Let them speak Most Americans want witnesses Trump impeachment trial

dandyfopp

POLL-Let them speak: Most Americans want witnesses in Trump impeachment trial


http://news.trust.org/item/20200122223845-ozj6d


Jan 22 (Reuters) - A bipartisan majority of Americans want to see new witnesses testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and the public appears to be largely following the proceedings even after a bruising congressional inquiry that lasted several months, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling released Wednesday.


The poll, which ran from Jan. 17-22, also showed that U.S. public opinion has moved little since the U.S. House of Representatives impeached Trump in mid-December.

About 44% of adults in the United States say Trump should be removed from office, another 15% say he should be reprimanded formally with a congressional censure, and 31% said the charges should be dismissed.


Trump so far has blocked the Democrats' requests for documents related to the administration's activities in Ukraine last year. He has also urged officials like former national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to participate.


Republicans in the Senate so far have backed up the president, rejecting requests for White House documents and interviews with administration officials.


The poll showed that Republicans and Democrats want to see people like Bolton and Pompeo tell the Senate what they know about the administration's policies in Ukraine.


About 72% agreed that the trial "should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify," including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans. And 70% of the public, including 80% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans, said senators should "act as impartial jurors" during the trial.


About 40% of Americans said they had a favorable view of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, while 60% said they have an unfavorable view of him.


The poll showed that two out of three Americans are paying attention to the proceedings, with Democrats more interested than Republicans.


About 12% said they plan to watch the trial every day, while 17% planned to watch a few times a week, and 36% said they would check in on the trial afterward through news reports.


Despite their expressed interest in the trial, Americans were divided over giving the press more access to the Senate proceedings, which the Senate has largely restricted for the trial.


About 46% agreed that journalists should be allowed to enter the Senate chamber with cameras and cover the trial. Another 41% disagreed, and 13% said they did not know.


The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online, in English, throughout the United States. It gathered responses in two waves: the first was conducted Jan. 17-21 and asked 1,116 people about their interest in following the trial. The second was conducted Jan. 21-22 and asked 1,108 people about whether to remove Trump from office.


Both polls have a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of about 5 percentage points. (Reporting by Chris Kahn in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)


Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

SaveComment403Like8
Comments (403)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

What "most American's want" is irrelevant.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

We want witnesses!!!

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

No, we want the laws to be followed. Nothing less.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

Any intelligent person realizes witnesses are required for a fair trial. Only those involved in, and supporting of, a coverup do not.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp

About 72% agreed that the trial "should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify," including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans. And 70% of the public, including 80% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans, said senators should "act as impartial jurors" during the trial.


Democrats are going to have a lot to thank Mitch for in November.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
AnnKH

We want the Constitution to be upheld by all those (including the President) who swore to do just that. Nothing less.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

The Dems have done a great job in changing the public narrative in their favor. Pelosi knew the "win" would never be a conviction but they now have the GOP between a rock and a hard place on witnesses. Seems more American care about witnesses than they care about removal.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

A Trump's lawyer just confirmed that the central argument well be that the actions of Trump are not impeachable which absolutely makes Hunter Biden's testimony irrelevant in that Trump's defense will not be about the details of the call.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

The GOP is damned if they do and damned if they don’t allow witnesses.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

A criminal who faces no punishment will extend their crime spree.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

We've noticed.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Our election is at risk if he is not removed. Russia is ready with the hacked Burisma emails which they can use to promote doubt about the Bidens by adding to them.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Our election is at risk if he is not removed.

That is a risk I am willing to take.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

I guess I’m special. At one time, I wanted witnesses — now, I don’t. This Schumer Schiff Sham is ridiculous and a waste of everyone’s time. President Trump is doing a great job and this distraction is totally unnecessary. There has been no high crimes and misdemeanors just a President doing his job and a political hit job by the Party of Hate.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

I want witnesses. I want Trump to have real witnesses speak for him, to defend what they heard him say, what they got in instructions, what they were told to do at his request. Speak the truth if it's there.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Trump used his personal lawyer to investigate in Ukraine.

Trump used federal funds to support that personal investigation.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

The House had their witnesses. They didn't wish to accommodate the wishes of the 62 million Americans who chose president Trump. Our wishes weren't respected.

So when the ball is in the Senate's court, I'm sure I won't be alone in wanting to hear from the witnesses who Dems deemed unimportant. It should be fun to watch. Assuming the Republicans do their jobs and expose the mindless hostility aimed at President Trump and his supporters.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

If you haven't already, contact your senators and let them know you want witnesses. Make your voice heard!

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

I did.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

How does one know their posts were removed ? I am so not with it.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

If you open a thread when you're not logged in you can see if it's been removed. Someone did that to one of my comments on the SS thread, but it was returned a few minutes later.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaritadina

''

Kathy

Our
election is at risk if he is not removed. Russia is ready with the
hacked Burisma emails which they can use to promote doubt about the
Bidens by adding to them. ''

Criminal Biden was caught with his hand in the Ukrainian pocket. Is he the president that you want to have? Then yes, your election is at risk. I am looking forward to Burisma emails been published )))

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Not true Margaritadina. Biden wanted corrupt Shokin to step down because he wasn’t investigating any corruption including Burisma.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Chipotle, that's a lot of work and it assumes I have a recollection of every post I post on every thread...... I don' t . I'm just not that into it.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

Not really. The dead giveaway is if you pay attention to the profile pics to the right of each thread title. If within a matter of minutes your pic or non-pic, as in our case, disappears, that signals something is up. Then it's simply a matter of checking.




Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Not true Margaritadina. Biden wanted corrupt Shokin to step down because
he wasn’t investigating any corruption including Burisma.

lol

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
51gerri

How about the 3 million more that voted against him than for him? Since we weren't all in the big electoral college states does that mean we don't count?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.

"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added.

Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.

Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.

"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.

Ukrainian prosecutors have described no evidence indicating that Biden sought to help his son by getting Shokin dismissed -- and have suggested that they have not discovered any such evidence.

But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired.

They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

They didn't wish to accommodate the wishes of the 62 million Americans who chose president Trump. Our wishes weren't respected.

Are you implying that 62 million Americans want to just ignore whatever Trump does, let him do whatever he wants?

If not, please clarify what you meant.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

“Laughable” is a bullseye. But not how you’re thinking. My cat feels bad for you.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

How about the 3 million more that voted against him than for him? Since
we weren't all in the big electoral college states does that mean we
don't count?

Of course not. Trump won the election before the west coast reported and left their voting booths open to run up the count. Wasted effort.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

3.5 million ghosts voted. Ghosts don't vote for republicans. Illegal aliens voted. The crats couldn't win an honest election.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

886, sometimes I think things are posted just for effect and to get a reaction. I simply can't believe some are truly convinced about the veracity of what they post. There are several posts I scroll by without even reading.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

HU-86, where do you see Russian propaganda? Just curious.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

"When I read things like what is posted in this thread and all over HTs I can't help but worry that the country may be doomed.

Really scary times."

Amen to that! America is 243 years old, yet some people still can't figure out how the Electoral College works. "Doomed" is right.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Flat out wrong: They didn't wish to accommodate the wishes of the 62 million Americans who chose president Trump. Our wishes weren't respected.

Your wishes *were* respected. You *got* trump as president.

This is not about the election...this is about what trump's done with the presidency from day one including:

  • lying to the American people -- over 15,000 times now
  • obstructing justice
  • obstructing congress
  • violating emoluments
  • violating the impoundment act
  • violating nepotism rules
  • violating campaign finance laws
  • putting national security at risk from security clearances to use of private cell phones and servers to open air strategy meetings at MAL
  • extorting a foreign leader for personal political gain and using US taxpayer funds to do it
  • corruption from the saudi bailout of kushner's 666 in exchange for military weapons technology to filling his admin and cabinet with felons and foreign agents and corrupt actors (price, pruitt, flynn, bannon, zincke and so many more)
  • abuse of power
  • sexual assault
  • unindicted co-conspirator in a felony

and so much more....(did I even mention russia and putin???)

What really gets me SMH is that you were all so ready to lock hillary up over her email server when multiple investigations have found nothing. Yet here are so many clear violations of the law -- including in the president's own words! -- and yet all of it is fine by you...it's a hoax, nothing to see, president's doing a fine job, he's just a little rough around the edges ...

Un- freakin' - believable.

9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

HU-86, where do you see Russian propaganda? Just curious.

I'm not HU-86, but I will answer your question:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/ukraine-russia-interference.html

This time, Russian intelligence operatives deployed a network of agents to blame Ukraine for its 2016 interference. Starting at least in 2017, the operatives peddled a mixture of now-debunked conspiracy theories along with established facts to leave an impression that the government in Kyiv, not Moscow, was responsible for the hackings of Democrats and its other interference efforts in 2016, senior intelligence officials said.

The Russian intelligence officers conveyed the information to prominent Russians and Ukrainians who then used a range of intermediaries, like oligarchs, businessmen and their associates, to pass the material to American political figures and even some journalists, who were likely unaware of its origin, the officials said.

That muddy brew worked its way into American information ecosystems, sloshing around until parts of it reached Mr. Trump, who has also spoken with Mr. Putin about allegations of Ukrainian interference. Mr. Trump also brought up the assertions of Ukrainian meddling in his July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, which is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry into whether he abused his power by asking for a public commitment to investigations he stood to gain from personally.


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

"Un- freakin' - believable."

No, Annie. Here's what's "Un- freakin' - believable"...

The Left's "campaign" to impeach a duly elected President, NINETEEN MINUTES after his inauguration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/?outputType=amp

^ THAT is "Un- freakin' - believable".

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Crat propaganda. ^^^ NYT, :^)

Notice anything wrong with that statement? Has anything changed? No evidence of the original claim so the story has to change...again?

Hint: whether he abused his power by asking for a public commitment to investigations he stood to gain from personally.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

And more from the WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-white-house-officials-say-they-feared-putin-influenced-the-presidents-views-on-ukraine-and-2016-campaign/2019/12/19/af0fdbf6-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

Re Ukraine election interference: One former senior White House official said Trump even stated so explicitly at one point, saying he knew Ukraine was the real culprit because “Putin told me.”

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

You can't impeach a president without something to work with.

Thanks, Trump.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

You can't impeach a president without something to work with.

Bingo! So the story has to change, again. Schiff let the cat out of the bag.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I agree HU86. And for what? I truly don’t know. I’m not ready to conclude that fellow Americans will throw it all away for the likes of Donald John Trump.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

A former FBI acting director has alleged Donald Trump dismissed advice from his own security agencies on the threat posed by North Korea’s missiles, saying “I don’t care. I believe Putin.”

-----

How about when trump was parroting russian propaganda about their invasion into Afghanistan?

The [WSJ] editorial bashed Trump for asserting that Leonid Brezhnev’s USSR was justified in 1979 when it invaded Afghanistan, a move that was so vehemently opposed by the U.S. government that Jimmy Carter imposed an Olympic boycott and reinstituted draft registration for 18-year-olds. That, the Journal argued, was “ridiculous, adding: “The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a defining event in the Cold War, making clear to all serious people the reality of the communist Kremlin’s threat."

---------

How about when trump was parroting russian propaganda about poland was going to invade belarus?

--------

How about when trump was repeating russian lies about the evils of montenegrans...remember him shoving the PM of montenegro for no good reason?

https://balkaninsight.com/2018/07/24/trump-s-montenegro-outburst-likely-originated-with-putin-07-23-2018/

---------------

There are many, many instances of trump repeating what putin told him, choosing what putin said over our own intelligence agencies, even on the global stage, and pushing russian-sourced propaganda and lies. I've only cited a few. That alone should be enough to impeach him, let alone all the rest of the crimes and abuses he's committed.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
AnnKH

No, Annie. Here's what's "Un- freakin' - believable"...

The Left's "campaign" to impeach a duly elected President, NINETEEN MINUTES after his inauguration:

Perhaps it's because Trump showed us who he was before he was "duly elected", and it was clearly just a matter of time before his actions were impeachable.

