Trey Gowdy: Dems want Senate Majority

[task0778]

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.

 

[jwoodie]

I agree that keeping a GOP majority in the Senate is crucial. Without it, Trump just might tell them to go pound sand and resign.

 

[pknopp]

Wow, imagine that. Lol

This coming from the guy who led both the IRS and Benghazi investigations doing absolutely nothing about either.

 

[The Original Tree]

Literally The Democrat Lead House GOT NOTHING DONE in the past two years. NOTHING. They passed USMCA the day they did the articles, and passed do nothing proclamations, and non binding resolutions. They have not sent ONE PASSABLE BILL to The Senate since 2018.

 

[BlindBoo]

If the Democrats can take the Senate in 2020, that will only increase their chance for taking the Presidency.

 

[The Original Tree]

If the Democrats can take the Senate in 2020, that will only increase their chance for taking the Presidency.

America Hates The Democrat Party, even many of the people that are in it now, are leaving it, so, you need to focus on stopping the bleeding in The House. But like Shrillery Von Cankles McPutin, you dummies are so arrogant you probably thought you got it rigged.

Your Evil Deeds result in handing Trump a Super Majority.

There will be The Blood Bath on November 2020, and you will blame it, on someone or something, but never yourselves.

 

[BlindBoo]

Literally The Democrat Lead House GOT NOTHING DONE in the past two years. NOTHING. They passed USMCA the day they did the articles, and passed do nothing proclamations, and non binding resolutions. They have not sent ONE PASSABLE BILL to The Senate since 2018.

Thanks again for more laughter.

America Hates The Democrat Party,

Trumpublicans hate every American who will not Kiss the Ring.

 

[task0778]

What's sad about all this impeachment manipulation is that even if what Gowdy says is not true, it's obvious that the Dems are turning the Impeachment process into a political weapon. It's one thing to do the inquiry, nothing wrong with that, but it's another to actually impeach a president on a strictly party line vote on the flimsiest evidence, especially if you are trying to overturn the election results that made him the president. And you need a larger majority of the popular opinion; at the time of the impeachment vote it was close to 50-50 and heading south and is below water today. It's hard for me to see the political gain for the Dems in all this, against the vulnerable Repub Senators. Pelosi said today:

“In an impeachment trial, every Senator takes an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.’ Every Senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the President or to the Constitution. No one is above the law, not even the President.”

Newsflash, Nancy: the Constitution does not require a guilty verdict just because you think it should happen. Every Senator should vote impartially, but does anyone believe that's going to happen on either side? Maybe some, but most will vote the party line and everyone knows it. So, she can sit on those Articles til the cows come home and nothing will change, except maybe the House Dems will have a harder time getting re-elected.

Any Democrat who talks about impartial justice is being hypocritical to the nth degree, and I suspect most voters other than the true blue Dem ones do not like what they've been seeing. In fact many have already left or are leaving the Dem Party. When the vote is straight party line and you even lose a couple of your own votes, that ain't impartial justice.
What happened in the House Inquiry was hardly impartial; they could have and should have gone through the courts to force the witnesses they wanted to testify. But no, there was no time for that, but now there's time to sit on those Articles for going on a month? That is bullshit, pure political gamesmanship in a process that should be done fairly and impartially but wasn't.

 

[candycorn]

They just may get it and the Oval

 

[The Original Tree]

They got nothing done. And that is why you have no answer.

Name The Single Biggest Legislative Accomplishment of The Democrat Lead House since Nov 2018.

The biggest accomplishment is coddling a dead terrorist and terrorist state that killed thousands of innocent people, including 170 innocent people fleeing the Godforsaken Nation of Iran. And calling a man defending and protecting America an “Imminent Threat”.

Literally The Democrat Lead House GOT NOTHING DONE in the past two years. NOTHING. They passed USMCA the day they did the articles, and passed do nothing proclamations, and non binding resolutions. They have not sent ONE PASSABLE BILL to The Senate since 2018.

Thanks again for more laughter.

America Hates The Democrat Party,

Trumpublicans hate every American who will not Kiss the Ring.

