The pigs/corn cob/tree stump story was certainly enlightening. Good to know there is someone who can't quite believe that ALL GOP Senators are sheep.

And there is a lone Dem who isn't voting for impeachment.

What I find shocking or at least new is the boldness w/which McConnell/Trump are planning the outcome. Deals are usually done in secret/behind the scenes. This is akin to a defense attorney openly meeting w/the jury foreman to strategize the best way to get a Not Guilty verdict for his client. In a criminal trial for an ordinary citizen, it would be jury tampering.

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf

Link to full report. Click the icon beside the printer one to download the report. It is a l-o-n-g read and sometimes it gave me a headache.
Please read the dissenting views also.

I have not been very involved or interested in this topic, but on a long drive last Thursday did listen to several hours of the House Judiciary Committee on the radio where all the members were allowed to speak one after the other if they so wished, you know "striking the last word" type thing.

The Democrats case is much stronger than the Republicans here. The Republicans do have some points, however most do not stand up well to Democrat responses.

It is true that some people (some people here in fact) have wanted to impeach the President from the first day he took office. Wanting to do so and having reason to do so don't always align so neatly. It has taken 3 years for the President to do something to rise to an impeachable offense. And we all know, all of us, if it was a Democrat in office all these Republicans would be rushing to impeach, and all these Democrats would be trying to obstruct. That's just what it is. Otherwise, to one guy in middle America, I think they are rightfully proceeding with impeachment - so I'm fine with it. On the other hand, if they weren't doing so, I guess I'd be fine wiht that too. These days I'm more of a sit back and let the elected officials do what elected officials are supposed to do. You won't find me protesting one way or the other.

Nebish, for informational reading, download the report and look at the dissenting remarks.
One in particular gives a list of things that hasn't yet been done in the process that is part of the process.
Reading it gave me the impression that parts were not introduced that are integral for the impeachment to go forward.

Otherwise, to one guy in middle America, I think they are rightfully proceeding with impeachment - so I'm fine with it. On the other hand, if they weren't doing so, I guess I'd be fine wiht that too. These days I'm more of a sit back and let the elected officials do what elected officials are supposed to do. You won't find me protesting one way or the other.

Same here. We have turned a blind eye to quite a bit with Trump already. What would history say about the U.S. if we all sat back and did nothing after witnessing him ask foreign countries to investigate Americans? I thought he should be impeached after undermining all of our intelligence agencies to side with Putin - that was more than enough for me right there. But I support standing up to him, whether it ends up helping him or not. I’ll sleep well at night knowing we fought back and did the right thing.

However, I do think it will only help him get re-elected easily. Remember, he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn’t lose any votes, so I don’t see why impeachment over the Ukraine call would change any minds.

I still can’t believe a candidate said that about his voters, and they still voted for him. Imagine being intentionally insulted by the candidate you support!

This administration & and the GOP has shown that there is little regard for the Constitution and that our intel professionals once regarded as protectors are just trying their best to getting in the way of foreign interence in elections. Unfortunately their facts and warnings are no longer wanted by or cared about by 40% of the population and a subset of "leaders".

Nebish, for informational reading, download the report and look at the dissenting remarks.
One in particular gives a list of things that hasn't yet been done in the process that is part of the process.
Reading it gave me the impression that parts were not introduced that are integral for the impeachment to go forward.

I know. I should read a lot more things. I find it hard to find time to read the things I want to these days let alone the things I feel obligated to read.

But from some basic knowledge here, I do believe there are some legitimate complaints on the process. The other side has explanations for it. I don't know. I will try and get to glancing that link over.

[Edited on 12/17/2019 by nebish]

I should read a lot more things. I find it hard to find time to read the things I want to these days let alone the things I feel obligated to read.

None of us can read everything. Not even the professionals charged to do so in DC - they have staffs to do that.

The upshot of the process so far is that despite whatever defects were suggested, the vote was to move forward w/the process. So, here we are.

