Octopus Overlords

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:51 am Senators (even the most loathsome of them) still have a duty to uphold the law. If there is clear and irrefutable evidence a crime has been committed, they'll have no choice but to turn on Trump. There's no way they go down with the ship if there's a chance to save their own skins.

That said, I think it unlikely we ever get to that point. I see Trump resigning rather than going through that whole ordeal.

Not every crime is reason to convict on impeachment. A speeding ticket isn't going to get you impeached. I have to wait until the next episode of All the President's Lawyers to learn if this is enough. I'm guessing it's not a slam dunk. Unfortunately, they only tape on Wednesday.

I see we've circled back the intimidating witnesses part of the script this morning.

Kevin Corke, @FoxNews “Don’t forget, Michael Cohen has already been convicted of perjury and fraud, and as recently as this week, the Wall Street Journal has suggested that he may have stolen tens of thousands of dollars....” Lying to reduce his jail time! Watch father-in-law!

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:18 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:14 am Trump is going after Cohen and Cohen's father-in-law AGAIN.

I can't recall what it was that I had heard, but somewhere I heard that going after the father-in-law was in some ways perhaps illegal?

@Popehat wrote:The President is repeatedly calling for a retaliatory investigation against a family member of a witness against him. Even if it’s not a crime because he’s too addled and subnormal to form specific intent, it’s a grotesque violation of American values and norms. /1

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:07 pm I see we've circled back the intimidating witnesses part of the script this morning.

Kevin Corke, @FoxNews “Don’t forget, Michael Cohen has already been convicted of perjury and fraud, and as recently as this week, the Wall Street Journal has suggested that he may have stolen tens of thousands of dollars....” Lying to reduce his jail time! Watch father-in-law!

I didn't know you had me on ignore.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:35 pm I didn't know you had me on ignore.

I missed that in the wall of insane tweets on the previous page.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:38 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:35 pm I didn't know you had me on ignore.

I missed that in the wall of insane tweets on the previous page.

That's pretty much what the last page was, so I can buy it.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:55 amI have to wait until the next episode of All the President's Lawyers to learn if this is enough. I'm guessing it's not a slam dunk. Unfortunately, they only tape on Wednesday.

You don't think that ordering your lawyer to lie to a co-equal branch of the government - to wit: an investigatory panel in Congress about an investigation into foreign election tampering is "slam dunk" impeachable? Really?

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:55 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:55 amI have to wait until the next episode of All the President's Lawyers to learn if this is enough. I'm guessing it's not a slam dunk. Unfortunately, they only tape on Wednesday.

You don't think that ordering your lawyer to lie to a co-equal branch of the government - to wit: an investigatory panel in Congress about an investigation into foreign election tampering is "slam dunk" impeachable? Really?

Oh, it's easy to get impeached. It's much harder to get convicted. And yes, I don't think that is enough for a Republican Senate to convict on.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:03 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:55 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:55 amI have to wait until the next episode of All the President's Lawyers to learn if this is enough. I'm guessing it's not a slam dunk. Unfortunately, they only tape on Wednesday.

You don't think that ordering your lawyer to lie to a co-equal branch of the government - to wit: an investigatory panel in Congress about an investigation into foreign election tampering is "slam dunk" impeachable? Really?

Oh, it's easy to get impeached. It's much harder to get convicted. And yes, I don't think that is enough for a Republican Senate to convict on.

Ok that question I get. But that is what we are talking about. In the past, this would have been beyond a "slam dunk" already. Cohen plead guilty to violations ordered by Individual-1 aka Trump. So he is already an un-indicted co-conspirator to a crime which was enough to corrode support for Nixon. That is the major rub here. If his base is indestructible then Senatorial support may never collapse. That'll mean it'll be only an election getting rid of Trump. In practicality, that shows the path for someone truly competent and terrible to come along and close the book. In fact, I'd argue it'll be inevitable considering how divided the nation is.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:07 pm That'll mean it'll be only an election getting rid of Trump.

