Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

34 minutes ago, bigbird said:

How do you think the public will view it? 

In the short term, unfavorably.  However the current view won't matter when the chips are down next November.  Too many variables before election day to worry about how it plays at the ballot box.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

24 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

How long could she hold them with no common ground on a "fair trial"

I believe she is under no legal obligation to actually send the articles to the Senate.  Theoretically she could hold them forever.

[bigbird 60,491]

23 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t know, but there’s no rush at this point. 

Then why was there such a rush to the impeachment?

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

2 hours ago, bigbird said:

Thoughts on Pelosi potentially holding up sending the articles to the Senate?

 

For me, I think it would be a huge mistake for the left. If it was so imperative to impeach with unprecedented speed and with Trump being such a threat to national defense, then why hold up the process. It makes the whole thing look even more political and weak and draws it out even longer into the new year. If drawn out through the early part of the year, that will really affect the primaries and remain the foremost issue. I don't think that is a winning strategy.

The Dems could be waiting until the early primaries are over so their candidates can stump unencumbered as senators are required to be in session during the trial.  The worst case scenario is the Dems hold off until the election to hold this over Trump until then, hoping they win the Senate and remove him from office.  But, nah this can’t be their motivation, they wouldn’t be that despicable.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The Dems could be waiting until the early primaries are over so their candidates can stump unencumbered as senators are required to be in session during the trial.  The worst case scenario is the Dems hold off until the election to hold this over Trump until then, hoping they win the Senate and remove him from office.  But, nah this can’t be their motivation, they wouldn’t be that despicable.

This is also a valid point.  It's a reason I thought McConnell may go for a longer trial in the Senate.  Keeps some key players off the campaign trail during an important time for the nomination.

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

This is also a valid point.  It's a reason I thought McConnell may go for a longer trial in the Senate.  Keeps some key players off the campaign trail during an important time for the nomination.

Politics is a game I really dislike. 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

18 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Then why was there such a rush to the impeachment?

I’m not sure they anticipated that McConnell and Graham would be so blatant about assuring there would not be a fair process. You seem very concerned about the speed of the House, particularly in regard to article 2– do you have any concerns about McConnell and Graham’s statements?

[bigbird 60,491]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m not sure they anticipated that McConnell and Graham would be so blatant about assuring there would not be a fair process. You seem very concerned about the speed of the House, particularly in regard to article 2– do you have any concerns about McConnell and Graham’s statements?

Absolutely

The process should be bipartisan

I agree with what Nancy said...

... I’ve been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

10 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Absolutely

The process should be bipartisan

I agree with what Nancy said...

... I’ve been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” 

I think she assumed more good faith from her Republican colleagues regarding blatant election interference.

[bigbird 60,491]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

I think she assumed more good faith from her Republican colleagues regarding blatant election interference.

I can't speak on what she assumed just what she said and what she said, IMO, is absolutely right. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

27 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I think she assumed more good faith from her Republican colleagues regarding blatant election interference.

If she assumed that given McConnell's history, then she's an idiot.

24 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I can't speak on what she assumed just what she said and what she said, IMO, is absolutely right. 

Yup.  I don't understand deviating from this stance.  All she's doing is placating the base while potentially pissing off independent voters.

[bigbird 60,491]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

If she assumed that given McConnell's history, then she's an idiot.

Yup.  I don't understand deviating from this stance.  All she's doing is placating the base while potentially pissing off independent voters.

Exactly which makes it look even less credible and more political.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

In the short term, unfavorably.  However the current view won't matter when the chips are down next November.  Too many variables before election day to worry about how it plays at the ballot box.

Sensible input.

Hope all is well.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sensible input.

Hope all is well.

You too sir.  Need to get out to the course for the holidays.  Been too long.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You too sir.  Need to get out to the course for the holidays.  Been too long.

I’ve been spending my days catching redfish and specks. Actually no golf in about 3 months.

[bigbird 60,491]

42 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’ve been spending my days catching redfish and specks

I've been spending my days collecting badges of honor from ICHY

[ToraGirl 5,498]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

I've been spending my days collecting badges of honor from ICHY

They must be extra special since he is not able to hear well. Borrowing the reasoning from A4E.

[bigbird 60,491]

“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” 

- Gabbard

 

 

[ToraGirl 5,498]

37 minutes ago, bigbird said:

“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” 

- Gabbard

 

 

Heard that last night. I was impressed. As for country division,  as hopeful as I am about most things in life, I am certain that the divide started long before President Trump, President Obama, President GW Bush...long before. It is a war of the worldviews at its root. The BEST we can hope for is kindness and respect from each "side" and individual to the other. The division will sadly stay. 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

34 minutes ago, bigbird said:

“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” 

- Gabbard

 

 

But if he’s committed wrongdoing maybe the most partisan part of that equation are the folks refusing to recognize the wrongdoing.

[bigbird 60,491]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

But if he’s committed wrongdoing maybe the most partisan part of that equation are the folks refusing to recognize the wrongdoing.

If the wrongdoing isn't cut and dry, doesn't fall under bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors, and isn't proven incontrovertibly, then, IMO the most partisan thing would to be progressing through impeachment unilaterally.

 

No matter which party holds the office, house, or Senate

[TexasTiger 12,829]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

If the wrongdoing isn't cut and dry and isn't proven incontrovertibly, then, IMO the most partisan thing would to be progressing through impeachment unilaterally.

It’s pretty cut and dry on the abuse of power issue.

[bigbird 60,491]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

It’s pretty cut and dry on the abuse of power issue.

If so, why do they feel the need to hold the articles so they can hear more witness testimony?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s pretty cut and dry on the abuse of power issue.

Yeah, I admit I haven't followed this thing as closely as others, but it sure seemed cut and dried to me.  Trump suggested that certain aid the Ukraine needs would be held up/denied unless they dug into a political opponent's family for dirt.  This wasn't like regular negotiations where a POTUS extracts promises or concessions from a country that furthers US interests in exchange for our help.  It wasn't "if we can't get you to lower your tariffs on these US imports, then we might be forced to withdraw our financial support."  It was for his own personal and political gain.  That seems pretty straightforward.