The Democrats witness dilemma

[Earl]

You are probably one third right, but definitely two thirds wrong. The Senate will fail to convict trump, that much is almost certainly correct.

Republicans will NOT even try to "exonerate" trump. Bringing forward the witnesses that could either exonerate, or convict trump would just reinforce that he is guilty in the voters minds. And make no mistake about it, trump is quite guilty.

trump will NOT win in a landslide. he might eke out a win, probably not in the popular vote, but maybe in the Electoral College. There is no way he gets a landslide.




This is going to sound mean, but nobody cares. Not Democrats, not Republicans, nobody. Who cares how long people who will vote for Republicans all the time will remember something. They are going to vote for Republicans whatever the Democrats or Republicans do. They will do that until they die.

What is a concern is what will people in battleground states think. They are overwhelmingly for impeachment, but not necessarily conviction. And there in lies the rub. Republicans have to look like they are taking this seriously, or they will lose all the battleground states. They also must keep this from getting anymore serious than it is, or they will lose all the battleground states.

And then there is the dying thing. Republican voters will be Republican voters until they die... But that is going to happen sooner or later. Republicans are not making good inroads with the younger people.

Well, no you are completely wrong.

Middle America cares that the far left Democrat Socialists in the House attempted to remove a sitting president that they elected. I care and the elections in Nov. will prove that patriotic Middle Americans care.

The exoneration will be the vote, yes or no, he did or didn't commit an impeachable offense. In America, you are INNOCENT until proven guilty, the bedrock of American jurisprudence. A no vote means he is innocent.

The landslide will be the Electoral vote...no one cares about the popular vote except the loser Democrats.

[Walt]

The woman has DNA evidence

Maybe she does, but for some reason she has been delaying putting it in front of a court. Remember the stripper that claimed to have mothered Clinton's child, and then came up with excuse after excuse for why not to complete the DNA test? That went no where.

But for the sake of argument, lets say she does have the DNA evidence. We have already seen the paperwork evidence that trump accepted illegal campaign contributions to coverup his romp with strippers. If one evidence is submitted, then both would have to be made very public. Hunter Biden is not running for any office, but trump is running for reelection. Who do you think gets hurt worse by that?

If this obvious conflict of interest would have been addressed under Obama’s ‘scandal free’ reign none of this would have happened.

trump's campaign manager, his primary political advisor, his campaign foreign policy advisor, his administration foreign policy advisor, and several dozen other such people are either in prison now, or about to go to prison. We are three years in and only one or two members of his original cabinet are left. Half his current cabinet have pictures with Epstein AFTER he left prison.

Bush had a lot of scandals too. But nothing like this. No one has ever seen trump levels of scandals.

And then there was Obama, a quiet scandal free time in the middle. Republicans certainly had a lot of investigations, and reinvestigations, but they never actually got anyone for anything.

Now we hear that getting an investigation against Burisma restarted might have caused a possible appearance of a conflict of interest, but not an actual appearance of conflict of interest, much less an actual conflict of interest? That is a tough sell as a scandal. Both Hunter Biden and the US Government wanted Burisma investigated and cleaned up. There was no conflict of interest there.

[Earl]

Is Stormy included in the Articles?

[Frank Apisa]

Why did democrats give up on extortion, Frank?

I think they have not given up on it...and well that they shouldn't. Trump obviously attempted to extort President Zelensky. Tough charge to prove, though...so best to go with something easier. Too bad the charge could not be lack of class or stupidity. That would be a cinch.

I’ll tell you why lol. It’s not there.

You use "lol" so often, I cannot help but wonder if you are a high schooler. Are you?

They might as well scratch ‘obstructing congress’ off the ticket because that’s a joke.

I don't see Trump laughing at the joke.

Abuse of power is nebulous and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents since practically all of them act in ways that can be construed as ‘abuse of power’.

Yeah. I guess Stalin and Hitler felt that way, too.

Not that you care about such things, you just want rid of Trump and if that means making it easier for future Houses to impeach future presidents—so be it.

Right, Frank?

I do think that the most important thing any reasonable American should be doing at this point...is efforting toward getting Trump out of office. To paraphrase John Dean, Trump is a cancer on the Republic.

Thanks for asking, Darth.

[Walt]

Middle America cares that the far left Democrat Socialists in the House attempted to remove a sitting president that they elected.