We can also continue to hope for the effects of fast food and poor genetics.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:10 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:07 pm That'll mean it'll be only an election getting rid of Trump.

We can also continue to hope for the effects of fast food and poor genetics.

Unfortunately Trump has the "greatest genes". We know because the White House doctor told us so.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:12 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:10 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:07 pm That'll mean it'll be only an election getting rid of Trump.

We can also continue to hope for the effects of fast food and poor genetics.

Unfortunately Trump has the "greatest genes". We know because the White House doctor told us so.

Have we ruled out extra-judicial options? Might be quicker.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:07 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:03 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:55 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:55 amI have to wait until the next episode of All the President's Lawyers to learn if this is enough. I'm guessing it's not a slam dunk. Unfortunately, they only tape on Wednesday.

You don't think that ordering your lawyer to lie to a co-equal branch of the government - to wit: an investigatory panel in Congress about an investigation into foreign election tampering is "slam dunk" impeachable? Really?

Oh, it's easy to get impeached. It's much harder to get convicted. And yes, I don't think that is enough for a Republican Senate to convict on.

Ok that question I get. But that is what we are talking about. In the past, this would have been beyond a "slam dunk" already. Cohen plead guilty to violations ordered by Individual-1 aka Trump. So he is already an un-indicted co-conspirator to a crime which was enough to corrode support for Nixon. That is the major rub here. If his base is indestructible then Senatorial support may never collapse. That'll mean it'll be only an election getting rid of Trump. In practicality, that shows the path for someone truly competent and terrible to come along and close the book. In fact, I'd argue it'll be inevitable considering how divided the nation is.

and, sadly, I think you have nailed it because I do not think his Senatorial support will ever collapse.

What our nation may very well need is for people (Dems) in "lost" Senatorial districts to spend a boat load and then some with no chance to win but merely with the goal of educating the people in those district regarding how badly they are getting screwed over. It need to be in a way they will hear though because "You're getting screwed" hasn't managed to grab their attention.

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:15 pm What our nation may very well need is for people (Dems) in "lost" Senatorial districts to spend a boat load and then some with no chance to win but merely with the goal of educating the people in those district regarding how badly they are getting screwed over. It need to be in a way they will hear though because "You're getting screwed" hasn't managed to grab their attention.

They hear it, but discount it. Until they are actually effected, they will never believe. And you won't be able to effect them all before it screws the rest of us. So that's a fun thought.

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:15 pm
What our nation may very well need is for people (Dems) in "lost" Senatorial districts to spend a boat load and then some with no chance to win but merely with the goal of educating the people in those district regarding how badly they are getting screwed over. It need to be in a way they will hear though because "You're getting screwed" hasn't managed to grab their attention.

Probably a colossal waste of resources. You are talking about truly brainwashed people who are dumb as a box of rocks. Remember the imbecile who appeared on TV proudly stating he still supported Trump 100% even though tariffs were causing the plant he worked at to shut down and move to Mexico? Good luck getting through to these numbskulls however compelling the message.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:20 pm

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:15 pm
What our nation may very well need is for people (Dems) in "lost" Senatorial districts to spend a boat load and then some with no chance to win but merely with the goal of educating the people in those district regarding how badly they are getting screwed over. It need to be in a way they will hear though because "You're getting screwed" hasn't managed to grab their attention.

Probably a colossal waste of resources. You are talking about truly brainwashed people who are dumb as a box of rocks. Remember the imbecile who appeared on TV proudly stating he still supported Trump 100% even though tariffs were causing the plant he worked at to shut down and move to Mexico?

It's a long con - more reasons for brown people to stay south of the border.

