan this very carefully, respectfully, and not just assume the facts will seal the deal. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GaryPinC said:

I don't disagree with your thinking, but that's in a purely intelligent rational world.  I would say people are intellectually and emotionally tired of the entire situation, are definitely tuning out, but will track the media blurbs from a distance.  And that will favor the Democrats UNLESS a vast majority of the country agrees with you about MSM credibility.

 

I agree that the media still has clout -- but their numbers have dropped significantly more than they're letting on. To the point that they are, imo, accurately seen as partisans more than objective journalists by most of the country at this point. That's a big swing from where we were at the start of 2017. 

 

1 minute ago, GaryPinC said:

And that's a hell of a risk to take.  Which is why I say Repubs need to get their heads our of their asses and realize they need to plan this very carefully, respectfully, and not just assume the facts will seal the deal. 

 

It's not just facts they're banking on. They're banking on indictments and prosecutions. 

 

Without those, the "republicans" (ie, non establishment republicans) will lose their support in droves. There's too much evidence and facts already in the public sphere for there to NOT to be a serious push by Barr and the DOJ to hold the bad actors responsible. 

 

That will be met by outrage by the press. But it won't last because they don't have the sway they used to -- and the majority of Americans, by and large, are still more interested in truth and justice than they are partisan bickering when it comes down to it. They just have to see the evidence, which the media has done its best to hide, obscure, and obsfucate for the past three years.

 

Trials with convictions won't allow them to run that gambit. 

[GaryPinC]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

Trials with convictions won't allow them to run that gambit. 

And how likely is it that happens before the elections?  How overdue is that IG report again?

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Generally speaking, those that stay in the academic world are so insulated from the real world that they believe in such things as The Green New Deal.

Those attempting to foist the GND on the public aren’t doing it for ecological reasons.  Climate is their useful boogeyman.  The GND is nothing more than a Trojan horse designed to seize total control of the global economy, and implement international socialism to create a permanent caste system.

[Buffalo_Gal]

5 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

And how likely is it that happens before the elections?  How overdue is that IG report again?

Monday is OIG day. Hence the Democrats having a shampeachment day! ? ? ? ?

There was a small OIG report today and a small one three weeks ago. It is being ignored by the press, which proves the point that the press isn't going to cover this unless they have to. Which makes a Senate trial veeeerrrrry interesting.  
 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GaryPinC said:

And how likely is it that happens before the elections?  How overdue is that IG report again?

 

There's NO chance all of it gets done by 2020, I do not disagree. But they don't need it all. They need one or two trials to make their case stick in the minds of voters. 

 

The OIG report was delayed for the purposes of the election -- a move which I disagree with entirely then and now. But that's the play they're running because they knew two things: 

1) The impeachment gambit was going to be run, and this is the ultimate "Trump" card. 

2) The evidence uncovered (despite Horowitz having no teeth) will fundamentally transform the narrative and set the stage for Durham. 

 

People do not realize that Durham has been working on this just about as long as Horowitz. It was being done on a parallel track, in secret, since late 2017. That was by design, the goal is to move fast when the hammer falls because they know the truth about what you stated above re the media/spin. This will be a cascade of revelations, indictments, and "discovery" during the trial process if they do it right. Even then, it won't all be done by 2020 -- which is why I have loudly protested the decision to tie this all to the election. 

 

What you're likely to get between now and the election is a series of referrals from Horowitz's report of up to a dozen or more senior officials from the DOJ/FBI. We know there are at least two for sure, but I'm betting that number gets closer to 12 by Monday. Durham and Barr won't let those referrals just sit. They will be used as political cudgels in some segments of the media, but the DOJ will have to follow them up with indictments by spring for at least several of them (the others might cut deals to roll on bigger fish).

 

Seems fast, but it's really not. If Durham's really got three grand juries empaneled outside of DC at present, which is what I keep hearing from people who know, they will likely be ready with indictments and trials by Spring, into summer. 

 

There's NO way they can get it all done before the 2020 election. Again, Horowitz is only a small fraction of the story as he's only focused on the FBI/DOJ. But the federal team which was investigating Trump was a fusion team of both FBI and CIA personnel. That CIA angle, which is tied to the State Department directly, will be MUCH more difficult due to the nature of the spook world not blending with our justice system. 

