IdleRich

IdleRich
I dunno though... if they fail I think they could impeach him again for various things that have arisen in the last few days. And they should call Bolton as a witness to that. I wonder if they would have the balls for that. They should even threaten it so that everyone knows that Bolton will be called one way or another.
 

Leo

Well-known member
Hmmm, is it just me or does that look good? If those two are in AND Romney and Collins that would do it.

you'd think so, yet right now the nytimes has the headline "Republican Optimistic They Can Avoid New Impeachment Witnesses".

I keep waiting for Chief Justice Roberts to rise to the occasion, maybe he can make some sort of decision on witnesses.

One can dream.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
So the vote for witnesses lost 51-49... two Rs voted for it, Rommney and one other (not sure whom yet - I guess Collins) but Murkowski wimped out. One more would have allowed the Judge to step in I think. Or he could have just declared it defeated.
 

version

Well-known member
"Republican Senator Marco Rubio said impeachment would be too divisive for the country, even if a president engaged in clearly impeachable activity."

:rolleyes:
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Yeah... pretty conclusive evidence that the anglosphere is fucked... I'm curled up at home reading The Recognitions and blocking my ears.
 

Leo

Well-known member
the GOP arguments are all based on process and, like Rubio said, the impact impeachment would have on the country...NOT the actual validity of calling legit witnesses or trump's actions. so fucked.

also, I give little/no credit to Susan collins, she probably spoke with Murkowski and knew they wouldn't have four GOP witness votes, which allowed her to vote yes on witnesses. she always professes to be a independent thinking moderate who bucks the party line, but when it matters she never actually steps up. I really question whether she would have voted for witnesses if Murkowsi had as well.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
That's entirely possible... we'll never know for sure. But she will be recognised by the party faithful as having voted against the Messiah and she risks punishment for it in a way that Murkowski doesn't so I think we have to give her some credit.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
So what now? What is the likelihood of the trial resulting in a successful prosecution with no witnesses?

And if it's not successful, does that mean another four years of Trump?
 

Leo

Well-known member
any reasonable person will see it as a tainted acquittal, so I don't really know if this helps trump that much in his reelection bid. his base is happy, but they, as the saying goes, would stay with him if he shot someone on fifth avenue.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I think it will damage his re-election bid, with witnesses this would have been even more the case - that's why I wanted it to happen, I wasn't really hoping for removal.
 

version

Well-known member
Apparently around 70% of people polled wanted witnesses, but I dunno how much stock to put in polling.
 

Leo

Well-known member
we can take small comfort in the fact that there are now two things that will forever get under trump's thin skin: he lost the popular vote in 2016, and his impeachment acquittal will go down in history as tainted. nothing bugs him more than being viewed as an illegitimate president, and now he's tarred with a double whammy.
 
Top