The "Official Nick's BB" Trump Impeachment thread!

[stui magpie]

Enthralled my not be a term I'd use, but it would seem only those who hate Trump with a passion and want him gone could get excited by trawling through that, picking up nuggets of confirmation bias along the way.

[David]

I think the thing I find particularly absurd is that this utterly partisan exercise (in which senators are pretending to look at the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, but in the vast majority of cases have long since decided what their votes will be) is already bogged down in arcane legalities and semantics; have a look at each sides' arguments as presented in the link above, and, without bias, try to come to a view of which is the 'right' one. It seems impossible.

Trump has clearly acted corruptly, but that's not really in question; what's really being debated here seems to be where exactly the limitations of the presidential role's power and accountability lie, a topic that the vast majority of Americans would have no clue about and even less opinion on. If this process led to reforms that would limit the power of future presidents to act corruptly, that would be something worth paying attention to and getting behind. But such conceptual thinking seems well beyond the capabilities of the US congress; the only thing anyone on either side of the aisle seems to care about is "Trump bad" vs "Trump good". So the whole thing is just a massive waste of time and energy, and no-one will be the wiser about anything at the end of it all.

[Wokko]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/0 ... ent-trial/

[Pies4shaw]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-25/ ... e/11900356

Add breach of Star Trek's IP rights to his high crimes and misdemeanours.

[pietillidie]

More corrupt lowlife associates and advisors, more corruption of state. Does the bloke know a single person who isn't a certified scum bag?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/25/us/p ... onors.html

Long live the George W. Trump regime, its hangers on, its adoring fans, its criminality, its immunity from legal and moral responsibility, and especially its handouts to multimillionaires that make it all possible.

[watt price tully]

Is this a game changer?

"...Momentum is growing to call witnesses to Donald Trump's impeachment trial after it was revealed his former national security adviser has written a book manuscript saying Trump directly tied military aid to Ukraine to politically motivated investigations.

The revelations about John Bolton's forthcoming book have shaken up the Senate impeachment trial, which had appeared to be moving towards a speedy acquittal for Trump as early as the end of the week..."

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-a ... 53v8v.html

Apart from corruption, abuse of power, lying and cheating what's Trump got to hide if witnesses are called?

[Wokko]

The left are relying on John Bolton to prove their case?

[roar]

Is this a game changer?

No.

[watt price tully]

The left are relying on John Bolton to prove their case?

No, just one of many.

If Trump hasn't got anything to hide then should face his accusers. This isn't diffcult. I'm all for allowing Trump to have his time in court

Just his supporters and Donny boy himself seem want to avoid this at all costs. Funny that. What's he hiding?

[Wokko]

The Democrats don't want Hunter Biden or the whistle blower (you know, his accuser) to testify. I wonder what they're trying to hide.

[David]

I would totally start to get interested in this if Hunter testified. That sounds like something worth watching.

[Pies4shaw]

^ It would, of course, be completely irrelevant to the issue before the Senate - even if there is some problem with the Bidens’ conduct (I expect there is), evidence that they or some of them had acted corruptly couldn’t bear on the question whether Trump had.

I suppose there’s just some prospect that pursuing the Bidens could blow up in Trump’s face - the Senate process is a big yawn fest and a good lawyer would do nothing at all to make it interesting or draw attention to it. Of course, they’re all Americans, so none of them (especially not self-promoting US lawyers) will see any merit in saying nothing when the opportunity to have a shining moment in the sun presents itself.

[watt price tully]

^ It would, of course, be completely irrelevant to the issue before the Senate - even if there is some problem with the Bidens’ conduct (I expect there is), evidence that they or some of them had acted corruptly couldn’t bear on the question whether Trump had.

I suppose there’s just some prospect that pursuing the Bidens could blow up in Trump’s face - the Senate process is a big yawn fest and a good lawyer would do nothing at all to make it interesting or draw attention to it. Of course, they’re all Americans, so none of them (especially not self-promoting US lawyers) will see any merit in saying nothing when the opportunity to have a shining moment in the sun presents itself.

Correct Weight, which Biden is POTUS exactly? The rest is simply defection.

[David]

[stui magpie]

^

Why not go all out?

My cycnical view is that no one actually wants that degree of disclosure.

For the Democrats it's a vote harvesting exercise. They know they have zero chance of succeeding so they're trying to:
1. stay true to those who've been screaming since the day Trump was elected, saying at least we tried, please vote for us again, and
2. target the swinging voter and those who don't give a shit and normally don't vote, try to get them to vote Democrat.

It's too late this time around, but for 2024 if the Democrats are smart (which, let's face it, they aren't but....) they'll try to tap into the outsider energy and groom a left wing celebrity to run. People are tired of the establishment, on all sides of politics, looking out for themselves. They wan't someone who isn't beholden to the establishment, That's how they got Trump, that's why Bernie won't get the nomination and someone else will lose to Trump in 2020 and why the Democrats need a Robert De Niro or similar for 2024.