No one who paid any attention in 2016 is surprised that he was completely in it for himself. What's surprising is that so many people who voted for him refuse to admit that they might have made a mistake, in light of his actions over the last 3 years.

Then again, those are the same people who voted for a man who bragged about "grabbed her by the pu***" . When I heard that, I thought he was finished. I had no idea how low the bar had sunk in our country.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Nov 3 2016 wapo:

Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.

Chairmen of two congressional committees said in media interviews this week they believe Clinton committed impeachable offenses in setting up and using a private email server for official State Department business.

And a third senior Republican, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee, told The Washington Post he is personally convinced Clinton should be impeached for influence peddling involving her family foundation. He favors further congressional investigation into that matter.

And what makes it so ironic, is those are the same gop members who are defending trump now even though he's done so much worse...convicted for corruption with his foundation and put national security at risk so many times from security clearances to open air strategy meetings at mar-a-lago to personal cell phone and server use to giving away code-level info to the russians in the oval office. I mean you can't make this stuff up!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

"grabbed her by the pu***" . When I heard that, I thought he was
finished.

You might have heard that but that's not what he said.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

AnnKH, that is not true. As much as you want to believe that, he did not say that.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

The propagandists sure are trying to earn their money. They fear the end is near and they'll be unemployed. Let's give them an E for effort. :^)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

I guess I’m special. At one time, I wanted witnesses — now, I don’t.

Trump must be special too, he wanted witnesses, now not so much. Now he says he is concerned about future presidents not having executive privilege if he allows his crimes to be exposed, nyuk, like he gives hoot about future presidents. His hoots are all self serving.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

olliesmom, why don't you tell us what he said. Go ahead, research it and come back with the actual quote. We might all learn something.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

Iris, he said he "COULD" (as in, IF he wanted too, he could) - he did not say he DID. Locker-room talk. Doesn't make it right, but he did not say he actually did it. Do you understand the difference??

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

AnnKH

17 minutes ago

No, Annie. Here's what's "Un- freakin' - believable"...

The Left's "campaign" to impeach a duly elected President, NINETEEN MINUTES after his inauguration:

"Perhaps it's because Trump showed us who he was before he was "duly elected", and it was clearly just a matter of time before his actions were impeachable"

----------------

Did you seriously just say that?!

Wow. So, it's "arrest the 'criminal', and worry about figuring out the 'crime' later", huh? Thanks for being the first one to actually admit it. That takes a lot of guts, and I commend you for that. Thank you for officially letting the cat out of the bag.

No, not a witch hunt at all, people. Wow. Just WOW.

"Guilty until proven innocent". This is American life under Democrat control.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
zmith

Even if that's what he actually said, it sounds like Trump being Trump, iow, he can do whatever he wants and get away with it.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Yeah, you can twist and project almost anything.

We know Trump brags, exaggerates, etc. You can go back to almost anyone and find how different we talked and acted years ago.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

It's not that far back, Trump was in his 60's not some young bragging teenager, believing him over 19 women who says he's a man of his word?

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
zmith

I'm not twisting anything.

"You can do anything. Grab 'em by the *****. You can do anything."

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

why don't you tell us what he said. Go ahead, research it and come back with the actual quote. We might all learn something.

They were talking about fast women and he said, "they let you grab them". I'm sure every straight man and woman alive has had that experience.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

No, it's locker-room talk. Guys joking around with other guys, talking like they can "one up" each other. It's a competitive guy thing.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

If trump was in a locker room talking to a dozen guys and not on a bus talking to one guy would it make much difference?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

No.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
zmith

Ok, so it's just "boys being boys." Got it.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

zmith

Ok, so it's just "boys being boys." Got it.

^^^^

I'm a realist. Guys can and do talk like that, but not act on it. They do it all the time.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Yes, sure Olliesmom, guys talk all the time about how they sexually assault women.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

You think Trump is the only President who has done "locker room talk" in his past? Please!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Trump can do no wrong.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

Didn't like my response, huh? LOL

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

olliesmom, thanks for your reply to me earlier. The extra dig wasn't really necessary.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
woodnymph2_gw

Does not matter if it was "just" locker room talk, or "boys will be boys", etc. etc. Still a very low bar for a statesman or a future president. Only reason it got less attention than it deserved was the timing: it came out at the same time Comey was pursuing Hillary's e-mail issues.

And your Donald mocked a disabled man as well as a Gold Star military family, and insulted Latino Americans.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Trump gave much evidence before inauguration that he intended to continue to violate the Constitution. So folks were ready. And it didn't take long to see his violations after inauguration.

However, most didn't clamor for Impeachment from the 'git go'.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

Ziemia(6a)

"However, most didn't clamor for Impeachment from the 'git go'."

Oh. Well, as long as "most" didn't, that's all that matters, I guess.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

You think Trump is the only President who has done "locker room talk" in his past? Please!

You said "I'm a realist. Guys can and do talk like that, but not act on it. They do it all the time."

Olliesmom. I'm a guy who knows lots of guys and in all my years have never heard any of them brag about sexually assaulting women. Maybe you overhead judge Kavanaugh?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

IMPOTUS followers: Deny, divert, discredit

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Well this sure is interesting ! I suspect he knows from yesterday's presentations that Biden's testimony well only hurt Trump and help Joe Biden..


"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says he will vote against a motion to subpoena Hunter Biden if a majority of colleagues agree next week that additional witnesses and documents need to be summoned for President Trump's impeachment trial.

If Republican colleagues introduce a motion to subpoena former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Graham said "I vote against it."

Graham's opposition essentially kills the threat that Republicans have wielded in recent weeks that if Democrats win a motion to hear from additional witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, they will retaliate by subpoenaing the Bidens."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

I guess we should give Sen. Graham credit when he actually deserves it. I mean, it is so rare that I get to say something nice about him.

Good going, Lindsey!

Kate

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

That is very interesting.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

McConnell and Trump want no witnesses because it will prolong the trial they want to dismiss. I wouldn’t pat Graham on the back just yet.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Except he says that is what he would do IF a motion to call witnesses is successful.

My impression is he will vote "no" to all witnesses but if that motion is accepted he will not support calling the Biden's. That is a real shocker to me after all the mouthing off he has dobe about the Bidens. He knows something

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

He knows what we all know. Joe Biden has the info and It could be a huge mistake to call him. Same with Bolton who Trump now says he forbids to testify.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Why would Trump forbid Bolton to testify?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Why indeed?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"This is not about the election...this is about what trump's done with the presidency from day one including...

That's your opinion.

My opinion is that this is about TWO elections. In the 2016 election, Dems lost despite efforts to frame President Trump with the help of some bad cops in the FBI. (Getting a warrant to spy on Carter Page probably seemed like a clever way to spy on the Trump Campaign, but the FBI got caught. Now we know the FBI abused its power, and worse, turned it on an innocent citizen. The FISA Court rubber stamped what the FBI asked for. Might be a good idea to rethink whether or not we want a FISA Court that remains completely unaccountable, for their massive blunder, which is the current situation.)

For this election, Dems are desperately trying to do a better job of smearing President Trump than they did last time. They've also ramped up smearing his supporters. Hillary lashed out that we're "deplorables" and now the Dems are outright saying that waiting for the NEXT election is too dangerous! (Trump might win again!) Gotta remove him NOW.

Translation:They can't "save" America if they leave it up to Americans to pick their own president.

Dems really do think Americans are too damned stupid to run their own country. They have been talking down to us since Obama was elected, and they have no awareness of how insulting they are to their fellow citizens. As I said earlier, they have forgotten their place.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

The framers thought that Americans were too stupid to run their own country. That is why we have Representative government.

What is the place of the Democratic party?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bfox254

Let's face it. Trump has accomplished what he set out to do. Smear Biden. Trump wants another "bad guy" to campaign against. Remember "crooked Hillary"? No matter that none of it is (or was) true. There are many on this thread alone who have bought into the narrative, regardless or maybe in spite of the facts. Hillary was recently cleared of all Trump's allegations after an investigation initiated by his own administration. I suspect that he's willing to trade being impeached (as long as he's not removed) in exchange for the smear campaign he's initiated and spread against Biden. Anything to win an election. He's despicable.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bfox254

The irony of it all is that Trump is the crooked one. He's given democrats a lot of proven ammunition over the past three years if they choose to go down that road.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

If Trump isn't impeached and removed our country will be unrecognizable soon. There will be no checks and balances within the three branches of our government which is what makes our government work. It will no longer be three branches. Trump will be totally in charge with no one able to reign him in. Is this really what we want? I doubt it. But the Republicans are letting him get away with this and for what reason exactly?


The branches are the legislative, judicial and executive. The legislative branch is important to me because it creates the laws that keep me safe. ... The legislative, executive and judicial branches keep each other in line and prevent one branch of our government from becoming more powerful than the others.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"If Republican colleagues introduce a motion to subpoena former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Graham said "I vote against it."

I think the reason is because Graham wants a separate and new investigation into the Bidens as he has said in interviews in the last two days, he plans to launch such a Senate investigation or engage outside counsel, as he is now convinced one is needed.

This from Politico, today:

"To my Democratic friends, I stood with you when you called for an outside entity to look into President Trump. I’m asking you to allow somebody outside of politics to look at what happened with the Bidens,” Graham said Friday in a break of the impeachment proceedings. “The best thing to do is end this trial with no witnesses and have Congress do oversight regarding what happened in the Ukraine in a professional way, and I would prefer outside counsel.”

"“I supported [Robert] Mueller looking into all things Trump because I think the country needed someone outside politics to resolve the allegations against the president,” Graham told reporters on Friday afternoon. “Nobody has done an investigation anywhere near the Mueller investigation against the Bidens. And I think they should. And when this is over, the Congress will do it if we can’t have an outside entity. I think it’s very important to find out what happened.”

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Mm hm.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"My impression is he will vote "no" to all witnesses but if that motion is accepted he will not support calling the Biden's. That is a real shocker to me after all the mouthing off he has dobe about the Bidens. He knows something"

This should not be a shocker to anyone. Graham has been quite consistent regarding this trial, his opinion about witnesses not making sense, and wanting a swift conclusion to a sham process. I don't think he's ever wavered. Sources might help you avoid real shockers.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Why would Trump forbid Bolton to testify?"

Trump will claim exectutive privelege as he should. Due to Bolton's previous role, Bolton knows way too much on many a topic that should never be public, which is the whole premise of the important role of exectutive privilege. Nearly every president has and would do the exact same thing and for very good reason. The courts will (and should) decide the outcome of the executive privelege claim.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Much of what Bolton can testify to has nothing to do with private conversations with Trump.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"Sources might help you avoid real shockers."

This is what I posted

"My impression is he will vote "no" to all witnesses but if that motion is accepted he will not support calling the Biden's"

Ann, give it a rest. Opinions and impressions do not need sources. You really do try way too hard.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Dems really do think Americans are too damned stupid to run their own country. They have been talking down to us since Obama was elected, and they have no awareness of how insulting they are to their fellow citizens. As I said earlier, they have forgotten their place."

Agreed and, furthermore, I think they'll double and triple down following the acquittal of President Trump. I predict that, too, will be to their peril; just as I think the entire impeachment has been. But, I seriously doubt they'll be able to handle or see the wisdom in letting the American people decide in a mere 9 months! They are adamant in thinking they must "interfere" because they think they need to try to control the outcome, rather than leaving it to the voters (where the decision should most definitely reside IMO).

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

If the House thought they needed Bolton, they should have proceeded through the appropriate process to get his testimony. At least Murkowski has now realized (and expressed) it is not the job of the Senate to do what the House didn't want to bother with.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"The framers thought that Americans were too stupid to run their own country. That is why we have Representative government."

