President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

MadYaker · 22-10-2019 7:23pm

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.

I also think that a lot of the people Trump has or is likely to alienate will stay home rather than vote democrat so drop in support for trump doesn't really equal a gain for democrats.

Cody montana · 22-10-2019 7:50pm

Breaking News: The U.S. envoy to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, privately testified that President Trump directly tied security aid to his demand for investigations, a lawmaker said.

mcmoustache · 22-10-2019 8:06pm

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 · 22-10-2019 8:25pm

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.

This could be the beginning of the end.

President Mike Pence anyone?

Overheal · 22-10-2019 8:28pm

WaPo has the opening testimony.

James Brown · 22-10-2019 8:29pm

Cody montana wrote: »

This could be the beginning of the end.

President Mike Pence anyone?

Outlaw Pete · 22-10-2019 8:32pm

PDF of Taylor's statement:

https://twitter.com/JoelLawsonDC/status/1186725908255780870?s=19

Cody montana · 22-10-2019 8:34pm

Overheal wrote: »

WaPo has the opening testimony.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/read-it-veteran-diplomat-bill-taylors-damning-opening-statement-about-trump-and-ukraine/

Holy ****!

Overheal · 22-10-2019 8:37pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You can read Taylor's statement here:

https://twitter.com/JoelLawsonDC/status/1186725908255780870?s=19

I’d rather wait for the text version :pac:

mcmoustache · 22-10-2019 9:03pm

Sooo...

It totally wasn't a quid-pro-quo because Trump said it wasn't a quid-pro-quo but he just wanted the electoral help in return for releasing the funds? No quid-pro-quo, just a demand for something in exchange for another?

No sandwich, just a slice of ham between two pieces of bread.

mcmoustache · 22-10-2019 9:05pm

Clean version here:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6508987/Bill-Taylor-Opening.pdf

ebbsy · 22-10-2019 9:11pm

He is not getting impeached.

He is going to win next year.

Live with it.

#Trump2020

mcmoustache · 22-10-2019 9:21pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

I expect an imminent nickname for Taylor who begged for a job and that Trump barely knew him.

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 · 22-10-2019 9:27pm

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?

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.

mcmoustache · 22-10-2019 9:36pm

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.

Oh I know. It's not very creative.

"Lyin' Bill Taylor Swift came to me "Begging" for a job. I barely new the guy but I Gave him a chance even though he was an Obama "Holdover". Now he spreads Lies about me, your favourite "president", to the WITCH HUNT! PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT. NO QUID PRO QUO..."

"... NO COLLUSION!"

mcmoustache · 22-10-2019 9:43pm

Steve Scalise is going for the Jedi mind trick. While this might work on those already conditioned to accept such bullsh!t, could this be the defensive strategy?

EHgmtPVWoAAAmRC?format=png&name=small

Outlaw Pete · 22-10-2019 9:47pm

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 · 22-10-2019 9:48pm

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.

mcmoustache · 22-10-2019 9:55pm

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.

I whole heartily encourage you to take that position and run with it. Don't wait for a better position to show up. Go with this one.

Cody montana · 22-10-2019 10:17pm

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.

mcmoustache · 22-10-2019 10:18pm

Here's a searchable version of the opening statement.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1911-taylor-opening-statement/71cb2f887efc7eb76629/optimized/full.pdf

It's searchable but not pasteable.

Overheal · 22-10-2019 10:26pm

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.

Are you trying to argue that it’s Taylor’s inference that there was quid pro quo? Because I’m going to give you friendly advice: that’s not a tenable position.

Spencerfreeman · 22-10-2019 10:33pm

Cody montana wrote: »

Yes, Burisma holdings. 2016.

mcmoustache · 22-10-2019 10:43pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Yes, Burisma holdings. 2016.

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 · 22-10-2019 10:51pm

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?

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.

Overheal · 22-10-2019 10:56pm

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.

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.

Outlaw Pete · 22-10-2019 11:11pm

Nuts.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1186738823558041602?s=19

volchitsa · 22-10-2019 11:14pm

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.

Except of course Trump isn't bringing the troops home, that was just another lie from an habitual liar. The truth is that the troops were just redeployed to another front.

And then of course there are the troops he's actively putting in harm's way getting them to fight Saudi Arabia's wars for them. But it's perfectly okay to push for war as long as the ministry of defence can bill someone for it, is that it?

As for rooting out corruption, this is the president who wanted the G20 to held in his own resort. Or are you okay with that too? As long as it's Trump that is.

Overheal · 22-10-2019 11:16pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nuts.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1186738823558041602?s=19

I’m sorry but these all sound like tactics Republicans have gleefully used before in Congressional inquiries, including Benghazi, and the email witch trial. Everything down to the supervised reading of information, as recently as the other year to read the Nunes/Schiff memos behind closed doors. You must be pulling my arm to suppose that anything the Democrats are doing is lacking in precedent.

Spencerfreeman · 22-10-2019 11:19pm

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.

The only reason it appears political and not criminal is Biden's participation in the 2020 election.
His chance is nearly gone already but he will hang in to the bitter end to make this investigation appear that it's focus is to damage him in the next election, which is bollocks.
I believe Trump's focus in this case is rearward to the 2016 election.
I think the ones that set up the illegitimate Ukrainian coup and want the civil war to continue are worth stopping.

Trump has caught the war group out so many times now that I expect this will be no different.

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Comments