I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty. There have been numerous reports of what they say about him behind closed doors. That loyalty has been completely shaped by political opportunity, not love of a cult leader. In other words, they're going to stick with Trump as long as he advances their agenda. They're not going to help him bury the bodies when it's clear he committed the murder.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty. There have been numerous reports of what they say about him behind closed doors. That loyalty has been completely shaped by political opportunity, not love of a cult leader. In other words, they're going to stick with Trump as long as he advances their agenda. They're not going to help him bury the bodies when it's clear he committed the murder.

I get this viewpoint, and a large piece of me subscribes to it. But it's not like last night's report was the first time it became clear that this guy is 99.9% sure to be a murderer, to use your analogy. They're quite well aware that Trump is dirty, and haven't done anything thus far, even so much as to legally protect Mueller. I'm not convinced that they'll suddenly jump ship en masse when it becomes 0.1% clearer.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:49 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty. There have been numerous reports of what they say about him behind closed doors. That loyalty has been completely shaped by political opportunity, not love of a cult leader. In other words, they're going to stick with Trump as long as he advances their agenda. They're not going to help him bury the bodies when it's clear he committed the murder.

I get this viewpoint, and a large piece of me subscribes to it. But it's not like last night's report was the first time it became clear that this guy is 99.9% sure to be a murderer, to use your analogy. They're quite well aware that Trump is dirty, and haven't done anything thus far, even so much as to legally protect Mueller. I'm not convinced that they'll suddenly jump ship en masse when it becomes 0.1% clearer.

The thing I don't get is this fear they have of the deplorables and evangelicals - as if they would ever be inclined to switch parties. While not pandering to them might affect voter turn-out among these wretched creatures, I'd assume a large measure would be gained back from moderates and independents. I guess Social Media has allowed them to become the proverbial squeaky wheel.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:49 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty. There have been numerous reports of what they say about him behind closed doors. That loyalty has been completely shaped by political opportunity, not love of a cult leader. In other words, they're going to stick with Trump as long as he advances their agenda. They're not going to help him bury the bodies when it's clear he committed the murder.

I get this viewpoint, and a large piece of me subscribes to it. But it's not like last night's report was the first time it became clear that this guy is 99.9% sure to be a murderer, to use your analogy. They're quite well aware that Trump is dirty, and haven't done anything thus far, even so much as to legally protect Mueller. I'm not convinced that they'll suddenly jump ship en masse when it becomes 0.1% clearer.

It all depends on poll numbers. If Republican voters abandon him, the party will too. Since he's still polling at 88% among republicans, the party will protect him.

On the plus side, independents clearly blame him for the shutdown and are leaving. He lost 25% of his independent support in the last month according to Gallup.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty.

I don't think they are loyal to Trump. I thin they are loyal a self reinforcing system designed to expand its power that is enabling Trump. They would turn on him in a heartbeat if their own power or the power of the system of protection is in danger. Trump may one day be a danger to that system but I see now signs that there are cracks in their mutual power grabs right now.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:01 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:49 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty. There have been numerous reports of what they say about him behind closed doors. That loyalty has been completely shaped by political opportunity, not love of a cult leader. In other words, they're going to stick with Trump as long as he advances their agenda. They're not going to help him bury the bodies when it's clear he committed the murder.

I get this viewpoint, and a large piece of me subscribes to it. But it's not like last night's report was the first time it became clear that this guy is 99.9% sure to be a murderer, to use your analogy. They're quite well aware that Trump is dirty, and haven't done anything thus far, even so much as to legally protect Mueller. I'm not convinced that they'll suddenly jump ship en masse when it becomes 0.1% clearer.

It all depends on poll numbers. If Republican voters abandon him, the party will too. Since he's still polling at 88% among republicans, the party will protect him.

On the plus side, independents clearly blame him for the shutdown and are leaving. He lost 25% of his independent support in the last month according to Gallup.

Right, so back to YK's point, they absolutely will help him bury the bodies so long as the GOP voters show up with shovels. There's no moral backbone or country-over-party viewpoint in the GOP congress.