WOW! Now, that's a statement!!!!!!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

It's over for now. The non defense will begin tomorrow and give the Republicans all the cover they need to move to dismissal or aquittal but it's not over in the longer run.....The truth will out and some Senators will pay dearly. Maybe even enough to flip the Senate . The real win.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

You mean like the way Republicans stopped with the Clinton's? You mean like that?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

It is not about the Senate doing what the House refused to do. The Senate needs to do their job now, which means to hold a trial, with witnesses, documents and all. It just an excuse to not call witnesses.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Text CONVICT to 21333 to contact your Senator and tell them to #ConvictTrump.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Interesting that the post where I cited the actual transcript of trump's grab 'em tape has since disappeared. How far have we sunk when even quoting the president...even with bleeped language...gets a post pulled.

We have people denying he said what he said even though it's on video and what he said was:

Trump: I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

BB: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the [bleep]. You can do anything.

First of all, that kind of talk is not ok. Second, we have at least 25 women who have accused trump of not just talk but acting on it. And we have trump's private party with epstein and 28 "calendar girls". You think that was all about fascinating repartee?

But of course the trumplicants forgive him *everything*. He has never done anything wrong and it's all a hoax and a witch hunt as everyone is out to get him. No other president has ever been treated so unfairly....yadda yadda yadda.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

abh: ...efforts to frame President Trump with the help of some bad cops in the FBI.

I'm not buying that for a number of reasons, including:

  • the evidence is extant and has never been refuted that the russians did in fact aid trump's election and trump & co had over 140 contacts with russians during the campaign, and we have 13 russian nationals and 3 russian organizations that are now under indictment. We have maria butina who was arrested and pled guilty and received a hero's welcome on her return to mother russia for all the great spying she did on the US and the GOP.
  • if the FBI was out to tank trump in the election, then why didn't they ever spill that they had him under investigation? They had no problem doing that about hillary and her emails which all turned out to be a nothing burger, even after multiple investigations over years by different investigators, but it did cost her the election. But the fact that they had trump under investigation for his russian-related activies was kept completely under wraps.
3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

abh, it's more than my opinion that the impeachment is about trump's behavior in office...it's in the articles of impeachment...it's in the mueller report.

What I don't get is how trumplicants don't see trump as having *any* responsibility here for his actions at all. How they can continue to see him as a total innocent victim with zero responsibility is beyond me...esp when they hold him in such high esteem as this all powerful president? How did the dems get him to give away code level info to the russians in the oval office? How did the dems get him to tell Pres Z to talk to rudy and barr about ukraine interfering in the election? How did the dems keep trump from divesting from his businesses so there'd be no violation of the emoluments clauses? How do the dems keep him telling so many whoppers of lies to the American people? How did the dems keep the kushners et al from passing security clearances? How did the dems get him to use his foundation to buy portraits of himself? How did the dems get him to pay hush money to his chickies? And so many more, but perhaps the biggest is that the dems *want* trump to turn over documents and witnesses around his ukraine interactions....it is *trump* who is obstructing congress...if he did what they asked, they'd have no case for obstruction. That's *all* on trump. The party of personal responsibility should hold *him* responsible.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Some people watch too much madcow. Victims of psychological warfare waged on them by the people they support. It's a vicious cycle.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Annie, Trump is POTUS. What you think he has said to women, or what you think Mueller should have seen differently in a two year investigation where he found no collusion, etc., are a result/message of you not liking Trump (or stronger). You've devoted many comments to so much you don't like about Trump. We get that. But, the kitchen sink of things you don't like about him are just that, a kitchen sink of things you don't like about him. That's the problem with the Dem's case. There is no specific or impeachable case - they simply can't stand him. But, you know what one does when they really can't stand a president? They vote for another candidate. Simple as that, because trying to "control" it in another way turns into the mess this impeachment has become. There is no case to try!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"But of course the trumplicants forgive him *everything*."

This goes to the problem of attempted shaming, precisely as the House Managers (most especially Nadler) tried to do to senators in the previous three days. People who choose to vote for Trump don't have to forgive a thing. They can vote for Trump for whatever reason they want to. I know it's been nearly impossible for anti-Trump people to grasp, but a heck of a lot of people who vote for Trump will do so because they like his policy and very much like what he is accomplishing for the U.S. (and I'd most definitely argue, that's a LOT). There is no "forgive" requirement to placing a vote, no matter how hard the Dems try to shame the voters into feeling/admitting/apologizing for this non-existent requirement. A vote is a choice for whatever reason the person chooses to place it. The requirements stop at those legalities (such as age and other legal requirements) which enable a voter to actually vote.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bfox254

Ann, saying there is no case to try is really stretching it. Even without additional documentation or witnesses. there is clearly a case with evidence to support such case. You can question the motivation behind the case or whether such evidence rises to the level of an impeachable offense, but saying there is no case is just plain wishful thinking.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

We are not going to need witnesses. Trump defense team is not only making mincemeat of Shifty and crew’s so called facts by presenting real Facts... they are doing so with such intelligence and professionalism that it highlights the dem’s look of being the lying mean girls that they are.

The Dem’s are going to suffer this embarrassment to the end of time.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

There are even more impeachable offenses waiting in the wings with Parnas as a witness. I doubt they will allow his testimony.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Okay bfox, fair enough. You and I can certainly agree to disagree on whether there actually is a case (and one that "rises to the level of an impeachable offense"). Since that's what the articles are (impeachment articles), this so called case (case in your opinion and not in mine) does indeed need to rise to that level to succeed.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bfox254

I often wonder why Trump supporters think he is so special. Wouldn't another conservative republican president have the same policies? I would argue that another conservative republican president could have accomplished a lot more than Trump during the two year period that republicans controlled congress because he or she might have made an attempt to appeal to all citizens and all members of congress without insult, thus gaining some level of respect.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Just-lynn, your comment is consistent with my husband's opinion. I have it recorded and will watch the recording by the end of today (I haven't watched any of today yet), but he has been watching it live and said almost exactly what you did.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

You are going to be very impressed Ann.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

The GOP this morning are building a case to show the legitimacy of running a personal investigation and using federal resources to do so.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"I often wonder why Trump supporters think he is so special. Wouldn't another conservative republican president have the same policies? I would argue that another conservative republican president could have accomplished a lot more than Trump during the two year period that republicans controlled congress because he or she might have made an attempt to appeal to all citizens and all members of congress without insult, thus gaining some level of respect."

Well, just as Dems are about to do, our primary process resulted in a Trump nomination. That nomination resulted in a presidential win. I have no idea what the other Republican candidates would or would not have accomplished, and it doesn't matter, because they didn't win either the nomination or the election. So, clearly enough primary and general election voters thought Trump was "special" enough to win the primary and general.

Trump was not my primary choice (but my state had a caucus then and has changed to a primary system now), but he did get my general election vote - which was an easy vote for me once the choice was a binary Trump/Hillary choice. But, now after seeing him as president for 3 years, I'm extremely pleased with his accomplishments and how very closely he's delivering on his proposals. When I look back in retrospect (assuming I live long enough to do so), I will view Trump as one of the most effective Republican presidents in history. The man knows how to negotiate deals and get things done!!!! I have never placed a vote with more enthusiasm as I will feel when I place my 2020 vote.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Funny how differently we hear and see things. I am not hearing anything except vague rebuttals and discrediting the managers. Nothing woven together in a cohesive manner.

I think Trump is going to very unhappy with these guys performance today. They are not presenting the show he wanted , not at all. How anyone can call them impressive is beyond me. Having said that they will give enough cover to the Republicans to dismiss or acquit.

Seculow was especially disconnected in my view.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Ziemia, a Biden investigation? If yes, that's exactly what Graham is strongly feeling is needed. A thorough investigation and outside this trial. He's spoken of that multiple times in recent days.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

I agree an investigation would be fine.

Trump has been impeached for having launched an unconstitutional one.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Ann: There is no specific or impeachable case -

Do you think a president...any president...should be impeached for violating the law and violating the Constitution?

If not, then you're right...in your view, there is no impeachable case.

If so, then there most definitely is an impeachable case...with more causes than even the dems are presenting now.

This is so much more than me "not liking" trump. I didn't "like" w and I disagreed with many policy choices and decisions he made, but I didn't think he should be impeached. That's because I never thought, even when w was putting our country in harm's way by a war of choice, I never thought he did it will ill intention toward America or with favorable intention toward her enemies. I can't say the same about trump.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Just curious...if you think the only constitutional way to remove a president is at the ballot box, then why do you thing the founders put anything about impeachment into the Constitution at all?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

I was a little bit surprised with how much time was spent on justifying why Trump was worried that Ukraine was filled with corruption.

I'm hoping one of the Senators will ask why Trump would ask them to investigate an American citizen if he believed them to be so corrupt.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Do you think a president...any president...should be impeached for violating the law and violating the Constitution?"

Annie, what law is it you think he violated?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, was makes you think a law must be broken? How many federal laws were on the books when the Constitution was written?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

There is no specific or impeachable case

That statement is not true.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

I think Trump is going to very unhappy with these guys performance today.

He went all out promoting it, but I'd have to agree it didn't live up to the hype.

And what is MSDNC?






Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Such obvious projection by Trump

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

OANN? Yikes !

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Main Stream Democrat Nonsense Channel is my guess;)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

It looks like, now that the victim is back on his feet after months of being sucker punched by the house dems, a real, good old fashion beat-down is in progress. 'bout time!

Al

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

@ chipot: Wrong. There is no specific or impeachable case is absolutely true.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"OANN? Yikes ! "

Nana, he listed CNN. You mentioned just the other day that you watch CNN, so there is a fine choice for you in Trump's list.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Well, my husband is way ahead of me. He watched the 2+ hours today, told me FOX News was then opining it was not only great, but highly effective. Then, he switched to MSNBC (like we often do), to hear the view of the other side. He said even they were reporting the Trump counsel had the full attention of the Senate.

So, time for me to get up to speed and see all this for myself. See you later and once I'm up to speed:)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Shifty is repeating himself AGAIN in remarks following by saying ...2 + 2 = 4. My goodness he’s a creepy bad actor.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

The following is a general question about impeachment: "Do you think a president...any president...should be impeached for violating the law and violating the Constitution?"

I'm unsure if the Trump's impeachment claims he violated the law. He did violate the Constitution.

PS: there is some very specific cases he was impeached for.

Is this relevant as he is impeached:

There is no specific or impeachable case.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

The reason why it's said you can't indict a sitting president is because the US Constitution provides the process of Impeachment.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Schiff just blew apart the defense. There really was nothing but suppositions and allusions. Nothing said about witnesses testifying to the contrary of what they presented. Even using a false flag saying It was Ukraine interfering in the election. That is Russian propaganda.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

House of Representatives case: DISORGANIZED ENDLESS DRONING

President Donald Trump's case: PRECISELY DIRECT, RIVETING

And it's only just begun. Consequentia est evidens et!

Al

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Schiff : 2+2 = 4

Repubs : 2+2 = 22

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

Well that's some original thinking. I feel so ............ put in my place! RMEOL

Al

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Romney just said "I think it's very likely that I'll be in favor of witnesses".

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"You are going to be very impressed Ann."

Oh my gosh! I've now finished the 1st hour and to the end of Purpura's turn. That was incredible. That guy is amazing. He never throws in an extra um, you know, or even a pause. Every word he says has importance and not one extra word is uttered. All my opinion, of course.

I just mentioned my Purpura opinion to my husband who watched earlier, and he said that the end of Purpura's turn was the moment he paused the TV he was watching earlier, came upstairs and said, "It's over." That's how clear and convincing he thought that <1 hour was.

I'll watch the next hour soon.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Me: "Do you think a president...any president...should be impeached for violating the law and violating the Constitution?"

Ann: Annie, what law is it you think he violated?

Ann, I do wish you would just answer the question. It was not specific to trump. It was a question about what role impeachment plays in any presidency and whether it should or not. I suspect you had no problem with impeaching clinton so I suspect you do see a role for impeachment in a presidency, but I don't know.

--------------

BTW, I have listed many times how trump has violated the law and the Constitution, including citing the actual text of the criminal code and the text of the Constitution.

