Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

As a parent / family member...

 

Do you want your loved ones to turn out more like Ambassador Taylor or President Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

As a parent / family member...

 

Do you want your loved ones to turn out more like Ambassador Taylor or President Trump?

 

And Walter Cronkite is trending on Twitter...

 

 

Of course Trump is watching. With his massive insecurity, he's desperate to know what people are saying about him, especially in a public spectacle that's on all major news networks....

 

 

Edited by KJP

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, YABO713 said:

My buddy (that resigned) was talking to a few of his former colleagues and after Parnas flipped and Gates testified contradicting Trump, there's a push by the Senate GOP to have Mitch McConnell hold a vote for a secret ballot on impeachment when the time comes. 

 

Only a simple majority is needed to hold the vote by secret ballot. 

 

While I think that would assist in removal, I hope that doesn't happen. Impeachments are rare and historic - your vote should be public.

 

McConnell probably already has his ghostwriter working on "Profiles in Cowardice."   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, YABO713 said:

My buddy (that resigned) was talking to a few of his former colleagues and after Parnas flipped and Gates testified contradicting Trump, there's a push by the Senate GOP to have Mitch McConnell hold a vote for a secret ballot on impeachment when the time comes. 

 

Only a simple majority is needed to hold the vote by secret ballot. 

 

While I think that would assist in removal, I hope that doesn't happen. Impeachments are rare and historic - your vote should be public.

 

On the other hand, a secret vote to impeach Trump is about the only way you might win that bet of yours with Gramareye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally had the chance yesterday to watch most of the hearings.  It seemed to me that the democrats lawyer was very methodical and laid things out in a way that was easy to understand. I don;t think the GOP lawyer seemed good at at all.  Maybe I am biased but it would be good to lawyers' perspectives on this.  

 

Also, I wish they would do away with the 5 minute back and forth all together and just let the lawyers handle the whole thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

 

On the other hand, a secret vote to impeach Trump is about the only way you might win that bet of yours with Gramareye.

 

I didn't bet @Gramarye that he'd be removed. I'd never bet that... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Having a sensitive conversation with the President while on a cell phone in a public restaurant in Ukraine.   but her emaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiils. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, freefourur said:

I finally had the chance yesterday to watch most of the hearings.  It seemed to me that the democrats lawyer was very methodical and laid things out in a way that was easy to understand. I don;t think the GOP lawyer seemed good at at all.  Maybe I am biased but it would be good to lawyers' perspectives on this.  

 

Also, I wish they would do away with the 5 minute back and forth all together and just let the lawyers handle the whole thing. 

 

I'm sure putting forward a cogent theory wasn't the GOP lawyer's strategy.  It's all about recitation of talking points and pointing at various conspiracy theories to muddy the waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, X said:

 

I'm sure putting forward a cogent theory wasn't the GOP lawyer's strategy.  It's all about recitation of talking points and pointing at various conspiracy theories to muddy the waters.

 

Actually a decent tip I got in law school from a professor... 

 

With the exception of bald attorneys... never trust an attorney that doesn't style his or her hair for a proceeding. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most well-known American is also its most embarrassing...

 

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cleburger said:

Goes to Louisiana for a rally, insults the residents, but doesn't even realize it!  🤣

 

 

No.  You've got that wrong, the attendees of the rally are too dumb to realize Trump has dissed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump continues to do his john's bidding...

 

Edited by KJP

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, it seems like this has been met with a collective yawn by the public. That is not a good thing, especially for the Dems.

Back when Clinton was going through this, it was the top topic on every news and radio station at the time, even the rock and country stations. Now the Clinton thing involved a sex scandal so that played well with pop culture. Most people are not interested in international affairs.

 

Point being, nothing so far is moving the needle of public perception. Hearsay rumors and innuendos don't translate well to creating the public outrage needed to have a meaningful impact.

 

So what we are left with is a wasted 6-9 months of impeaching the president and nothing ever really coming from it, and it will be seen as overly political instead of seeking justice against a corrupt individual.  Did we not learn anything from the Clinton scandal. The reason why Watergate was so powerful is because you had collective outrage of both sides of the aisle. Hard evidence had surfaced where you could not defend the president's actions and Nixon was left to fall on his sword. Until more than hearsay arguments come out, the GOP will not have to abandon Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Overall, it seems like this has been met with a collective yawn by the public. That is not a good thing, especially for the Dems.

