task0778
Diamond Member
Gowdy writes on Fox News:
The impeachment of President Donald Trump is not about Trump's removal from office. Of the more than one dozen Republican senators whose conviction votes would be necessary to remove the president from office, no one can identify more than 3 Republican senators who might even conceivably vote to do so. And there are Democratic senators, like Doug Jones from Alabama and Joe Manchin from West Virginia, who are just as likely to vote for an acquittal, as any Republican senators are to vote to convict.
Even the practicality of the math could not sway the likes of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who lectured us that impeachment was his "responsibility." Public hearings did not change public opinion. Changing prosecutorial theories did not change public opinion. A gale-force media tailwind pushing impeachment has not changed public opinion. But Schiff knows what is best for you -- even if you do not -- so he must press on.
So why would otherwise savvy politicians like Speaker Nancy Pelosi continue to push a case for which there is zero likelihood of a conviction?
This impeachment exercise is most assuredly about removing someone from office. It's just not about removing Trump from office.
Why would these same politicians rush to advance impeachment articles, pass those articles with no Republican votes, declare President Trump an existential threat to the Republic, and then place those articles in legislative purgatory and refuse to transmit those articles for trial?
The impeachment inquiry, investigation, votes, and ultimate refusal to transmit articles are not about removing Trump from office. Rather, it is a tacit acknowledgment he will be re-elected in November of 2020. The plan now is to use impeachment to neuter that second term with a Democrat-controlled Senate.
This impeachment exercise is most assuredly about removing someone from office. It's just not about removing Trump from office. It's about removing Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, Susan Collins and Joni Ernst from their senate offices.
A Democratic Senate would make the assemblage of a Cabinet next to impossible, end the filling of judicial vacancies, paralyze the country should there be a U.S. Supreme Court opening and ensure that both the House and Senate spend their time investigating the executive branch.
If you think the country made little to no legislative progress with a Democrat-controlled House and a Republican president, just wait until there is a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and a Republican president.
There are currently 53 Republican Senators with 45 Democrats and 2 independents. The 2 independents caucus and vote with the Democrats for a practical split of 53-47. Democrats need to flip four Republican seats (and more likely 5) if Republicans nominate an electable candidate in Alabama.
Trey Gowdy: Trump impeachment trial is not about him. THIS is what Democrats want now
Me: And Gowdy then continues to make his argument hold water. Essentially whay he's saying is that the Dems want to put those 5 Repub Senators on the spot to vote against calling witnesses in the Trump Impeachment Trial, this making them more vulnerable next November. According to him, that's the reason why the House Dems did not go to court to force Mulvaney, Bolton, and others to testify in front of the House Inquiry. They want to make that an election issue, not against Trump but agaainst those 5 Repub Senators, IF they can force a vote on it in the Senate.
The House could have subpoenaed former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani or anyone else they deemed essential to their investigation.
House Democrats had time to hear from former Trump associate Michael Cohen, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, and a panel of constitutional law professors devoid of any access to salient facts. Yet they complain they did not have time to compel the appearance and testimony of witnesses they now contend are indispensable.
In a TV interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, Schiff slipped up and did something unusual -- he told the truth. This "pause" as he calls it, in transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, is really calculated to place moderate Republican Senators in a bind.
He deemed it "fleshing" out where they stand. That is California-speak for making Republican senators in tough re-elections cast as many votes as possible on impeachment so their Democrat opponents can run as many 30 second ads against them as possible.
Me: I couldn't say if any of this is the truth, but Gowdy ain't no dummy. Maybe his writing here is really an attempt to influence the Senate GOPers to vote to dismiss the Articles without calling any witnesses. From the GOP point of view, that would be very wise. Gowdy implies that the Dems have all but conceded Trump's re-election, but maybe this is just due diligence just in case their person doesn't win. If Trump does win however, it makes a lot of sense for the Dems to try to take the Senate, which as we all know confirms federal judges including the SCOTUS, and that is a big deal. Plus, they also confirm cabinet positions and other high-ranking executive positions too. So, if the Dems take the Senate then even if Trump wins he'll have a tough job getting anything through Congress.
This is why McConnell and the GOP has to be very careful not to overplay their hand with respect to this trial. They do not want to lose their Senate Majority, whether or not Trump gets re-elected. The good news, if you are a Righty: McConnell ain't no rookie. He does have a few oddballs to contend with: Murkowski, Collins, Paul, and a few others. I think all this talk about colluding with Trump is mostly trying to pacify him into not doing something really stupid. No small task there.