---------------

Which brings me to another point. Ann suggested that it is how I *feel* about trump that leads me to my conclusions, but it's not. If anything, I have worked very hard to lay out the facts and evidence about him, his decisions, his actions and the company he keeps that lead me to believe what I do about him and how I think of him, not the other way around. My feelings don't come first followed by the facts...it's the facts that come first. If my 'feelings' seemed premature, having decided against him even before his presidency, it's from observing him and his character for many decades, and suspecting that tiger was not changing his spots. While there was always the hope that the presidency would change the man, I doubted it in trump. My predictions have unfortunately come true in terms of his lack of character, morality, respect for the law, the Constitution and even what it means to be an American.

For the sake of America, I wish I was wrong, but unfortunately I was not.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Okay Annie, I'll answer in saying, yes, I think "impeachment" was put into place for a valid reason and has an important place and purpose. I don't think the use of it in the impeachment of President Trump has a valid reason or is in accordance with the purpose of impeachment. Furthermore, I hope this particular process hasn't forever tarnished the value and purpose of impeachment.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Anna

I called my senator today and will tell all my friends to do the same.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Ann, have you watched Philbin yet? He did such a great job, no flash but spoke with a kind contented competence of fact. I found his manner refreshing. Don’t know if it will stay that way but today was good.

I think he might have come from Mr. Rodgers neighborhood lol.

A jarring contrast to the dem’s anger, cattiness and depression.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Just-lynn, I just finished another half hour (Sekulow), so I haven't seen Philbin yet. Sekulow was good, but Purpura was simply amazing/riveting IMO. I have to leave for a bit, but I'll watch the rest when I get back. I think I have about 45 minutes to still see.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Tito Milian

Ann to sum up Trump’s team today: succinct, low-key and fact-based.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

JV vs Varsity.

With regard to the OT, "Let them speak Most Americans want witnesses Trump impeachment trial":

It's interesting to note the difference in reason the left/right would like to see additional witnesses. The left realizes their case as it stands is a cold corpse, absolutely unwinnable, so they are praying their demands might produce SOMETHING/ANYTHING to make their fading hope float .............. if they could please have a do over. It reminds me of a fishing tournament that ends at noon on a Sunday, but the dem's team hasn't caught a fish yet. They're absolutely certain, though, that if they could only convince the tournament officials to extend the tournament until noon Monday, they would have the whole tournament in the bag. They fail to accept their going down in flames over impeachment in the same manner they fail accept the results of their 2016 loss.

Those on the right who would like to see additional witnesses want those witnesses so the full scope of the dems artifice and machinations are fully disclosed.

A yuge difference.

Al

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

So Ann if you think impeachment has a place, what is it? (And again, I'm not talking trump here... I know how you feel about him.)

Is it to remove a president who has broken the law? Violated the Constitution? Abused the power of his office? Been so incompetent in his execution of the office that it's dangerous to the nation to leave him in place? Is it necessary for the president to break federal law to be removed? Or are there noncriminal violations that would warrant it? All of those or none of those or only the specific treason and bribery and who the heck knows what's a high crime or misdemeanor?


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

"...... and who the heck knows what's a high crime or misdemeanor?" ...... can't tell you what it is, but I CAN tell you, you're soon to find out what it ISN'T.

Al

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

tapla- I was thinking the same analogy. Trump's Varsity team schooled the Dems' JV team. They outclassed them, outsmarted them and out-delivered them.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

No, we are soon to find out what GOP Senators are willing to put up with from a President they fear. Just as the Founders imagined it would be.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

More lies. Just like the "Head on a pike" lie Schiff told. It's sad and rather predictable that impeachment would end in a puddle of Democrat tears, as they curse the darkness.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Mark Bednar@MarkBednar

SIX FACTS that sink Dems' case:

•Transcript shows no conditionality
•Zelensky: no quid pro quo/pressure
•Ukraine didn't know of aid pause
•No Dem witness testified that POTUS said any conditionality
•Ukraine got aid, did nothing for it
•Trump strengthened Ukraine support


Even CNN admits Republicans are winning the impeachment trial.


From Washington Examiner:

“Again, I just think the Republicans are winning here. The president is winning here. And as long as they don’t completely fall on their faces, which they’re all competent lawyers, they’re not going to do that, I think that’s fine for them,” Toobin argued.

“They did make one good point about [the transcript], I thought, which was the president did about burden-sharing in that phone call, and the House managers didn’t focus on that or even mention it. And fair is fair,” he continued. “He has talked about it before, and that was, I thought, a very legitimate good point made by the defense.”

The president’s lawyers repeatedly noted that Trump released the rough transcript of the call between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and himself on July 25."

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

But fear not that CNN is giving up the fight and tossing in the towel on Leftist rhetoric!. Toobin did ding Trump's team for being too white.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"a President they fear"

:) - such made up/imagined and silly drama!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

"I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected.”

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

If Trump isn’t impeached he will say he can do anything because he is President. I am much more fearful what foreign policies he will decimate even more than what he will destroy right here in the US

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Don't worry about Trump and foreign policy, Kathy. He's doing a fantastic job with foreign policy!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

Ann - trapped by reality - freed by imagination.

So ....... afterthe Senate cleans up this mess, I wonder what the Dems have planned as their next self-inflicted wound?

Al

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Tapla, hint, turn on CNN right now.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

We have no idea what Trump is doing in countries and who he supports besides Putin. He gave millions in farm aid money to a Brazilian meat packing plant that was supposed to be for farmers.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle



3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

SIX FACTS that sink Dems' case:

•Transcript shows no conditionality
•Zelensky: no quid pro quo/pressure
•Ukraine didn't know of aid pause
•No Dem witness testified that POTUS said any conditionality
•Ukraine got aid, did nothing for it
•Trump strengthened Ukraine support

Too bad these facts aren't true:

1) conditionality:

--- trumps phone notes: "do us a favor though..."

---“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland said in his opening statement. Source The Hill

---Mulvaney's public statement: “What you’re describing is a quid pro quo,” asserted a reporter. “We do that all the time,” replied Mulvaney. “Did he also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

2) zelensky no pressure: he said it when he was sitting next to his extortionist so of course he's going to say what trump wants him to and he certainly wasn't under oath. We saw the pressure on him in the trump call notes...and we know he went as far as to schedule a cnn interview where he was supposed to announce his investigation into biden. There's also plenty of evidence from giuliani, parnas et al about the pressure on zelensky. Sondland's testimony on it was very clear.

3) Ukraine *did* know of the aid pause: A former deputy foreign minister said in a new interview that Ukraine was aware of a U.S. freeze in military aid as early as July, marking the first public acknowledgement from an official in Kyiv that the country knew about President Trump’s move to withhold the assistance.

“We had this information. It was definitely mentioned there were some issues,” Olena Zerkal told The New York Times in a report published Tuesday. Source: The Hill

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

^^baseless innuendo.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

4) No witness said potus said any conditionality:

Vindman said he believed there was a quid pro quo in place by July 10 after a meeting between American and Ukrainian officials. During the meeting, Vindman said Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian officials they needed to ensure “specific investigations in order to secure the meeting” with Trump.

The alleged quid pro quo came just two weeks before the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky....

Vindman said he was not convinced the president was personally holding up the $400 million in U.S. military aid until the next month, when then-national security adviser John Bolton asked him to prepare a decision memo recommending to Trump that he release the funds. Source: The Hill

5) Ukraine got aid did nothing for it...only after trump&co's extortion scheme had been made public by the whistleblower. The attempted extortion is a crime in and of itself...just because zelensky never did the cnn interview that was scheduled, because they got caught first, doesn't mean he wasn't being extorted.

6) trump strengthened ukraine support...so what?...not without seeking something in return for personal political gain to influence the US election...

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

He gave them Javelins they couldn’t put on the front line.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Hardly baseless innuendo...it's called facts in evidence that completely contradict the false and baseless gop assertions. And that's *with* the president locking up the materials and the key witnesses against him. If the senate did as the American people wish and allowed direct witnesses to be called and testify, we'd learn so much more about what went on. Clearly none of it is favorable to trump otherwise it'd already be out there.

The president's defense is simply to lie about what happened, secure in the knowledge that the gop senate will go along with it as will the trumplicants.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Kathy

If Trump isn’t impeached he will say he can do anything because he is President. I am much more fearful what foreign policies he will decimate even more than what he will destroy right here in the US

Don't be "fearful", Kathy. Foreign policy is doing just fine. If I were you, though, I would stop it with the Russia-hating. They still have a load of nukes pointed this way. Your hand-flapping is not in our best interests.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Finally finished today's 2 hours from Trump's counsel. I loved it. I thought Philbin was just as good as Purpura and those two blew me away with their reasoned arguments and outstanding presentation. I'll completely agree with my husband's assessment from this morning, "It's all over!".

Frankly, I'm not even convinced Trump's counsel needs to say another word, but I am looking forward to hearing from Dershowitz on the Constitutional aspects on Monday.

It's awesome to hear about reality and facts like we did today!

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

I must admit the black back splash looked much better with the reasoned sane presentations spoken in front of it;)

Maybe the enlarged veins in Schiffs eyes clash with the veins in the marble,

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

The overall professionalism and fairness of this Senate trial has been inspiring to me. I (and many) thought the House Managers were far too repetitive and went on for way too long, but they were given ample and fair time to present their case. I think Nadler crossed the line, but Roberts quickly, professionally and effectively dealt with it.

McConnell wanted an orderly and fair Senate trial to restore some seriously lost confidence in the functioning of Congress of late, and he's getting it.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Its impossible to hear the misinformation when you didn’t listen to the prosecutors or the evidence and timelines.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

A fair trial would include actually allowing testimony. Rather than obstructing allowing witnesses and not handing over subpoenaed records. Only then can the truth come out.

Who doesn't want to know the truth?


(My answer is Republicans)

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"A fair trial would include actually allowing testimony. Rather than obstructing allowing witnesses and not handing over subpoenaed records. Only then can the truth come out."

Izzy, no one is obstructing a thing. A vote will be taken after both sides have completed this phase and a simple majority (of the "jurors") will make the decision if witness testimony (beyond what the House obtained) is needed. That's as fair as it gets. The results of that majority vote will be honored.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I have no idea what the Dems will decide to do when this trial is over but, in case you aren't paying attention, you Dems have a very interesting primary season about to kick off and really move into full swing. There is a big nominee decision to be made and a presidential election just 9 months away.

If this impeachment ends in the near future, as is my guess, I'd think it very wise to focus on the important task of the upcoming election. It's right around the corner and the voters will decide who will be the president for the next 4 years. I'll strongly argue the voters are precisely who should make that important decision!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Do you honestly think T won’t plunge ahead with his unscrupulous actions since it worked so well in 2016? He almost got away it again if it hadn’t been for the Whistleblower??

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Ann, we all know most Republicans do not want to hear any testimony. Republicans have the majority and a good chance that they will vote to not allow testimony. In my mind not allowing testimony is the same as obstruction, obstructing the truth that could come out with testimony. They have made up their minds before any impeachment proceeding started that there will be no testimony. There are a few Republicans who might for testimony so I guess bwe will find out soon. Haven't you been listening to McConnell? They do not want to hear anything bad about their Dear Leader and don't really seem to care about the truth no matter what.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I think it would be wise for trumplicans to come to terms with the reality that trump is a psychopathic mobster. In case you aren’t paying attention.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

I hear conservative media talking how Parnas is slimy but he is only a gofer for Trump. What does that make Trump?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Apparently there are more tapes that Parnas lawyer has not released. As bad as John Bolton with dangling the carrot of information.

He maybe slimy, but he was Trump and Guillianis slime who is willing to spill the beans. A plus in my book. I suppose a rat in Trump's gangster speak.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

I don’t consider it dangling information. If Barr had listened to him he might not be on TV now. I do wonder why no one has stopped him from airing this? Is it because they know nothing will be done?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Just a note - our president already IS impeached.

This is his trial.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Noted carol. I get all these terms mixed up. It's all so confusing at times.