Both sides will have ample opportunity to raise issues during the trial in the senate. Remember, Mitch McConnell doesn't run the trial; CJ Roberts does. Roberts will no doubt allow some latitude for both parties to feel "heard," but he's not going to allow lengthy off-topic tangents.

The most important things are the 2 charges. My approach is to know what exactly is being charged & to listen w/an open mind to both the evidence presented and the rebuttals offered in defense. There will probably be short daily summaries as there were in Clinton's trial. The media makes it hard to see the forest for the trees because they delight in theatrics. If we just ask 1) what did the prosecution say? and 2) what was the defense response? w/o all the obfuscation in which some politicians delight, it should be a historic trial.

However, I do think it will only help him get re-elected easily. Remember, he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn’t lose any votes, so I don’t see why impeachment over the Ukraine call would change any minds.

In the announcement of the formation of the Lincoln Project, the founders pointed to wealthy incompetent NY politician Dan Sickles who made the US blunder that almost allow Gen Lee's army to win at Gettsyburg as being one of their sources of inspiration. In addition to his poor military judgment, he actually shot & killed his wife's lover across the street from the WH & still remained in Congress. They don't want another "incompetent NY politician who claimed he could shoot someone on 5th Ave & get away w/it to ruin the country."

Today our esteemed prez sent a "love letter" to the Speaker of House re: impeachment. Portions of it read like something a third grader would write.

The letter misrepresents what the Constitution states and what the rule of law is. Does that really surprise anyone?

It is full of anger and rage. Does that also not surprise anyone?

In one bizarre highlight Russian Don states, "‘You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: “I pray for the president,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!" No one should should dispute that because we know that Trump is truly a man of faith.

The history books that our children and grandchildren will read will speak to the legacy of Donald Trump, & the next generations will scratch their heads in bewilderment.

Is this man not a clear & present danger?

Russia - if you are listening, Trump wants your help in 2020.

The letter misrepresents what the Constitution states and what the rule of law is. Does that really surprise anyone?

It is full of anger and rage. Does that also not surprise anyone?

In one bizarre highlight Russian Don states, "‘You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: “I pray for the president,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!"

He's certainly full of surprises (thereby displaying his ignorance of anything remotely related to procedure, process, & the constitution), but this is part of his plan w/McConnell to dismiss impeachment as nothing more than empty partisan theatre rather than a legitimate checks & balances action. He wasn't writing "for history" as he says; he was writing for the news cycle on the eve of the full HR vote.

He certainly displays his full range of anger, paranoia & arrogance as he belittles someone's faith & the constitutional process, throws in a lot of long-debunked theories, again berates the "corrupt" FBI & and threatens individuals. He sounds unhinged even in the sections someone else who is capable of writing a full sentence completed for him. The letter reads as a command to a sub-ordinate rather a respectful request (if belated) to a co-equal branch of government. He knows his audience, though, & he throws out "coup" and calls impeachment an "ugly" word. Impeachment is a neutral term; the actions that led to it are ugly.

Wonder what Pelosi will do w/this unprecedented, out-of-order missive akin to a defendant writing the DA/judge that would be returned unread to the defendant as an improper communication. Guess today will be a full day of @real hysterical tweets.

The letter misrepresents what the Constitution states and what the rule of law is. Does that really surprise anyone?

It is full of anger and rage. Does that also not surprise anyone?

In one bizarre highlight Russian Don states, "‘You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: “I pray for the president,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!"

He's certainly full of surprises (thereby displaying his ignorance of anything remotely related to procedure, process, & the constitution), but this is part of his plan w/McConnell to dismiss impeachment as nothing more than empty partisan theatre rather than a legitimate checks & balances action. He wasn't writing "for history" as he says; he was writing for the news cycle on the eve of the full HR vote.

