***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***
Comments
-
2019
Well, pick a state then:pjl44 said:
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.The Juggler said:
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.pjl44 said:
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.The Juggler said:
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.pjl44 said:Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
2018
True. And this is what I hate about politics. Worried about keeping power vs doing what you think is right.The Juggler said:
Well, pick a state then:pjl44 said:
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.The Juggler said:
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.pjl44 said:
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.The Juggler said:
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.pjl44 said:Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....hippiemom = goodness0 -
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.The Juggler said:
Well, pick a state then:pjl44 said:
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.The Juggler said:
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.pjl44 said:
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.The Juggler said:
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.pjl44 said:Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....0 -
You might be right. If so, though, doesn't the opposite apply to Doug Jones? That 538 link said 9% of Republicans supported removal and he needs a lot of those votes to win. In either case, we still don't really know where this issue ranks for voters.The Juggler said:
Well, pick a state then:pjl44 said:
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.The Juggler said:
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.pjl44 said:
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.The Juggler said:
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.pjl44 said:Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....0 -
2019
I don't know about that. It's not like he's voting for removal. He's just voting for witnesses. And keep in mind, these witnesses would not only be the ones that democrats will want. Looks like the primary is 6 weeks away too. Maybe his calculation would be it might trigger a primary challenge in the short term but he would still likely win...and then it would help him more in November.mrussel1 said:
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.The Juggler said:
Well, pick a state then:pjl44 said:
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.The Juggler said:
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.pjl44 said:
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.The Juggler said:
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.pjl44 said:Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
I don't know. I think holding onto the articles for months would hurt the dems more than help them at this point.www.myspace.com0 -
I thought you meant removal, not just the witness argument. My bad.The Juggler said:
I don't know about that. It's not like he's voting for removal. He's just voting for witnesses. And keep in mind, these witnesses would not only be the ones that democrats will want. Looks like the primary is 6 weeks away too. Maybe his calculation would be it might trigger a primary challenge in the short term but he would still likely win...and then it would help him more in November.mrussel1 said:
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.The Juggler said:
Well, pick a state then:pjl44 said:
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.The Juggler said:
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.pjl44 said:
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.The Juggler said:
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.pjl44 said:Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
I don't know. I think holding onto the articles for months would hurt the dems more than help them at this point.0 -
2019
Nah. That would be ideal but.......hey who knows?! Bolton may very well be a game changer.mrussel1 said:
I thought you meant removal, not just the witness argument. My bad.The Juggler said:
I don't know about that. It's not like he's voting for removal. He's just voting for witnesses. And keep in mind, these witnesses would not only be the ones that democrats will want. Looks like the primary is 6 weeks away too. Maybe his calculation would be it might trigger a primary challenge in the short term but he would still likely win...and then it would help him more in November.mrussel1 said:
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.The Juggler said:
Well, pick a state then:pjl44 said:
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.The Juggler said:
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.pjl44 said:
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.The Juggler said:
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.pjl44 said:Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
I don't know. I think holding onto the articles for months would hurt the dems more than help them at this point.www.myspace.com0 -
Trump says he wants to testify before Congress0
-
2018
he always says bullshit like this and then hides behind his lawyers saying they won't let him. don't be fooled.CM189191 said:Trump says he wants to testify before CongressYour boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
15 senate impeachment trials. Every single one had witnesses. Every. Single. One.“There was no collusion.”“I have nothing to hide.”“I don’t know any Russians.”“I’ll sit down and talk with anyone.”“We do everything by the book.”“Only the guilty plea the fifth.”“Very legal, very cool.”“Fully exonerated.”“Essentially no obstruction.”“Very friendly and totally appropriate.”“No quid pro quo.”09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
"THE FIELD"The Juggler said:
I don't know about that. It's not like he's voting for removal. He's just voting for witnesses. And keep in mind, these witnesses would not only be the ones that democrats will want. Looks like the primary is 6 weeks away too. Maybe his calculation would be it might trigger a primary challenge in the short term but he would still likely win...and then it would help him more in November.mrussel1 said:
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.The Juggler said:
Well, pick a state then:pjl44 said:
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.The Juggler said:
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.pjl44 said:
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.The Juggler said:
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.pjl44 said:Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
I don't know. I think holding onto the articles for months would hurt the dems more than help them at this point.
That’s spot on. The first witness they’d call is Sloppy Joe.
When Joe refuses that’ll be their cover to call no more and help secure a second trump term.
”how could you possibly vote for “Shady Joe” when he is refusing to testify.”0 -
Sloppy joe is irrelevant to the articles. He can’t be called as he has no first hand knowledge of the material facts. Stop the side show. Conversely, if it was a “perfect call” and “no quid pro quo,” why wouldn’t you want material witnesses to testify on your behalf?Lerxst1992 said:The Juggler said:
I don't know about that. It's not like he's voting for removal. He's just voting for witnesses. And keep in mind, these witnesses would not only be the ones that democrats will want. Looks like the primary is 6 weeks away too. Maybe his calculation would be it might trigger a primary challenge in the short term but he would still likely win...and then it would help him more in November.mrussel1 said:
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.The Juggler said:
Well, pick a state then:pjl44 said:
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.The Juggler said:
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.pjl44 said:
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.The Juggler said:
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.pjl44 said:Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
I don't know. I think holding onto the articles for months would hurt the dems more than help them at this point.
That’s spot on. The first witness they’d call is Sloppy Joe.
When Joe refuses that’ll be their cover to call no more and help secure a second trump term.
”how could you possibly vote for “Shady Joe” when he is refusing to testify.”There are rules. Rules the Chief Justice will abide by. Why so scared of innocence?09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
“Imminent.” Who here is embarrassed and who here sleeps at night?09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
2018Mitch about to pull that football yo.Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180
-
2019
Maybe a misleading title (altnation style) BUT does say he is now willing to testify. He may be the only man capable of preventing an orange buffoon re-election.Kat said:
"A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory0 -
2019
I believe about 0.5% of what I see and even less of what I hear from this fuckwad.CM189191 said:Trump says he wants to testify before Congress"A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory0 -
2018
Exactly just like the never ending audit of taxes ...HughFreakingDillon said:
he always says bullshit like this and then hides behind his lawyers saying they won't let him. don't be fooled.CM189191 said:Trump says he wants to testify before Congressjesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
I couldn't say I disagree with him, except for the supporting part.
Falling down,...not staying down0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help