I would like to make a statement that is probably true for a lot of "anti-trumpers". If HRC were president and was doing the stuff Trump is I would be just as vocal about her being removed from office. Wrong is wrong no matter what "side" your on. Trump doesn't deserve your loyalty, he is not loyal to you or our country.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

"If HRC were president and was doing the stuff Trump is..."

....the repubs would have impeached her 3 years ago paying for her porn star affair's silence with campaign funds. Does anyone have a single doubt about that ??? The demos wouldn't be whinning about the repubs wanting to undo an election, they would know she did wrong and accept her veep taking her place. Trumpsters are so full of it, stop your crying and heartache, it's pathetic.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Izzy, I don't think many Dems want witnesses either. I think it's all part of the scam/narrative/holding onto a last thread. They don't want Hunter, Joe and the WB. They already know they have no case, so they don't want to damage Joe (because they are terrified of Bernie - thus suddenly several endorsements for Warren since they've now begun to worry about Joe). But, they need to continue to say they "demand" (lol) witnesses because their final hope is to play the "cover up" card and hope like heck it does some damage to the GOP.

But, it's over. The voters are over it. The polls have turned against impeachment in recent days. More and more people are seeing it as the scam it was. The Trump counsel obliterated the so called "case" in two hours. Bernie is benefiting. Trump's poll numbers are going up.

If the Dems were smart, they'd very quietly back away and hope like heck the topic dies ASAP. But, not one thing has been smart about this from the minute Nancy decided to start it.

Nana occasionally mentions flipping the Senate as a result. Sure, that was likely a part the "PLAN"/ploy, but we'll watch and see the outcome. This whole thing was one big dangerous Dem game and as is often the case, dangerous games can easily backfire.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

Well, Obama is a globalist first, and a communist to boot. HRC is a globalist first, and not as good as Obama at disguising how much she hates America. They were the left's choice, so what does that say about the left?

My take on the left is, they always seek and scheme to obtain the power to control people. Nothing, to them, is fair unless it results in getting their way, and they'll do A N Y T H I N G to advance their agenda. They'll destroy a man's life and reputation, knowing he's innocent "for the greater good", which, again, means having things their way. They cannot say they don't like something without wanting to ban it or tear it down, and instinctively gravitate toward more and tougher government controls as their sledge hammer. IOW, they strongly embrace totalitarianism. They are so blinded by their hatred of everything they cannot control, they are willing to sell themselves into slavery in order to advance their agenda.

Government is not a benefactor. It can do nothing for you without extracting money from working folk under threat of force; this, to "distribute" as they see fit. Government has no morals or values - only interests. The leftist mob, which sees slavery and a laundry list of complaints as fatal flaws of Western Civilization, and of the US in particular, clamors for socialism (left's chosen pseudonym for communism). Socialism has never worked and has led to socialist/communist governments slaughtering millions upon millions of their own countrymen. THAT, is what the left proffers today. They would happily make future generations of their own progeny absolute slaves of a state that controls every aspect of your life in order to have their way today. Some are witless dupes, others, are actively subversive in their efforts to destroy what is earth's last great bastion of freedom. Shameful!

Trump understands how close this country is to sliding down a slope of the left's making and into the mire. He is acting on behalf of the United States first, quite unlike his predecessor, who was superlative in hundreds of ways, none of them good. When it comes to being "American", Obama was never able even to move the needle as high as mediocre. Donald Trump loves his country, and honestly, even if he hadn't trounced HRC in '16, that's all the left needs to view him with an all-consuming hatred.

I pray that once he gets beyond this minor bump in the road ("impeachment"), he has smooth sailing through the 2020 election and gains another term. I also pray that we're able to find another just like him. I wouldn't mind if the next president didn't have the rough edges and the baggage, but if he's as dedicated to the good of the American people, I'll take the new one unpolished, rough edges included.

Al

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

This is not a game. It is a fight for the integrity of the office of the President and his power. Is he omnipotent or is he subject to oversight by Congress? So far, Trump has claimed he can do anything he wants because he is POTUS and has withheld documents and information requested by Congress. Most recently McGahn was deemed to stand trial in-spite of Trump’s order not to comply. If Trump gets away with this it sets a precedent for every POTUS elected from now on. We will have lost the power of the Constitution and turned over the power to the Executive branch. That is not what was intended by the framers.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Tapla, controlling the media is the final step to controlling the masses. It’s coming with Trump and even Pompeo is chiming in.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

This is his trial

Nah, it has always been a witch hunt.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"A bipartisan majority of Americans want to see new witnesses testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and the public appears to be largely following the proceedings even after a bruising congressional inquiry that lasted several months, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling released Wednesday."


"Ann, we all know most Republicans do not want to hear any testimony."

That's your opinion, and is contrary to the first sentence in the OP.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

The press hates Trump; and, in case you haven't noticed, the world is calling America's MSM the democrat's information apparatus.

What to you think about black-face democrat Ralph Northram's new anti-first amendment law. The one that's written so broadly that anyone can be arrested and tried for saying anything about the "good" governor and acolytes? How worried are you about that - which is real, and imminent.

BTW - When the left starts to ACT with integrity, we can discuss integrity. Based on what I've seen from the left, 'integrity' isn't something they consider an essential part of their interactions. See, they have that whole 'moral relevancy' thing that saves them from ever having to worry about integrity. How else might they sleep at night?

Al

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

....talk about "written so broadly' sigh!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

The witnesses that need to be heard are not the Bidens, they are the people with firsthand knowledge of our president's actions that led to the charges of abusing the power of his office for personal benefit.

You know; the ones our president and his ilk have been clamoring for, yet blocking from testifying - like Bolton.

This BS about the Bidens is a canard, a total red herring, and most people know it - even, I suspect, some who repeat it here.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

The appetite for witnesses and removal still remains strong.

A summary of last weeks polling re witnesses

By the numbers: Polling out Friday from ABC News and the Washington Post shows 66% of Americans want the Senate to call new witnesses. Several other polls this week returned with similar approval for witnesses:

https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-senate-witnesses-bc31d359-8d26-459f-ba8d-7942c1a6e0fc.html

Additionally a FOX news poll just out shows 50 % of Americans want conviction and removal.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

For some time there has been the consideration that calling witnesses and prolonging this gives this sham type of impeachment some credence. After just two hours of Trump's counsel, the sham has been fully exposed, so I don't think the credence will or should be granted. I don't think the vote to call witnesses will garner a majority - and the attempted "shaming" of wavering senators did nothing but harm to the potential passage of a witness vote. I think both Collins and Murkowski were/are furious about the shaming tactic. They were also furious about the new attempt to claim anyone feared Trump or that they had been threatened. That fear/threat narrative seems to be the most recent Dem game and has been received by senators as one of the most outrageous of them all. Collins had a pronounced reaction to this new attempted tactic/game.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I just happened to hear about that Fox News poll in the last minute on Fox News. Did you know it was 48% Dems and 42% Republicans? That was clearly pointed out just now, because of the significance to this poll subject. In some polls, this may not be too important, but in a poll where not too far from 100% of each party feels one way and the other party feels the opposite, it's extremely relevant to know the party breakdown.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Dang, just checked Trump's approval average on RCP today. 45.5 - the highest I've ever seen. He's touched 45 a couple times briefly, but this is the highest I can remember.

ETA: 7 of 10 of the 10 most recent polls have him at 45% or higher - and all 10 are different pollsters.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

It is the Independent number that is most important when things are this tight between Dems and Repubs.

From the FOX poll

"Fifty percent told Fox News that Trump should be convicted and removed and 44% said he should not. Registered voters' impeachment opinions largely fell along party lines, with 81% of Democrats favoring the president's removal and 84% of Republicans opposing it."

That is very bad news for Trump.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

"That is very bad news for Trump." Lol - the albatross you thought you hung around his neck is going to get him reelected. Now that's karma at work.


The dems' ship is sinking. More witnesses are the straw they think might keep them afloat. Who's to blame for the slipshod case the dems presented to the Senate? Had they done their job, they wouldn't need to beg for a do over. Elections have consequence, remember? "Impeachment" arose from the strictly partisan house, so please don't complain about senate partisanship.

Al

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Partisan is a fact no matter the issue. Is it partisan when Republicans vote as a block? Is it partisan when McConnell declared the trial was going to be dismissed before the trial? No that’s fine according to Reps.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

White House council Purpura spectacular lies, alternative truths etc.

https://youtu.be/gaPMrwNuHhk

Lies debunked.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

538 has him at 43.1 . He has consistently been in and around the 43-45 range. You may see that as a significant swing. I don't.

By the numbers I think he is very vulnerable in 2020 but that it totally dependent on who the Dem candidate is and how they are received in those crucial swing States.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)


Here's a guest op-ed from that liberal rag USAToday.com - food for thought:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/24/trump-impeachment-trial-senate-removal-not-impossible-column/4533929002/

"...No GOP choice but to remove Trump

Republicans are already losing from almost every angle because their undying loyalty to one man — Trump — is more important to them than their oaths of fealty to the Constitution, their office or their constituents.

But this group of Senate Republicans is the last bulwark in our constitutional system, and they are people, and the stakes here are a lot higher than getting a bunch of conservative judges. This is our time to be louder than we ever have been as a country. It’s time for us to make these GOP senators realize they have no choice but to convict Trump and remove him from office.

Fewer than two dozen people stand between Trump and his removal, and that’s if all 100 senators are in the chamber. The Constitution says, "No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present." That means Republican senators could literally walk out on Trump and tip the balance of the scales...."


And a couple of quotes from another opinion piece @ the site:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/26/lindsey-graham-testimony-against-clinton-donald-trump-column/4568529002/

Lindsay Graham:

"You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

And John McCain, another liberal shill:

“All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society.

“I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard. Although I may admit to failures in my private life, I have at all times, and to the best of my ability, kept faith with every oath I have ever sworn to this country. I have known some men who kept that faith at the cost of their lives."


8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

Partisan is a fact no matter the issue. Is it partisan when Republicans vote as a block?

Obvious, but Yes.

Is it partisan when McConnell declared the trial was going to be dismissed before the trial?

Actually, NO. McConnell had already seen how weak the the case was after Schiff finally slithered out of the spotlight. It doesn't take a genius to see there was no case against the president. When you start clamoring for Joe Biden's years and years of nepotism, that bilked taxpayers out of billions of dollars, to be brought to light, I'll believe you're sincere about thwarting abuse of power and whatever else it is the left bemoans in in an incessant drone.

Al

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Just checked impeach/remove on RCP. "No" has surpassed "yes" by a bit in the average now.

Then I checked the RCP average of Independents only (also impeach/remove). Of the latest 10 different polls (all since mid Jan), 5 say no, 4 say yes, and 1 tie. The average in this "Independents only" also has no surpassing yes by a little. But, there is one very interesting poll in the group of 10 and it's Fox News. It's way off of all the other 9, saying Independents favor removal by 19 points. And, that is really skewing the average by a bunch.

I imagine Trump will loudly complain about this latest group of Fox News polling. They are suddenly a huge outlier in a number of categories - kind of glaringly and oddly so.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Anyone have backup for this claim?

", ... the world is calling America's MSM the democrat's information apparatus."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Jack Kingston made an absolute fool of himself on AM Joy this morning repeating the nonsense about R’s and Trump being locked out of House proceedings. Joy kept showing proof that wasn’t the case.


Then, he couldn’t argue the case for not allowing witnesses. At every turn he stammered and fumbled while Joy and the other guest made mincemeat of him. It was quite a pathetic display.


Schiff is totally right—-they can’t argue Trump’s innocence, so they harp on the House lie they promulgated and no need for witnesses.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

How can an entity have interests if it doesn't have values?

"Government has no morals or values - only interests. "

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

HIs attorneys apparently decided to leave out any denial of his actions. Their whole case seems to rest on saying what he did was not a bad thing. They have not disputed his actions.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"It is the Independent number that is most important when things are this tight between Dems and Repubs.

From the FOX poll

"Fifty percent told Fox News that Trump should be convicted and removed and 44% said he should not. Registered voters' impeachment opinions largely fell along party lines, with 81% of Democrats favoring the president's removal and 84% of Republicans opposing it."

