The Peach Mint

[Fat Cat]

Unsurprisingly, Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives under two articles yesterday. My question for the collective: where to now?

- What will Pelosi do to translate the impeachment to the Senate?

- What will the Senate do?

- How will this affect the presidential election next November?

Help me peer into the uncertain mists of time and predict the future.

[DrDonkeyLove...]

*Gradually, then suddenly. (perhaps stolen from Hemingway)

[nafod]

We need to hear from first hand witnesses. So I expect the House will either seek guarantees that the Senate will actually hold a real trial with facts and witnesses, or they will wait for the court cases on the subpoenas to make it to SCOTUS and we get a ruling enforcing them (I predict 9-0 unanimous).

The next steps will depend on those facts and witnesses. They exonerate Trump? Damn him? Different outcomes from there.

[Fat Cat]

We need to hear from first hand witnesses. So I expect the House will either seek guarantees that the Senate will actually hold a real trial with facts and witnesses, or they will wait for the court cases on the subpoenas to make it to SCOTUS and we get a ruling enforcing them (I predict 9-0 unanimous).

The next steps will depend on those facts and witnesses. They exonerate Trump? Damn him? Different outcomes from there.

What about the possibility that Cocaine Mitch leads a vote to acquit Trump, regardless of what Pelosi does? Is that possible? The Constitution specifies the Senate’s authority in Article I, Section 3 where it says, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Could they (i.e., the Senate) just be like, "ya fuck the glove don't fit and we acquit"?

I mean I don't think any of us think that the Senate will remove T-Money from office, so...where does this go? To me the big questions is how does this affect the election? Does it?

[nafod]

I am sure they will acquit.

This is all about the American public hearing from Mulvaney, Bolton, and a few others along with gaining access to docs.

And we know what truth is. It will be ugly.

[Fat Cat]

I am sure they will acquit.

This is all about the American public hearing from Mulvaney, Bolton, and a few others along with gaining access to docs.

And we know what truth is. It will be ugly.

Can't that cut the Democrats more deeply than the Republicans though? Particularly since they will be the ones staging it? Obviously, I don't know much about all of the procedures and requirements of the process, but surely they can trot out all sorts of people who would embarrass and/or contradict the the Democratic script?

[Turdacious]

We need to hear from first hand witnesses. So I expect the House will either seek guarantees that the Senate will actually hold a real trial with facts and witnesses, or they will wait for the court cases on the subpoenas to make it to SCOTUS and we get a ruling enforcing them (I predict 9-0 unanimous).

The next steps will depend on those facts and witnesses. They exonerate Trump? Damn him? Different outcomes from there.

If it was a winning issue, they’d have held off. If anything, it means Schumer and Pelosi aren’t confident dems will win the Senate.

[nafod]

I am sure they will acquit.

This is all about the American public hearing from Mulvaney, Bolton, and a few others along with gaining access to docs.

And we know what truth is. It will be ugly.

Can't that cut the Democrats more deeply than the Republicans though? Particularly since they will be the ones staging it? Obviously, I don't know much about all of the procedures and requirements of the process, but surely they can trot out all sorts of people who would embarrass and/or contradict the the Democratic script?

I guess they'll try to put Hunter Biden on trial, but beyond that, what do they have? To date, the whole repub defense has consisted of LOUD VOICES and a bunch of goofy process arguments. Most of those go away in the Senate (Trump gets to call witnesses, have representation, etc.)

I am picturing Bolton, under oath, explaining to us all the "drug deal" he was referring to. Similar for Mulvaney, under oath. That would dwarf by orders of magnitude anything pitiful Hunter would have to talk about.

Christianity Today magazine has called for Trump's ouster today. Kind of mind blowing giving the huge support he has from evangelicals. This #$%-show is starting to soak in.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... ffice.html

[vern]

[Turdacious]

I am picturing Bolton, under oath, explaining to us all the "drug deal" he was referring to. Similar for Mulvaney, under oath. That would dwarf by orders of magnitude anything pitiful Hunter would have to talk about.

And why would it be in either of their best interests to testify in that manner (especially since a lot of the documents you refer to are, and should stay, classified-- regardless of this issue)? It's not like either one will be using a public defender.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Acquittal is obviously the most likely outcome.

You need four GOP Senators decide that they need a trial with real witnesses, and if that happens acquittal goes from "all but certain" to "most likely outcome but maybe 5-20% of another outcome."

In the House the biggest surprise to me was Trump no longer has people who will lie for him when it risks prison. Too many dudes in jail at this point, maybe. If you have Mulvaney et al testifying what Trump personally directed them, I'm not sure Romney and others won't break the other way, and if they do, more might. Nixon had rock-ribbed support until he didn't. Paul Ryan has allegedly been floating tossing Trump under the bus united with ex-administration officials to give Senators cover if it comes to it.

One of the 538 guys was saying he was surprised that the GOP line wasn't, "This was bad, but not impeachable," since you can concede the facts and hope to shape the surrounding narrative.

If he's acquitted, the obvious issue is he's going to keep committing crimes. You could have new whisteblowers for new misdeeds. You could have new calls for another impeachment where Democrats don't really have a choice.

