Trump needs to stop winning so much.
U.S. Senators will probably get Trump off faster than a pornstar but everyone who does deserves to be voted out of office.
https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politic...d_16x9_992.jpg
Printable View
Trump needs to stop winning so much.
U.S. Senators will probably get Trump off faster than a pornstar but everyone who does deserves to be voted out of office.
https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politic...d_16x9_992.jpg
Problem for the Dems is that the articles charge Trump with Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress (lol) which aren’t impeachable. Strange to me they didn’t throw extortion in there as it would be considered a high crime and if found guilty an impeachable offense. Alan Dershowitz has argued since 1973 that abuse of power isn’t impeachable. Obstruction of Congress is simply laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
trump just described climate scientists as 'foolish fortune tellers'.
at davos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
There is no chance that more than 25% of those polled could even tell you with any accuracy why he was even impeached. Lol polls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishProblem for the Dems is that the articles charge Trump with Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress (lol) which aren’t impeachable. Strange to me they didn’t throw extortion in there as it would be considered a high crime and if found guilty an impeachable offense. Alan Dershowitz has argued since 1973 that abuse of power isn’t impeachable. Obstruction of Congress is simply laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
except he said the opposite in 1998
you should watch how he tries to explain this reversal of position. it's pretty cringeworthy. he insists he wasn't "wrong" then, but he's "more correct" now. i felt bad for him.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-der...e-correct-now/
Tell me when this filters down to battleground state polls because that’s when I’ll believe this circus, even though he’s guilty as fuck, has had any tangible effect. I’ve never seen the battleground polls move an inch during this proceeding. I’m pretty sure he’s performing better than before it started in any generic Trump v DemQuote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
Ya he looks pretty bad there. Funny to me he can’t just say he changed his mind after further research. I still don’t understand why the Dems didn’t put extortion as one of the charges which would indisputably meet the standard of a high crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
except he said the opposite in 1998
you should watch how he tries to explain this reversal of position. it's pretty cringeworthy. he insists he wasn't "wrong" then, but he's "more correct" now. i felt bad for him.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-der...e-correct-now/
Trump has hardened his support in the battlegrounds, this is correct. People forget Trump only got a shade above 46% of the vote nationwide and easily won the Electoral College. The latest CNN poll just came out, no friend of Trump for sure, and he was polling at 46%.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRTell me when this filters down to battleground state polls because that’s when I’ll believe this circus, even though he’s guilty as fuck, has had any tangible effect. I’ve never seen the battleground polls move an inch during this proceeding. I’m pretty sure he’s performing better than before it started in any generic Trump v DemQuote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
The nationwide polls are skewed because the population centers on the West Coast and upper East Coast are so heavily against Trump. But that does not matter they were the last time as well.
The Dems are in big trouble. Biden will alienate the progressives just like Clinton did, and Bernie and Liz will have do the same with the Moderates. Plus the economy is soaring and that generally spells doom for the challenger. Dems launched a viscous campaign against Bush in 2004 over Iraq and he still won because the economy and stock market was doing so well. Conversely his father had a 90% approval rating in 1991 and got trounced in 1992 because the economy went into recession at election time.
I saw some battleground polls the other day of people that are likely to vote, Trump is ahead comfortably. People confuse registered voters and likely voters all the time. A likely voter is willing to stand in line for two hours on election day, huge difference. Lot's of people, especially young people hate Trump, but would never invest an entire morning waiting in line to actually vote.
If Trump could survive the Access Hollywood tape, he will definitely survive a "scandal" involving a 3rd world country 90% of voters could not find on a map after three tries.
they could have said that i suppose, but it wouldn't actually matter. it's not like more republicans would vote in favor of conviction. he's not getting convicted under any circumstancesQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishYa he looks pretty bad there. Funny to me he can’t just say he changed his mind after further research. I still don’t understand why the Dems didn’t put extortion as one of the charges which would indisputably meet the standard of a high crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
I thought Trump was 100% to win again until bottomset picked him.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgullTrump has hardened his support in the battlegrounds, this is correct. People forget Trump only got a shade above 46% of the vote nationwide and easily won the Electoral College. The latest CNN poll just came out, no friend of Trump for sure, and he was polling at 46%.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCR
The nationwide polls are skewed because the population centers on the West Coast and upper East Coast are so heavily against Trump. But that does not matter they were the last time as well.
