The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[mongers]

Seems crazy that they're going to fall on their sword like this for Trump and not even vote for witnesses. The last poll I saw had even 70% of Republicans in favor of witnesses.

That's not falling on the sword.  That's protecting their interests.  Why would they want witnesses?  They don't need more evidence that they need to ignore.

They're going to suffer for this decision in November

They'll make up for it in Russian and federal government help.
DOJ suddenly opening investigations into their opponents, hackers compromising their systems, etc.

Hilarious, but not at all unlikely.   

[Savonarola]

And a brand new idiom from Trump as reported in CNN:

As his impeachment trial continued into the night, President Trump in Iowa attacked Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager from the House.

"Shifty Schiff is a very sick person," the President told the crowd in Des Moines.

"He lies awake at night shifting and turning. Shifting," Trump said, turning his arm in circles. "Shifting and turning in his bed, sweating like a dog."

Trump then launched into a very animated impression of Schiff, crying, "'How am I going to get him? How am I going to get him, he didn't do anything wrong!'"

"Oh what a sick guy he is," the President said to cheers and laughs from the crowd.

So...   That means he doesn't sweat at all?    Or, just sweats a tiny bit out of his hands and feet, and is otherwise completely dry? 

[alfred russel]

Is it possible the Democrats have been stonewalling on Hunter to increase his value as trade bait?  Like get a two for one?  That would be devilish clever.

I don't get why the republicans don't want witnesses. They can invite Bolton, who is going to say what he is going to say regardless of whether he is called to testify, and then they can invite people like Hunter Biden and maybe even explore the Hillary angle that Cruz brought up. 

[Razgovory]

Seems crazy that they're going to fall on their sword like this for Trump and not even vote for witnesses. The last poll I saw had even 70% of Republicans in favor of witnesses.

That's not falling on the sword.  That's protecting their interests.  Why would they want witnesses?  They don't need more evidence that they need to ignore.

They're going to suffer for this decision in November

I doubt it.

[Valmy]

Seems crazy that they're going to fall on their sword like this for Trump and not even vote for witnesses. The last poll I saw had even 70% of Republicans in favor of witnesses.

That's not falling on the sword.  That's protecting their interests.  Why would they want witnesses?  They don't need more evidence that they need to ignore.

They're going to suffer for this decision in November

We'll see. Any who might be trouble for this, I suspect have already hedged and weaseled around it.

[grumbler]

I don't get why the republicans don't want witnesses. They can invite Bolton, who is going to say what he is going to say regardless of whether he is called to testify, and then they can invite people like Hunter Biden and maybe even explore the Hillary angle that Cruz brought up. 

The Republicans don't want witnesses because they know that they'd get nothing from Hunter Biden.  Bringing him in means bringing him in front of Chief Justice Roberts, who isn't going to allow the kinds of fishing expeditions that would be necessary to get HB to say anything of use to the Republicans (even assuming that he has anything that would be of use to them). 

If Bolton isn't under oath, the Republicans can dismiss the truth as "just trying to sell a book."  If he IS under oath, then they would be obliged to consider his testimony when reaching a verdict.

The key to the Republicans escaping this bind is to make sure that the truth remains hidden.  They have to face the voters soon, and an OJ-like acquittal isn't going to sit well with those voters.

[Razgovory]

I agree with Grumbler

[The Minsky Moment]

Alexander's reasoning is consistent if horrifying in its implications.  Murkowski's statement OTOH makes zero sense.

[Admiral Yi]

Murkowski was right about Elizabeth Warren asking a dumbass question.

[Habbaku]

What did she ask? I have no doubt it was stupid, mind.

[Admiral Yi]

Something like, given the low trust the American public has for institutions like the Supreme Court, do you think Chief Justice Roberts actions here are lowering that trust even further.

[Habbaku]

Statements as questions are really stupid.

[Admiral Yi]

There's that, but that was 90% of the "questions" asked.  What got me about Warren's was she was screaming at a ref who had called one foul on the GOP and none on her team.

[Razgovory]

Alexander's reasoning is consistent if horrifying in its implications.  Murkowski's statement OTOH makes zero sense.

If nothing else, the impeachment has caused many Republicans to admit they want an all-powerful President.  I never thought I would say it, but we are moving towards elected despotism.

[crazy canuck]

What did she ask? I have no doubt it was stupid, mind.

"At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?"

That was indeed idiotic.  The Chief Justice is doing what he is constitutionally mandated to do.  Carrying out that office does not bring him, the Court or the Constitution into disrepute.