The impeachment of President Donald Trump is not about Trump's removal from office. Of the more than one dozen Republican senators whose conviction votes would be necessary to remove the president from office, no one can identify more than 3 Republican senators who might even conceivably vote to do so. And there are Democratic senators, like Doug Jones from Alabama and Joe Manchin from West Virginia, who are just as likely to vote for an acquittal, as any Republican senators are to vote to convict.
Even the practicality of the math could not sway the likes of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who lectured us that impeachment was his "responsibility." Public hearings did not change public opinion. Changing prosecutorial theories did not change public opinion. A gale-force media tailwind pushing impeachment has not changed public opinion. But Schiff knows what is best for you -- even if you do not -- so he must press on.
So why would otherwise savvy politicians like Speaker Nancy Pelosi continue to push a case for which there is zero likelihood of a conviction?
This impeachment exercise is most assuredly about removing someone from office. It's just not about removing Trump from office.
Why would these same politicians rush to advance impeachment articles, pass those articles with no Republican votes, declare President Trump an existential threat to the Republic, and then place those articles in legislative purgatory and refuse to transmit those articles for trial?
The impeachment inquiry, investigation, votes, and ultimate refusal to transmit articles are not about removing Trump from office. Rather, it is a tacit acknowledgment he will be re-elected in November of 2020. The plan now is to use impeachment to neuter that second term with a Democrat-controlled Senate.
This impeachment exercise is most assuredly about removing someone from office. It's just not about removing Trump from office. It's about removing Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, Susan Collins and Joni Ernst from their senate offices.
A Democratic Senate would make the assemblage of a Cabinet next to impossible, end the filling of judicial vacancies, paralyze the country should there be a U.S. Supreme Court opening and ensure that both the House and Senate spend their time investigating the executive branch.
If you think the country made little to no legislative progress with a Democrat-controlled House and a Republican president, just wait until there is a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and a Republican president.
There are currently 53 Republican Senators with 45 Democrats and 2 independents. The 2 independents caucus and vote with the Democrats for a practical split of 53-47. Democrats need to flip four Republican seats (and more likely 5) if Republicans nominate an electable candidate in Alabama.
Trey Gowdy: Trump impeachment trial is not about him. THIS is what Democrats want now
Me: And Gowdy then continues to make his argument hold water. Essentially whay he's saying is that the Dems want to put those 5 Repub Senators on the spot to vote against calling witnesses in the Trump Impeachment Trial, this making them more vulnerable next November. According to him, that's the reason why the House Dems did not go to court to force Mulvaney, Bolton, and others to testify in front of the House Inquiry. They want to make that an election issue, not against Trump but agaainst those 5 Repub Senators, IF they can force a vote on it in the Senate.
The House could have subpoenaed former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani or anyone else they deemed essential to their investigation.
House Democrats had time to hear from former Trump associate Michael Cohen, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, and a panel of constitutional law professors devoid of any access to salient facts. Yet they complain they did not have time to compel the appearance and testimony of witnesses they now contend are indispensable.
In a TV interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, Schiff slipped up and did something unusual -- he told the truth. This "pause" as he calls it, in transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, is really calculated to place moderate Republican Senators in a bind.
He deemed it "fleshing" out where they stand. That is California-speak for making Republican senators in tough re-elections cast as many votes as possible on impeachment so their Democrat opponents can run as many 30 second ads against them as possible.
Me: I couldn't say if any of this is the truth, but Gowdy ain't no dummy. Maybe his writing here is really an attempt to influence the Senate GOPers to vote to dismiss the Articles without calling any witnesses. From the GOP point of view, that would be very wise. Gowdy implies that the Dems have all but conceded Trump's re-election, but maybe this is just due diligence just in case their person doesn't win. If Trump does win however, it makes a lot of sense for the Dems to try to take the Senate, which as we all know confirms federal judges including the SCOTUS, and that is a big deal. Plus, they also confirm cabinet positions and other high-ranking executive positions too. So, if the Dems take the Senate then even if Trump wins he'll have a tough job getting anything through Congress.
This is why McConnell and the GOP has to be very careful not to overplay their hand with respect to this trial. They do not want to lose their Senate Majority, whether or not Trump gets re-elected. The good news, if you are a Righty: McConnell ain't no rookie. He does have a few oddballs to contend with: Murkowski, Collins, Paul, and a few others. I think all this talk about colluding with Trump is mostly trying to pacify him into not doing something really stupid. No small task there.