Back when Clinton was going through this, it was the top topic on every news and radio station at the time, even the rock and country stations. Now the Clinton thing involved a sex scandal so that played well with pop culture. Most people are not interested in international affairs.

 

Point being, nothing so far is moving the needle of public perception. Hearsay rumors and innuendos don't translate well to creating the public outrage needed to have a meaningful impact.

 

So what we are left with is a wasted 6-9 months of impeaching the president and nothing ever really coming from it, and it will be seen as overly political instead of seeking justice against a corrupt individual.  Did we not learn anything from the Clinton scandal. The reason why Watergate was so powerful is because you had collective outrage of both sides of the aisle. Hard evidence had surfaced where you could not defend the president's actions and Nixon was left to fall on his sword. Until more than hearsay arguments come out, the GOP will not have to abandon Trump.

dude, there's been one public hearing.The hearsay argument is dumb considering the administration is blocking first hand witnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Overall, it seems like this has been met with a collective yawn by the public. That is not a good thing, especially for the Dems.

Back when Clinton was going through this, it was the top topic on every news and radio station at the time, even the rock and country stations. Now the Clinton thing involved a sex scandal so that played well with pop culture. Most people are not interested in international affairs.

 

Point being, nothing so far is moving the needle of public perception. Hearsay rumors and innuendos don't translate well to creating the public outrage needed to have a meaningful impact.

 

So what we are left with is a wasted 6-9 months of impeaching the president and nothing ever really coming from it, and it will be seen as overly political instead of seeking justice against a corrupt individual.  Did we not learn anything from the Clinton scandal. The reason why Watergate was so powerful is because you had collective outrage of both sides of the aisle. Hard evidence had surfaced where you could not defend the president's actions and Nixon was left to fall on his sword. Until more than hearsay arguments come out, the GOP will not have to abandon Trump.

 

This is a not a TV  reality show.  This is a serious situation.

 

The "hearsay" noise is BS.  If Trump was so sure the call was perfect, he would not be block participants for testifying under oath, PERIOD.  Trump started this, as he does with every drama has inside and outside of his elected role.  

 

I do think that the GOP will stick with Trump and it's sad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brutus, what?  Hearsay?  It's been admitted multiple times by Trump himself.  The transcript that was released showed it, and that wasn't even the full transcript.  Multiple people have corroborated it.  Mulvaney stood at the podium and told everyone ya it happened and to get over it.  2 of the guys that Giuliani was working with and who had met with Trump 10 times got arrested trying to leave the country.  Pentagon couldn't give a reason for withholding the money.  Nobody with a semblance of objectivity buys that Trump was after corruption in general by spearheading the charge against specifically his political opponent and nobody else. 

 

If this is blown over and nothing happens it's not because of hearsay and innuendo, it's because the Senate is too partisan to do their job appropriately (as evidenced today by voting in favor of a lifetime appointment to the appeals court of a man who's never argued a case).  And the lack of outrage is maybe the most alarming thing.  The damage being done to our interests and institutions seems like it's pretty significant, and this is only what we hear about, but half the country just sweeps it under the rug because of the litany of perceived awfulness if a democrat was elected.  And sure, that's fine, but stop nominating the dumbest and least qualified people to be leader of the free world please.   Ok not fair, but thinking back on the last 2 R presidents... sheesh.

Edited by ck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Overall, it seems like this has been met with a collective yawn by the public. That is not a good thing, especially for the Dems.

Back when Clinton was going through this, it was the top topic on every news and radio station at the time, even the rock and country stations. Now the Clinton thing involved a sex scandal so that played well with pop culture. Most people are not interested in international affairs.

 

Point being, nothing so far is moving the needle of public perception. Hearsay rumors and innuendos don't translate well to creating the public outrage needed to have a meaningful impact.

 

So what we are left with is a wasted 6-9 months of impeaching the president and nothing ever really coming from it, and it will be seen as overly political instead of seeking justice against a corrupt individual.  Did we not learn anything from the Clinton scandal. The reason why Watergate was so powerful is because you had collective outrage of both sides of the aisle. Hard evidence had surfaced where you could not defend the president's actions and Nixon was left to fall on his sword. Until more than hearsay arguments come out, the GOP will not have to abandon Trump.

