I think they need to hold off a couple of weeks then do some breaking news/siren/bombshell release where they have had some shocking new info and they need to re-open the hearings.
They’ve got plenty to choose from, even if no new info comes out before then.
Be aggressive. Control the narrative. Make Trump breakdown.
Correct, the #1 thing people associated w/ Hillary was BUTTER EMAILS. Everyone knows that Trump deserves to be impeached, and that the only reason he is going to survive is because his thug supporters are going to ride or die with their Don and they happen to be well located electorally.
So be it, I see no reason to drop the issue, it’s not like it gets better if we ignore it. Impeach him for his bribery and extortion, even though his fellow gang members in the Senate will engage in jury nullification. Impeach him for the same blatant perjury Roger Stone committed, even though his fellow gang members in the Senate will engage in jury nullification. When we get his tax returns, impeach him for the tax fraud it will expose, even though his fellow gang members in the Senate will engage in jury nullification.
Better Trump be forced to spend his time defending his blatant criminal conduct than having 100% of his time to spout BUTTER EMAILS non-sense. It sucks but that is where we are as a country w/ a mobster in the Presidency.
Yup. “If your opponent is of choleric temper irritate him” - Sun Tzu if we believe Tony Soprano.
Right, at least this will get the facts out there for the people that actually care about that kind of thing. Dig up all the records you can, get testimony on all of it, create a massive, detailed public record of all the shit these fuckers are doing.
Yeah the idea that they shouldn’t impeach him for committing obvious crimes is ridiculous. You could maybe argue that they’re going about it wrong by only focusing on one specific crime or moving too quickly but I think this trial illustrated how it might get unwieldy to try covering multiple charges. Like how would putting him on trial for family separations even work? Dems still might screw things up and probably nothing matters but it does seem like they went about this fairly well. Doubt that the Senate convicts for anything less than him performing a late term abortion on a white baby but what can you do about it? Ultimately we need a market downturn to seal his demise.
I think focusing on Ukraine as the big impeachment charge for now is fine. I do think they’ll need to add some things later, as long as they are LEAD-PIPE STONE COLD LOCKS when it comes to evidence and “impeachment worthiness.”
Throwing too much out there right now can a) cause people to tune out, b) create a Republican narrative that the Dems are desperate and are just trying anything, c) dilute the effectiveness of Ukraine, and d) risk killing the entire case if one of the charges doesn’t work.
My position remains the same. I never expected him to be removed by the Senate. I just wanted Congress to move forward. Let the process happen and what will be will be.
Agree that impeachment proceedings went as well as they could. I mean we have people literally saying there was a quid pro quo. We have people like Fiona Hill who command your attention with every word. You could not ask for better witnesses.
More people saw whatever R’s were spewing in short clips than watched the hearings is a problem, more will watch the actual trial but it’s gonna get troll spammed hard by R’s (who are considering making it a long trial to **** over senate dems running and getting to push total nonsense (with far less stupidity than the house did it) as their defense strategy for weeks).
Idk what the proper strategy here is either, I like the sheer volume of crimes but then R’s just pick at the lowest hanging fruit and claim that dismisses everything (it’s ridic that works but it does, just like attacking the messenger instead of the message, that works too (see Kavanaugh))
Sure, that qualifies too. Unless you really think that “impeachment is politically a bad idea.”
But do you?
As far as I can tell, you don’t actually want most Democrats to become president, and you’d get more pleasure from Trump beating most Dem candidates than you would from them winning. So I don’t believe you sincerely would consider, say, Kamala Harris losing to Trump a bad outcome, which means you don’t really actually think “impeachment is politically a bad idea” if it results in Harris losing.
Sounds like you have it all figured out. Keep on the case!
Cheers.
But to be honest, it’s not that tough to crack. You’re no Bugs Meany.
In my view, the Ds understand they cannot realistically win in the Senate. The play is to force as many major players in the administration admit their lawbreaking and/or perjure themselves to avoid admitting breaking laws. From there the Ds are best positioned to win next November and start with a majority in both side of congress to pass their agenda.
The GOP pulling shenanigans is not a good reason to not hold Trump accountable. You might as well anoint him king if that’s the case.
Nah, overthinking it, it “works” the same way lawyers got the murderers of Emmett Till acquitted. Just stack the jury w/ fellow thugs filled w/ racial hatred and animosity, and the jury will pretend to believe whatever BS you spout:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DrJasonJohnson/status/868844408594214914
Yep… Some of these folks have disowned sons and daughters for Trump, a politician means nothing to them.
Also, to be clear, the chances that the Rs stretch this out to infinity in the Senate is approximately zero. Do you think Rudy wants to testify for 2 weeks? He will end up with a rap sheet worse than most felons.
You think the Senate would make Rudy testify?!
I don’t have any idea of what the specific process is but presumably its like a trial where both sides get to call witnesses and ask questions. I’m open to finding out this is incorrect but like I won’t believe otherwise unless someone proves I’m wrong. Totally not a call for homework or whatever.
Mitch has said 6 days a week for 6 weeks. How exactly do you do that without allowing people to testify?