He certainly displays his full range of anger, paranoia & arrogance as he belittles someone's faith & the constitutional process, throws in a lot of long-debunked theories, again berates the "corrupt" FBI & and threatens individuals. He sounds unhinged even in the sections someone else who is capable of writing a full sentence completed for him. The letter reads as a command to a sub-ordinate rather a respectful request (if belated) to a co-equal branch of government. He knows his audience, though, & he throws out "coup" and calls impeachment an "ugly" word. Impeachment is a neutral term; the actions that led to it are ugly.

Wonder what Pelosi will do w/this unprecedented, out-of-order missive akin to a defendant writing the DA/judge that would be returned unread to the defendant as an improper communication. Guess today will be a full day of @real hysterical tweets.

Everything you said in your full post is spot on. I will concentrate on the final line above - "Guess today will be a full day of @real hysterical tweets." This is standard operating procedure for Trump & defines everyday of his tenure. It would be abnormal if he didn't do this. His letter to the Speaker was nothing more than an extension of his daily rants and lies via tweets. He probably would have tweeted it, but the number of characters exceeded the twitter limit.

Lincoln had his Gettysburg Address, but Trump one-uped him with a deranged diatribe full of lies and self serving inaccuracies. History will judge Trump poorly and as an abberation.

Points to consider: After the Clinton impeachment, Newt Gingrich lost his position as Speaker of the House, and Clinton's popularity increased.

Risky game for Nancy Pelosi & co., methinks.

Billastro

If impeachment is so great for Trump and will sink the Dems why then the Redhats ought to be happy about it. If you want someone to fall off a cliff and you see them walking toward the cliff why would you warn them away?

Who cares? "Why?" is a pointless question when dealing with irrational, self-destructive behavior. The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration. Just more craziness from the far left/progressive movement.

Billastro

Points to consider: After the Clinton impeachment, Newt Gingrich lost his position as Speaker of the House, and Clinton's popularity increased.

Risky game for Nancy Pelosi & co., methinks.

Billastro

The difference is that Clinton was a popular president. Trump is not. The majority of people support impeaching and removing Trump, and that was not the case with Clinton. The risk is that a few Democrats in the house might be put in a tough position in Republican leaning districts. Of course, the opposite is true in the senate in states like Colorado and Maine.

Otherwise, to one guy in middle America, I think they are rightfully proceeding with impeachment - so I'm fine with it. On the other hand, if they weren't doing so, I guess I'd be fine wiht that too. These days I'm more of a sit back and let the elected officials do what elected officials are supposed to do. You won't find me protesting one way or the other.

Same here. We have turned a blind eye to quite a bit with Trump already. What would history say about the U.S. if we all sat back and did nothing after witnessing him ask foreign countries to investigate Americans? I thought he should be impeached after undermining all of our intelligence agencies to side with Putin - that was more than enough for me right there. But I support standing up to him, whether it ends up helping him or not. I’ll sleep well at night knowing we fought back and did the right thing.

However, I do think it will only help him get re-elected easily. Remember, he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn’t lose any votes, so I don’t see why impeachment over the Ukraine call would change any minds.

I still can’t believe a candidate said that about his voters, and they still voted for him. Imagine being intentionally insulted by the candidate you support!

I disagree that Impeachment gets him re-elected. He may win in 2020 but I don't think Impeachment will be the reason.

If impeachment is so great for Trump and will sink the Dems why then the Redhats ought to be happy about it. If you want someone to fall off a cliff and you see them walking toward the cliff why would you warn them away?

Who cares? "Why?" is a pointless question when dealing with irrational, self-destructive behavior. The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration. Just more craziness from the far left/progressive movement.

Billastro

To clarify, I should have linked the irrational, self-destructive behavior to the far left/progressive movement. The right is likely watching them gather enough rope to politically hang themselves. They're like the folks who watch Laurel and Hardy coming up with a plan that inevitably leads to chaos and destruction.

Billastro

Points to consider: After the Clinton impeachment, Newt Gingrich lost his position as Speaker of the House, and Clinton's popularity increased.

Risky game for Nancy Pelosi & co., methinks.

Billastro

Possibly....But then again most people understand the difference between perjury about consensual oral sex and treasonous actions such that Trump has and continues to engage in.

