Jump to content

The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Nice.

 

If CNN and others would do their job properly they would do this same polling but state specific and show the nation (and the Senators/Congressmen) from certain particular states what the polling is.  The senators from Utah, Maine, Alaska, etc... should see if their constituents are polling highly towards allowing witnesses in the trial or new evidence.  Ah, nevertheless it won’t matter as those Senators will vote against all of that no matter what with furrowed brows and all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Murderer's Row here:

 

 

I have absolute faith that the Republicans will completely embarrass themselves.  Trump will still sail through this, sure, but I imagine that the Democrats running against Republicans incumbents in Congress will get plenty of material for their campaign ads this fall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's "Being Right" and there's "Being Much More Correct."

In addition to his Emeritus status from Harvard, you can also add to Dershowitz's litany of titles, "Argumentative Woman"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why are we assuming Doug Jones loses?  Serious question, I don't pay attention to Alabama politics.

Because he’s a Democrat. In Alabama. Glad I could help.

*And the Republicans won’t nominate a pedophile again. 

Edited by Irieguy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why are we assuming Doug Jones loses?  Serious question, I don't pay attention to Alabama politics.

We are assuming he will not be running against a child molester this time around. We learned in the last election that Alabamians will take a Democrat over a child molester, by a 1.7% margin.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

That was just embarrassing for all involved.  Then he goes on about how he's being "bullied."  Please.

Yep. This is a guy who bitched about being shunned at dinner parties on Martha’s Vineyard because of his association with Trump. He might be the biggest snowflake of them all. 

Edited by Jive Turkey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

We are assuming he will not be running against a child molester this time around. We learned in the last election that Alabamians will take a Democrat over a child molester, by a 1.7% margin.  

You know what they say about assumptions... they make children's buttholes appealing to republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Yep. This is a guy who bitched about being shunned at dinner parties on Martha’s Vineyard because of his association with Trump. He might be the biggest snowflake of them all. 

Not to mention he has no problem taking advantage of underage girls.  Fuck that guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why are we assuming Doug Jones loses?  Serious question, I don't pay attention to Alabama politics.

Jones is basically damned if does, damned if doesn't in terms of this trial. If he tries to side with the GOP because of his state's conservative and perhaps his own stance, he will lose some support in Alabama on the Left. If he sides with the Left in the trial, he will lose support for the Right that he probably was never going to get in the first place.

He doesn't have a safe political lane to stay in. This trial overall is bad for his political career but his 2020 odds were never the best.

Cory Gardner (CO-R) is in a similar situation but not identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Jones is basically damned if does, damned if doesn't in terms of this trial. If he tries to side with the GOP because of his state's conservative and perhaps his own stance, he will lose some support in Alabama on the Left. If he sides with the Left in the trial, he will lose support for the Right that he probably was never going to get in the first place.

He doesn't have a safe political lane to stay in. This trial overall is bad for his political career but his 2020 odds were never the best.

Cory Gardner (CO-R) is in a similar situation but not identical.

That's a shame.  Maybe he should focus on doing the right thing and not his political career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any legitimate reason to not allow witnesses like Bolton other than to protect Trump? From my point of view it’s that they know the witnesses and documents they’re trying to block would hurt Trump and they’re just saying “we have the votes to protect him and we don’t give a fuck about truth or justice”. But is there any real argument for not having witnesses or producing documents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That's a shame.  Maybe he should focus on doing the right thing and not his political career.

Agree and I imagine Schumer is talking to him about that. A Democrat in the South is not exactly ignorant of their chances when running for state-wide offices.

I don't follow this thread too closely. Who are the Senators that might vote against their party for trial motions like dismissal or witnesses?  I see the following as potential:

GOP: Murkowski, Alexander (retiring), Collins (ha), Romney.   Gardner and Ernst are wild cards because they're in states that are purple if not blue, and both are up in 2020. They along with McSally may require strong Trump support in 2020 if they stick to the Trump line.

Dem: Manchin, Jones, Tester.   All 3 are in red states but only Jones is up in 2020.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Jones is basically damned if does, damned if doesn't in terms of this trial. If he tries to side with the GOP because of his state's conservative and perhaps his own stance, he will lose some support in Alabama on the Left. If he sides with the Left in the trial, he will lose support for the Right that he probably was never going to get in the first place.