 

That comes in the second term. What Horowitz will do is shatter the notion that the Russia investigation was done on the up and up. It will expose that it cut corners, illegally in some cases, because they were out to get Trump -- not the truth. Horowitz's report can do that with the evidence he brings forth, even if his "conclusion" is more watered down. We saw that with the MYE report he did, and the McCabe/Comey reports. He eviscerated them all -- but couldn't "prove" intent. 

 

Which should sound familiar. 

[Uncle Joe]

 

 

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

 

Well now you're jumping the gun a bit yourself.  Unless you think the Democrats intentionally picked insane witnesses.  

 

At Wednesday’s session, three legal experts called by Democrats said impeachment was merited.

 

Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor, said he considered it clear that the president’s conduct met the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable … then nothing is impeachable.”

 

The only Republican witness, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, dissented from the other legal experts. He said the Democrats were bringing a “slipshod impeachment” case against the president, but he didn’t excuse Trump’s behavior.

 

“It is not wrong because President Trump is right,” Turley said. “A case for impeachment could be made, but it cannot be made on this record.”

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pelosi-gives-approval-for-drafting-impeachment-articles-against-trump

 

Idk, but I think it would be pretty difficult to get a job as a law professor at Harvard if you were insane.  Just a hunch though.  

 

For some time now, the whole process needs to be played out.

What I find  interesting is whether the House will limit Articles to just what the hearings have been about (Ukraine).

 

Pelosi started her announcement today by quoting the Declaration of Independence from a Tyrant/King/Despot.  I find this comparison extremely hard to agree with.  If you consider it, Trump didn't withhold funding.  If you think about it, Ukraine didn't make its "public announcement".  If you think about it, the Whistleblower's complaint accomplished its intended purpose -- to alert the government and the public about allegedly objectionable conduct by the President.  How does any of that make Trump a despot who refuses to conform to laws?  What Article of Impeachment can the House pass that doesn't sound like "we wish he acted like us"?  

 

And to answer your question -- I think those Professors are partisans.  They came in with an agenda.  Being politically motivated doesn't make one insane, just biased.

 

 

 

 

 

[GaryPinC]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Monday is OIG day. Hence the Democrats having a shampeachment day! ? ? ? ?

There was a small OIG report today and a small one three weeks ago. It is being ignored by the press, which proves the point that the press isn't going to cover this unless they have to. Which makes a Senate trial veeeerrrrry interesting.  
 

Yep, I understand all that.  But my points remain.  How many Americans have taken a deep look at the facts in these cases?  Obviously that has happened in our little PPP bubble but how many nationwide have?  For those people, they see 2 truths being yelled, both sides equally emotional and imo immature.  Which side will they fall on when the MSM stays on point with their approach?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GaryPinC said:

Yep, I understand all that.  But my points remain.  How many Americans have taken a deep look at the facts in these cases?  Obviously that has happened in our little PPP bubble but how many nationwide have?  For those people, they see 2 truths being yelled, both sides equally emotional and imo immature.  Which side will they fall on when the MSM stays on point with their approach?

 

The side with the better story, backed by the most evidence. 

 

That's not the DNC's story. Their story is tired, played out, and has been seen before (many times). 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, GaryPinC said:

Yep, I understand all that.  But my points remain.  How many Americans have taken a deep look at the facts in these cases?  Obviously that has happened in our little PPP bubble but how many nationwide have?  For those people, they see 2 truths being yelled, both sides equally emotional and imo immature.  Which side will they fall on when the MSM stays on point with their approach?

I honestly do not know. Over Thanksgiving I got to chat with some relatives from the very blue Boston area, one of them is an attorney. Let's just say that in their opinion (so anecdotal)  the Democrats are idiots (they are Democrats) and this is all a charade.

If I had to guess (and it is only a guess) I'd say most people are tired of this. They have had enough of #OrangeManBad and a do-nothing Congress. That is only my guess though. 2020 will tell a bigger tale one way or the other.
 

[GaryPinC]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There's NO chance all of it gets done by 2020, I do not disagree. But they don't need it all. They need one or two trials to make their case stick in the minds of voters. 

 

The OIG report was delayed for the purposes of the election -- a move which I disagree with entirely then and now. But that's the play they're running because they knew two things: 

1) The impeachment gambit was going to be run, and this is the ultimate "Trump" card. 