Not to mention Trump has never enjoyed the popularity Clinton had before or after Impeachment. Significant difference methinks.

Tom Cole just began his remarks by first asking Democrats to show respect for his opinion, and then seconds later he declares the whole thing a "charade", like a parrot. Someone should tell this clown that calling their serious work a "charade" reduces him to a carnival barker who deserves nothing. Had he not asked for respect first, then I wouldn't have thought anything of it, but to ask for it, and then insult their work, is evidence of a seriously flawed and misguided person, who shouldn't be leading anything.

Secondly, can someone supporting Trump explain to me why he didn't ask the United States to investigate an American? I've been asking this multiple times, and for some odd reason.......[Edited on 12/18/2019 by Skydog32103]

The McConnell strategy (I'm not calling it the GOP strategy because I cling to the hope that there are some serious people in that party) of shrugging off impeachment as a comedy & ignoring conventions & rules is wrong in that it sets the precedent should the parties be reversed at the next impeachment or worse, to embolden an entire population of followers to believe that the 3-pronged system of government w/checks & balances is an antiquated notion that can be mocked or ignored. I would've thought one member of the party would've figured that out.

As to your second question, DJT considers the FBI to be "corrupt" along w/intel & military agencies so in his mind, he had no one he could trust to investigate an American. Previously, he'd had Michael The Fixer Cohen & Roger Stone look under some rocks, but they had their own problems by 2018.

Who cares? "Why?" is a pointless question when dealing with irrational, self-destructive behavior. The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration. Just more craziness from the far left/progressive movement. Billastro

I believe this belongs in the other impeachment thread. That's where the blanket insults & nonsensical sentences are welcomed & appreciated.

Jerry, who has not indicated he's in favor of impeachment in the past, made succinct logical comments in this thread and posted a link to the actual HR report for clarification should anyone want to read both the report & the dissent. His posts furthered the discussion w/o any of the vitriol that lives on the other thread. You might consider his example.

Secondly, can someone supporting Trump explain to me why he didn't ask the United States to investigate an American? I've been asking this multiple times, and for some odd reason.......

The only angle I think they would or could come up with is that the intelligence and criminal investigative groups and mechanisms in the US would protect Biden and wouldn't produce any findings to support the suspicion or the conspiracy of whatever it is that the Biden son was involved in and everything that went with that. I might be the least informed person on this specific subject, but I do believe I can offer the above explanation as something somebody who supported Trump could or would offer as to why they sought foreign assistance. We already know they do not trust US intel so why would they rely upon it now? For this?

Then in reality you have the whole thing about them just wanting the appearance that something was being investigated rather than an actual investigation - no US intelligence agency or investigative unit would go along with that.

Ignoring what Trump may or may not have done regarding Ukraine, I am more concerned with the Obstruction of Justice. When Trump directs his staff to ignore congressional subpoenas, that sets a dangerous precedent that goes way beyond anything having to do with Ukraine. Our founding fathers carefully put in a system of checks and balances into our constitution. If a president can ignore a congressional investigation and get away with it, then our entire system of government will be changed forevermore. Someday there will be a corrupt Democratic president in the Whitehouse, and if Trump gets away with ignoring congressional subpoenas the precedent will be set for that to happen again. Remember when Hillary testified under oath during a congressional investigation? That will NEVER happen again if Trump is not held accountable for ignoring congressional subpoenas now. All I can say Trump supporters is be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. Think about this, Trump is cleared in the senate, and Biden wins next November. Do you think for a single second that the senate Republicans will be able to conduct an investigation into his possible wrongdoing in Ukraine? Nope, that barn door is closed, and you can thank their protection of Trump for it.

Ignoring what Trump may or may not have done regarding Ukraine, I am more concerned with the Obstruction of Justice. When Trump directs his staff to ignore congressional subpoenas, that sets a dangerous precedent that goes way beyond anything having to do with Ukraine. Our founding fathers carefully put in a system of checks and balances into our constitution. If a president can ignore a congressional investigation and get away with it, then our entire system of government will be changed forevermore.

