McConnell Tells Caucus They Lack the Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses

[conan]

Meanwhile the legislation is basically silent on biggest abuse of power in American history.

[adroit]

@TommyLucchese

So what would be your standard of a big enough big deal?

If abusing your office to help your reelection efforts at the jeopardy of national interests doesn’t meet the standard, hoo boy.

[TommyLucchese]

@adroit

If abusing your office to help your reelection efforts at the jeopardy of national interests doesn’t meet the standard, hoo boy.

Hence my curiosity.

[Smyrna]

@Bodecea

What is wrong with witnesses? What is to hide?

That’s my opinion too…regarding their “overwhelming evidence”? My question is…why are they hiding it?

[Covfefe]

@adroit

If abusing your office to help your reelection efforts at the jeopardy of national interests doesn’t meet the standard, hoo boy.

I agree. I think it met the standard of impeachment and conviction before the military aid was in play. But adding that factor- I can barely envision a worse offense by a president.

[Safiel]

@TommyLucchese

@Safiel

Actually, I think it IS a big deal.

But I believe that removal of a President from office, the overturning of an election, should require an act of the utmost seriousness, with serious consequences.

I do believe this incident to be serious. I don’t think it rises to that extraordinary level that justifies the removal of a President from office and the overturning of an election.

My standard would be significantly lower if this was a Cabinet Officer or a federal judge.

But the President is elected and we should not lightly remove him from office.

So what would be your standard of a big enough big deal?

I don’t think I could give you a pithy objective answer. It is a very subjective issue.

Subjectively, I would say that the fact that the actual delivery of aid to the Ukraine was not effected is a subjectively mitigating factor.

Subjectively, this just “feels” to me to be something that doesn’t rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor.

I wish I could give you a flat out objective answer, but I can’t.

[Covfefe]

@Smyrna

That’s my opinion too…regarding their “overwhelming evidence”? My question is…why are they hiding it?

Be careful what you wish for.

I think McConnell understands this as well and will tamp down any call for additional witnesses. He’ll give Bolton 2-3 hours tops, zoom forward and you’ll get your acquittal. The GOP will concede Bolton’s testimony and say it doesn’t arise to the level of an impeachable offense. You will win in the end.

[Covfefe]

Honest.

[TommyLucchese]

@Safiel

I don’t think I could give you a pithy objective answer. It is a very subjective issue.

Subjectively, I would say that the fact that the actual delivery of aid to the Ukraine was not effected is a subjectively mitigating factor.

Subjectively, this just “feels” to me to be something that doesn’t rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor.

I wish I could give you a flat out objective answer, but I can’t.

This is a confusing reason. The only reason the aid was released is that they got caught, someone snitched and then someone else leaked it to the press. If that hadn’t happened. . .

[adroit]

@Safiel

Subjectively, I would say that the fact that the actual delivery of aid to the Ukraine was not effected is a subjectively mitigating factor.

Because someone blew the whistle. It would have certainly gone further…

[Covfefe]

My favorite comment on the Fox News thread:

“If McConnell purposely messes this thing up, he is done. And their will be a second civil war.”

Har har har har!

[WuWei]

@Safiel

Actually, I think it IS a big deal.

But I believe that removal of a President from office, the overturning of an election, should require an act of the utmost seriousness, with serious consequences.

I do believe this incident to be serious. I don’t think it rises to that extraordinary level that justifies the removal of a President from office and the overturning of an election.

My standard would be significantly lower if this was a Cabinet Officer or a federal judge.

But the President is elected and we should not lightly remove him from office.

Helluva post. Respect.

[CanadianJudo]

how did they ■■■■ this up, all they had to do was sit on their hands.

[WuWei]

@adroit

@TommyLucchese

So what would be your standard of a big enough big deal?

If abusing your office to help your reelection efforts at the jeopardy of national interests doesn’t meet the standard, hoo boy.

There is no national interest in the Ukraine.

[Covfefe]

@CanadianJudo

how did they ■■■■ this up, all they had to do was sit on their hands.

Pelosi delayed it just long enough for Bolton’s book to get leaked. Stars aligned…

[Covfefe]

@WuWei

There is no national interest in the Ukraine.

There is a national interest in preventing our president from pressing a foreign government to help him win a domestic election by investigating his main political opponent while holding back congressionally approved military aid. Its why GOP senators won’t just vote to acquit.

[TrumpGurl]

@Safiel

Actually this is a good development.

No its not. If they do this the Senate forever puts its imprimatur on an unconstitutional House impeachment, paving the way for it to forever be repeated in the future.

Watch:

WATCH: Trump attorney says there’s no ‘there there’ in Democrats’ case | Trump impeachment trial

[Demon]

Gardner’s not getting rewarded for this one thing.

[CanadianJudo]

@TrumpGurl

@Safiel

Actually this is a good development.

No its not. If they do this the Senate forever puts its imprimatur on an unconstitutional House impeachment, paving the way for it to forever be repeated in the future.

Watch:

WATCH: Trump attorney says there’s no ‘there there’ in Democrats’ case | Trump impeachment trial - YouTube

impeachment is constitutional.

[enki]

@Forcefield

I don’t want him removed, I want him exposed. This is good news.

I agree with this 100%