Taking your assessment at face value, wouldn't it seem that there is no political harm in siding with the left if doing so simply drives the right further away?  If he's not gonna get any votes from Republicans, regardless of what he does going forward, then that's a sunk cost.  Ignore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, heso said:

Is there any legitimate reason to not allow witnesses like Bolton other than to protect Trump? From my point of view it’s that they know the witnesses and documents they’re trying to block would hurt Trump and they’re just saying “we have the votes to protect him and we don’t give a fuck about truth or justice”. But is there any real argument for not having witnesses or producing documents?

No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

If CNN and others would do their job properly they would do this same polling but state specific and show the nation (and the Senators/Congressmen) from certain particular states what the polling is.  The senators from Utah, Maine, Alaska, etc... should see if their constituents are polling highly towards allowing witnesses in the trial or new evidence.  Ah, nevertheless it won’t matter as those Senators will vote against all of that no matter what with furrowed brows and all. 

Monmouth came out with a national poll that 75% think there should be witnesses.  I imagine the cost of running 50 polls is much more expensive than running 1. I'm guessing 50x the cost. :)   

Too bad the the NYTimes Upshot section isn't running some of their live polls like they did in the runup to the 2018 elections. Those were pretty cool to see the results as they came in. Seems like an enterprising org could even ask for donations to run the polls.  Would be interesting to see the breakdown of interest, and thoughts for many of the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Taking your assessment at face value, wouldn't it seem that there is no political harm in siding with the left if doing so simply drives the right further away?  If he's not gonna get any votes from Republicans, regardless of what he does going forward, then that's a sunk cost.  Ignore it.

You are making it overly complicated. Jones winning was like Haley’s comet. Trump idiotically supported a pedophile and still lost by less than 2%.  End of story. Any other R will win in Alabama. ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN. Jesus people. Jones’s impeachment vote means nothing. Democrats aren’t winning that Bama seat. Move on. 

Edited by Irieguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

I don't follow this thread too closely. Who are the Senators that might vote against their party for trial motions like dismissal or witnesses?  I see the following as potential:

GOP: Murkowski, Alexander (retiring), Collins (ha), Romney.   Gardner and Ernst are wild cards because they're in states that are purple if not blue, and both are up in 2020. They along with McSally may require strong Trump support in 2020 if they stick to the Trump line.

Dem: Manchin, Jones, Tester.   All 3 are in red states but only Jones is up in 2020.

 

 

Ha. No. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

No

Yea that’s what I assumed. The only talking point I heard was that if the dems wanted witnesses they should have called them during the house investigation. Ignoring the fact that they did call them they just didn’t comply with the subpoena. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McConnell should just start by calling for a vote to dismiss all charges and be done with it. We could be done by dinner. Results will be the same, and probably better than an acquittal for Dotard. That gives the charges legitimacy. Dismissing them is saying they aren't legit. Why waste time on something that is a forgone conclusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seasick Sailor said:

Ha. No. 

 

That has been his position the whole time and does not mean he will not vote for witnesses after evidence has been presented. He may vote to not call witnesses when it is all over, but that is not what he is talking about here. Don't conflate it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

That has been his position the whole time and does not mean he will not vote for witnesses after evidence has been presented. He may vote to not call witnesses when it is all over, but that is not what he is talking about here. Don't conflate it. 

I agree.  There are many ways to interpret Romney's statement from Dana Bash. I fully expect that he will vote with the GOP but I don't seem him cowering like most of the GOP. Romney has nothing to worry about from Trump; Utah cheers him on when he doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Checking in from Davos...

 

Not that it will occur to his base, but the 's' ought to be removed in case someone decides to read the other transcript that are real transcripts and not memos.. They perfectly paint him into a corner.

Since it's a forgone conclusion how this is going to go, I'm mostly watching to see if Jim Jordan rips his jacket seams.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Man, Cippollone's opening remarks sounded like a 1L winging it at a moot court competition.

I winged mine because of a hangover after a trip to Mexico (the part of the brief that I didn't write) and I am pretty sure I did better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Checking in from Davos...

 

He keeps coming back to this.  If we read the unedited transcripts, this will be pretty open and shut.  The call was not perfect, despite screaming from the mountaintops that it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...