I feel like the Senate trial has turned into one of those movies where you know all along what will happen but there’s various contrived crises for the hero to resolve before the inevitable happy ending. I guess that’s most movies, now that I think about it. So the idea that Republican Senators give a fuck about what John Bolton has to say just makes me laugh:
Per sources, some GOP senators privately pushing White House for information on who at administration had visibility into the manuscript over the last month. Senators feel blindsided.
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 27, 2020
The only way to deal with these fuckers is to vote them out of office. Give here to the Balloon Juice Senate fund which is split between the eventual Democratic nominees in Maine, Iowa, NC, Arizona, Georgia, and Colorado.
Raven Onthill
The Republican Senators are reportedly feeling blindsided by the report. The egos in that group are not small. It is just possible that the dam will break and witnesses will be called.
DougJ
Counterpoint: No, it is not possible.
Creature_NYC
Done.
Chris Johnson
From downthread, ‘cos I think it’s relevant to ‘Republican Senators feeling blindsided’:
The interesting part of all this to me is: granted, Bolton is greedy for money. Adam seems to be suggesting that’s the ONLY motivation, I don’t know why. But my understanding was, Bolton is a psycho Russia war hawk who has no sense of proportion and only lives to fight Russia. And that used to be bad (it’s why I hated to vote Clinton at the time, only to be rudely surprised by reality and end up agreeing with her on the subject, and she wasn’t the harshest Russia hawk around)
So.
If that is true, if the guy does actually care about fighting Russia and seeing it as an evil empire and destroyer of all that’s good, DEAR GOD must he be hating what has obviously happened. He must be about ready to kamikaze himself into the Senate if only he can tear Trump and McConnell apart with his bare, flabby hands.
Hate. Blinding hate. He must have figured out what Putin has done. He doesn’t have to be sensible, or wise, to be predictable in this situation: he has to be a long-time Russia hawk full of conspiracy theories. But they’re not just the NYT-style anti-Dem conspiracy theories (I’m sure he believes those too). He’s also going to be believing OUR conspiracy theories… many of which are turning out to be realities. Supposing he read the Mueller report, looking to blame everything on Russian meddling. HOO BOY! Did he ever get confirmation for his worst fears.
The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. But given what’s just dropped, Bolton is the deadly enemy of Trump and the Russian-controlled Senate. He will not be looking to cover this up. He’s timing it for maximum damage, playing it to destroy his political enemies, and his political enemies are Russia and their allies AND their pawns/collaborators.
I have a certain amount of respect for that. More will be revealed, but I like that a third side has emerged. The original, Red Dawn neocons. And they are rightfully PISSED and ready to yeet themselves into the fray wearing dynamite suits, because starting with Bolton, they have figured out that Russia has ‘peacefully’ conquered the United States of America.
Which it has.
For now.
Now, try and HOLD it, you fuckers.
The Dangerman
Blindsided by the light
Revved up like a DEUCE
Tom Arnold: How about a courtesy flush?
SWMBO
Has anyone filed to run against Tom Cotton in Arkansas?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/470196-tom-cottons-only-democratic-rival-quits-race-in-arkansas
The Republicans seriously rat fucked the Dem candidate there. Has anyone heard of a new challenger to the sitting Senator?
patrick II
I too was blindsided by the fact that Bolton heard Trump asking for an investigation into the Bidens before releasing the appropriated money. I was also blindsided when the sun came up this morning, that rivers flow downhill and ice melts on warm days. But that’s just me.
kindness
Republicans aren’t going to vote for witnesses but they will Kabuki Theater acting like they might. MoscowMitch rules his Senate with an Iron Fist. With this Administration think Game Of Thrones, not Founding Fathers.
Fair Economist
We know the Republican Senators are too compromised and corrupt to remove Trump. Impeachment is to put *them* on trial – for the 2020 election, and 2022, and 2024, and so on. With the punch from these revelations, plus what will come out once Trump is gone, I now think all Republican Senators will be campaigning with a millstone around their necks for decades. The public will finally realize the Republicans are the party of corruption.