Jeff V wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:49 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty. There have been numerous reports of what they say about him behind closed doors. That loyalty has been completely shaped by political opportunity, not love of a cult leader. In other words, they're going to stick with Trump as long as he advances their agenda. They're not going to help him bury the bodies when it's clear he committed the murder.

I get this viewpoint, and a large piece of me subscribes to it. But it's not like last night's report was the first time it became clear that this guy is 99.9% sure to be a murderer, to use your analogy. They're quite well aware that Trump is dirty, and haven't done anything thus far, even so much as to legally protect Mueller. I'm not convinced that they'll suddenly jump ship en masse when it becomes 0.1% clearer.

The thing I don't get is this fear they have of the deplorables and evangelicals - as if they would ever be inclined to switch parties. While not pandering to them might affect voter turn-out among these wretched creatures, I'd assume a large measure would be gained back from moderates and independents. I guess Social Media has allowed them to become the proverbial squeaky wheel.

They are afraid of them in the Republican primaries. If they turn on Trump, they get primaried and probably booted out of office.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:08 pm

Jeff V wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:49 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty. There have been numerous reports of what they say about him behind closed doors. That loyalty has been completely shaped by political opportunity, not love of a cult leader. In other words, they're going to stick with Trump as long as he advances their agenda. They're not going to help him bury the bodies when it's clear he committed the murder.

I get this viewpoint, and a large piece of me subscribes to it. But it's not like last night's report was the first time it became clear that this guy is 99.9% sure to be a murderer, to use your analogy. They're quite well aware that Trump is dirty, and haven't done anything thus far, even so much as to legally protect Mueller. I'm not convinced that they'll suddenly jump ship en masse when it becomes 0.1% clearer.

The thing I don't get is this fear they have of the deplorables and evangelicals - as if they would ever be inclined to switch parties. While not pandering to them might affect voter turn-out among these wretched creatures, I'd assume a large measure would be gained back from moderates and independents. I guess Social Media has allowed them to become the proverbial squeaky wheel.

They are afraid of them in the Republican primaries. If they turn on Trump, they get primaried and probably booted out of office.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This is what I was going to say.

Well, without the ad for Tapatalk.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:20 pm
Well, without the ad for Tapatalk.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty. There have been numerous reports of what they say about him behind closed doors. That loyalty has been completely shaped by political opportunity, not love of a cult leader. In other words, they're going to stick with Trump as long as he advances their agenda. They're not going to help him bury the bodies when it's clear he committed the murder.

Haven't they already been helping him bury them? Cruz certainly has. McConnel has. Sure, they are not wholey trustworthy allies but they are certainly willing to bury anything for him if it helps maintain their power from what I can tell.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm I think you guys are putting waaaay too much stock in the Senate's Trump loyalty. There have been numerous reports of what they say about him behind closed doors. That loyalty has been completely shaped by political opportunity, not love of a cult leader. In other words, they're going to stick with Trump as long as he advances their agenda. They're not going to help him bury the bodies when it's clear he committed the murder.

They will if they are complicit. Which they are. Or if they stand to lose more by dumping him than to gain.

It's what Trump does. Whether he plays dumb or is dumb, everyone thinks they can ride him and then jump off. But they find that they're too deep in the shit and have to ride him out ("just a little bit longer").

He did it with banks. They loaned him so much money that they couldn't cut him loose. They needed him to sell junk bonds to new suckers so they, the banks, could recoup.

I'm sure the inexplicable loyalties of Rudy and the rest are similar.

There are four stages of Trump.

1. You go in thinking he's an easy mark and "pretend" to support/associate with/work with thinking you'll get something out of it. Something far favorable to you on balance.
2. You get caught up in his shit, either debt or some kind of kompromat (Banks, Cohen, Manafort, etc). Or you buy his snakeoil (Trump U, Vodka, etc).
3. You ride it out, praying for some kind of exit.
4. You exit, either by passing the cursed torch on or by being dumped off as a discarded husk.