That is very bad news for Trump."

Where did you get this Nana. I'm looking at the Fox News poll right now. Among Independents, 53% say he should be removed and 34% say he shouldn't? I'm seeing that in the RCP line item for the Fox News poll and I'm also seeing it when I click into the poll and read the Fox News article about the poll. I'm seeing a 19 point differential in both places, not a 6 point differential. This is the especially odd poll result (strikingly different from 9 different pollsters) I discussed in my previous comment.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nana, do you prefer 538 to the RCP average of many various pollsters? If yes, why? Also, how did 538 do in 2016?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

I haven't a preference one way or the other but I like the way 538 shows the rating of the pollster, it helps me with how much credence to give any one poll. They also use a broader base of polls.

A two point spread is pretty irrelevant in my view.

As far as 2016 I haven't really ever delved into where they, or any other pollster, went wrong. All I know is most everyone did, hopefully lessons were learned.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

I must have not copied and pasted the entire clip I wanted to. This was missing from my post. Sorry for the the confusion.

"Independents said Trump should be removed by a nearly 20-point margin, with 53% in favor of conviction and 34% opposed."

That is the bad news I was referring too.

The entire clip I intended.

"Fifty percent told Fox News that Trump should be convicted and removed
and 44% said he should not. Registered voters' impeachment opinions
largely fell along party lines, with 81% of Democrats favoring the
president's removal and 84% of Republicans opposing it. Independents said Trump should be removed by a nearly 20-point margin, with 53% in favor of conviction and 34% opposed


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/26/trump-impeachment-fox-news-poll/4581020002/


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

As far as 2016 I haven't really ever delved into where they, or any other pollster, went wrong. All I know is most everyone did, hopefully lessons were learned.

Speaking of 2016 and hopefully lessons learned. Read this one top to bottom and see what you think Nana;)

https://www.gardenweb.com/discussions/4253238/trump-reportedly-didnt-know-what-a-gold-star-family-was#n=161

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

When there is no defense attack the process and the messengers.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"have the GOP between a rock and a hard place on witnesses. Seems
more American care about witnesses than they care about removal."

...and the polls bear that out. Dismissal or acquittal was always a given. Let's see how the failure to call witnesses plays out especially as more and more information comes to light, and it will one way or another. Good job Nancy.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

VP Biden was being an emissary for U.S. gov't - why is that part left out?

Don't bother answering - I know.

It's just so dumb that anybody might think that is a legit accusation. It's nothing more than misdirection and distraction from the truth.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Ground still doesn't vote.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

No one expected the Senate Repubs to do the right thing. They are offended over “head on a pike” because the truth hurts.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Carolb, they know the truth but will never acknowledge it. Trump has made honesty optional for them.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Not just honesty, it seems, but honour and integrity as well.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"The GOP this morning are building a case to show the legitimacy of running a personal investigation and using federal resources to do so.

LOL! No, the GOP, Donald Trump, and American people have all been victimized by what has now been exposed as a Democrat Administration-run personal investigation. The scheme was designed to keep Donald Trump out of the White House, or ensure his swift removal from office, no matter what outcome our system delivered.

That is why Dems have been playing CYA ever since they got caught working with the IC and foreign "assets" to pick our president for us. The collaborators were even able to temporarily neutralize our first AG, but only temporarily. Imagine being a fly on the wall when Bill Barr, who had served as AG before, was put into that position...and started wondering about the "genesis" of the Trump/Russia hoax.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Fantasyland

"Democrat Administration-run personal investigation"

Which personal lawyer of Obama is being referred to?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

And when GOP talked about impeaching Clinton should she have won - which they all thought was a certainty - that was all on the up & up, of course?

Projecting, projecting...

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"A two point spread is pretty irrelevant in my view."

What are you talking about here Nana? What two point spread?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Wow Margo - that thread you linked! That was quite a read.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"Where are the witnesses to the July 25 call who said it was “perfect”?"


"Why can’t we hear from John Eisenberg about why he stashed the July 25 call record in a super-secret server and said it was a mistake but left it there?"


Lots more at the link

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/26/trump-lawyers-weak-start-opens-door-devastating-questions/


Opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"LOL! No, the GOP, Donald Trump, and American people have all been victimized by what has now been exposed as a Democrat Administration-run personal investigation. The scheme was designed to keep Donald Trump out of the White House, or ensure his swift removal from office, no matter what outcome our system delivered.

That is why Dems have been playing CYA ever since they got caught working with the IC and foreign "assets" to pick our president for us. The collaborators were even able to temporarily neutralize our first AG, but only temporarily. Imagine being a fly on the wall when Bill Barr, who had served as AG before, was put into that position...and started wondering about the "genesis" of the Trump/Russia hoax."

"Good job Nancy."

Here she is in all her professional glory!




5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

That’s a great pic of Nancy.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Still waiting for some facts explaining this claim:

"... has now been exposed as a Democrat Administration-run personal investigation."

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Cattyles, it is "quite" a picture. That's for sure!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Everyone is lying except Trump. Sure, we’ve heard that before. Listening to the tape put out by Parnas and hearing what Bolton has written in his book, I really think they need to have their day in the Senate to testify what is in the public scenario.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

DH was opining on the witness issue this morning and thinks Democrats should call the Republican's bluff and say yes indeedy lets call both Bidens and all their relations and maybe even their pets as witnesses thus opening the witness door wide open. The Bidens will have nothing to add and Democrats get their witnesses or there will be a big court fight over parts of it and this thing can go on forever. Everyday something new comes to light in this mare's nest of an administration. People will talk. Alas, the only person who seems to be able to tell Trump what to do is Mitch McConnell. He knows witnesses are such a bad idea. It seems doubtful that with the history of Nixon to look to (he didn't go to prison but many of his staff did) they wont want to lie for this president.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Yeah, GOP doesn't want to call any witnesses - not even the Bidens. Didn't McConnell say exactly that? You can be sure that scenario wasn't overlooked by those guys. McConnell is nothing if not a great strategist. Too bad he works for the dark side.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Frankly, I'd love to hear from Joe, Hunter, Joe's brothers - Frank and James, and sister Valerie. But, I think Graham is correct and this family needs its own independent investigator looking at all these business dealings.

Any witnesses in this impeachment make no sense at all because it's now clear there never was a legitimate case. It was a sham from the start. If the Dems think they could have a case, start over and get one. They failed at this attempt.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

John Bolton’s book might throw a wrench in that. Has FOX not given you the latest news?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Start over again? Demos don't do investigations like the repubs, over & over & over. No need to start over when the finish line is just 4 votes away.....or 3 votes plus an honest judge.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Repeating it’s a sham is an attempt to deny there are real witnesses and documents who have spoken about what trump did. Hiding the transcript in a secure file is even more evidence they knew it was wrong. Now Bolton is saying it in his book.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Saying what, Kathy? I read an article about the book today, and I'd like to hear from you what impeachable offense you think you read about or heard.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle





4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

The truth will out.....

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"No need to start over when the finish line is just 4 votes away"

My guess is 4 votes is a significant stretch, but we'll know within less than a week, so no point in wasting too much time speculating on that. Laying out a well researched case would be one thing, but thinking you can read minds and then thinking you will benefit by shaming those whose votes you'd like - weakens a so called "case" substantially, IMO. I think it was nicely painted as the political tactic/ploy it was though. Whether that successfully gained 4 votes, we'll soon see.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

The Bolton revelation may put more pressure on the Senators but for sure it will likely spike the % who want witnesses.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"The Bolton revelation may put more pressure on the Senators but for sure it will likely spike the % who want witnesses."

Let's see, maybe the "fear" of Trump will somehow "flip" the Senate and that "smart cookie" Nancy will have planned and executed it all beautifully, or some such scenario, don't you think? Am I getting your recent basic themes down pretty well?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bfox254

It's becoming irrefutable that Trump attempted to trade foreign aid for the announcement of an investigation- to argue any other way is laughable at this point. His defense team must be hard at work revising tomorrow's presentation. Now we'll hear, yes he did it, but it's not a crime. If that doesn't fly we'll hear- well maybe it's a crime but it's not impeachable. So predictable, so sad.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

About 72% agreed that the trial "should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify

As to abuse of power, the witness is the president of Ukraine. I doubt he would appear, and has already given his answer: no pressure.

As to obstructing Congress, the House should have taken this to the Judicial. They didn't.

Probably well more than 72% do not understand the process.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
numbersjunkie

"As to abuse of power, the witness is the president of Ukraine. I doubt he would appear, and has already given his answer: no pressure."

Come on Elvis, you're smarter than that aren't you?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

I don't think too many people are "smart" enough to believe anything the crats say. Especially after the last 3 years.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

So, Bolton is a *"crat" now.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Zing!!! :^)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

SMH

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Really, Elvis, you’d trust Zelensky over Bolton? He’s the one who still needs Trump.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

No pressure! Perhaps you don't understand the situation in Ukraine very well. You did say in a previous post you don't care about Ukraine so it makes sense you would not have informed yourself about the very real pressure he is under.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Yeah, let’s screw Zelensky and Ukraine even more. Why would Zelensky have an ounce of faith that we’ll start doing the right thing?

People that didn’t read the Mueller report or listen to testimony last week are posting uninformed opinions. That’s not an insult. It’s simply something to bear in mind during discussions.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

There just is no reasonable case here. The endless games won't work. Every attempt to overthrow the election is just getting absurd. We get it that you can't stand Trump, but the games are nothing but games. Trump's actions are just like every president and, no matter how hard you try, you can't just dramatize a situation into something it's not. The tactic planning, the attempted shaming, the screaming fire when there isn't one, the dramatic claims of fear and threats and heads on pikes, all of it - is simply getting desperately silly. You want Trump removed from office - beat him in an election or wait a few years until he's no longer eligible to run. The drama has lost any impact.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

They must have been really frenetic on FOX last night. .

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

They must have been really frenetic on FOX last night. .

How so Nana?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

"As to obstructing Congress, the House should have taken this to the Judicial. They didn't.

Probably well more than 72% do not understand the process."

Ha, it's more like 53% of the senate does not understand the process, or at least pretending they don't. They will understand it if they try to call Bolton to testify and Trump roadblocks him from here to eternity. Perhaps then the repubs in the senate will fully understand the Article of Obstructing Congress of which they are part of.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nana: "They must have been really frenetic on FOX last night. . "

Nana: "The Dems have done a great job in changing the public narrative in their favor. Pelosi knew the "win" would never be a conviction but they now have the GOP between a rock and a hard place on witnesses. Seems more American care about witnesses than they care about removal."

Nana: "It's over for now. The non defense will begin tomorrow and give the Republicans all the cover they need to move to dismissal or aquittal but it's not over in the longer run.....The truth will out and some Senators will pay dearly. Maybe even enough to flip the Senate . The real win. "

Nana: "No, we are soon to find out what GOP Senators are willing to put up with from a President they fear. Just as the Founders imagined it would be."



Fox News is very boring, IMO, on Sunday nights so I tend to use that time to watch one or more of the Sunday morning shows I record each week (Wallace, Gigot, Bartiromo). They were okay last night, but not as great as I expected they would be due to such a news filled week. But in terms of parroting talking points on liberal TV, you might take the first place spot on that. Your comments were the only ones I saw on HT talking about the supposed fear of Trump and the supposed Trump threats, which was the House Managers last stab at drama. Nobody but you brought that theme to HT. Nobody but you has been so actively discussing how this impeachment might "flip" the Senate. I understand you say you think American politics are interesting and important to other countries, but constant comments on "theories" like these seem to represent something besides interest. Maybe you happened to notice how the very Senators who you think will be instrumental in the Senate flip you anticipate reacted to the Trump fear/threat narrative Schiff and Nadler (and you, here) decided to try on for size. From watching their very negative and audible reactions on the Senate floor, I'd say they were angered and clearly viewed the tactic as pot stirring lies.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Can someone please tell us what other sitting presidents had a personal lawyer running a personal investigation using federal resources?