My concern all along. From Day 1, Trump has believed himself to be king, emperor, god or whatever term is used to mean absolute power. Even his closest realistic supporters didn't believe him capable of governing because he didn't have a clue about basic civics. He has spent the past 3 years breaking down what he considered unnecessary constraints on his brilliance to handle every issue as he saw fit through executive orders, firings, & tantrums. Not only did HE order staff (some of whom no longer work for him) but THEY complied!!! This disregard seems to be contagious & has certainly infected McConnell. At least a signal has been sent that democracy isn't dead yet.

For a man to whom branding is everything, the asterisk next to his name really chafes.

Nancy Pelosi continues to surprise me w/her strategic foresight. Since McConnell has proclaimed his partiality as a juror & co-ordination w/Trump to have a drive-by trial that ends in acquittal, Pelosi has made a move of her own in not rushing the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. She's slowing things down & may even have leverage to force McConnell to have witnesses at the trial. There's nothing to prevent her from never sending them to the Senate so that DJT is NEVER acquitted.

To everyone McConnell is trying to convince that the trial is no big deal & ordinary Americans who are sick to death of politics, a proper Senate trial might make interesting - if not riveting - TV. If the facts are laid out, argued publicly, and people can see for themselves what's been charged minds may change. McConnell's refusal to call witnesses who were actually involved in events but refused to comply w/a subpoena at Trump's direction seems cowardly, pointless & reckless. He'll be at loggerheads w/Trump who WANTS a trial so he can clear his name (although never remove the asterisk).

Finally, Trump's reaction was 50% predictable - rally, lapse into the royal "we" so he doesn't have to say "I was impeached," and sing his own fictitious praises for 2 hours. What was surprising is his cruel assertion that the late Rep. Dingell from Michigan was "looking up at Trump from hell." The man was the longest serving Congressman (59 years) at the time of his death & Trump when on to crack that his wife (Rep. Debbie Dingell) is "a real beauty." I doubt he thinks even that was wrong.

History in the making. Foregone conclusion on the Senate vote, but it is an important statement. The Liberty Bell can still chime.

I am sure there is secret dissent in the Senate, a few who know they are on rhe wrong side of history. If there is even one stray Senate GOP vote for impeachment, it will have the effect of a corn cob buried under a tree stump. You country boys know what I mean, you want a stump removed, just bury some corn cobs around it with a bit showing - the pigs will dig a crater rooting for more.

Impeachment most likely fails, but the Trump administration is going to uproot itself.

They need 67 Senate votes to remove him from office, something like 53 will vote Against impeachment.

Also ALL the Senators come up for re-election next November now that also plays into how they vote.

They need 67 Senate votes to remove him from office, something like 53 will vote Against impeachment.

Also ALL the Senators come up for re-election next November now that also plays into how they vote.

Wow! Obviously, one-third of senators will be up for re-election next year. It is pretty hard to get a six year term in if they all face re-election every time. Also, I think it is projected to be a relatively tough round for Republicans, similar to how 2018 was for Democrats.

What I find most disturbing about the House Republicans was their reluctance to stick up for the Constitutional powers of their own institution. They were the ones who demanded (correctly) that Congress had every right to drag in the former Secretary of State for hours of testimony even if the real goal was only to damage her future political prospects (as Mark Meadows admitted). Now they are okay with current executive branch employees ignoring subpoenas.

It seems like a willful public self-emasculation by the former "Benghazi Boys".

Nancy Pelosi continues to surprise me w/her strategic foresight. Since McConnell has proclaimed his partiality as a juror & co-ordination w/Trump to have a drive-by trial that ends in acquittal, Pelosi has made a move of her own in not rushing the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. She's slowing things down & may even have leverage to force McConnell to have witnesses at the trial. There's nothing to prevent her from never sending them to the Senate so that DJT is NEVER acquitted.

