kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:04 pm
So why do you say that?
The vote to impeach Trump came about on (less than) party lines. The vote to acquit will likely happen on party lines too.
It's hard to believe that this is a serious question. I guess I'm focused on the merits of the case.
Since the Articles were approved by the House majority, what has surfaced only confirms the President’s abuse of the powers of the office, and have only established that it is almost certain that the information withheld from the Congress would confirm his high crimes. There are at least these facts now available to the Senate in addition to the record that the House was able to assemble:
· Emails and communications from and with the OMB, confirming that there was “clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold” the aid earmarked for Ukrainian security against the Russians;
· Former National Security Advisor John Bolton (who, according to Hill, sent her to find out what kind of “drug deal Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up”) volunteers to testify if subpoenaed, and his lawyer says he has new information;
· Giuliani associate and Trump photography buddy, Lev Parnas, agrees to empty his phone, hand over documents, and grants interviews, and most of the information provided corroborates or is consistent with the sworn facts already in the record; and
· The Government Accounting Office declares that President Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and that the violation of the law – the failure to adhere to the directive of a co-equal branch of government to disburse appropriated aid – had constitutionally significant, separation of powers consequences.
All of this, sitting atop the testimony of:
· Ambassador Sondland (“was there a quid pro quo?…. The answer is ‘yes’. Everyone was in the loop; it was no secret”);
· Ambassador William Taylor (“Ambassador Sondland told me that he had recommended to President Zelenskyy that he use the phrase, 'I will leave no stone unturned' with regard to 'investigations' when President Zelenskyy spoke with President Trump”);
· Ambassador George Kent (”In mid-August, it became clear to me that Giuliani’s efforts to gin up politically-motivated investigations were now infecting U.S. engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelenskyy’s desire for a White House meeting”);
· Former Deputy Assistant to the President for Russia and European Affairs, Fiona Hill (Sondland “was…involved in a domestic political errand, and we were…involved in national security foreign policy, and those two things had just diverged”); and
Political Counselor in Ukraine David Holmes (“Ambassador Sondland replied, Yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelensky, quote, unquote, “loves your ass.” I then heard President Trump ask, quote, “So he’s going to do the investigation?” unquote. Ambassador Sondland replied that, “He’s going to do it, “adding that President Zelenskyy wiIl, quote, “do anything you ask him to”).
The Senate has the power to overcome the President's obstruction, to dig deeper, hear from Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney and others to confirm or add to these facts. But the Senate GOP majority doesn’t really want know what happened – probably because it knows all too well that the President did exactly what the House says he did, and knows that it warrants his removal from this highest and most fiduciary of offices in our Republic. They're cowards, and tiny men and women groveling in submission to Dear Leader.