 

You are right, this has been met with a yawn. The actual offense here is serious as a heart attack and guilt is clear as day, but the GOP will be able to paint it as partisan, because they've successfully muddied the waters enough to convince the public to believe such a thing. The only difference between this and Watergate is the decades of cultural and political rot that the right wing has inflicted upon the country in the interim.

Edited by mu2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regarding hearsay....

 

Time to hear from Yovanovitch....

 

But that's OK, bribery really isn't a crime. Uh, yes it is and it's actually one of the specifically offenses by name in the Constitution as a reason to impeach and remove the President and other public officials (see Article Two, Section Four)....

 

Article Two, Section Four of the United States Constitution provides that: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors."
Edited by KJP

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

You are right, this has been met with a yawn. The actual offense here is serious as a heart attack and guilt is clear as day, but the GOP will be able to paint it as partisan, because they've successfully muddied the waters enough to convince the public to believe such a thing. The only difference between this and Watergate is the decades of cultural and political rot that the right wing has inflicted upon the country in the interim.

Yes, this is true. Nixon wouldn't have been forced to resign if Fox News existed back then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ethlaw said:

Yes, this is true. Nixon wouldn't have been forced to resign if Fox News existed back then. 

It's the reason FoxNews was created. The idea for it began after Watergate.  So the Republican lesson wasn't to not be shady criminals.  It was to create a network that could create alternative reality so that they could get away with being shady criminals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Funny how supposed moderate Republicans keep repeating all the Trump defense talking points.

1) I was not repeating Trump talking points, I was explaining the narrative in the media.

2) The biggest witness is going to be Sondland because he would have actual first hand knowledge, so things may change next week

3) The 2 witnesses Wednesday had zero first hand knowledge of the call, the one testified to 3rd hand knowledge. This would be laughed out of court if it were used as an effort to convict in a criminal trial.  The point being, if you give someone reasonable doubt (through a hearsay defense) it allows cover for what could be an act of impeachment. 

 

I agree what he did is bad, but it is not a slam dunk case. You need to be able to bridge the partisan divide to impeach. Censure may be a more attainable goal.

 

10 hours ago, ck said:

Brutus, what?  Hearsay?  It's been admitted multiple times by Trump himself.  The transcript that was released showed it, and that wasn't even the full transcript.  Multiple people have corroborated it.  Mulvaney stood at the podium and told everyone ya it happened and to get over it.  2 of the guys that Giuliani was working with and who had met with Trump 10 times got arrested trying to leave the country.  Pentagon couldn't give a reason for withholding the money.  Nobody with a semblance of objectivity buys that Trump was after corruption in general by spearheading the charge against specifically his political opponent and nobody else. 

 

If this is blown over and nothing happens it's not because of hearsay and innuendo, it's because the Senate is too partisan to do their job appropriately (as evidenced today by voting in favor of a lifetime appointment to the appeals court of a man who's never argued a case).  And the lack of outrage is maybe the most alarming thing.  The damage being done to our interests and institutions seems like it's pretty significant, and this is only what we hear about, but half the country just sweeps it under the rug because of the litany of perceived awfulness if a democrat was elected.  And sure, that's fine, but stop nominating the dumbest and least qualified people to be leader of the free world please.   Ok not fair, but thinking back on the last 2 R presidents... sheesh.

The transcript released is the only hard evidence of what was discussed on the call. Now the hearsay evidence attempted to be submitted is supposed to fill in the gaps and paint a picture about what may not have been said in communications as well. The goal for the Dems is to fill in the gaps. However,  the current evidence does not offer a direct enough link to show the quid pro quo through direct evidence. It may exist and the administration could very well use exec privilege to block it, but my point was at this time there is not enough evidence that would provide the cover for reasonable GOP members to break rank. 

 

In Watergate, there were enough GOP Senators willing to throw Nixon overboard because the evidence would not allow him to be defended.

In the Clinton affair, it started out looking like the Dems would jump ship because he actually pleaded guilty to a crime, but they were able to coalesce around the "its just sex and a private matter between 2 adult defense"). 

Right now , there is just not enough there to open the floodgates 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ethlaw said:

Yes, this is true. Nixon wouldn't have been forced to resign if Fox News existed back then. 

I would not necessarily say that is the case. To impeach and remove it must be a bi-partisan thing, so it cant be just political. It is designed to prevent a political uprising from one party to overthrow a president. 