 

[Siete]

Literally The Democrat Lead House GOT NOTHING DONE in the past two years. NOTHING. They passed USMCA the day they did the articles, and passed do nothing proclamations, and non binding resolutions. They have not sent ONE PASSABLE BILL to The Senate since 2018.

Thanks again for more laughter.

America Hates The Democrat Party,

Trumpublicans hate every American who will not Kiss the Ring.

the brown ring between his butt cheeks -

 

[Richard-H]

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 primary reason that the House of Representatives impeached Trump is:

1. Trump abused the powers of his Presidency

2. Trump obstructed Justice by obstructing a congressional inquiry.

You may not consider the first point to be worth removing him from office, but the second is indisputable: He should be removed from office - no doubt about it.

 

[The Original Tree]

You definitely are an expert on that since your lips are permanently planted on The Ayatollah’s Assaholla!

Literally The Democrat Lead House GOT NOTHING DONE in the past two years. NOTHING. They passed USMCA the day they did the articles, and passed do nothing proclamations, and non binding resolutions. They have not sent ONE PASSABLE BILL to The Senate since 2018.

Thanks again for more laughter.

America Hates The Democrat Party,

Trumpublicans hate every American who will not Kiss the Ring.

the brown ring between his butt cheeks -

 

[The Original Tree]

So challenging a subpoena in court is Obstructing Congress?

This does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

I bet you say that when a girl resists you that she’s obstructing your romantic advances, don’t you?

So exerting The Constitutional Right of Execution Privilege is Abuse of Power?

I bet when your parents told you that you could not have cookies before your dinner that’s exactly what you said to them.

This also does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

Why do you think this whole thing is going do be swatted in to the trash heap of history? It’s all a baseless political attack by a desperate party.

But the worst part of it all is that you fell for the con game.

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 primary reason that the House of Representatives impeached Trump is:

1. Trump abused the powers of his Presidency

2. Trump obstructed Justice by obstructing a congressional inquiry.

You may not consider the first point to be worth removing him from office, but the second is indisputable: He should be removed from office - no doubt about it.

 

[Richard-H]

So challenging a subpoena in court is Obstructing Congress?

This does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

I bet you say that when a girl resists you that she’s obstructing your romantic advances, don’t you?

So exerting The Constitutional Right of Execution Privilege is Abuse of Power?

I bet when your parents told you that you could not have cookies before your dinner that’s exactly what you said to them.

This also does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

Why do you think this whole thing is going do be swatted in to the trash heap of history? It’s all a baseless political attack by a desperate party.

But the worst part of it all is that you fell for the con game.

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 primary reason that the House of Representatives impeached Trump is:

1. Trump abused the powers of his Presidency

2. Trump obstructed Justice by obstructing a congressional inquiry.

You may not consider the first point to be worth removing him from office, but the second is indisputable: He should be removed from office - no doubt about it.

Trump has no valid basis for challenging those subpoenas other than obstructing justice.

 

[HenryBHough]

If you think Democrats will retake The Senate then you'd best cash out your equity holdings right now and sell your house while you can get a decent price. If they should win your equities will plunge to under 10,000 in hours and your home will become worthless. Besides, you won't need one. You can rent a repo from government for a pittance.

Aw shit, I'm feeling too damn optimistic just now......

 

[The Original Tree]

Challenging. Subpoenas is Every American’s Right. That’s our system of justice. Too bad you and your party don’t respect Justice.

The burden of proof Is on The Accuser, and you have spent going on 4 years Spent Treasure (Millions) Human Capital, and Precious Time Accusing The President of 100s of Crimes, anything you can think of and have come up empty.

Not a single violation of US Code appears in those articles. Not a single page of the Mueller Report appears in those articles, and not a single shred of sanity appears in those articles.

But most importantly, the articles themselves call you a liar as not a single charge of “Obstruction of Justice” appears in those articles.

So challenging a subpoena in court is Obstructing Congress?

This does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

I bet you say that when a girl resists you that she’s obstructing your romantic advances, don’t you?

So exerting The Constitutional Right of Execution Privilege is Abuse of Power?

I bet when your parents told you that you could not have cookies before your dinner that’s exactly what you said to them.

