They meant the crime Nixon committed. It was also electoral interference. It was even wilder then, since Nixon comfortably whipped his opponents pretty badly. He had no reason to cheat.
Trump probably doesn't win without his cheating.
Trump Jr.Their base has 5 more years tops. Trump can't be president 3 times. Then what?
Absolutely but I was referring to the fact that their case is that it is without precedent getting caught leading into an election.They meant the crime Nixon committed. It was also electoral interference. It was even wilder then, since Nixon comfortably whipped his opponents pretty badly. He had no reason to cheat.
Trump probably doesn't win without his cheating.
She already invited him, didn't she?Pelosi could just not invite Trump to give the SOTU under grounds that they don't want an impeached President giving one.
Lol this guy is a walking cartoon I love it
So we're likely heading towards an end of trial by the end of the week huh?Schiff lays out a really good argument as to why we should have a full in depth trial. Trump's goons just scream and yell (no joke, there was a lot of performative table pounding) about how unfair everything is and that Trump should be able to do what he wants because of executive privilege.
As much as they have a hate boner for Bernie... Washington Post's team is calling out how inaccurate the lawyers were for Trump.
As soon as he's out of office he's going to be in endless trials.Their base has 5 more years tops. Trump can't be president 3 times. Then what?
I'm trying to figure out your train of thought here. What do these two things have to do with each other?
Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come off that way... they just seemed really up their own ass in general lately (not just about Sanders) but it was refreshing that they were calling out the GOP's deflecting/projecting.
ok....
I mean, a headline from WaPo today: Sanders chooses not to exchange verbal volleys with Hillary Clinton
I totally just brainfarted.. NYT is who I was thinking of. My B!!!!!!!
One can only hope.Republicans might lose the republican moderate senators votes on witnesses simply because the republicans couldn't be bothered to have an actual legal defense because they assume they will just get their way.
Republicans might lose the republican moderate senators votes on witnesses simply because the republicans couldn't be bothered to have an actual legal defense because they assume they will just get their way.
I think we willdo we have any chance of getting 4 republicans/has anyone signaled they'll do something?
I think we will
they just don't look good in this situation.
Russia investigation was easier to mess with becuase it was more complicated than this. This is pretty simple situation.
Romney signaled earlier that he would back McConnel in the first witness vote because McConnel is just following the Clinton procedure and that they can get witnesses later.do we have any chance of getting 4 republicans/has anyone signaled they'll do something?
Romney signaled earlier that he would back McConnel in the first witness vote because McConnel is just following the Clinton procedure and that they can get witnesses later.
that's what I was afraid ofRomney signaled earlier that he would back McConnel in the first witness vote because McConnel is just following the Clinton procedure and that they can get witnesses later.
Yeuuuupppp... Moderate darlinging it.yeah that's normally how trials go. try the whole thing and the talk to some witnesses maybe at the end...
There's a reason for that. I might be because Republicans don't need to do shit. I dunno.Saw this on reddit:
Look at all the paperwork the Dems have compared to the GOP
I'm not following you here.Their base has 5 more years tops. Trump can't be president 3 times. Then what?
I'm not following you here.
This is about them wanting to keep their jobs first and foremost because they'd get primaried from the more right flank for voting to remove. It's true that some aren't up until 2024 so maybe those few could survive that, but do you think their base is going to get less crazy in that time? I don't. They'll remember what they did. The "moderate" R Senators are in a particular pickle.
She's doing great, concise, effectiveI'm a few minutes behind Live, but damn Rep. Lofgren is a really really strong speaker and presenter.
Being a GOP congressman is the easiest shit in the world. Either whine about the POTUS if they're a Democrat or lick their taint if they're a Republican.so why put up with shit for 5 more years and then when Trump is gone and his base gets complacent about voting, they get voted out anyway? Can these people really find no other jobs?
No mention of the fact that with Clinton we had a whole grand jury investigation first and so a ton of the investigation and witness testimony was already done?Romney signaled earlier that he would back McConnel in the first witness vote because McConnel is just following the Clinton procedure and that they can get witnesses later.
Nope.No mention of the fact that with Clinton we had a whole grand jury investigation first and so a ton of the investigation and witness testimony was already done?
The smart ones are assuming he'll just lose in November (not a bad bet) so they aren't having to endure another term and the diehard R Senators want him to be re-elected so there's no reason for them to vote to remove in the first place. There are a lot more of the diehard ones in the Senate so flipping enough for removal is essentially impossible.so why put up with shit for 5 more years and then when Trump is gone and his base gets complacent about voting, they get voted out anyway? Can these people really find no other jobs?
Looks like she's almost done with her argument.She is great.
However........... is it going to be like this for the next 10 hours? if so it's going to be a long..........time.