You have to look at it through the times. In Watergate times, you had 2 distinct factors at play.

1) Dem majority in both house and Senate. This means less GOP Senators were needed to break ranks

2) You had liberal Republicans who were more liberal than some liberal Democrats and conservative Dems who were more conservative than some conservative Republicans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you over index on what evidence is required to prove this - and do remember this isn't a criminal proceeding.  It's a job review. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

1) I was not repeating Trump talking points, I was explaining the narrative in the media.

2) The biggest witness is going to be Sondland because he would have actual first hand knowledge, so things may change next week

3) The 2 witnesses Wednesday had zero first hand knowledge of the call, the one testified to 3rd hand knowledge. This would be laughed out of court if it were used as an effort to convict in a criminal trial.  The point being, if you give someone reasonable doubt (through a hearsay defense) it allows cover for what could be an act of impeachment. 

 

I agree what he did is bad, but it is not a slam dunk case. You need to be able to bridge the partisan divide to impeach. Censure may be a more attainable goal.

 

The transcript released is the only hard evidence of what was discussed on the call. Now the hearsay evidence attempted to be submitted is supposed to fill in the gaps and paint a picture about what may not have been said in communications as well. The goal for the Dems is to fill in the gaps. However,  the current evidence does not offer a direct enough link to show the quid pro quo through direct evidence. It may exist and the administration could very well use exec privilege to block it, but my point was at this time there is not enough evidence that would provide the cover for reasonable GOP members to break rank. 

 

In Watergate, there were enough GOP Senators willing to throw Nixon overboard because the evidence would not allow him to be defended.

In the Clinton affair, it started out looking like the Dems would jump ship because he actually pleaded guilty to a crime, but they were able to coalesce around the "its just sex and a private matter between 2 adult defense"). 

Right now , there is just not enough there to open the floodgates 

 

 

You are definitely repeating Trump defense talking points.  Why would Sondland be more believable?  Hasn't he already committed perjury by lying about what happened?  Besides, if he does a 180 in his testimony, Trump defenders will just run with the narrative that he's a Never Trumper, that it's still heresay, can't be trusted or whatever lame excuse they can come up with.  There is no witness testimony, firsthand or not, that would change the Republican narrative.  Trump defending Republicans are garbage people who will do anything to obfuscate the truth. 

 

And all of this "heresay" stuff, let alone the "it was only the call" argument are lies.  The evidence goes far deeper than the partial transcript of a single call or the word of the few witnesses we've heard from.  Admission of the events came out of Trump's own mouth, as well as Mulvaney's.  Guiliani incriminated himself multiple times.  How much more firsthand do you need?  This is all intellectual dishonesty on your part, telling us all not to believe our eyes or ears.  You are not the dispassionate bystander you like to play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ck said:

I think you over index on what evidence is required to prove this - and do remember this isn't a criminal proceeding.  It's a job review. 

 

Very true, but this is also a good thing for both sides to remember, and why Republicans may well not break and vote against the president even if they believe the evidence of what actually occurred.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gramarye said:

 

Very true, but this is also a good thing for both sides to remember, and why Republicans may well not break and vote against the president even if they believe the evidence of what actually occurred.

 

 

Glad you admit Republicans will protect even if they believe he is guilty.  Those judges, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Very true, but this is also a good thing for both sides to remember, and why Republicans may well not break and vote against the president even if they believe the evidence of what actually occurred.

 

 

But the problem is according to the DOJ we can't* have a criminal trial for POTUS - which from Mueller's report, there seemed to be reason for one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ck said:

 

But the problem is according to the DOJ we can't* have a criminal trial for POTUS - which from Mueller's report, there seemed to be reason for one. 

 

That's true, but it doesn't change the truth of what you said earlier--this is a job review more than a criminal trial.  (Otherwise, tell me what Andrew Johnson's alleged crime was.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

That's true, but it doesn't change the truth of what you said earlier--this is a job review more than a criminal trial.  (Otherwise, tell me what Andrew Johnson's alleged crime was.)

 

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I would not necessarily say that is the case. To impeach and remove it must be a bi-partisan thing, so it cant be just political. It is designed to prevent a political uprising from one party to overthrow a president. 

You have to look at it through the times. In Watergate times, you had 2 distinct factors at play.