I don't think McConnell will willingly let anything happen to Trump before the election, because Pence 2020 is not going to keep the Senate.

[Fat Cat]

Less than half of all Americans want Trump ousted post-impeachment: Reuters/Ipsos poll

When asked about the specific impeachment charges, 53% agreed that Trump abused his office and 51% agreed that he obstructed Congress.

Some 42% of respondents - most of them Democrats - said Congress should carry out its ultimate sanction and remove the president from office, as the Senate has the power to do.

Another 17% said Trump should be formally reprimanded with a congressional censure, 29% said they want the impeachment charges dismissed, and the rest said they did not have an opinion.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1YN2LH

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

Censure is what I've said from jumps street on this particular dust-up. Shows that the Dems spine-ed up and said they know he fucked up, but avoids the Impeachment circus. Especially seeing how the Senate is unlikely to even let this go more than 45 minutes after they begin the trial until he's Acquitted. Just makes the Dems look vindictive to those who don't follow politics closely (which is most people).

If they wanted to impeach Trump, they could have nailed him any number of things. Hell, they could have gotten him on the emoluments clause within the first 3 months if they were serious about holding him accountable to the letter of the law. Trump's real crime here was not knowing how fast and hard the Dem career politicians would come down on him for possibly exposing their corruption.

[Fat Cat]

I think to most laypeople, the fact that neither article touched on any portion of the Mueller investigation is a pretty big red flag that that investigation was baseless and that the current one was driven by antipathy.

[nafod]

I think to most laypeople, the fact that neither article touched on any portion of the Mueller investigation is a pretty big red flag that that investigation was baseless and that the current one was driven by antipathy.

Really?

Mueller had plenty of obstruction to impeach on, it’s just that it was complicated. Americans want their memes in tweet-sized chunks. Sadly pathetic fact, but true.

Ukraine gave that. It’s simple, understandable, and backed by facts and witnesses. Of course he did it.

Less is more here, since anything complicated that got added would be an opportunity for Trump to create a distraction and divert attention from the clear and the obvious.

Edit: but I guess you’re right with the caveat “most laypeople”. I bet most people haven’t actually read the articles of impeachment, for example. They just get an impression fed to them predigested.

[Turdacious]

That’s some mighty circular reasoning there nafod.

[Gene]

I guess they'll try to put Hunter Biden on trial, but beyond that, what do they have? To date, the whole repub defense has consisted of LOUD VOICES and a bunch of goofy process arguments. Most of those go away in the Senate (Trump gets to call witnesses, have representation, etc.)

I am picturing Bolton, under oath, explaining to us all the "drug deal" he was referring to. Similar for Mulvaney, under oath. That would dwarf by orders of magnitude anything pitiful Hunter would have to talk about.

Christianity Today magazine has called for Trump's ouster today. Kind of mind blowing giving the huge support he has from evangelicals. This #$%-show is starting to soak in.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... ffice.html

Christianity Today, Andrew Napolitano, some others. What of them? They are not the Senate.


Dumb idea to put Jr. Biden on trial. They sat on their hands through the entire Ukraine fiasco, from the huge donations from Ukrainian oligarchs to the Clinton Foreign Foundation, the "brokering a deal" that put Poroshenko into charge, to the horrors of "pacifying" east Ukraine. John McCain was up for this horseshit too. Same reason that Obama got away with letting the IRS fuck with 501C exemptions.

Mitt Romney's kids made money in Ukraine. John McCain was Poroshenko's buddy. There are lots of GOPers who made out in Ukraine.

Business as usual. I think that both parties are covering up their tracks.



Cut to the chase - if the Democrats get rid of Trump they're going to have Mike Pence. He's not going to go too.

Pence is a rock solid right wing ideologue. He's to the right of Reagan. He's much better at this shit than Trump.

Ain't gonna be Pelosi sitting in the Oval Office. Hillary isn't going to waddle into the Oval Office. The election of 2016 was settled in 2016.

You can have Trump. You can Pence. Take your pick.

[Gene]

What will Pelosi do to translate the impeachment to the Senate?

- What will the Senate do?

- How will this affect the presidential election next November?

Question 1 - don't know. I'm half convinced that Pelosi pulled this shit to embarrass the Gang of Four and their supporters. She gave them what they wanted in order to get that 1.4 trillion spending thing through the house. And the new Mexican free trade deal. They didn't squawk so they're compromised too.

Question 2 - don't know. They're going to play politics.

Question 3 - I supported Rand Paul and Ron Paul over the years. I'm on the GOP donor list.

Since the Impeachment my emails and phone have exploded with appeals. I am getting at least three messages a day with lurid messages begging me to help. The GOPers are raking in the money. This impeachment nonsense plays to Trump's bitching about the "Swamp".

Ain't getting any money from me. Trump can take his mugs and his wrapping paper and stick 'em.

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. Hope next time that the LP appoints a more sober candidate in 2020.

[Gene]

Here's Pelosi stammering through an explanation....

She didn't want this bullshit. The idiots who are pushing her want this. She lacks the leadership skills to manage them or to follow through on this process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsdLgB ... e=youtu.be