ByRookorbyCrook
Bolton had ample opportunity to fight for the United States of America, he chose $2 million advance and missed out on getting his Mid East war on. This is petty revenge for being slighted. There is no anger over Russia or Republican corruption. Just the bruised ego of a frustrated budding war criminal. See how the ‘leak’ is through Habermann and Schmidt? This is to muddy the media narrative and let the Senators-five (Collins, Murkowski, Gardner, McSally and Broadshoulders Romney) get their concerned face before voting no witnesses.
artem1s
@Chris Johnson:
I’ve kind of been wondering where all these guys are. Not just GOP but military too. They can’t all have been compromised by the Russian mob.
gene108
@Raven Onthill:
The only witnesses Republicans want are Joe and Hunter Biden.
They know everyone the Democrats want to call will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Trump is guilty.
rp
Is it worth trading Hunter Biden for Bolton? I go back and forth on this, although I lean towards yes because Bolton’s testimony is almost certainly far worse for Trump than Biden’s is for us.
Chris Johnson
I really think there’s a question of whether there are Republican Senators who are unreconstructed neocons, that hate Russia, and have been intentionally kept out of the loop for this reason. We know they take pains never to learn anything that they think might be Democrat-led, and that they refuse to believe anything Democrats say, which makes it easier for the Russian-controlled forces to keep ’em in the dark.
But the bottom line is: their worst nightmare happened. ‘Red Dawn’ happened. Their government got ‘peacefully’ conquered by their worst enemy, and stuff like heavily arming Ukraine to fight Russia started to get completely stifled.
They don’t want to believe it, but the truth is, they are living their worst nightmare. They need to wake up. It looks like Bolton, clearly one of the Red Dawn crowd, figured it out because his own pet ‘Contras’ were held hostage, and that’s why he started thinking about loyalties. And the trouble is, when your leadership is traitors and you start thinking about loyalties you start getting most disconcerting answers.
‘The Republicans’ are NOT all willing Putin puppets. They are willing ‘cling to power at all costs’ people, they’re willing not to ask too many questions, but there are limits to what they can handle, limits to what Bolton can handle.
You cannot assume they will all maintain Republican-style mob loyalty if it turns out, as it has, that their leadership has been taken over by specifically Russia. Some of them are being kept in the dark on that point.
Bex
@artem1s: They can’t all have been compromised? You meant that as a joke, right?
danielx
Starting to wonder when Susan Collins’ expression of concern is going to wear out.
zhena gogolia
@rp:
No. Hunter Biden has nothing to do with this.
Sab
@rp: I really really don’t like the idea of a private citizen getting hauled into a Congressional hearing just because his dad has political opponents. Trading his testimony for Bolton’s isn’t a tradeoff. It’s a capitulation. Bolton was on our payroll and has an obligation to testify.
JPL
@rp: Hunter was interviewed on TV and he did fine. If they call Hunter maybe the dems should call Eric Prince who was on the board and trump didn’t seem threatened by him.
dmsilev
@danielx: Her brow is so deeply furrowed that it’s being planted for soy beans.
ET
Of course they were blindsided. Why they should be surprised about that is the real surprise.
When will Republican Senators realize DJT doesn’t give a rip about them individually or holding onto the Senate majority. He cares about himself. Full stop. Always and forever. And the longer they stick with them the worse it will be going forward.
He has given them plenty to work with in terms of excuses to use if they want to change their tune so they can try and look like they are being all senatorial and being one half of one of the three branches of government.
Do I have sympathy for them? NO. They did this to themselves. The party has spend 30+ years with the racist dog whistles, wink and a nudge religious/economic BS, in order to brainwash the average voters into blind obedience/acquiescence and then compounded the problem with their dirty gerrymandering of safe districts that made them that much more beholden to the rise of the crazy in their own party that many likely know is crazy. That rock and that hard place is a trap of their own making.
JPL
@zhena gogolia: The republicans can subpoena who they want. It probably wouldn’t be upheld in court, but that might be what they want.