I don't think Pelosi wants witnesses to testify under oath at the trial. If so, all hearsay testimony will not be heard, which means that 3 of her 4 witnesses at the hearings would not be allowed since those 3 stated they had no direct knowledge of the phone call, only that they heard from others what was said.

Go back over the report and skim through the dissenting views if you have time.

PS: The report is in searchable PDF if you want to get the Cliff Notes read.

I don't think Pelosi wants witnesses to testify under oath at the trial. If so, all hearsay testimony will not be heard, which means that 3 of her 4 witnesses at the hearings would not be allowed since those 3 stated they had no direct knowledge of the phone call, only that they heard from others what was said.

Go back over the report and skim through the dissenting views if you have time.

PS: The report is in searchable PDF if you want to get the Cliff Notes read.

I don't know what she wants, but it would be interesting to have all witnesses Schumer has requested to testify - the point is to hear truthful testimony as a basis for us to make up our own minds. You raise an interesting point as to what would be considered hearsay in a Senate trial v. basic rules of Federal Procedure.

Thanks for the searchable tip; 700 pages is A LOT.

I don't think Pelosi wants witnesses to testify under oath at the trial. If so, all hearsay testimony will not be heard, which means that 3 of her 4 witnesses at the hearings would not be allowed since those 3 stated they had no direct knowledge of the phone call, only that they heard from others what was said.

Go back over the report and skim through the dissenting views if you have time.

PS: The report is in searchable PDF if you want to get the Cliff Notes read.

I don't know what she wants, but it would be interesting to have all witnesses Schumer has requested to testify - the point is to hear truthful testimony as a basis for us to make up our own minds. You raise an interesting point as to what would be considered hearsay in a Senate trial v. basic rules of Federal Procedure.

Thanks for the searchable tip; 700 pages is A LOT.

Yeah, I've been using the search function a LOT.

A link to information about how the rules will be set up.
https://theconversation.com/impeachment-comes-to-the-senate-5-questions-answered-124632

The article brings up the possibility that the Senate could call up both Bidens to give testimony about their possible roles in what caused the impeachment proceedings to start.

I agree with you that the point is to hear truthful testimony, just as in any trial.

For a man to whom branding is everything, the asterisk next to his name really chafes.

Nancy Pelosi continues to surprise me w/her strategic foresight. Since McConnell has proclaimed his partiality as a juror & co-ordination w/Trump to have a drive-by trial that ends in acquittal, Pelosi has made a move of her own in not rushing the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. She's slowing things down & may even have leverage to force McConnell to have witnesses at the trial. There's nothing to prevent her from never sending them to the Senate so that DJT is NEVER acquitted.

To everyone McConnell is trying to convince that the trial is no big deal & ordinary Americans who are sick to death of politics, a proper Senate trial might make interesting - if not riveting - TV. If the facts are laid out, argued publicly, and people can see for themselves what's been charged minds may change. McConnell's refusal to call witnesses who were actually involved in events but refused to comply w/a subpoena at Trump's direction seems cowardly, pointless & reckless. He'll be at loggerheads w/Trump who WANTS a trial so he can clear his name (although never remove the asterisk).

Finally, Trump's reaction was 50% predictable - rally, lapse into the royal "we" so he doesn't have to say "I was impeached," and sing his own fictitious praises for 2 hours. What was surprising is his cruel assertion that the late Rep. Dingell from Michigan was "looking up at Trump from hell." The man was the longest serving Congressman (59 years) at the time of his death & Trump when on to crack that his wife (Rep. Debbie Dingell) is "a real beauty." I doubt he thinks even that was wrong.

Count me among those who wanted a new Democratic Leader of the House when the process for voting began. I now and have for some time now recognized why I was wrong in that wish.

The way Pelosi corralled the Freshman members of her caucus the past few weeks and her latest tactical move to slow things down and not rush sending The Articles Of Impeachment to the Senate is very shrewd. A lesser experienced and knowledgeable leader may never have been to able to pull any of this Impeachment process off.