2) The evidence uncovered (despite Horowitz having no teeth) will fundamentally transform the narrative and set the stage for Durham. 

 

 

 

Was the OIG report delayed by the Republicans or by democratic efforts?  Okay, one or two trials.  Can the Democrats keep it to inconsequential underlings?  What if Horowitz's evidence doesn't fundamentally transform the narrative?  Certainly the MSM is going to fight that tooth and nail.  Again, my bigger point is the GOP needs to do better handling this situation.

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The side with the better story, backed by the most evidence. 

 

That's not the DNC's story. Their story is tired, played out, and has been seen before (many times). 

familiarity breeds comfort.  But, I certainly hope you're right

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I honestly do not know. Over Thanksgiving I got to chat with some relatives from the very blue Boston area, one of them is an attorney. Let's just say that in their opinion (so anecdotal)  the Democrats are idiots (they are Democrats) and this is all a charade.

If I had to guess (and it is only a guess) I'd say most people are tired of this. They have had enough of #OrangeManBad and a do-nothing Congress. That is only my guess though. 2020 will tell a bigger tale one way or the other.
 

Good to hear, thanks.  I think the one universal truth is we are all tired of this.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GaryPinC said:

Was the OIG report delayed by the Republicans or by democratic efforts?

 

The report was delayed because new evidence kept coming to light which required Horowitz to reinterview people. That's the official explanation. The truth is that it was allowed to be slow rolled because it's part of Trump's strategy to get the DNC to expend all their ammunition before he drops it. They could have rolled it out the day of the call to the Ukraine in July, one day after Mueller. 

 

But chose to keep their powder dry (and set a trap they knew the DNC couldn't resist). 

 

2 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Okay, one or two trials.  Can the Democrats keep it to inconsequential underlings? 

 

24+ high ranking members of the DOJ/FBI have been fired/demoted/resigned because of what Horowitz has already found. It won't be low level people indicted, even if they try to argue they're low level, the facts won't let them get away with that. Look at Clinesmith. He was described as a low level FBI employee -- when he was the head FBI attorney on the Russia investigation. 

 

They'll try. It won't work. 

 

4 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

What if Horowitz's evidence doesn't fundamentally transform the narrative?  

 

It already has. The evidence put into OS by Horowitz's teams (the texts, for example) are tough to argue with. There will be more in his report, even if his conclusion / summary is watered down, we are still going to see new testimony which either will or will not line up with the evidence already in OS. If it doesn't, and most won't, then it's going to force the democrats/media on the defensive rather than the offensive. They'll have to shift three years worth of bull#### to try to reframe it as harmless. 

 

And while they're trying to move bull#### mountain, the roll out will continue unabated. 

 

6 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Certainly the MSM is going to fight that tooth and nail.  Again, my bigger point is the GOP needs to do better handling this situation.

 

The MSM is complicit in the Russian lie. They have to fight it tooth and nail and will. 

 

But they won't be able to rectify their 2016-2018 positions (which said the dossier was verified, the FISAs were legally obtained et al) with the new evidence and news cycle. They'll ignore it while they get hammered by social media, independent journalists and the Trump campaign team which has a much larger war chest than all the DNC's candidates combined. 

 

one example:

https://mobile.twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1202675292499611649

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

********************

 

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

"I need a favor, though" 

 

So this proves one of two things.  

1.  You didn't read the transcripts

2.  You're a ***** liar.

 

Which is it.  

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So this proves one of two things.  

1.  You didn't read the transcripts

2.  You're a ***** liar.

 

Which is it.  

 

how is this a mutually exclusive option?

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

58 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

I'm skeptical, although it is possible.

If Nancy has control of the dollars, they will vote as she says.  Now honestly? I wouldn't be shocked if she says vote against it (behind closed doors) simply because it is an absolute loser  (in more ways than one).  It would have to be some of the 30-somethings that will not get reelected if they do vote for impeachment voting against it, and then Nancy can come out with "Well, we tried."



 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I'm skeptical, although it is possible/.

