House set to begin formal impeachment hearings

[ch33zw1z]

Graham has his head buried in Trump.

Lol, a year from now he'll want us to take him serious again.

 

[Bitek]

Trump is done. Even if he doesn't get impeached, he's not getting anything accomplished over the next year. Americans' attention spans are short, but if he somehow makes it through this there is zero chance he's getting re-elected.

Well, he's gotten nothing done during his entire presidency but a tax cut for himself, yet a whole load of cultists still follow him.

Never underestimate these spellbound fools.

 

[cytg111]

Perhaps it was inappropriate for the president to ask about the Biden's shady dealings, but it does not rise to the level of impeachment. Now the Democrats want to interfere with an election with this non-sense, since they could not win the election otherwise.

Nice country you have there, a shame if cant fend off Russia without these Javelins. I need a favor from you, get me some dirt on my biggest political adversary ok?

Ok Felix. You got this.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I like how the talking heads on the left leaning news shows are trying to convince me that the "majority" of Americans support the Trump impeachment because 45% of people polled now support impeachment and that number is up 10% over the month earlier.

Umm... 45% isn't a "majority", guys. Go back to night school take some remedial math classes. The only thing that 45% support shows is that the people who hated Trump in 2016 still hate Trump now.

Mguessing it’s 45% yes, 15% no opinion, 40% no

 

[fskimospy]

I like how the talking heads on the left leaning news shows are trying to convince me that the "majority" of Americans support the Trump impeachment because 45% of people polled now support impeachment and that number is up 10% over the month earlier.

Umm... 45% isn't a "majority", guys. Go back to night school take some remedial math classes. The only thing that 45% support shows is that the people who hated Trump in 2016 still hate Trump now.

While I don’t know what poll you are citing specifically one came out in recent days with over 50% in favor of the impeachment inquiry. Regardless the most important takeaway is more people now support impeachment than oppose it and the shift is up ten points in a week, not a month. (The net shift is 20 points!)

What’s interesting is that the shift isn’t just among Democrats, it’s among independents and Republicans too. It does seem that Americans finally have found a limit to the amount of corruption they will take from Trump and that’s extorting foreign leaders to illegally smear domestic political opponents. I’m sure you support impeachment and removal for this as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Also Matt Yglesias has a good point that people are generally significantly underestimating just how deep Trump's corruption is:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1179013890711195650

 

[ultimatebob]

While I don’t know what poll you are citing specifically one came out in recent days with over 50% in favor of the impeachment inquiry. Regardless the most important takeaway is more people now support impeachment than oppose it and the shift is up ten points in a week, not a month. (The net shift is 20 points!)

What’s interesting is that the shift isn’t just among Democrats, it’s among independents and Republicans too. It does seem that Americans finally have found a limit to the amount of corruption they will take from Trump and that’s extorting foreign leaders to illegally smear domestic political opponents. I’m sure you support impeachment and removal for this as well.

The only one that I've seen with an over 50% "impeach him" percentage was the Quinnipiac poll. That's a college based out of Connecticut, and tends to lean a bit more liberal than the other polls.

I'm all for investigating Trump, but something tells me that this is just going to turn into another political witch hunt.

 

[fskimospy]

The only one that I've seen with an over 50% "impeach him" percentage was the Quinnipiac poll. That's a college based out of Connecticut, and tends to lean a bit more liberal than the other polls.

I'm all for investigating Trump, but something tells me that this is just going to turn into another political witch hunt.

Uhmm he literally released a summary of his conversation that shows he's guilty and has confessed repeatedly on camera. What more do you need?

We might find out ADDITIONAL impeachable offenses as it appears calls with Saudi Arabia and Russia got the Ukraine treatment of being inappropriately buried in a code word system but we've already got one that a significant majority of Americans agree is sufficient to remove him from office.

 

[JTsyo]

The only one that I've seen with an over 50% "impeach him" percentage was the Quinnipiac poll. That's a college based out of Connecticut, and tends to lean a bit more liberal than the other polls.

I'm all for investigating Trump, but something tells me that this is just going to turn into another political witch hunt.

538 had an interesting article on how polls could be skewed in regards to something this big. In the end I think polls should only be an issue on whether Trump resigns or not. For the actual impeachment, there's enough evidence for impeachment. The Senators won't care that much about national polls rather than their own states if they decide to make it political.

 

[ultimatebob]

Honestly, though, I think that the only difference between Trump and, say... Hillary Clinton on this subject is that Clinton would have had a third party intermediary talk to the Ukraine to have her political rival investigated. If they got caught... well, just fire them and claim that you knew nothing about the conversation.

Trump and his big ego thought that he could get away with doing it himself, and that's what's ultimately going to get him in trouble here.

 

[ultimatebob]

I'm excited to see how letter-writing flourishes again and Ken Burns puts Civil War 2 into really impressive historical context.