This also does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

Why do you think this whole thing is going do be swatted in to the trash heap of history? It’s all a baseless political attack by a desperate party.

But the worst part of it all is that you fell for the con game.

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 primary reason that the House of Representatives impeached Trump is:

1. Trump abused the powers of his Presidency

2. Trump obstructed Justice by obstructing a congressional inquiry.

You may not consider the first point to be worth removing him from office, but the second is indisputable: He should be removed from office - no doubt about it.

Trump has no valid basis for challenging those subpoenas other than obstructing justice.

 

[Richard-H]

Challenging. Subpoenas is Every American’s Right. That’s our system of justice. Too bad you and your party don’t respect Justice.

The burden of proof Is on The Accuser, and you have spent going on 4 years Spent Treasure (Millions) Human Capital, and Precious Time Accusing The President of 100s of Crimes, anything you can think of and have come up empty.

Not a single violation of US Code appears in those articles. Not a single page of the Mueller Report appears in those articles, and not a single shred of sanity appears in those articles.

But most importantly, the articles themselves call you a liar as not a single charge of “Obstruction of Justice” appears in those articles.

So challenging a subpoena in court is Obstructing Congress?

This does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

I bet you say that when a girl resists you that she’s obstructing your romantic advances, don’t you?

So exerting The Constitutional Right of Execution Privilege is Abuse of Power?

I bet when your parents told you that you could not have cookies before your dinner that’s exactly what you said to them.

This also does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

Why do you think this whole thing is going do be swatted in to the trash heap of history? It’s all a baseless political attack by a desperate party.

But the worst part of it all is that you fell for the con game.

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 primary reason that the House of Representatives impeached Trump is:

1. Trump abused the powers of his Presidency

2. Trump obstructed Justice by obstructing a congressional inquiry.

You may not consider the first point to be worth removing him from office, but the second is indisputable: He should be removed from office - no doubt about it.

Trump has no valid basis for challenging those subpoenas other than obstructing justice.

Frivolous challenges meant as a stalling tactic are NOT a right.

The courts have repeatedly upheld Congress's authority to issue subpeonas - and Trump's lawyers know it. Legally, these challenges are a joke.

 

[The Original Tree]

The judge did not think so, again, you lose.
Follow the law, go Through the process, and present your case. No reason for The DemTwats to abandon The Process of Justice.

No Reason for you to condemn your soul and your sanity to Hell by engaging in Lying and Partisan Propaganda.

Challenging. Subpoenas is Every American’s Right. That’s our system of justice. Too bad you and your party don’t respect Justice.

The burden of proof Is on The Accuser, and you have spent going on 4 years Spent Treasure (Millions) Human Capital, and Precious Time Accusing The President of 100s of Crimes, anything you can think of and have come up empty.

Not a single violation of US Code appears in those articles. Not a single page of the Mueller Report appears in those articles, and not a single shred of sanity appears in those articles.

But most importantly, the articles themselves call you a liar as not a single charge of “Obstruction of Justice” appears in those articles.

So challenging a subpoena in court is Obstructing Congress?

This does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

I bet you say that when a girl resists you that she’s obstructing your romantic advances, don’t you?

So exerting The Constitutional Right of Execution Privilege is Abuse of Power?

I bet when your parents told you that you could not have cookies before your dinner that’s exactly what you said to them.

This also does not exist in US Code. Fake Crime.

Why do you think this whole thing is going do be swatted in to the trash heap of history? It’s all a baseless political attack by a desperate party.

But the worst part of it all is that you fell for the con game.

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 primary reason that the House of Representatives impeached Trump is:

1. Trump abused the powers of his Presidency

2. Trump obstructed Justice by obstructing a congressional inquiry.

You may not consider the first point to be worth removing him from office, but the second is indisputable: He should be removed from office - no doubt about it.

Trump has no valid basis for challenging those subpoenas other than obstructing justice.

Frivolous challenges meant as a stalling tactic are NOT a right.

The courts have repeatedly upheld Congress's authority to issue subpeonas - and Trump's lawyers know it. Legally, these challenges are a joke.