If Nancy has control of the dollars, they will vote as she says.  Now honestly? I wouldn't be shocked if she says vote against it (behind closed doors) simply because it is an absolute loser  (in more ways than one).  It would have to be some of the 30-somethings that will not get reelected if they do vote for impeachment voting against it, and then Nancy can come out with "Well, we tried."

hell, they (Greene?) have already said that they are going to keep the investigations going (paraphrased). they have already voted three times to impeach him, why not just keep the shitrade going all through his presidency.

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

hell, they (Greene?) have already said that they are going to keep the investigations going (paraphrased). they have already voted three times to impeach him, why not just keep the shitrade going all through his presidency.

I am pretty sure it is more than three times, but I get your point.

I read something today about the Democrats banking on retaking the Senate and not losing the House and just keep impeaching him through 2024. SMH Sounds like a winning strategy! Makes me wonder what they are smokin' that they "think" winning the Senate is going to happen? Goodness knows there is no "impeachment fatigue" among rational Americans who have seen Trump thoroughly investigated and noticed that the Democrats have nothing on him.

What happens in a few weeks when another government shutdown is imminent? Does everybody play nice? Does Nancy get blamed? Do the Rs get blamed? Should be interesting to watch. 
 

[Foxx]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I am pretty sure it is more than three times, but I get your point.

I read something today about the Democrats banking on retaking the Senate and not losing the House and just keep impeaching him through 2024. SMH Sounds like a winning strategy! Makes me wonder what they are smokin' that they "think" winning the Senate is going to happen? Goodness knows there is no "impeachment fatigue" among rational Americans who have seen Trump thoroughly investigated and noticed that the Democrats have nothing on him.

What happens in a few weeks when another government shutdown is imminent? Does everybody play nice? Does Nancy get blamed? Do the Rs get blamed? Should be interesting to watch. 
 

Universe save us if the Dems win the Senate in 2020 and retain the House. they will surely remove him if that is the case.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I am pretty sure it is more than three times, but I get your point.

I read something today about the Democrats banking on retaking the Senate and not losing the House and just keep impeaching him through 2024. SMH Sounds like a winning strategy! Makes me wonder what they are smokin' that they "think" winning the Senate is going to happen? Goodness knows there is no "impeachment fatigue" among rational Americans who have seen Trump thoroughly investigated and noticed that the Democrats have nothing on him.

What happens in a few weeks when another government shutdown is imminent? Does everybody play nice? Does Nancy get blamed? Do the Rs get blamed? Should be interesting to watch. 
 

 

23 of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs in 2020 are GOP

 

26 of the 35 were Dem in 2018

 

it's hard to gain in a year where you have the majority of the seats.

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

23 of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs in 2020 are GOP

 

26 of the 35 were Dem in 2018

 

it's hard to gain in a year where you have the majority of the seats.

True.
 

Big difference between 18 and 20 is that Trump will be on the ballot. That will increase turnout in key areas. 

[Bray Wyatt]

18 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Universe save us if the Dems win the Senate in 2020 and retain the House. they will surely remove him if that is the case.

 

They would need to get to 60 dems to remove him which i dont think will happen

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

They would need to get to 60 dems to remove him which i dont think will happen

67

[row_33]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

67

 

i don't trust the GOP to do the right thing if weaseling-out would seem like a good immediate tactic... 

 

 

[Foxx]

25 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

They would need to get to 60 dems to remove him which i dont think will happen

 

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

67

right, two thirds of the complete Senate are needed to convict.

 

however.... there is a little known loophole here that not too many are aware of. only two thirds of senators in attendance at the vote is required to convict. thus, 67 is not the immovable object everyone might think. if only 75 Senators show up to vote, a mere 50 votes are required to convict. not that i think that will/would happen but, i do have a severe distrust of all things elite so....

Edited December 5, 2019 by Foxx

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

i don't trust the GOP to do the right thing if weaseling-out would seem like a good immediate tactic... 

You are not alone.  There only possible concern for them might be the pitchforks and torches outside their homes if they did betray the Republican base and turn on President Trump. The GOP base is armed, so it might give them a slight pause. 

[Bray Wyatt]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

67

 

Ah thanks, after typing it I remembered 2/3 but then heard some where someone say 60 recently so went with that. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Right now, there is not a single story about impeachment on any of my browsers from yahoo news (my homepage).  Normally it is loaded with anti-Trump articles.  Things that make you go hmmmm 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1202696969551921152