Trump Isn�t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[Cow Poke]

That's an opinion, Shuny, and you're entitled to it, but people with a lot more knowledge on this subject can't agree.

Justice is the complete process, and a coordinated dismissal without a trial with witnesses.

More opinion on your part, sir. The House has total authority on their part - of which, in my opinion, they've made a sham -- and the Senate has total authority on their part. There is NOTHING that requires them to go through a whole trial.

Everyone should be concerned.

Jake couldn't care less.

[DivineOb]

In the case of Clinton, all the attention was on the sex, not they lying under oath, but, ok...

Of course. My point is I didn't just focus on the sex and understood that the lying was improper. BTW, I was very uncomfortable about the sex too because I had always been taught that romance is inappropriate when such a power imbalance exists. Some day history is going to come for Clinton with the #metoo hammer I suspect.

But another factor is that the country is WAY more polarized now than it was during Clinton's impeachment.

That is true. It is very unfortunate and makes me sad as an American.

I think the Republicans are still sending up trial balloons. I don't think they really know what they want, but I DO know they don't want Nancy dictating how they operate.

Agreed.

[DivineOb]

So what? It's a pissing contest over international policy and not a criminal act.

Let's go with that for a sec. That still means he pushed for a course of action that he was advised was against the country's interest by his senior advisors. Is that really the hill you want to die on?

[Cow Poke]

Of course. My point is I didn't just focus on the sex and understood that the lying was improper. BTW, I was very uncomfortable about the sex too because I had always been taught that romance is inappropriate when such a power imbalance exists. Some day history is going to come for Clinton with the #metoo hammer I suspect.

EGGzackly!

That is true. It is very unfortunate and makes me sad as an American.

It does - and what makes me angry is that Trump DOES have the capability to be a uniter, but he just can't bring himself to it.

Agreed.

Quick story....

Many years ago, when I was a police officer, I responded to a report of a loud noise - like a gunshot - at a residence. I did the proper thing, waited for backup, then carefully approached the door.

Inside was a man holding a small child in his arms with a gun (.45 cal Colt) to her head. I was blown away - stunned. He ordered me to drop my gun belt - a cop is NEVER supposed to give up his weapon - but given the sight of the small child with a gun to her head, I complied. He had me kick my gun belt into the bushes beside the porch, then ordered me to take off my uniform shirt, which I also did. (That turned out to be a good thing, because it alerted responding units that something was really wrong)

Backup units saw this happening as they arrived, and knew there must be something terrible inside, though I wasn't free to tell them exactly what, and they couldn't see what I was seeing.

My partner (who knew it was a man with a gun on a child) snuck around the back of the house to attempt to (quietly) gain entry. While he was doing that, I discovered this man was somebody with whom I had spoken on the CB radio (very popular back then) and was building up some trust. I talked him into releasing the little girl, so he put the gun to his OWN head, and allowed me to carefully reach in and take the child, then I turned around and kinda tossed her to a couple officers who were hiding in the bushes.

I'm inside the house now, no weapon, standing face to face with this man, making progress, his own gun still to his head, but now he's crying, realizing he's really screwed up.

JUST THEN, my partner comes BURSTING INTO THE LIVING ROOM from the kitchen, shotgun aimed at the man, ordering him "drop the gun or I'll shoot!" (John had no way of knowing it was no longer a hostage situation, but had become a possible suicide attempt)

The man looked at me in amazement, and said, in an astonished questioning voice... "drop the gun or I'll SHOOT?" It was enough of a distraction that I was able to reach out, cup my hand around the top of the .45, wedging my baby finger between the hammer and the body of the gun, and gently pulling it out of his hand.

Long story short - this reminds me of Pelosi, in a way, with a gun to her own head, and the Republicans deciding not to shoot.

[Mountain Man]

Let's go with that for a sec. That still means he pushed for a course of action that he was advised was against the country's interest by his senior advisors. Is that really the hill you want to die on?

Only if you're willing to die on the "recommendations of foreign policy advisors are always correct" hill.

[DivineOb]

Quick story....

Holy smokes! You must have nerves of steel.

Long story short - this reminds me of Pelosi, in a way, with a gun to her own head, and the Republicans deciding not to shoot.

Ok :). The Democrats basic game plan is already "public knowledge" so I am pretty confident that that is not the case. We shall know soon enough.

[DivineOb]

Only if you're willing to die on the "recommendations of foreign policy advisors are always correct" hill.

No I get it. Trump is the guy who comes into the room and cuts right through the noise with the right call. Do you believe he made the right call? Do you have a reason you believe it beyond your belief that Trump is more likely to make the right call than not?

[Mountain Man]

No I get it. Trump is the guy who comes into the room and cuts right through the noise with the right call. Do you believe he made the right call? Do you have a reason you believe it beyond your belief that Trump is more likely to make the right call than not?

On the basis that US foreign policy interests were not harmed, I think it was the right call.

[Cow Poke]

Holy smokes! You must have nerves of steel.

I swear I lost 10 lbs sweating through my t-shirt.

Ok :). The Democrats basic game plan is already "public knowledge" so I am pretty confident that that is not the case. We shall know soon enough.

So, why do you think Pelosi is holding off on transmitting the AoI?

[DivineOb]

So, why do you think Pelosi is holding off on transmitting the AoI?

Glad you asked :).