He's going to need a more high-tech sounding soundtrack while the camera slowly pans over screenshots of Trump's Tweets

 

[Jhhnn]

Honestly, though, I think that the only difference between Trump and, say... Hillary Clinton on this subject is that Clinton would have had a third party intermediary talk to the Ukraine to have her political rival investigated. If they got caught... well, just fire them and claim that you knew nothing about the conversation.

Trump and his big ego thought that he could get away with doing it himself, and that's what's ultimately going to get him in trouble here.

What anybody else might or might not have done is immaterial to what Trump has done & continues to do. It's innuendo of the obfuscatory kind.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Honestly, though, I think that the only difference between Trump and, say... Hillary Clinton on this subject is that Clinton would have had a third party intermediary talk to the Ukraine to have her political rival investigated. If they got caught... well, just fire them and claim that you knew nothing about the conversation.

Trump and his big ego thought that he could get away with doing it himself, and that's what's ultimately going to get him in trouble here.

Really? So you're unable to defend Trump, therefore you must bring up the Hillary boogeyman (boogeywoman?), create a straw-man, define how they'd act, in order to create a false equivalency? Come on, try a little harder!

There's no defending this, and it's okay to state that. You don't have to be pro-democrat, just anti-Trump. And please, stop with the unneeded attacks on other random people you don't like. It makes it hard to take your arguments seriously.

 

[interchange]

Honestly, though, I think that the only difference between Trump and, say... Hillary Clinton on this subject is that Clinton would have had a third party intermediary talk to the Ukraine to have her political rival investigated. If they got caught... well, just fire them and claim that you knew nothing about the conversation.

Trump and his big ego thought that he could get away with doing it himself, and that's what's ultimately going to get him in trouble here.

I think this is a bridge to rationalize being against Trump's actions. I do think, as others have pointed out, that there isn't any evidence this is the case. Yeah it's normal for firms to be hired for opposition research. The outside investigation that started the whole Steele dossier business was funded by Republican opponents of Trump, for instance. The isn't any evidence I'm aware of that Clinton knew how the firm was investigating or used any of the collected info anyway. Regardless, the best anyone could say is that there may be ethical concerns about this universal practice. Way different than Trump using his official office to dig up dirt and set up or even imply a quid pro quo. Had Trump used his own funds to hire Guiliani to investigate Biden/Biden-son and not subverted aid to Ukraine or had himself or anyone in any political office talk to Ukrainian leaders about it, he wouldn't have been violating the law/ abusing his office.

 

[K1052]

Trump is claiming he is the victim of an attempted coup intending to take away people's...religion (amongst other things).

 

[snoopy7548]

Well, if it's really a coup, do something about it. You're the President. Or you could just keep whining because you know you've got nothing.

 

[MrPickins]

Trump is claiming he is the victim of an attempted coup intending to take away people's...religion (amongst other things).


View attachment 11505

And yet, somehow, it's the Dems who are dividing our nation...

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

[DarthKyrie]

And yet, somehow, it's the Dems who are dividing our nation...

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I'm on crazy pills and this has my mind blown away.

 

[esquared]

Watching CNN and breaking news is the State Dept IG is requesting an urgent briefing tomorrow with the committees
on the Ukraine documents.

State Dept inspector general's 'urgent' Ukraine briefing underway on Capitol Hill

The State Department 's inspector general was giving an 'urgent' briefing on Capitol Hill Wednesday on documents related to Ukraine and the State Department.

abcnews.go.com

 

[woolfe9998]

Watching CNN and breaking news is the State Dept IG is requesting an urgent briefing tomorrow with the committees
on the Ukraine documents.

State Dept inspector general's 'urgent' Ukraine briefing underway on Capitol Hill

The State Department 's inspector general was giving an 'urgent' briefing on Capitol Hill Wednesday on documents related to Ukraine and the State Department.

abcnews.go.com

This will be tomorrow's big bombshell and it may be the biggest yet. Here's my educated guess.

Inspectors General handle complaints over government malfeasance and corruption. That's all they do. They receive complaints, they investigate them, then if appropriate ("urgent" and "credible") they forward to the appropriate channel as prescribed by law. However, the IG's are independent in the sense that this IG would not need Pompeo's approval to go to Congress especially if the whistleblower has a right to go directly to Congress.

Given that the State Department is heavily involved in all this, with Pompeo having been in on the call and State Department personnel having been involved with Giuliani's visits to meet Ukrainian officials, SD staff are perhaps in a position to know things the IC whistleblower does not know. Not about the phone call. More likely about Giuliani and/or Barr visiting foreign dignitaries.

In fact, it's possible this whistleblower is on Schiff's deposition list already but is being blocked from testifying by Pompeo. And it's possible the SD IG is concerned he or she could be outed if deposed by Congress. Hence the "urgency" of the matter.

I think this is a second whisteblower complaint, this time from SD personnel instead of IC personnel. I don't know the procedure for this, but if it's parallel to the IC whisteblower rules, the SD IG would have had to forward it to Pompeo who then "shall" forward it to Congress. I think it's possible Pompeo is sitting on a very damaging whistleblower complaint, and the IG is about to hand it to Congress.

