It’s damning. It shows that he had the “perfect” phone call with Ukraine asking that his political opponent be investigated and then ordered the aid withheld.
So it’s damning, but do any of us expect the Republican-held Senate to give a damn? No. The hope is that it shifts a small percentage of voters away from him. The game at this point isn’t about removing him via impeachment but defeating him in November.
Very much this, plus there is some small hope of ratcheting up the pressure on a handful of GOP senators to insist on a real trial with evidence and witnesses, which the Dems can then use to further the goal of demonstrating his criminal behavior and / or his obstruction of the trial to move a few more voters away from him for November.
A federal judge clears the way for Lev Parnas to provided evidence to Congress.
I have the feeling that the air strike that killed Suleimani et al. was mostly done to “change the conversation” away from impeachment. Nothing grabs headlines like “Trump might have put the wheels of WW3 in motion.”
Probably because with the President* it’s always projection and, as the saying goes, there’s always a tweet:
(The first(?) of many times he vomited forth this sentiment.)
Nesrie
5457
Well… it is kind of working isn’t it. Iran is getting more attention than impeachment, Hong Kong, Australia and the primaries but hey we can sneak in a peep about those Golden Globes at least.
My personal belief here is that this wasn’t an attempt at distraction so much as the orange one being easily provoked/embarrassed (by the protest at the embassy)
Yeah it was an overreaction from a fear of a Benghazi. This tweet basically confirms that
I thought the critique of Benghazi was of Hillary and Obama’s over reaching foreign policy in Libya, not of the fact that we didn’t blow up more people after it happened?
Menzo
5461
I think it was actually more about a Democrat having the audacity to sit in the White House.
Timex
5462
No, the criticism eventually became based on the idea that Clinton and Obama somehow stopped the military from saving the us personnel there.
But then after they investigated it for a million years, it turned out that want what happened anyway. But the far right still believes it did, because the reality of what happened doesn’t matter to them.
Not sure what to make of this or that it means anything (can’t see McConnell giving in on this)
Of course McConnell will block it. It’ll be a lot harder to have a pro forma trial and acquittal (and have the result accepted by the populace) if actual witnesses get to speak.
Maybe, but it isn’t really entirely up to McConnell. 3 Republican Senators can more or less dictate the structure and content of any trial.
Bolton is a wuss. Schiff should call his bluff and issue a subpoena to testify before the House.
I’ll believe it when it happens. And when a single Republican grows a shred of moral fiber.
Yeah, I’m kinda with you there. I think the chance enough Republicans are willing to convict is zero, zip, nada. I think the chance a handful of Republicans are willing to vote to convict, as a symbolic gesture, is probably zero. But I think the chance that there will be a real trial, with real witnesses, because a handful of Republican Senators insist on it, is slightly higher than zero.
Why is it not automatic to subpoena all material witnesses? Just fear of triggering a court fight?