Sometime near the end of November I happened upon a twitter thread which laid out the following:

1) Nancy has always insisted she will not give the articles until the case is iron clad and conviction is guaranteed.
2) Conviction is not guaranteed solely on the basis of UKR so she will not give the articles to the Senate yet.
3) The Democrats are pursuing a number of legal cases against Trump A) to force McGahn to testify B) get the redacted Grand Jury materials in Mueller C) Financials. At every step of the way in these cases the Democrats have prevailed in court and have done so convincingly. The law is clear and they will win at the SC. Each of these cases will reveal additional impeachable behavior.
4) The Democrats game plan will be to give as much appearance of rushing the impeachment as they can to minimize accusations of playing politics but their real goal is to slow walk things while waiting on these court cases. As they finally prevail in each one new investigations will be initiated and holding on to the AoI will become self evident since new ones will possibly be added.
5) Eventually conviction will be guaranteed and the AoI will be passed to the Senate.

Now, I don't know what happens if tomorrow McConnell calls Nancy and says "Let's make a deal to get the AoI here ASAP". But I don't think the Democrats can close the books on impeachment until all the court cases in 3) are resolved since there being an impeachment inquiry is part of their legal argument.

[JimL]

I swear I lost 10 lbs sweating through my t-shirt.



So, why do you think Pelosi is holding off on transmitting the AoI?

Pelosi is holding off because Moscow Mitch and Linsey (th hypocrite) Graham have openly stated that they have no intention of conducting a fair trial, that their intention, and obviously your hope, is to try and sweep it under the rug. And the longer Putins allies continue with that approach the more damning evidence is going to come out, putting all the more pressure on Moscow Mitch to act like a U.S. Senator and change his tactic.

[Mountain Man]

Pelosi is holding off because Moscow Mitch and Linsey (th hypocrite) Graham have openly stated that they have no intention of conducting a fair trial...

Not what they said. Mitch, to his credit, admitted that he is not impartial, but he never said the proceedings wouldn't be conducted in a fair manner. Of course Democrats really don't want a fair trial, they want one where the scales of justice are tipped decidedly against Trump before the trial even begins.

[Cow Poke]

Glad you asked :).

I did, indeed.

Sometime near the end of November I happened upon a twitter thread which laid out the following:

1) Nancy has always insisted she will not give the articles until the case is iron clad and conviction is guaranteed.

In addition to there being wide bipartisan support, yes...

2) Conviction is not guaranteed solely on the basis of UKR so she will not give the articles to the Senate yet.

So why conclude the impeachment?

3) The Democrats are pursuing a number of legal cases against Trump A) to force McGahn to testify B) get the redacted Grand Jury materials in Mueller C) Financials. At every step of the way in these cases the Democrats have prevailed in court and have done so convincingly. The law is clear and they will win at the SC. Each of these cases will reveal additional impeachable behavior.

OK....

4) The Democrats game plan will be to give as much appearance of rushing the impeachment as they can to minimize accusations of playing politics but their real goal is to slow walk things while waiting on these court cases. As they finally prevail in each one new investigations will be initiated and holding on to the AoI will become self evident since new ones will possibly be added.

You really think they're that smart?

5) Eventually conviction will be guaranteed and the AoI will be passed to the Senate.

Now, I don't know what happens if tomorrow McConnell calls Nancy and says "Let's make a deal to get the AoI here ASAP". But I don't think the Democrats can close the books on impeachment until all the court cases in 3) are resolved since there being an impeachment inquiry is part of their legal argument.

I asked!

[JimL]

Not what they said. Mitch, to his credit, admitted that he is not impartial, but he never said the proceedings wouldn't be conducted in a fair manner. Of course Democrats really don't want a fair trial, they want one where the scales of justice are tipped decidedly against Trump before the trial even begins.

No, Moscow Mitch said that he would not be impartial, which is not to his credit, and that was coordinating with the defendent, with the White House. Graham just flat out said he would not be an impartial judge which also is not to his credit.
As far as democrats go, how is allowing direct witness testimony to be heard and documentary evidence to be seen, tipping the scales of justice. You TDSer's just lie to yourselves about everything, and it's very transparent.

[DivineOb]

In addition to there being wide bipartisan support, yes...

Absolutely. There will have to be support for removal significantly exceeding 50% for that to happen. Ahh, now I see the quote in your signature. Yeah, I'm going to say that, one way or the other, she probably wasn't being completely truthful :).

So why conclude the impeachment?

She didn't conclude the impeachment. The impeachment inquiry is ongoing. As I said, that forms part of the basis for their legal cases.

As to why formalize the articles, a few reasons
1) To give the appearance that things are moving forward while really wanting to slow walk things
2) To likely increase popular support for impeachment / removal
3) To increase pressure on Trump directly and increase the likelihood that he makes further mistakes. I assume you don't believe he is a narcissist but, were he one, the shame of the impeachment would be a serious wound to his ego. One might infer that that is why he is insisting he wants to be vindicated in the Senate instead of doing the smart thing politically and letting McConnell focus on quietly disposing of the trial.

OK....

You really think they're that smart?

So far things are tracking, right? I assume Nancy already knows what she will discover when those legal cases are concluded.

Now I'm going to say something you probably wouldn't expect me to say. I have slept better and been so much less stressed since I read that Twitter thread. I believe I trust in it for good reasons but it is also okay with me if I am, to an extent, choosing to believe because it provides me real world benefits. So, if you want to say I have faith in this *one* thing you can go ahead :).