Impeachment

[clean]

How many cats that were obviously in the bag to begin with have to leave the bag, meow loudly, scratch up the corners of the living room couch, and cough up hairballs on the kitchen floor for GOP member of Congress to acknowledge that there were, in fact, cats in the bag?

At least as many as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, to at least the second power.

Not enough likely to convince even 4 Republican senators to agree to call John Bolten to testify or even be interviewed by the Senate.

I worry about the lessons that will be learned from this? Will impeachment become more likely in the future?  Will the House take the time to go to court to call reluctant or 'executively privileged' witnesses to testify? 

What a mess!  To quote Clint Eastwood's character in Heartbreak Ridge, "clusterfuck" seems to sum up the process from the very start.   

[mamselle]

I think it's worth pointing out that the mess started when the process reached the Senate.

Pelosi and Schiff ran a tight, clean ship (interrupted once by the hordes of phone-toting children at the hearing-room door) and adhered to all the required procedures.

The circus started when they handed off the affidavit to the Senate. (And no, the delay in that was justified, given the holidays as well as the need to name managers specific to the conditions set by the Senate. It was done as soon as practicible).

I'm just hoping Romney, Collins, et al. can work towards getting witnesses included.

And in fact, whatever happens, the expected kangaroo-court exoneration won't be the end of it.

Too much else has come up that will have to be dealt with later: there are at least two revelations (whatever Bolton has to say, and the tapes now surfacing from Parnas' trial) that will require investigation and probably, separate charges--like those still working their way through the system on emoluments, tax evasion, etc.

So....the cats will not only be out of the bag, but scampering up to the top of the refrigerator and across the kitchen counter-top, leaving little calling cards to be cleaned up when they can't get back to their litter boxes in time.

And we may be finding more cats in bags in other kitchens.

The man from St. Ives has been busy....

M.

[clean]

Pelosi and Schiff ran a tight, clean ship (interrupted once by the hordes of phone-toting children at the hearing-room door) and adhered to all the required procedures.

Unfortunately, there are parts of society that would not agree that this statement is factual. 

I spent the Christmas break with my parents and heard (but not listened much) to all of the ways that the House abused Their power. 

[mahagonny]

Pelosi and Schiff ran a tight, clean ship (interrupted once by the hordes of phone-toting children at the hearing-room door) and adhered to all the required procedures.

Unfortunately, there are parts of society that would not agree that this statement is factual. 

I spent the Christmas break with my parents and heard (but not listened much) to all of the ways that the House abused Their power.

Specifically? I am not trying the 'get clean.' I ask because I'd like to know.

[mamselle]

Pelosi and Schiff ran a tight, clean ship (interrupted once by the hordes of phone-toting children at the hearing-room door) and adhered to all the required procedures.

Unfortunately, there are parts of society that would not agree that this statement is factual. 

I spent the Christmas break with my parents and heard (but not listened much) to all of the ways that the House abused Their power.

I'm just guessing that, like my own parents with Nixon, yours are only listening to Republican hermeneutics and not actually matching up events to interpretations.

It's a bit like playground dynamics...if enough kids say, "Yeah, that's exactly what happened," even if the description of events is skewed exactly contrary to the facts, the "first-hand" reports will carry the story forward and endow it with truth-seeming.

There are a number of narrative lines--about inflation, racial and gender-based discrimination, and what is right, or legal--that can be massaged to fit new circumstances, turn the apparent bogey-man into a hero, or vice-versa.

By getting lots of your friends on the swings and the merry-go-round to repeat those "apparent truths" you can win the day...unless other, unsuborned eye-witnesses can be found to fill in the picture.

The clue to who's telling the truth is Solomonic.

M.

[nebo113]

How many cats that were obviously in the bag to begin with have to leave the bag, meow loudly, scratch up the corners of the living room couch, and cough up hairballs on the kitchen floor for GOP member of Congress to acknowledge that there were, in fact, cats in the bag?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html

YOU WIN THE LULZ!

[clean]

Specifically? I am not trying the 'get clean.' I ask because I'd like to know.

It has been more then a month since I was there, and as I said, I heard, but didnt particularly listen.  I seem to recall something about the House inviting the Trump Defense team, and hearing that he was given only 48 hours notice, that the defense team would not be able to call witnesses etc, that it was an illusion.

The Ukraine money was withheld as a matter coersion (for lack of a better word).  The response is well known that the President was Required to withhold it IF there was corruption.  Also, the New people in office in Ukrane were too new to know if they were not also corrupt, or corrupt in some other way. 

again, there were plenty of other issues, and I didnt pay attention.  The Reader's Digest point of my very few posts here is that what some view as the unadulterated fact of the situation, others view as a part of the opposition spin machine. 

I hope that the Senate approves the calling of witnesses .   I really dont care who they call!  If they want to call Joe or Hunter Biden, Go Ahead, and then let them decide if that explains the President's actions! 

If the Senate Calls John Bolten, and if Bolten says anything harmful to the President, you can bet that it will be discounted because "Bolten is a disgruntled former employee" out to make a bundle on book sales.  And in the end will Bolten say anything that will convince even 60 Senators to remove the President from office, much less the required number?

[mamselle]

Just as an informational discussion of the things you heard, this might help to ventilate the statements a bit more.

1. First I've heard of the 48-hour issue....I don't understand how that's an issue since there were several opportunities offered for hearings, witnesses, etc. The President's defense has consistently been playing footsies with the whole idea of presenting or being present at any of the situations in which they could have participated.