You missed my point. The majority of America, and both political parties do not care what "Middle America" thinks. They hate Democrats, so will vote Republican until they die. Democrats can do nothing to change that, and so will not even bother. And Republicans can do nothing to change that, so do not even care.

Tell me that battleground states will never forgive the Democrats, and I will become worried. Tell me that the red state fanatics will never forgive Democrats, and I will not care. It has been true for decades.

I might as well tell you that blacks will never forgive Republicans for how they treated Obama. Who cares?

I care and the elections in Nov. will prove that patriotic Middle Americans care.

Spoiler alert. Red states will vote for trump, and blue states will vote against trump. The impeachment will not change that one bit. Red states can whine they will never vote against trump, but that was true before the impeachment.

The real question is how battleground states will vote. And even more importantly who will vote in battleground states. If Republicans who are not wild about voting for trump in the beginning are even more ashamed of him after impeachment, not just trump will lose, Republicans in general will lose.

The exoneration will be the vote

You want Republicans to change the rules to vote on exoneration? That would require Republicans to go on record as not just saying that the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that trump is exonerated. That would do possibly mortal damage to the Republican Party.

I support it.

In America, you are INNOCENT until proven guilty

Actually, it is not.

It is PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. That means you are treaty as innocent by the courts until proven guilty. The courts have avoided exoneration in all but the most extreme cases, because that opens up a whole can of worms.

Remember with the Clinton Impeachment when Spector voted "not proven". That was his attempt to make clear that "not guilty" was definitely not exonerated. He counted on Scottish law to come up with a "different" type of verdict. A piece of legal advise from me(admittedly I am not a lawyer), NEVER COUNT ON SCOTTISH LAW!!!

A no vote means he is innocent.

OJ Simpson wishes you were right. He had a unanimous verdict of not guilty in a criminal trial, followed by a unanimous verdict of guilty in a civil trial. If he was already found innocent in the criminal trial, the civil trial would have been impossible(double jeopardy). Not guilty just means that they are not to be treated as guilty in that particular court. It is not a statement of innocences.

The landslide will be the Electoral vote

It is impossible for trump to get an electoral landslide. Red states will not be voting for him. This is not 1984, and trump is not Reagan.

Worse yet for him, he is doing much worse in battleground states than he was before. He has some time to pull off a narrow victory, but even if he does win, it will be a narrow victory.

A victory for trump would look like last time. He will definitely lose the popular vote, but might be able to win the Electoral College by the skin of his teeth.

[ThatOwlWoman]

You’re guessing/hoping the Biden’s aren’t dirty lol.

At worst, Trump is guilty of a lame attempt at pressuring Zelensky to announce an investigation into a matter that is *worthy of an investigation*. The investigation never happened, the Ukrainians got their money and lethal weapons and etc.

Many reasonable people would say ‘no harm, no foul’ or call it a Silly Burger.

At worst, Hunter Biden was involved in a Ukrainian protection racket, which raises the question of whether Obama was aware of it.

Let’s dump all the worms on the table.

At least you are honest in your futile defense of a criminal IMPOTUS. Hopefully you will be exactly the same way in the future in the very unlikely event that a (D) POTUS also turns out to be a corrupt and criminal person. Could happen. We could have a poison monkey storm tomorrow too. lol

Let me offer you some comfort. If what you claim is true and the Bidens are as corrupt as your Mango Messiah, look at all the fun you'll have next year trying to impeach President Biden.

[Earl]

"It is impossible for trump to get an electoral landslide. Red states will not be voting for him. This is not 1984, and trump is not Reagan."

Um...say what?

Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton 227...a clear landslide victory.

Trump was not supposed to win in 2016...Clinton by 12 points...in a landslide.

If you are presumed innocent and found not guilty, in the eyes of the law...and more importantly, in the eyes of the American people, you are innocent.

I believe that "Walt" is a sock, he is really...

[Walt]

Is Stormy included in the Articles?

Luckily for trump, Democrats have no desire to bring up strippers.

But if Republicans want to bring up strippers, who do you think gets hurt worse? A possible Democratic nominee's son probably had sex with a stripper, but broke no laws. trump(the almost definite nominee) certainly had sex with a stripper, and broke campaign laws covering it up. Not to mention that trump has actually appeared in a porno as an extra, and his wife was photographed in a lesbian porno series.

The candidate Biden is not directly involved with his son's legal (but probably immoral) private activities. Or we could go with Warren who has had nothing to do with strippers.