The Dems are in big trouble. Biden will alienate the progressives just like Clinton did, and Bernie and Liz will have do the same with the Moderates. Plus the economy is soaring and that generally spells doom for the challenger. Dems launched a viscous campaign against Bush in 2004 over Iraq and he still won because the economy and stock market was doing so well. Conversely his father had a 90% approval rating in 1991 and got trounced in 1992 because the economy went into recession at election time.
I saw some battleground polls the other day of people that are likely to vote, Trump is ahead comfortably. People confuse registered voters and likely voters all the time. A likely voter is willing to stand in line for two hours on election day, huge difference. Lot's of people, especially young people hate Trump, but would never invest an entire morning waiting in line to actually vote.
If Trump could survive the Access Hollywood tape, he will definitely survive a "scandal" involving a 3rd world country 90% of voters could not find on a map after three tries.
How does #1 pick Johnny Manziel see it shaping up?
You 14 years old?Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakI thought Trump was 100% to win again until bottomset picked him.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgull
How does #1 pick Johnny Manziel see it shaping up?
Donald Trump got pwned real hard at Davos today by a 16 year old girl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3qbXSf93bc
Maybe you’re getting pwned by a 16 year old girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
We don't need any more 4dragons hereQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishMaybe you’re getting pwned by a 16 year old girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
ADAM SCHIFF 1 AM ET U KIDDING ME
why wouldn't the republicans vote to dismiss if they have to listen to adam Schiff at 1 am
There it is folks - the GOP is cracking. 10th amendment lost 48-52 not 47-53 like the first 9.
The democrats bring forward 300-400 more amendments we might get to 50-50 and have to get Pence out of bed to break a tie.
I get this all has to be done and in the name of optics they need to let this sham run it’s course, but this is just Kabuki theater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daly
how much of a joke is this #? this is so dumb this has to be a scam to let biden gain points in iowa. I wonder what sanders, warren, klob are thinking
The 33% on the left feel like they are getting an ounce of flesh, and sending in $$ for the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedishQuote:
Originally Posted by Daly
how much of a joke is this #? this is so dumb this has to be a scam to let biden gain points in iowa. I wonder what sanders, warren, klob are thinking
The 33% on the right feel like this is complete and total bullshit, and are sending in $$ for the fight.
It’s good theater for everyone in DC in that regard.
What’s going to be interesting is what do the middle 34% of likely voters in the 5-6 states that actualy count think. Cooter the independent from Birmingham doesn’t count. Tucker from Connecticut doesn’t count either. What Frank and Mary from Ohio is what I’d like to know.
The result is and always was a fait Compli, it’s all about the optics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DalyThe 33% on the left feel like they are getting an ounce of flesh, and sending in $$ for the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
The 33% on the right feel like this is complete and total bullshit, and are sending in $$ for the fight.
It’s good theater for everyone in DC in that regard.
What’s going to be interesting is what do the middle 34% of likely voters in the 5-6 states that actualy count think. Cooter the independent from Birmingham doesn’t count. Tucker from Connecticut doesn’t count either. What Frank and Mary from Ohio is what I’d like to know.
The result is and always was a fait Compli, it’s all about the optics.
just saw an impeachment commercial on cnn that had the attitude of a blockbuster movie preview
It was the Republicans who set this crazy schedule. Most of the trial will be in the middle of the night and it will be without evidence or witnesses. Third world banana republic strongmen everywhere are jealous at how easy Trump has it.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakIt was the Republicans who set this crazy schedule. Most of the trial will be in the middle of the night and it will be without evidence or witnesses. Third world banana republic strongmen everywhere are jealous at how easy Trump has it.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
were you equally offended at the lack of due process in the house?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
were you equally offended at the lack of due process in the house?
but isn’t the house more like a grand jury where you would always only hear one side?