Invited, they refuse, then complain they weren't heard.

Asked for witness testimony, they block it, then complain they didn't get to state their case.

They really do want the jaws of the thing to work both ways, but that might just come back around to bite them--literally.

2. There was no corruption--except on the part of the US President.

The whole Biden thing has been roundly disproven, yet it's continually being brought out as a smokescreen for what really was corrupt about the whole issue: the quid pro quo now clearly tied to the POTUS (The New Yorker had a good article on this a couple weeks ago).

3. There is no reason to call the Bidens - see no. 2 above. They are not on trial. Even if they had done something wrong (they did not) the methods proposed were exactly the wrong way to go about righting anything untoward.

Likewise, the manic urge to out, or call out as a witness, the whistleblower.

That is absolutely forbideen and a danger to that person's life as well as their civil liberties.

It's also entirely unnecessary. Every point of their affidavit has been shown to be exactly correct.

Their testimony, in addition to being dangerous to them (given the threats Trump has voiced against them) is entirely superfluous.

M.

[ciao_yall]

Now McConnell says he does not have votes to block witnesses.

What do we think is going on?

• Despite his best efforts, enough R's have a conscience.
• Enough R voters aren't "basey" enough to let him get away with getting Trump off the hook. So he is letting a few vulnerable R Senators vote accordingly to see how the process and polls play out.
• Amy McGrath is gaining on him and he is willing to throw Trump under the bus so that he can retain his seat in 2020 by willing to look like he is putting his country first.

[mahagonny]

Specifically? I am not trying the 'get clean.' I ask because I'd like to know.

It has been more then a month since I was there, and as I said, I heard, but didnt particularly listen.  I seem to recall something about the House inviting the Trump Defense team, and hearing that he was given only 48 hours notice, that the defense team would not be able to call witnesses etc, that it was an illusion.

The Ukraine money was withheld as a matter coersion (for lack of a better word).  The response is well known that the President was Required to withhold it IF there was corruption.  Also, the New people in office in Ukrane were too new to know if they were not also corrupt, or corrupt in some other way. 

again, there were plenty of other issues, and I didnt pay attention.  The Reader's Digest point of my very few posts here is that what some view as the unadulterated fact of the situation, others view as a part of the opposition spin machine. 

I hope that the Senate approves the calling of witnesses .   I really dont care who they call!  If they want to call Joe or Hunter Biden, Go Ahead, and then let them decide if that explains the President's actions! 

If the Senate Calls John Bolten, and if Bolten says anything harmful to the President, you can bet that it will be discounted because "Bolten is a disgruntled former employee" out to make a bundle on book sales.  And in the end will Bolten say anything that will convince even 60 Senators to remove the President from office, much less the required number?

Thank you.

[mahagonny]

Now McConnell says he does not have votes to block witnesses.

What do we think is going on?

• Despite his best efforts, enough R's have a conscience.
• Enough R voters aren't "basey" enough to let him get away with getting Trump off the hook. So he is letting a few vulnerable R Senators vote accordingly to see how the process and polls play out.
• Amy McGrath is gaining on him and he is willing to throw Trump under the bus so that he can retain his seat in 2020 by willing to look like he is putting his country first.

Throwing out the impeachment after hearing witnesses looks more above-board. The endgame is still 'is this an impeachable offense?'  for which the founding fathers left a lot of wiggle room. So it's always a matter of opinion.

[bopper]

Now McConnell says he does not have votes to block witnesses.

What do we think is going on?

• Despite his best efforts, enough R's have a conscience.
• Enough R voters aren't "basey" enough to let him get away with getting Trump off the hook. So he is letting a few vulnerable R Senators vote accordingly to see how the process and polls play out.
• Amy McGrath is gaining on him and he is willing to throw Trump under the bus so that he can retain his seat in 2020 by willing to look like he is putting his country first.

Throwing out the impeachment after hearing witnesses looks more above-board. The endgame is still 'is this an impeachable offense?'  for which the founding fathers left a lot of wiggle room. So it's always a matter of opinion.

It seems obvious to me to why not have a trial with witnesses and THEN acquit...unless you think the witnesses will make the crime so obvious they have to find him guilty.  It is clear to me that Trump is also having some major symptoms of some kind of dementia like aphasia, balance issues, speaking issues, inability to retain new info, speaking repetitively, etc.

[clean]

It is clear to me that Trump is also having some major symptoms of some kind of dementia like aphasia, balance issues, speaking issues, inability to retain new info, speaking repetitively, etc.

Dont we ALL?  These look like pretty well sum up the reasons that I dont want anyone to record my lectures!!

[nebo113]

It is clear to me that Trump is also having some major symptoms of some kind of dementia like aphasia, balance issues, speaking issues, inability to retain new info, speaking repetitively, etc.

Dont we ALL?  These look like pretty well sum up the reasons that I dont want anyone to record my lectures!!

Hopefully, you do not exhibit ALL of these symptoms, especially frequently and together.

[magnemite]

Now that it looks like there will be no further witnesses, to be followed by the inevitable votes that will defeat the articles of impeachment, we'll get to look forward to Trump unchained, with everything done by fiat, supported by the Senate. This represents a bigly step towards tyranny. If you have not done so, please go buy, and read this nice little book: On Tyranny, by Timothy Snyder. It is illuminating.

This election will be "fun", and the outcome perhaps the most important one since 1860, or 1932.