This to me, suggests serious disarray: Here's what they told reporters about the complaint: Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford and North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven each said they were in appropriations mark-ups and hadn’t yet read the full complaint. Indiana Sen. Mike Braun said he hadn’t read it either, adding that he didn’t know about the allegations to “lock down” information at the White House. Braun went on to say that he didn’t feel the complaint would change Republican’s views of impeachment, and said the Democrats had made a mistake starting an impeachment inquiry before knowing more about the complaint. Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander said he has not read it the complaint. “I’m waiting for the intelligence committee to finish its work." Ohio Sen. Rob Portman said he said he’s been “running around” all day and hasn't read it and would not comment. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton said “no comment” twice and boarded a senators-only elevator when asked if he was concerned the White House was locking down information. Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said “I’ll have a better idea of how credible he is later this afternoon" when asked if he is concerned about the strong allegations from a credible whistleblower. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida, told reporters he has read the whistleblower’s complaint, and says he has “more questions than answers.” There's very little chance they haven't read it yet. These are guys that don't know which position they are supposed to take. My guess is that they are rushing to decide whether or not USS Trump is going to sink.Many Senate Republicans said today that they haven’t read the whistleblower complaint yet. Others said the complaint doesn't change things and raises "more questions than answers."
You can't conspire with a foreign government for political advantage. Trump did this. Most damning, his staff so clearly realized that he did this, that they covered it up by deleting the record and moving it to a classified server. The complaint also outlines a series/pattern of behavior, which is important when establishing wrongful doing. Finally, the complaint points to numerous people that can be called under oath for their version of events.
I saw someone on Twitter pointing out that Trump's perspective has been that "the presidency" is the prize for winning "the election" and that the Republican Party has been enabling this - because he won, he gets to do whatever he wants because he's the winner. I honestly think that the career political operatives that usually surround any functional administration are crucial for maintaining a watertight legal framework for whatever skullduggery the administration uses to accomplish their political ends; Trump is hardly the first president to leverage a political relationship for personal or party gain. However, Trump has done so baldly, with massive overt involvement from cabinet-level officials, without the slightest regard for the criminal blowback he faces. There's an impression that the legality of the situation is being analyzed after the fact.
"The Democrats want to overturn the 2016 election" definitely seems to be one of the recently-circulated talking points. It's not the ideal talking point. It doesn't mean much to anyone but your base, and looks a bit desperate to everyone else. What a shitty job covering for Trump must be. His ego probably precludes asking for advice on how to navigate murky waters before diving in. On the subject, it'd be cool to have a browser extension that detected talking points, and highlighted them with info about when they were created, and links to other uses of them.
That goal is literally what made Ben Hunt at Epsilon Theory aspire to be Hari Seldon. Quid is a very expensive front end to an open-source engine, the name of which I forget but veen always remembers. I'll bet you could have fun with it in your ample spare time.On the subject, it'd be cool to have a browser extension that detected talking points, and highlighted them with info about when they were created, and links to other uses of them.
Thanks, I got the first part but didn't get the second. As I understand it, impeachment need not be predicated by criminal offenses, and does not necessarily mean Trump will be booted out. I'm curious, what odds do you give towards Trump surviving this unimpeached vs impeaced vs found guilty of wrongdoing vs losing the presidency?
Someone somewhere referred to American democracy and American parliamentarianism as basically being Amish democracy. It's permanently frozen in the past and while it has long fashioned itself to be the foremost democracy in the world, it rarely acknowledges that it's far and away the least evolved. Here's the hokey-pokey: Keep in mind that if it goes all the way to (4), this will be the second time in history we've done this. Andrew Johnson faced an impeachment trial in the late 1800s and was acquitted and Bill Clinton faced and impeachment trial in the late '90s and was acquitted. Yeah. the same people who thought banging an intern and lying about it was treason see no problem with blackmailing the Ukrainians into harassing a political competitor but whatever. Either way, as with most things in American democracy we'll pretty much see what we get when we get there. Kinda like Boris Johnson abrogating Parliament and the high court saying "nuh uh" we're in a very open probability field right now.