mcmoustache wrote: » A large part of his base won't change their minds on Trump. it's a strange phenomenon but it is what it is. At the moment, support for impeachment and removal is at around 50% and on an upward trajectory. Clinton and Nixon were on 32% and 58% respectively by the end. I don't think it's possible for the numbers to go up to 58% in this case but that depends on how Trump behaves over the next few weeks. But, lets say it gets to something like 53% or 54%. This would put the republicans in a tight spot. If the republicans clear him in the face of clear evidence of wrong-doing, that will annoy and motivate a lot of voters to turf them out. That wouldn't normally be a big deal, depending on which senators are up for reelection in 2020. The thing is, out of 35 seats, 23 are republican and 12 are democrat held. To make things worse, several republican senators are already polling poorly (Thillis, Gardner, Ernst, Collins and McSally). The Dems don't have that problem at the moment. I don't know exactly how this will factor into their decision making but it will certainly be considered.
mcmoustache wrote: » Being a careerist, he took memos as he went. It adds a lot of credibility to his testimony. It will be interesting to see how everyone's testimony lines up. If Sondland lied or omitted, he might get a chance to be called back to "clarify". I've mentioned before that the quid-pro-quo wasn't even necessary for this to be illegal. Simply asking a foreign government for electoral help is illegal enough. The QPQ is just a nice bonus since Trump and his surrogates spent so much time trying to convince everyone that it wasn't so bad because there was no QPQ - implying that a QPQ was in fact bad. I expect an imminent nickname for Taylor who begged for a job and that Trump barely knew him.
Cody montana wrote: » This could be the beginning of the end. President Mike Pence anyone?
Overheal wrote: » WaPo has the opening testimony.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You can read Taylor's statement here:https://twitter.com/JoelLawsonDC/status/1186725908255780870?s=19
mcmoustache wrote: » I expect an imminent nickname for Taylor who begged for a job and that Trump barely knew him.
mcmoustache wrote: » I'm still waiting for the Trump twitter tantrum. Have any of the loonier parts of the internet got their talking points together yet?
Cody montana wrote: » Last week was his worst so far, it's only Tuesday and it's not looking good. They are going to try and discredit Bill Taylor, they are going to lie, they are going to blame the democrats. Anything but accept the truth.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Scalise is right. Taylor's inferences are all but meaningless. Seems he was determined to fear the worst of the US administration. This is all one giant nothing burger.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Having read the statement it's clear that Trump was talking about interference and corruption in the 2016 election. A valid position. The whole kerfuffle is exposing the war mongers.
Cody montana wrote: »
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Yes, Burisma holdings. 2016.
mcmoustache wrote: » Are you going with the "Yes, it was a quid-pro-quo. So what?" defense or are you going with the "No quid-pro-quo" defense. Or both maybe?
Spencerfreeman wrote: » I'm going with the it doesn't matter brigade. I think it's reasonable to root out corruption whatever side it's coming from. I want to see the group pushing for war rooted out.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Nuts.https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1186738823558041602?s=19
Overheal wrote: » So you want a politically weaponized fishing expedition - one where the investigators (who are really at that point just “the party”) can freely profiteer (quid pro quo) while they “root out” their political enemies. That’s not the America I signed up for. It’s also thankfully unconstitutional.