None of this may be his conscious doing. It's just the Trump Cycle that at this point is on autopilot.


Rudy is undoubtedly of the kompromat variety. McConnell is like a bank, he put too much political capital in Trump and now can't get out without losing it all. He needs Trump to run his con game on a new round of suckers in order to bail out even close to whole.

Remus West wrote:Haven't they already been helping him bury them? Cruz certainly has. McConnel has. Sure, they are not wholey trustworthy allies but they are certainly willing to bury anything for him if it helps maintain their power from what I can tell.

I'm trying not to extrapolate the toadies to the Senate as a whole. There are a LOT of GOP Senators that we never hear from. We only hear from the extreme pro-Trumpers or the occasional never-Trumper mavericks. The rest are a mystery.

They're certainly not all compromised. I'm choosing to assume that - faced with unequivocal evidence of Trump's guilt - these are the Senators that will do the right thing. It could very well be wishful thinking, but I'm choosing to be optimistic.

Let's keep in mind that this is the same Senate that, with despite a GOP majority, couldn't give Trump his Obamacare repeal or his wall money. If they were all as blindly loyal as you say, those would have been done deals a long time ago.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:43 pm They will if they are complicit. Which they are. Or if they stand to lose more by dumping him than to gain.

Some of them I wonder but right now that's all it is. The NRA angle really raises an eyebrow, but right now an eyebrow is all it is

It's what Trump does. Whether he plays dumb or is dumb, everyone thinks they can ride him and then jump off. But they find that they're too deep in the shit and have to ride him out ("just a little bit longer").

It sure seems that way for everyone in his business dealings and in his orbit when he ran. Greed? Corruption? Thinking you're too smart to get burned? Dirt already on you? I have no idea.

None of this may be his conscious doing. It's just the Trump Cycle that at this point is on autopilot.

That is my suspicion. He's a grifter savant whose gravity is now so strong that if you get in his orbit... that's it, one way another you're not getting out. Stay in orbit or crash and burn.

McConnell is like a bank, he put too much political capital in Trump and now can't get out without losing it all. He needs Trump to run his con game on a new round of suckers in order to bail out even close to whole.

I don't know about McConnell. He's been winning the long game or corruption for power and power for corruption for long I can't tell. I firmly believe the power of Trump's gravity is a direct result of combining with McConnell's mass and put the blame of decay of the rule of law squarely on McConnell's shoulders. I can't tell which is which now, though when it comes to proximate causes of destruction. Did McConnell break the Supreme Court with his proudest moment as a senator or Did Trump do by campaigning on and fulfilling his promise to be McConnell's huckleberry?

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:00 pmLet's keep in mind that this is the same Senate that, with despite a GOP majority, couldn't give Trump his Obamacare repeal or his wall money. If they were all as blindly loyal as you say, those would have been done deals a long time ago.

They didn't because they did not have 60 votes and because of John McCain specifically with the ACA vote. They would have if they thought it was truly worth pulling out all the stops to achieve them though. Sometimes the 60 votes line was convenient because they could then blame it on the Dems. Whatever the case, this is a very different calculation than being the first Senator's to vote to remove the leader of their own party. That doesn't require loyalty or compromise. It just requires them to represent states where Trump and the GOP as a tribe matters more than they do as individuals.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:00 pm I'm trying not to extrapolate the toadies to the Senate as a whole. There are a LOT of GOP Senators that we never hear from. We only hear from the extreme pro-Trumpers or the occasional never-Trumper mavericks. The rest are a mystery.

