Except that it might be intimidation of future witnesses even more-so than the witness today. Again, I don't think it's the strongest reason on which to impeach, but it looked bad for Trump who had his ally Stone convicted of witness tampering today. It also came at a moment in the hearings when she had been talking about the pointless trashing of her reputation. The Republican senators then all doubled their efforts to treat her with utmost respect after that because they recognized that whether or not it was witness tampering, it was a horrible look for their President and defense of him.
I think that's simply called showing decency toward a sexual abuse victim. But what does that have to do with my post? Why is her expression or asking for how she felt suddenly so wrong? Must not have an emotion or your testimony is all for nill? Ridiculous when months ago it was tear and outrage that galvanize support among the right for Kavanaugh. Not to mention that her feeling threatened is part of a regular pattern of this POTUS witness tampering and intimidation (and blocking witness from testifying), which the House said they may add as another article of impeachment.
Maybe you guys should lock your mob boss and his lawyer in the basement without his phone so he won't be able to intimidate witnesses or obstruct justice in his own impeachment.
Jim Jordan is full of it. Republicans were present when the transcripts were taken. Any notes on subjects the Republicans took that aren't classified are free to be released by Republicans. This is another self-created faux scandal designed to cast doubt on hearings that aren't going the way Republicans had hoped. The Republicans don't have anything left other to create fake obstacles about which they can pretend to be upset.
This is an impeachment hearing, not a criminal trial. The presumption of innocence does not apply, the tenets of reasonable doubt do not apply. It's much more akin to a Grand Jury, the result is to charge or not charge, not guilty or innocent (not guilty). The 'Trial' will be in the Senate, then you can pull out all your partisan advocating. Trump will probably not be convicted by 2/3 vote, but it will further expose the hypocrisy of the GOP's claim as Democracy loving Americans.
Another strange thing is the Republicans complaining that Trump can't call witnesses or put up a defense. Trump himself could testify at the hearing. Trump won't allow witnesses such as Mulvaney or Pompeo to testify. He is actually presenting would-be witnesses from testifying. It isn't that he can't have witnesses, it's that his Whitehouse has issued a directive refusing to allow them to appear.
Republicans have attempted to ignore basic common sense when it comes to.these XL send door testimonies. The point of them being closed door is so that witnesses cannot coroborate stories. It's a method used by law enforcement to determine credibility of testimony.
Your Steve Castor highlight from Yesterday. Really, he only gets the assist on this one, but that's just how unselfish the learned legal scholar is. It is also nice to note the douchey way he tried to act like he was in on the joke much too late after it happened and he was the foil. #SteveCastor
I think it will almost undoubtedly go to the Senate. But who knows? There could always be a surprise. Don't put anything past #SteveCastor. It is never wise to underestimate him. The GOP has obviously brought out their big guns so there is nothing definite despite the strong amount of solid evidence.
Cant speak for the Dems - I'm an independent / man without a party. My opinion is that if the Dems do not succeed in impeaching and removing Trump , it just gives him another opportunity to say "Witch Hunt" & "Fake News". The Dems should not have gone down this road because its so unlikely that they get a conviction in the Senate and the fact that they will find it near impossible to show / prove Trump's intent in having Biden investigated was politically motivated - All he has to say was "We were investigating potential wrongdoing" which is within his scope of authority and this thing is dead and buried. Watching yesterdays testimony , they could have been done with Marie Yovanovitch after two questions were asked and answered … any knowledge of any wrongdoing by Trump - No. Were you party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky - No. No other questions by Schiff and the Dems to Yovanovitch were relevant , nothing else she had to say mattered in the outcome. I've had enough of the Trump show …. but this isn't the way to go about getting rid of him. What they need to do is win the independents and moderates on both sides in 2020. To do that , they need a candidate who isn't jumping off the deep end into the socialist wing of the Dem party. Give us independents a quality moderate candidate and we'll vote Trump out.
And there you have it. The Trump defense has fallen back to a defense of his intent -- that Trump wanted to investigate corruption in Ukraine and wasn't trying to dig up dirt on a political rival for his political benefit. As I posted elsewhere, the opening statement by Holmes last night is a nut-punch to that defense. Sondland told Holmes that Trump didn't "give a ****" about Ukraine, and only cares about "big stuff" that helps him politically, like digging up dirt on Biden. That is a direct shot at the BS Trump intent defense, which already fails to survive any objective examination of circumstantial evidence. Trumpers will certainly come out and say, that's hearsay, Sondland didn't know, blah, blah, blah. If Sondland comes out and corroborates this, Trump's bullcrap intent defense is shot. If sondland refuses to testify, it is all but an admission that Holmes was right. If sondland takes the fifth, same thing. The Trump intent defense will be accepted by the Trumpers. They'll accept anything. Will independents believe: - Trump removed decorated, long tenured ambassadors and replaced them with Sondland (who bought his ambassadorship), and the three Amigos? For good intent, not to pave the way for his shadow Ukraine policy, which was just fine? - Trump falsely smeared such ambassadors to fabricate an excuse for their removal? - Trump really cared about corruption in Ukraine, not his political gain? Why was it so important that the investigation be announced publicly? - Why are career bi partisan ambassadors testifying that Trump only cares about his personal gain? Independents are going to care whether Trump gets impeached, yes they will. If he doesn't, which he won't, they will care about why. There is no question that the Dem goal is to inflict political wounds on Trump, and those who support him despite his clearly illegal conduct. If the conduct was illegal, but not impeachable, which I think where this is headed...how does that play out in 2020. That's the question.
Look , I think Dumpster is guilty and probably needs to be removed but the reality is its not happening with a GOP controlled Senate. My thoughts on the matter aren't what I want or hope happens - just the reality of the situation. You can shoot all the holes in that defense you want but you aren't going to get 67 votes in the Senate - Period. Realize this just gives Dumpster another chance to cry "witch hunt" & "fake news" …. this just isn't the way to get rid of the orange idiot. Even Pelosi realized this months ago and did all she could to not go down this rabbit hole but pressure from her party and the media have driven us off this cliff. The way to rid this country of Trump is to beat him at the polls and to do that you absolutely must get independents on board. You aren't going to do that with Warren & Sanders and Biden has been a walking gaff machine - Buttigieg or Klobuchar would get my vote being middle of the road candidates. But hey , if you want another 4 years of Dumpster …. encourage the Dems to keep doing what they are doing and nominate an extremophile Dem …. and we'll all suffer together.
I share your concerns re the political impact in 2020 of this impeachment process and agree the Republicans will never remove him from office. Yet with the whistlerblower complaint, substantiated by the review of the Dolt's own appointee, could the House really not proceed? What would that tell the Trump administration -- you can do whatever you want, no matter how bad, how substantiated? It would have been a dereliction of duty not to proceed. I think that's why ultimately Pelosi moved forward - you're screwed either way. The Dems need to hone messaging and make this about the lengths to which Trump is willing to go to advance his agenda, smear decorated ambassadors, etc. Trumpsters won't change their minds. Independents paying attention might. And yes, we need a good Dem nominee. I'm highly concerned about Warren and Sanders. Give me Buttigieg or someone else, even Biden. Warren and Sanders have no chance in a general election.
I agree that beating him at the polls is needed. I believe this process is helpful for that. The people that will be swayed by the witch hunt argument are very small in number. Most of those who buy that were already voting for Trump. Nobody who is a moderate Democrat or classic liberal in their beliefs would ever vote for Trump because of something like that.