Nixon came close. .

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, I never said anywhere that I " anticipate a Senate flip" . What I have said is I think it was a brilliant strategy to force a vote on witnesses because it puts vulnerable Senators on the record for 2020. Several times I have said that a flip is unlikely but this might give it a shot.

( thanks for posting that first clip of mine which reinforces that I believe the strategy was to get Senators on the record)

I'm absolutely not following your logic about the reaction to Shiff's comments by some of those vulnerable Senators. Are you suggesting that they may be inclined to vote no instead of yes to witnesses? If so that is exactly the vote that may hurt their 2O20 bid.

" Your comments were the only ones I saw on HT talking about the supposed
fear of Trump and the supposed Trump threats, which was the House
Managers last stab at drama. Nobody but you brought that theme to HT."

I also do not believe, contrary to what you say, I was the only one who posted that the Republican Senators were frightened about retribution from Trump.In fact there was a thread where it was discussed.

Finally, you do much better expressing your own thoughts rather than trying to manipulate mine.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

There just is no reasonable case here...

Actually there is. The evidence shows that trump was extorting the president of ukraine by illegally withholding congressionally approved funds from them for his personal political gain: seeking dirt -- real or made up -- on his primary political rival. It is a violation of the impoundment act. It is a violation of campaign finance laws. Extortion for personal gain is the flip side of bribery which is so egregious that it was enumerated in the Constitution.

Illegally manipulating government expenditures for his own personal purposes is an abuse of power and is reason enough to remove a president from office.

The blanket defying of Congressional subpoenas and requests for witnesses and documents violates the very core of the Constitution which is that the presidency is *not* a kingship and is subject to checks and balances by the other two co-equal branches of government including Congressional oversight. It is obstruction of Congress and is reason enough for a president to be removed from office.

None of this includes his violations of the emoluments clauses, both domestic and foreign or his obstruction of justice which was clearly laid out in the mueller report, or his lying to the American people which was an article of impeachment against Nixon. None of this includes the incompetence in running his administration, from handing out security clearances like candy to his family, while allowing those without it access to highly secure information, or holding open air strategy meetings at mar-a-lago or using unsecured phones and personal servers, all of which puts national security at risk....not to mention siding with putin on the global stage against our own intelligence agencies.

Again, this is not about undoing an election. It is all about removing a president who has proven to have violated his oath of office more than once. Why is it so important? Twice already he's shown he's willing to rig the election in his favor making use of illegal foreign contributions while supporting russia's efforts to interfere in our elections. We have an election coming up that deserves to be free and fair that reflects the will of the American people, not one rigged by the president and his ally putin, using the power of the presidency to ensure a win in November.

Trump's actions are just like every president ....

No, they are not. To say so minimizes the serious violations of the law that he has engaged in, before and since becoming president. No other president has issued blanket defiance of congressional requests and subpoenas. No other president has parroted russian propaganda as trump has. No other president has refused to divest himself of his business interests or used the power of the presidency for personal gain at the expense of American interests.


6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I thoroughly enjoy guesses and predictions and I make them all the time. Others enjoy them too.

Nana (this thread): "Several times I have said that a flip is unlikely but this might give it a shot."

Nana (12/22): "My guess, just a guess, is the Senate flips but barely."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

How bizarre!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H


"My guess, just a guess, is the Senate flips but barely."

Who knew " guess " and " anticipate" were synonyms.

Guess.......

estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

Anticipate

regard as probable; expect or predict.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Why bother?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Lurker, do you mean why bother guessing/predicting? If that's what you meant, for me it's for fun and to see how well I do or don't do. On HT, I think it's a topic very pertinent to politics, something people from both sides can easily participate in (if they so choose) - bipartisan:) For me, it's like following polls. I like to talk about and think about elections, but all we have are polls and guesses/predictions prior to an actual election.

In case anyone else enjoys it, I started a thread just for guesses/predictions. If you don't like to make predictions you can view mine, if you'd like, because I'll likely make many in this election year.


https://www.gardenweb.com/discussions/5858671/election-predictions


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Not at all, Ann. I'm sorry. That was my personal thought about replying to the packaged propaganda.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

No apology needed! It would certainly be fine if you had been saying - why bother with election guesses. I would never expect others would necessarily enjoy the same topics I do:)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Calling and writing my senators today to let them know I support calling witnesses.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

^^^

Everyone should do that!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Did it last week. Are you trump supporters calling and telling yours you don’t want to hear any witnesses?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Again, this is not about undoing an election. It is all about removing a president who has proven to have violated his oath of office more than once.

Yup


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Are you trump supporters calling and telling yours you don’t want to hear any witnesses?

No need. We have the law on our side.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

"No need. We have the law on our side."

We also have that "old, outdated piece of paper" (as I've heard progressives call it), "The Constitution of the United States", on our side as well. So, there's that.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

The Constitution that allows for impeachment? We all have that on our side.

as I've heard progressives call it

Nobody I know. But I have heard plenty of people call Trump a lying con man. Does that make it true?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Did it last week. Are you trump supporters calling and telling yours you don’t want to hear any witnesses?"

I've never called my Senators but if I decide to over this, my message will be, if the vote to call witnesses is a yes, I think two of them NEED TO BE Hunter and Joe. I actually have a list of 5 and that would be the reason for my Senate call. But, I have no plans to call at this point. I'll wait to see what they first decide about calling witnesses or not. That's far less important to me than who is needed to be called if they are to be called. I'd much rather see a full investigation into the Bidens launched than merely their testimony at this trial. Both (impeachment testimony and thorough investigation) would work too, but an investigation is very needed IMO.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, it has just been reported that the WH has officially advised the GOP Senators that is they approve any witnesses they can expect a long court battle.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

The key word is "essentially". One man's bias does not a case make.

Al

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Ann, it has just been reported that the WH has officially advised the GOP Senators that is they approve any witnesses they can expect a long court battle."

Is there a reason you are addressing this comment to me?

Of course there would be a long court battle. As long as all the executive privilege challenges take. Then, I've no idea if Joe would have any legitimate legal objections to testifying, but potentially that too. And, WB objections too, I'd guess. I don't think anyone expects this will wrap up quickly if witnesses are called. I'd say it would take a couple months, at a minimum.

Was there a point to your comment that I'm missing?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

And all the parroting of GOP talking points re: Democrats' lawlessness, if not outright lying makes a case?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, no other reason other than given your post directly before mine, I thought you may be interested .

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

MacCallum was just discussing the witness issue with Wallace. Both think there is certainly a chance that a vote to open up the conversation of witnesses could pass on Friday. But then, MacCallum thinks that doesn't even come close to generating witnesses because a vote on the specifics of which witnesses (and how that would play out) would come next (including reciprocity, etc.). MacCallum thinks they'd reach an impasse, with each side vehemently opposing the other, at that "witness specifics" point and no witnesses would ultimately be called. To me, that was an interesting conversation.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Okay Nana. I've always assumed witnesses would lead to a significantly longer trial. I figured everyone had that same assumption.

If a vote to not consider witnesses passes, I think the trial will be over by Friday (by an acquittal vote). If a vote to move to witness consideration passes, then I think we could have several days in the phase MacCallum is discussing - where a "witness" plan is formed with enough agreement or an impasse is reached and the trial ends after a "witness specifics" impasse is established and an acquittal vote would then take place (likely sometime next week IMO). If a witness plan is agreed to, I think this goes on for some time!

Wallace thinks there is a chance each potential witness will be individually voted up or down, one at a time. I don't think there is a chance in h@ll it will play out like that. Far too many senators will demand some level of reciprocity or "trade". I think if witness agreement is reached, it will only be as "bundled" agreement. Maybe pairs, trios, or foursomes will be voted on - a group at a time but, again, I don't think there is a chance individual witnesses will be voted on one at a time.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

From my perspective either a yes or a no vote on witnesses plays much better for the Dems than the Repubs. Not in terms of the impeachment outcome of course, that is a given.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"From my perspective either a yes or a no vote on witnesses plays much better for the Dems than the Repubs."

Whatever, I'll leave you to opine on how you think each development "plays" or doesn't.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

To quote another poster on another thread.

"No point whatsoever for this type of comment in a thread like this" . It's nothing more than snipe.

I simply stated my perspective , isn't that what this is suppose to be about?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

"Ann, it has just been reported that the WH has officially advised the GOP Senators that if they approve any witnesses they can expect a long court battle."

So trump is telling the senate not to bother with witnesses so that the senate won't bother to call any due to time constraints. Which is the exact argument that team trump uses against the House for not taking it to the courts. Trump only proves that the House made the right decision.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Cipollone's montage just said it all. Chuck Schumer couldn't have given him a better summation, from 20 years ago.

"It (impeachment) will be used as a routine tool to fight political battles. If a Republicans wins the White House, Democrats will demand payback".

You were so very prescient, Chuck.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
numbersjunkie


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Is that a new poll? If so that is a significant tick upward . Not at all unexpected. In fact I said this upthread . "The Bolton revelation may put more pressure on the Senators but for sure it will likely spike the % who want witnesses."

A " prediction" that will not likely make it into my "dossier".


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Best policy ideas: Sanders 22 percent, Warren 21 percent, Biden 18 percent"

This is interesting. Many in the party think Sanders has terrible (and losing) policy ideas.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defense-team-to-close-arguments-complicated-by-bolton-reports-11580215229?reflink=share_mobilewebshare


McConnell Says GOP Doesn’t Have Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses

Senate majority leader makes remarks in private Republican meeting


WASHINGTON—Republican leaders said they don’t currently have enough votes to block witnesses in President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, after his legal team concluded its efforts to counter Democrats’ charges that the president abused power and obstructed Congress. [ . . . ]

But at a meeting of all Republican senators late Tuesday, GOP leaders told their conference that they don’t currently have the votes to prevent witnesses from being called, people familiar with the matter said. Republicans had hoped to wrap up the trial with an acquittal of the president by this week, but Democrats have said he should appear under oath to offer a firsthand account of the president’s motivations for freezing aid to Ukraine—a matter at the heart of the impeachment case.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Yes, McConnell says he doesn't yet have the votes to stop the next step. We might be moving to witnesses if agreement can be reached about how that will work.

I'd love to know what Joe is thinking right now. I wonder if the senators would be stuck in the Senate while executive privilege issues are resolved by judges? I wonder how Bernie is feeling about that potential? I wonder if Bernie is feeling great about the potential of Joe testifying? I think Bloomberg could be cheering about Joe potentially testifying, Bernie being tied up in the Senate, etc.

Interesting on many levels. I'll feel kind of let down if it doesn't happen.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Massive crowd at the Trump rally tonight. It's going to be great. :^)

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

No kidding - a massive crowd! So many people camping overnight, and it was cold!

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

MacCallum interviewed a Dem senator (I'm thinking it was Van Hollen) who discussed Bolton testifying and when Martha asked, what about the Bidens and the WB - he was funny in how quickly he tried to blow that off. I think he truly thinks that won't happen. Dems are seriously dreaming if they think they'll get witnesses they want and the GOP won't get any. That's crazy!

Then Graham was interviewed and asked about witnesses. He said, if there are going to be witnesses, he wants many. Me too! If we're going the witness route, bring in everyone! Oh how'd I'd love to see Schiff testify!!!!!

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

I love how Trump just marches on with his rallies;)


6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Van Drew just informed Trump that 175,000 signed up for this rally. The venue only holds 10,000 or so, lol:)

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Yup, that's what they told him.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Ann

No kidding - a massive crowd! So many people camping overnight, and it was cold!

Brrr! They're on the coast!

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Ann, I wonder if Obama will make moves behind the scenes if Joe and Hunter are called to testify. It will draw his administration right into it.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Republicans are going to want the whisteblower to testify. That will lead to Schiff and his staff being called into question.

Vindman will be called back...

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

The WB is still protected under whistle blower laws. Besides everything was corroborated by all the others who testified in the House proceeding, it's unnecessary and would not make any difference.