I want to one day return to your optimism. I want to one go back to the idea that I can vote for a person rather than, quite frankly, against a party. I feel bad because this says to me there are Reps (in this case) we never hear from are out there doing what they're supposed to do and do not think party uber alles and even better, at least at first glance, they make more sense than everyone else, staying on task.

https://www.businessinsider.com/will-hu ... all-2019-1

Jeff V wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:59 pm The thing I don't get is this fear they have of the deplorables and evangelicals - as if they would ever be inclined to switch parties. While not pandering to them might affect voter turn-out among these wretched creatures, I'd assume a large measure would be gained back from moderates and independents. I guess Social Media has allowed them to become the proverbial squeaky wheel.

There this thing called a primary

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:05 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:59 pm The thing I don't get is this fear they have of the deplorables and evangelicals - as if they would ever be inclined to switch parties. While not pandering to them might affect voter turn-out among these wretched creatures, I'd assume a large measure would be gained back from moderates and independents. I guess Social Media has allowed them to become the proverbial squeaky wheel.

There this thing called a primary

Yup.

I doubt there's any worry at all that they'll somehow stop being crazy. The worry is that they might choose a different (or more extreme) flavor of crazy instead.

CNN has swept in to provide some air cover for Trump on the Buzzfeed report. They just published a hit piece on one of the author's of the article for activities that occurred 15 years ago. Some of the comment on twitter around this piece are pointing out that it sure looks like sour grapes. FWIW these guys broke other national security stories in the previous 2 years that have proved to be accurate such as the Trump tower meeting.

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:05 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:59 pm The thing I don't get is this fear they have of the deplorables and evangelicals - as if they would ever be inclined to switch parties. While not pandering to them might affect voter turn-out among these wretched creatures, I'd assume a large measure would be gained back from moderates and independents. I guess Social Media has allowed them to become the proverbial squeaky wheel.

There this thing called a primary

Like 95% of all GOP politicians had less than complimentary things to say about drumpf until it was clear he was a threat, and when it became clear he was the front runner, they started to line up behind him. By the end they had always been at war with Eastasi-, I mean they had always been big drumpf supporters.

malchior wrote:Whatever the case, this is a very different calculation than being the first Senator's to vote to remove the leader of their own party.

I don't think it would ever have to come to that.

What if enough Senators felt sufficiently swayed by the evidence to go to Trump behind closed doors and tell him that he was screwed if he didn't resign ala Watergate?

That's quite a bit less of an ask.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:01 pm

malchior wrote:Whatever the case, this is a very different calculation than being the first Senator's to vote to remove the leader of their own party.

I don't think it would ever have to come to that.

What if enough Senators felt sufficiently swayed by the evidence to go to Trump behind closed doors and tell him that he was screwed if he didn't resign ala Watergate?

That's quite a bit less of an ask.

Unfortunately I think the key meeting is going to be between GOP senators and the heads of Fox News.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:05 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:01 pm

malchior wrote:Whatever the case, this is a very different calculation than being the first Senator's to vote to remove the leader of their own party.

I don't think it would ever have to come to that.

What if enough Senators felt sufficiently swayed by the evidence to go to Trump behind closed doors and tell him that he was screwed if he didn't resign ala Watergate?

That's quite a bit less of an ask.

Unfortunately I think the key meeting is going to be between GOP senators and the heads of Fox News.

I agree to some extent and also I think the threat of the vote has to be real. They have to willing to play their hand. Trump is different than Nixon. Nixon at least was a patriot to some level. Trump isn't. I also think that Trump will need terms like some cheap 3rd world dictator. Would they be acceptable? Who knows.

The SC office almost never comments. It’s hard to tell from this statement whether the entire claim in the article is bunk or just some details. If just some details, why release a statement when they haven’t done so before for other articles? And if it’s the whole thing, then why did they wait almost 24 hours and why weren’t there more firm denials from Trump and the White House? This is all very strange

Some speculation I saw was that there was an actual leak in an investigation. If so, probably from SDNY (where Cohen plead guilty) and Mueller is *PISSED*. At least enough to send someone out to say something that makes it sound like it wasn't them. Anyway some are reading it as 'It's not wrong...but it's not 100% right either...'