1) Dem majority in both house and Senate. This means less GOP Senators were needed to break ranks

2) You had liberal Republicans who were more liberal than some liberal Democrats and conservative Dems who were more conservative than some conservative Republicans.

 

 

I actually disagree with you here, @Brutus_buckeye. From all of my readings re: Watergate, the biggest concern of the GOP at the time was harm to the party long term. 

 

They eventually made a determination that more harm would be caused to their own future by defending Nixon and rolling into a impeachment trial wherein the votes were likely going against him. 

 

They made the right choice. 6 years later, Ronald Reagan won the white house overwhelmingly and 12 years later, the "permanent democratic congress" was broke. 

 

It's also worth noting that the impeachment inquiry was handled in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger Stone guilty on seven counts.....but Mueller found nothing.

 

Man this president just coincidentally ends up surrounded by criminals.  

Edited by freefourur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

You are definitely repeating Trump defense talking points.  Why would Sondland be more believable?  Hasn't he already committed perjury by lying about what happened?  Besides, if he does a 180 in his testimony, Trump defenders will just run with the narrative that he's a Never Trumper, that it's still heresay, can't be trusted or whatever lame excuse they can come up with.  There is no witness testimony, firsthand or not, that would change the Republican narrative.  Trump defending Republicans are garbage people who will do anything to obfuscate the truth. 

 

And all of this "heresay" stuff, let alone the "it was only the call" argument are lies.  The evidence goes far deeper than the partial transcript of a single call or the word of the few witnesses we've heard from.  Admission of the events came out of Trump's own mouth, as well as Mulvaney's.  Guiliani incriminated himself multiple times.  How much more firsthand do you need?  This is all intellectual dishonesty on your part, telling us all not to believe our eyes or ears.  You are not the dispassionate bystander you like to play.

 

1) Sondland is the only person who can testify to first hand knowledge of a quid pro quo. EVen if he does not exactly say the president used those words, he was in a position to be directly involved behind the scene with such negotiations so his testimony carries the most weight. His actions direct and indirect can be taken to show that there would have been an assumption of a quid pro quo.  This is not hearsay because he would have been a direct actor. In addition, in the event he has direct testimony of what was told to him by the president or Guiliani or someone indicating how he needed to act, it would not be hearsay either.

 

2) Hearsay is important because again, even though this is a political and not criminal matter, the general public expects that there is a reasonable level of due process and fairness followed here, just like a criminal trail. Even if it is not required, the public expects that the whole matter not devolve into some pure partisan experience. The public wants to seek justice and if there was a crime that was committed, hold the president responsible, However, if the whole thing is just showing a lot of dirt on the president, and only muddies the waters and creates some reasonable doubt in public perception, then it is bound to be seen as just a partisan witch hunt and nothing really will come from it.  That is why you need hard evidence instead of just hearsay and speculation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

I actually disagree with you here, @Brutus_buckeye. From all of my readings re: Watergate, the biggest concern of the GOP at the time was harm to the party long term. 

 

They eventually made a determination that more harm would be caused to their own future by defending Nixon and rolling into a impeachment trial wherein the votes were likely going against him. 

 

They made the right choice. 6 years later, Ronald Reagan won the white house overwhelmingly and 12 years later, the "permanent democratic congress" was broke. 

 

It's also worth noting that the impeachment inquiry was handled in the Senate.

Your right, ,that certainly played a big role there. It was why George Bush was the one who essentially had to deliver the news to Nixon.

 

However, I think because you had a lot less political polarization at the time (There were a lot more votes and coalitions involving Dem and GOP votes both yea and nay in that era), and that politics was a lot more locally managed from the ground up instead of being managed by the major party machines of today, there was more room for differing opinions.

 

The CLinton impeachment essentially set the ground rules for today. Starting in 90-91 time when Newt Gingrich started his GOPAC, power in the GOP became a lot more centralized. The Dems followed suit shortly thereafter. It was at that time where you saw a lot more common talking points amongst all reps in each party instead of hearing diverse opinions that you would hear in the past.

 

In order to remove someone from office today, you need something extremely egregious such that it would offend the senses of everyone. The only thing to me that would come to mind is if the President commits troops to open up oil fields that will be used for the president or his family to financially benefit from it. Also, in the era of MeToo, I would be  curious as to whether an affair that Clinton had would have a different result today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...