Also, if he did the fact that he brought this to Barr and Barr did not act upon and/or possibly even covered it up. But I think Barr is in hot water now anyway.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I can't help but wonder if Schiff might try to defy or ignore a subpoena to testify in the Senate. I really don't think he wants to testify at all, and he told Jake Tapper back in November he didn't think it would be appropriate. (Video at link below.)

https://twitter.com/CNNSotu/status/1198612149762957313?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1198612149762957313&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2019%2F11%2F24%2Fschiff-i-have-nothing-to-testify-about-if-called-for-impeachment-trial%2F


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

I can't help but wonder if Schiff might try to defy or ignore a subpoena ...

schiff has nothing to testify about. The only ones who would want him to testify are those who want/need a distraction from the evidence still being uncovered of the president's criminal activities and his abuse of power.

Even if he did meet with the WB, the WB's role in the impeachment process has become totally irrelevant as the evidence has been provided by people who have come forward and testified exactly to what the WB charged.

Regardless, with trump setting the benchmark for how to treat congressional subpoenas -- which is to defy them -- how could anyone fairly think they should apply only to democrats?

And please don't argue executive privilege...there is none for criminal conspiracies and there is none when blabber-mouth trump has already discussed in public what he and others supposedly said and did surrounding these events.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

"They aren't serious about what they are doing."

Schiff is wrong again.. They are very serious and see what the crats are trying to do. Schiff is afraid of the perjury trap he set for himself.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Guess Nunes should testify too then.

They won't call Schiff because even though they go on about it for distraction purposes they know he did not meet with the WB and the calls with his staff were perfectly appropriate.

They don't want the truth out there . They want to keep all the conspiracy theories alive. That's what feeds the base and keeps them charged.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Unlike many dems who are incapable of accepting the results of a vote, if witnesses are approved I will accept it without a tantrum.

I would like to hear from the blower of the whistle, Schiff and the Bidens although I don’t think it matters. Our President is allowed to investigate anything he chooses. This is all partisan baloney

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Unlike many dems who are incapable of accepting the results of a vote,
if witnesses are approved I will accept it without a tantrum.

Same here and I suspect same for all "Trumpers" here. Just wait until calls for calling the Bidens gets bi-partisan support!

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

incapable of accepting the results of a vote

That lame self satisfying old BS excuse is so outdated and under the bridge. It took trump 3 years to make the long rope that's now hanging himself.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Unlike many dems who are incapable of accepting the results of a vote,
if witnesses are approved I will accept it without a tantrum.


Same here, if there are witnesses I’m ok with watching more humiliation of those involved with the recent coup.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

incapable of accepting the results of a vote

The wounds still haven't healed.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I now think it would be great to air the entire thing - any and every witness each side wants. All court challenges will need to be addressed, we'll learn who takes the fifth, and we'll let this play out for as long as we need to get to the bottom of the entire thing. I absolutely think Nunes should testify if the Dems want to hear from him. I think the GOP should certainly insist on Schiff, the WB, and anyone on Schiff's staff who worked with the WB. If some testimony needs to take place in a SCIF, fine! I want the Senators to hear everything from both sides.

What we have heard is a bunch of testimony from witnesses (including first hand witnesses) who know what happened in that phone call. What we haven't heard is anything about the origins of what I am guessing was a huge coordinated scam/sham with a so called "WB". What else we haven't heard and has yet to even be investigated are the details of that incredible timeline laid out by Bondi! I want the entire story out now and Trump's concern about Burisma should most definitely be verified or not. The Bidens were brought up over 400 times by the House Managers. You bet they are at the center of Trump's concern and Trump's request. My guess is that his concern was more than justified and it's time we learn the full details of who used their power and the government for their own benefit!!!!!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

The more witnesses the merrier. The repubs could have already voted for them at any time as they are in control, the Biden, Schiff, WBer is all a sham bluff and they know it.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

I'm not a player. Enough of this charade. We need to start focusing on the crats and their crimes against America. This has gone on for too long and the crats are lucky to have gotten away with it for this long.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Our President is allowed to investigate anything he chooses.

Sure, but is he allowed to do so by sending his personal attorney with a letter authorizing him to represent Trump as a private citizen, not as the POTUS, when requesting a meeting with Zelensky? Doesn't sound like a presidential duty to me! Sounds like someone using their office to personally benefit politically.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

I want the entire story out now and Trump's concern about Burisma should most definitely be verified or not.

Me too Ann, and when it's exposed for what it is, another Uranium One BS story what will you say about that?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"They won't call Schiff because even though they go on about it for distraction purposes they know he did not meet with the WB and the calls with his staff were perfectly appropriate."

I think, if it is agreed to proceed with witnesses, Schiff will be one of the very first witnesses the GOP will call!

Graham was very clear yesterday that he thinks it time to bring this to a close (as in there is not now and never was a legitimate impeachment case), but he was also very clear that if Senators choose the witness path, he wants MANY witnesses. I completely agree with both of these points, but I now hope the witness route is what the Senate votes on.

If these kinds of political games are going to be chosen to be played - let's bring them to a full conclusion. My hope is this game playing, tactic filled nonsense will bring with it a high price. Trump's approval is at its high and Biden is suffering as Bernie is surging. IMO, the Dems have themselves and themselves only to thank for each one of these components of this latest election scenario! Dangerous and underhanded games tend to backfire! Let's bring this entire thing into the sunshine.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"It took trump 3 years to make the long rope that's now hanging himself."

I view this very differently. It's taken 3 years+ for Dems to obsess so much that they've finally hung themselves. I think karma has finally stepped in and we'll soon see in just 8 months, what decision karma and the voters have rendered. At that point, we'll see what damage the Dems want to do to their 2024 chances, and I won't be the least bit surprised if they still keep it up.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Vgkg, the decision of the GOP is to waste endless amounts of taxpayer dollars or be a sensible voice of reason to end this nonsense. There is a far bigger sham here than the witness vote, but now that we're there and the Dems pray that witnesses will grant them the silly game playing political advantage they think it will, I hope we give them their witnesses.

From the very beginning, I stated I thought this impeachment (sham IMO) would backfire. I feel that more strongly with each passing day. As a result, Trump's support has grown, Biden (the candidate most Dems consider the most likely to beat the man they so hate) is now struggling to stay afloat (as a result of this publicity), and Bernie is potentially moving into the lead (because he's the authentic person for the Dems who are wary and sick of the whole mess). He's their Trump!

So, what will the Dems potentially get. They'll get a real internal struggle between the Bernie supporters and the more moderates, potentially a contested convention (where Bernie supporters could leave furious - and we can both guess, potentially many lost Dem votes as a result), and a fired up Trump base who will reelect him. And, the entire thing will be of the Dems own making!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Dems win every day Trump incriminates himself. It isn’t like he will stop his pillaging of America and using US for his personal enrichment if acquitted.


The Reps might be blinded by his smoke and mirrors but Dems know the downside of his act.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

That's a nice dream Ann, dream on. It remains to be seen who the demo nominee will be and whomever it is the party will fall in line and fully back him/her up. There will be No repeat of falling asleep at the wheel this go round. ...and as for trump climbing poll numbers, being stuck in the up & down mid 40's for the past 3 years isn't a good sign for him.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Well, I'm a little behind on news from the other side of the political divide, so I think it's time to listen to a little MSNBC this morning and see how the Dems are feeling about the upcoming witness vote. I saw a Fox News clip of the other news outlets this morning, and it looks like Dems might be changing their witness tune (less excitement about that possibility). I'll go see if I can get a feel for that.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

What I would like to see happen, is whatever is legally appropriate. The only reason I wouldn't want to see witnesses is because witnesses would give some sense of legitimacy to the flamboyant affectations of the left. They should be kneecapped, sooner rather than later to send a strong message the people do not appreciate their abuse of power, which is exactly what the house dems are doing - abusing their power. If it's decided that witnesses are appropriate, the first person I wast to hear from is Schiff. Schiff testimony is entirely appropriate because it would reveal whether or not Schiff, et al, conspired to fabricate this charade based on nothing but revenge and a personal dislike for the president. If indeed it's shown this was a conspiracy from the very beginning, it would be a far more serious crime than what the president is being impeached for. Personally, I'd like to see prissy Schiff behind bars for 20-30 years for his role in what the country has endured as a result of him spearheading the "get trump at any cost" movement.

If they do have witnesses, I don't care if it takes 2 years, I want the US to know just how corrupt Uncle Joe and his entire family has been for decades. What Biden has been doing makes Trump look like an angel. Having perspective on just how dirty the Bidens are, and it's all out there if you want to find out, would clearly illustrate that having him investigated is definitely justified and in the best interest of everyone other than him and his brood.The left should be completely on board with this idea, given their newfound intolerance for ANYTHING shifty in our government. We're just soo fortunate to have them standing guard against government corruption.

The dems haven't a chance to confront Trump on policy issues. The only thing they can offer at this point is socialism and revenge. They can't beat him unless they bring him down to a point where he's as unelectable as the motley school of jellyfish they call a field of candidates.

Al

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Wasting endless amounts of taxpayer dollars on nonsense hasn't been a concern of GOP up to this point. Why should they change now?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Who cares how corrupt Trump is IOW. Let’s concentrate on BIden. The GOP did that for 30 years to Hillary only to find out she was innocent? What’s new? The Corrupt GOP needs to keep the spotlight off themselves.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

del phinium: "And please don't argue executive privilege..."

-------------

^ Pretty please, with a cherry on top?! LOL! What's the matter? Are those pesky "Constitutional Rights" getting in the way again?

-------------

Perhaps you can show me where in the Constitution it talks about "executive privilege".

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"The only reason I wouldn't want to see witnesses is because witnesses would give some sense of legitimacy to the flamboyant affectations of the left. "

Just beginning you comment now, but 100% agreement with this!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Schiff testimony is entirely appropriate because it would reveal whether or not Schiff, et al, conspired with others to fabricate this charade based on nothing but revenge and a personal dislike for the president. "

Absolutely! I hope we can get some info about this from the soon to begin question session!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"If they do have witnesses, I don't care if it takes 2 years, I want the US to know just how corrupt Uncle Joe and his entire family has been for decades. What Biden has been doing makes Trump look like an angel. Having perspective on just how dirty the Bidens are, and it's all out there if you want to find out, would clearly illustrate that having him investigated is definitely justified and in the best interest of everyone other than him and his brood."

Again, 100% agreement from me!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

There is no actual evidence to support these allegations against Joe Biden. Drumbeating from the right is not evidence.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tapla(mid-Michigan z-5b-6a)

There are tons of evidence. It just takes someone with a little spine and the will to have it ALL brought to light. There are at least a dozen cases that directly involve Joe Biden's chicanery and corruption.

And, if not evidence, the drum-beating from the right seems to have been rather effective, given the recent pols and the growing appetite for a look into Joe's malfeasance and nepotism.

Al

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Just a few minutes of MSNBC has been interesting. The Manchin news (potentially wanting Hunter as a witness) was new to me. I saw a new clip of Susan Collins repeating her insistence that equality for both sides be observed in the potential calling of witnesses process. Lastly, I learned, clearly, large numbers of Dems have been very convinced Roberts would keep either Biden from testifying (which I find that confidence to be fascinating)! A few panelists on MSNBC are opining they think that unlikely and Dems have been surprised/dismayed to hear disagreement and that Roberts might not actually "save the day" (the anchor's actual words) for Dems.

No wonder I saw earlier clips about Dems beginning to change their "witness" tune. I didn't previously understand the confidence they were putting in not having the Bidens become potential witnesses. I think I'll stick with MSNBC for a bit. The other side is very interesting today!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Rep Senators avoided attending a good portion of the Investigation in the House which left them uninformed. Now we see a huge portion of Reps are also uninformed, either due to their choice or maybe because of listening to their representatives and political pundits.

Spinning the impeachment to Biden is a political ploy to excuse Trump.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Amusing to read all the claims about the Dems impeachment of Trump being so contrary to what is good for the country - when considering what Ken Starr achieved in the Clinton years.