[Earl]

Luckily for trump, Democrats have no desire to bring up strippers.

But if Republicans want to bring up strippers, who do you think gets hurt worse? A possible Democratic nominee's son probably had sex with a stripper, but broke no laws. trump(the almost definite nominee) certainly had sex with a stripper, and broke campaign laws covering it up. Not to mention that trump has actually appeared in a porno as an extra, and his wife was photographed in a lesbian porno series.

The candidate Biden is not directly involved with his son's legal (but probably immoral) private activities. Or we could go with Warren who has had nothing to do with strippers.

Yes, Warren is just a culture thief who lied to get ahead personally and politically... impeach Pocahontas!

[Walt]

"It is impossible for trump to get an electoral landslide. Red states will not be voting for him. This is not 1984, and trump is not Reagan."

Just as a correction, I meant BLUE States will never vote for trump. The last electoral college landslide was 1984 (36 years ago). Neither side can get an electoral landslide now. Maybe in a decade or two, but not in 2020. Predicting an electoral landslide just proves that you are a fanatic unwilling to deal with reality.

Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton 227...a clear landslide victory.

Obama received 365 Electoral Votes, does that mean he won by much more than a landslide? You are very emotionally invested in calling a skin of the teeth win a landslide, it is not a landslide under any realistic interpretation.

For the record, I do not consider Obama's much more impressive victory a landslide. There are no landslides in the current Presidential climate.

Trump was not supposed to win in 2016...Clinton by 12 points...in a landslide.

No, that is an unexpected win by the skin of his teeth. I would think you would be happy with that, and not make up lies about more.

If you are presumed innocent and found not guilty, in the eyes of the law...and more importantly, in the eyes of the American people, you are innocent.

I bet OJ Simpson wishes you were correct.

I believe that "Walt" is a sock, he ids really...

Got some free time in January, and Yahoo had shutdown its groups, so I decided to come here. I am really new to this group, but not new to politics.

[Earl]

Just as a correction, I meant BLUE States will never vote for trump. The last electoral college landslide was 1984 (36 years ago). Neither side can get an electoral landslide now. Maybe in a decade or two, but not in 2020. Predicting an electoral landslide just proves that you are a fanatic unwilling to deal with reality.



Obama received 365 Electoral Votes, does that mean he won by much more than a landslide? You are very emotionally invested in calling a skin of the teeth win a landslide, it is not a landslide under any realistic interpretation.

For the record, I do not consider Obama's much more impressive victory a landslide. There are no landslides in the current Presidential climate.



No, that is an unexpected win by the skin of his teeth. I would think you would be happy with that, and not make up lies about more.



I bet OJ Simpson wishes you were correct.



Got some free time in January, and Yahoo had shutdown its groups, so I decided to come here. I am really new to this group, but not new to politics.

Is that you, PoliTalker?

Exact same syntax and sentence structure.

Also interminably long rambling posts with very little veracity.

[Walt]

Is that you, PoliTalker?

No, it really is me, Walt. I do use my nickname as my last name, a hold over from Yahoo. Anyone who watched MASH (movie or TV show) knows why it is my last name. I have no intention of telling you my last name.

You did not answer the question. If 304 is a landslide for trump, wouldn't 365 be far more than a landslide for Obama?

We all know what will generally happen, even though Earl is afraid to admit it. Red States will vote for trump, Blue States will vote against trump, and a few battleground states will decide the contest. Neither side will get a landslide, just like neither side has gotten a landslide in the last 36 years.

[jimmymccready]

Bigdog does not understand that Trump is mired in the swamp.

[FastLane]

There was when Obama was president, and there is now, no reason to Investigate the Bidens. You rightys are grabbing on some vague innuendos that are not based in fact. You believe it all because you want to. A small amount of honest appraisal would take you away from such crap.
This is all about Trump and the secret, underground band of crooks he used to try and pressure Zelensky to announce an investigation into Biden when it was a sham anyway. Why can't you guys see what really happened.? https://politicaltribune.org/ukraine...u714-7qo0CAXEI

Why can't you see the Bidden's were peddling influence .

[Walt]

Why can't you see the Bidden's were peddling influence .

I think you are asking the wrong question here. Why would you care if Nordberg believes Biden was peddling influence. The question you want to ask is:
Why can't the courts or investigators see that Biden was peddling influence?

I afraid the answer is because there is no evidence that Biden was peddling influence. You want it to be true, but cannot find any evidence that it is.