 

[interchange]

This will be tomorrow's big bombshell and it may be the biggest yet. Here's my educated guess.

Inspectors General handle complaints over government malfeasance and corruption. That's all they do. They receive complaints, they investigate them, then if appropriate ("urgent" and "credible") they forward to the appropriate channel as proscribed by law. However, the IG's are independent in the sense that this IG would not need Pompeo's approval to go to Congress.

Given that the State Department is heavily involved in all this, with Pompeo having been in on the call and State Department personnel having been involved with Giuliani's visits to meet Ukrainian officials, SD staff are perhaps in a position to know things the IC whistleblower does not know. Not about the phone call. More likely about Giuliani and/or Barr visiting foreign dignitaries.

In fact, it's possible this whistleblower is on Schiff's deposition list already but is being blocked from testifying by Pompeo. And it's possible the SD IG is concerned he or she could be outed if deposed by Congress. Hence the "urgency" of the matter.

I think this is a second whisteblower complaint, this time from SD personnel instead of IC personnel. I don't know the procedure for this, but if it's parallel to the IC whisteblower rules, the SD IG would have had to forward it to Pompeo who then "shall" forward it to Congress. I think it's possible Pompeo is sitting on a very damaging whistleblower complaint, and the IG is about to hand it to Congress.

Proscribe means to forbid. Anyway, I agree with your reasoning overall. This could be the nail in the coffin. Really all that needs to happen is for Republicans to decide they are in worse shape with Trump than without him. It's probably better if some never before reported on scandal or piece of scandal comes out that can be pointed to as the reason for turning on him despite the obvious malfeasance from the start.

 

[woolfe9998]

Proscribe means to forbid. Anyway, I agree with your reasoning overall. This could be the nail in the coffin. Really all that needs to happen is for Republicans to decide they are in worse shape with Trump than without him. It's probably better if some never before reported on scandal or piece of scandal comes out that can be pointed to as the reason for turning on him despite the obvious malfeasance from the start.

Thanks. I meant prescribe, not proscribe.

In my view, for republicans to sign on, public opinion will have to move by more than the small increment which it has moved thus far. It's going to have to be something big, either something which makes the known complaint a lot worse, and potentially exposes Trump and his henchman for lying about it over the past several days, or something entirely different. But it's not likely to be the latter. The SD IG said it had to do with the Ukraine.

 

[interchange]

Thanks. I meant prescribe, not proscribe.

In my view, for republicans to sign on, public opinion will have to move by more than the small increment which it has moved thus far. It's going to have to be something big, either something which makes the known complaint a lot worse, and potentially exposes Trump and his henchman for lying about it over the past several days, or something entirely different. But it's not likely to be the latter. The SD IG said it had to do with the Ukraine.

Doesn't have to be about something other than Ukraine. Just as long as it's a new finding that is big enough to stick out and simple enough to understand in just a few words. I truly hope they are not waiting for public opinion to change. To be in that spot greatly underestimates their power to dictate what their lot thinks they believe by simply supplying the narrative. Any resistance to accepting the abandonment of Trump would fade readily after his removal, at which point I expect the average Trump defender to not even believe they ever really supported him that much in the first place and to use rationalizations to justify what little support they admit to ever providing.

 

[woolfe9998]

Doesn't have to be about something other than Ukraine. Just as long as it's a new finding that is big enough to stick out and simple enough to understand in just a few words. I truly hope they are not waiting for public opinion to change. To be in that spot greatly underestimates their power to dictate what their lot thinks they believe by simply supplying the narrative. Any resistance to accepting the abandonment of Trump would fade readily after his removal, at which point I expect the average Trump defender to not even believe they ever really supported him that much in the first place and to use rationalizations to justify what little support they admit to ever providing.

I think that's an overly optimistic assessment of how conservative voters would react to Trump's removal. The bottom line is that Trump is going to have to be a political liability to the GOP in the Senate before they'll vote to remove him, and the only way that happens is if public opinion of Trump drops sharply. Averaged approvals are down 1.5% (42.8-41.3 as of now) so far. They'll likely need to hit at least mid 30's if not lower, with impeachment approval up well over 50%.

 

[dawp]

And this is why he gets nothing permanent done. Nearly everything he has done will be erased by the next President because it’s mostly executive orders.
Trump could have had such a great accomplishment list.
All he had to do was agree to immigration reform and a daca fix for a lot of wall funding. This was offered to him in his first meetup with Chuck & Nancy.
The President could have easily sold the Republican Party on immigration reform.
That first compromise could have lead to other great compromises, like infrastructure, VA system, prison reform, student debt. He literally could have gotten credit for great things but he chose not to.

I wonder if it's possible for the next president to issue a blanket EO rescinding all of trump's on their first day in office. Can you just imagine the reaction from the right?