Told you there's be no impeachment...

Comments

  • It's a pageant.
  • edited November 27
    I think he is a Jedi knight.  You will begin an impeachment fight you can't win.  

    Schiff, standing next to the hovercraft with the other stormtroopers: I will convene an impeachment investigation hearing to re-interview witnesses we already know don't have the goods.

    Congressman Brenda Lawrence expressed a preference for congressional censure.  "We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don't see the value of taking him out of office. But I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable."  She only thought for a few minutes before the democrat world accused her of heresy and she recanted.

    So either dems slink away from an impeachment vote they can't win, or impeach without repub votes and see a trial in the senate that turns into a trial of congressional dems.
  • I have little doubt the house will vote to impeach him, they've backed themselves into this corner and the Useful Idiots require it of their elected idiots.  It will then likely fall apart in the senate with Dems crying foul that this is why they need control of both houses.
  • I’m staying with my prediction that they will vote on whether to proceed to filing the articles and will vote not to on the basis that they don’t feel they can make a strong enough case for the Senate to convict and that’s why we have to vote the bad orange man out next fall.
  • "Instead of impeachment, we will vote to censure, but only because impeachment would be too damaging to the country."
  • Well, guess I was wrong. Pretty sure my mistake was operating on the assumption they would try something less than maximally idiotic. Not sure what possessed me there.
  • The vote hasn’t happened yet.

    On a sidenote; the thing that I find amazing is that so many people seem to be completely unaware that the entire case for impeachment is based on an appeal to motive.
  • I think the slice of the population following this is pretty thin, and lots of people are essentially unaware of the issue.  Do you ever hear anyone discuss in real life?

    Regarding the idea that the whole hinges on motive, that idea is almost incredible in several ways.  There's the projection involved in dems alleging that DJT's motive to seek investigation of overseas cyber mischief can only have been to benefit him personally, while attributing to themselves the motive only to protect elections.  If course there is also the motive of dems in calling for politically based investigations, and their blindness to Biden's motive in his self described quid pro quo in which the quo is ambiguously motivated.

    Will people pay greater attention if the story is about a trial in the Senate?  If so, that's not good for dems.
  • The following is not a new thought for me, it's just the only thought remaining that can make any sense of the Dems' tactics:

    The entire purpose of this sham is to use projection to muddy the waters regarding the Dems own massive crimes. That when indictments come down against the Dems for virtually the same crimes Dems are accusing Trump of, only with massive amounts of actual evidence, they can scream "retaliation for impeachment!!!' from the rooftops.

    If that's what it is, pure damage control and trying to save their own asses from jail and/or hanging, it all makes sense. I can think of no other context in which it isn't massively counterproductive to every other goal they might have
  • Z -

    What I meant was; in order for Trump to have done something wrong on that phone call, you have to BEGIN with the assumption that his motive was nefarious. I believe that is known as "Assuming facts not in evidence" in the trade.
  • edited December 8
    MC Escher said:

    Z -


    What I meant was; in order for Trump to have done something wrong on that phone call, you have to BEGIN with the assumption that his motive was nefarious. I believe that is known as "Assuming facts not in evidence" in the trade.



    Indeed, that's why:

    "There's the projection involved in dems alleging that DJT's motive to seek investigation of overseas cyber mischief can only have been to benefit him personally,..."


    An investigation into overseas cyber mischief can have two beneficiaries simultaneously, the American electoral system and DJT. The dem axiom is that DJT can only have meant to benefit himself.

    At the same time, they assume their own good will in investigations of DJT where their political fortunes and resentments are so deeply involved. When they have their constitutional scholar say that she crosses the street rather than walk past a property owned by DJT, the personal quality of the motive is explicit.
  • Qwinn said:

     If that's what it is, pure damage control and trying to save their own asses from jail and/or hanging, it all makes sense. I can think of no other context in which it isn't massively counterproductive to every other goal they might have

    One of my primary complaints about Republicans is that they never seem to follow through with prosecuting Dems.
  • Because they are fucking feckless.
  • I disagree.

    They are infiltrators. Double agents.

    Think about it. The Left has deliberately infiltrated, gutted and worn every other institution in the country like a skinsuit. Why would you think the Republican Party would be exempt?

    What few actual conservatives may have managed to still squeeze in have probably been neutered by real or fake blackmail or threats to their families.

    Epstein didn't kill himself.
  • Two articles. Will they go to a vote?
  • dgm said:

    Two articles. Will they go to a vote?

    image


  • Oh it will go to a vote, that’s for sure. That does not however mean that they have the votes to impeach. And you can bet your ass that Nancy is working her wrinkly ass off to make sure that it doesn’t.
  • Doesn't?  Why?  
  • Doesn't?  Why?  

    Because she’s got a great narrative going that can be used as a campaign narrative; unless the house votes to impeach and it goes to the Senate for trial.

    She will have no control over what happens in the Senate, in fact no Democrats will have control over what happens in the Senate.

    This was never about removing Trump from office because the Democrats knew that was never going to happen. It was about damaging Trump for 2020. If the trial goes to the Senate the narrative will be completely destroyed by the trial.
  • >She will have no control over what happens in the Senate, in fact no Democrats will have control over what happens in the Senate.

    What if she waits until October 2020?  Giving the Senate Republicans and Trump too little time to conduct a trial before the election, and enabling the media to pretend that the House's impeachment articles are true?
  • I don’t see that happening.
Sign In or Register to comment.