I’m honestly not sure about what’s supposed to happen there but that was my understanding
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
but isn’t the house more like a grand jury where you would always only hear one side?
I’m honestly not sure about what’s supposed to happen there but that was my understanding
I don't know about that. But they held some testimony in secret where only certain members of the chamber could attend and then held others in public. So that is not how grand jury's operate either.
I view the "trial" in the Senate more as a de novo appeal. Everything from below comes up, but you can't add to the record which was already made in the House.
But hey, I'm no expert in this - nor is anyone else.
At the end of the day this is politically motivated and driven. There is an election in less than 12 months that will /should resolve this. But that is just my .02 cents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
I don't know about that. But they held some testimony in secret where only certain members of the chamber could attend and then held others in public. So that is not how grand jury's operate either.
I view the "trial" in the Senate more as a de novo appeal. Everything from below comes up, but you can't add to the record which was already made in the House.
But hey, I'm no expert in this - nor is anyone else.
At the end of the day this is politically motivated and driven. There is an election in less than 12 months that will /should resolve this. But that is just my .02 cents.
they held segments of the trial in SCIF, which is an area designed to suppress technical surveillance attempts. this is legally necessary because certain information was classified at the time. its standard procedure, and republicans were allowed to attend.
hilariously, one of the republicans who declined to attend, in writing, is trumps lawyer who is howling about how he wasnt allowed to attend.
contemplate this on the tree of woe.
Every committee meeting, the Republicans on the committee were free to attend.Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
were you equally offended at the lack of due process in the house?
Also, what sonatine said about the SCIF.
How was there no due process?
Well, we can start with the inability of the accused to call witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
i don't think that's accurate. part of the dems presentation yesterday, which i thought was effective, was a graphic going over every impeachment trial in history and how many witnesses they had.Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
I don't know about that. But they held some testimony in secret where only certain members of the chamber could attend and then held others in public. So that is not how grand jury's operate either.
I view the "trial" in the Senate more as a de novo appeal. Everything from below comes up, but you can't add to the record which was already made in the House.
But hey, I'm no expert in this - nor is anyone else.
At the end of the day this is politically motivated and driven. There is an election in less than 12 months that will /should resolve this. But that is just my .02 cents.
all of them had witnesses. president johnson's impeachment had over 100, i think. this would be the first american impeachment "trial" in history with no witnesses.
edit to note that, this issue aside -- i think the dems probably should have gone to the courts over the white house's refusal to let people testify, even though it would have made this process unbearably long
trump's lawyer may actually get in disciplinary trouble for arguing that no republicans were permitted to attend. a lawyer can't just blatantly misrepresent facts in open courtQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
they held segments of the trial in SCIF, which is an area designed to suppress technical surveillance attempts. this is legally necessary because certain information was classified at the time. its standard procedure, and republicans were allowed to attend.
hilariously, one of the republicans who declined to attend, in writing, is trumps lawyer who is howling about how he wasnt allowed to attend.
contemplate this on the tree of woe.
That's what the trial is for, but the Republicans aren't allowing any witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendWell, we can start with the inability of the accused to call witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Alan Dershowitz does that almost everyday.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
When he's not fucking 14 year old child slaves, Alan Dershowitz is busy fucking over the justice system enabling career criminals to walk free.
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asse...xlarge-169.jpg
TRAINWRECKS
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
but isn’t the house more like a grand jury where you would always only hear one side?
I’m honestly not sure about what’s supposed to happen there but that was my understanding
If you are interested in the topic more, listen to the first 15 minutes of mark levin’s show last night. His argument is compelling.
That’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakThat's what the trial is for, but the Republicans aren't allowing any witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
This is correct, but if we are being honest he didn’t want to participate. Pleading the 5th in his own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendThat’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Schiff and Sekulow are the only two that aren't boring af to listen to for more than 5 minutes.
that doesn't explain why every other impeachment trial had witnesses thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendThat’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
I wasn’t following the house proceedings that closely. Why didn’t the house just call everyone they wanted when the ball was in their court? I realize the Bolton situation might be different but what about the others?Quote:
Originally Posted by blakethat doesn't explain why every other impeachment trial had witnesses thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend