Why not wait till it gets there?
Believe NOTHING...THE hill SHOULD be NUKED!!
It gets dismissed after the rial starts.
My prediction: Mittens will need to make a very lengthy convoluted statement if he votes no.
I have about 34 “hard” acquits for Trump. About 15 wafflers, but pretty much “soft” acquits. I have Minion, Tom Collins, and MurCowSki as possible convicts.
However, once it’s clear Trump will survive, I think virtually all of the “soft” acquits move over, and probably even the three bozos come along.
It will be absolute political suicide for an R to vote to convict for anyone but Minion, and I think even he wants a job when he’s done in the senate.
If Lindsey Graham had any balls he would acquit Trump right on the spot, no trial no nothing..just end the BS and move on
Mitt will not vote to acquit if he abstains we’ll be lucky. The rats desperately Want a bipartisan vote to convict.
I don’t want it to end there.
These miserable corrupt snakes have tried TWICE to remove Trump with NO reasonable suspicion or probable cause to even START an investigation. This is a SECOND thinly-disguised coup attempt by the Delusional Lying Left.
Somebody needs to turn around and find the depth of unconstitutionality of these weasels’ acts and IMPEACH, CONVICT, AND IMPRISON THEM!!!
To the lawyer types on here. Is discovery allowed in this trial?
The Congressmen defending the President are dedicated and talented but I marvel that nobody has addressed the primary issue in the two inquiries so far.
I refer to President Trump’s INTENT or MOTIVE. Why did he ask the favor?
The Democrat Congressmen and every witness so far were allowed to assert that the President was asking a favor of a foreign head of state in order to help him defeat a political rival, Joe Biden. Not once have I heard any Republican challenge this “BIG LIE.” Instead, they trot out the same weak arguments about whether there was a “quid pro quo” over and over and ignore the more relevant issue of intent.
To illustrate the point, consider the following two hypotheticals:
1. The President asks Ukraine’s President for help in defeating Joe Biden at the ballot box, there is no conditionality, arm twisting or “quid pro quo” associated with the request. Even though the President didn’t establish a “This for That” transaction to get the favor he requested, most would agree that the President would be guilty of something that might indeed be impeachable.
2. Conversely, envision that the President asks for the same favor using the same words but he also attaches all sorts of conditionality, whatever sort of arm-twisting he has at his disposal but the President’s motive was a reflection of his belief that US laws were broken in a fraudulent effort to reverse the 2016 election. Further, he felt that a former US official had behaved very corruptly and felt that justice needed to be done. In this scenario, the President’s motive remains the same whether his belief is accurate or not. His motives aren’t corrupt and there is no crime.
These two scenarios highlight that the presence or absence of a “quid pro quo” arrangement is irrelevant in determining the President’s guilt.
INTENT IS ULTIMATELY ALL THAT MATTERS!!
I’m waiting for Jordan to say “You clearly believe you can read the President’s mind. BUT isn’t it conceivable that the President is acting on his belief that he was the victim of a fraudulent and corrupt conspiracy and was keeping his promise to ‘Make sure that this doesn’t ever happen to another President?’ On the campaign trail, President Trump promised repeatedly to ‘Drain the swamp!’ When he sees a video of Joe Biden seems to be bragging about engaging in corrupt behavior, Weren’t the President’s motives possibly free of corrupt intent since ensuring that US laws are obeyed is part of his job description? Is Biden above the law now that he is a candidate? Is a person free to rob a bank as soon as he runs for Sherriff?”
In the first hearings before the Intelligence Committee, only Democrat Rep. Castro even touched on intent when he mentioned the 2016 Ukrainian/DNC rationale as a “debunked conspiracy theory.” Nobody picked up on Castro’s backhanded defense of the President there, Clearly, If President Trump believed a “debunked conspiracy theory” and wanted it investigated, then the President wasn’t asking for help fighting a political rival. Right or wrong, his motive was virtuous
I will bet, that some democrat after a few days of the case gets nervous, he/she puts forth a motion on the floor to dismiss.
It’s nowhere near the Senate right now
Can you imagine any policeman asking a judge for a warrant because,
“The guy makes me mad”?
The judge would throw him out on his donkey.
I predict that impeachment will be sent back to the house with stern orders to do it again observing due process, outlining the differences between this farce and the impeachment proceedings for Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton.
It will quietly die in the house.
Kyrsten Sinema will vote no as well.
This is only a question because there are no patriots in Amerika today.
I take nothing for granted and trust no one but Trump.
I will never in my lifetime forget or forgive how my favorite president was treated. How that will manifest itself in the future, I cannot say at this time.
Eff the Republicans for not standing up for him more. The Republican party needs an enema.
Once impeachment gets to the Senate I expect there will be a month or two of bickering about process among McConnell and Schumer, a short trial that mostly prevents Trump from defending himself and then a vote mostly along party lines. So, basically, we can expect a Kavanaugh circus on steroids.
The rats should be concerned with a result that they refuse to believe is possible.
If it makes the Senate and dies a quick death the House will just start it all over again and again until they lose their majority