ET
@danielx: Remember back in the day when parents would tell you to stop making that face because your face would sick like that? She is working the furrow so hard it will be permanent by the end of the trial.
cmorenc
@ByRookorbyCrook:
I disagree – these three motivations are not mutually exclusive, and can compatibly coexist for Bolton. He’s simultaneously pissed about *all three of* the Administration being Russia-corrupted, being insufficiently on-board with the expansion of US into Middle Eastern wars, *and* the specific Russian component of GOP Senate and House corruption that well, undermines US confrontation of Russia and facilitates kowtowing to Russian interests – as distinguished from domestic policy corruption, which he cares not so much about. He’s also pissed, of course by a fourth factor – being trumped (pun intended) for influence by corrupt shitweasels like Guliani and Pompeo.
Chris Johnson
@Bex: Pretty childish to think it’s that simple. No, they can’t all be willing Russian accomplices, because some of them are unreconstructed neocons.
Those ones had to be handled differently, and we can easily confirm that there are whole bunches of Republicans operating on a ‘don’t believe anything anybody tells you, ever’ policy. What they haven’t done is ask: whose purpose does that serve? They’re good at marching in lockstep but it does kind of assume they can trust their leadership not to be Russian traitors.
And they can’t. Their leadership is Russian traitors.
JPL
@ET: Call me eeyore, but I don’t think they will pay a price. Today the atty.’s will argue that trump was worried about corruption.
I hope I’m wrong.
danielx
@dmsilev:
Sad!
to quote the orange crested shitbird…
jimmiraybob
Reality, when avoided long enough, can be like a baseball bat against the noggin’. So, what have we learned? Do not walk blindfolded onto the baseball field during a game.
gene108
@Chris Johnson:
They’ll change, if and/or when enough Republican voters turn on Trump that supporting Trump will be bad for their re-election chances.
And given what’s been reported about Trump, from extra-marital affairs, campaign finance violations / hush money payments, etc., I don’t see Republican voters turning on him over Ukraine extortion.
Bruce K
The Senate Republicans will keep supporting Trump right up until the moment that it penetrates their skulls that he’s a net liability, that they’ll pay a heavier price for supporting him than for turning on him. Part of me wants to believe that objectively they’ve been past that point since November 2018 (or maybe earlier), but that they simply haven’t realized it yet.
“Opening the floodgates” is the metaphor I’ve heard bandied about when it comes to witnesses in the impeachment trial. And it’s a good metaphor, because if you don’t open the floodgates of a dam when you need to, the dam will breach, with catastrophic results, making the fallout from opening the floodgates look like a minor inconvenience by comparison.
Their long-term odds may be better with Pence in the White House rather than Trump … not to say that those odds would be good. The problem is, can four Republican Senators get it through their heads? Or a dozen?
Cheryl Rofer
Susan Simpson, a lawyer in California, points out that what Bolton says Trump told him is NOT about the Hunter Biden investigation.
It is, rather, about the origins of the Russia investigation via Fox News fantasies.
You can read her thread, but the short version is that Trump was pressing Zelensky for TWO quids pro quo: the announcement of the Hunter Biden investigation AND all that information proving that the Russian investigation was nonsense, Steele Dossier, Clinton’s server, and all.
It’s like digging into a rotten log and finding one disgusting mess after another.
jimmiraybob
And fertilized with copious amounts of bull sh*t. Soy beans though? Not a wise move in the Trump-Tariff economy.
Just Chuck
@Chris Johnson:
True, many are just tacitly going along. They’ve all had a chance to speak up and denounce the treason going on. They all have failed.
Mike R
There appears to be zero, as an not a whiff of courage from the republican senators, except Mitch McConnell and his brand hasn’t any integrity, it is simply holding power and building wealth. It would totally put me on a fainting coach, clutching pearls in a manner to rival Senator Graham if they call witnesses. The republican party needs to go the way of the whig party. Our goal must to vote out every repugnant republican in any office anywhere.
trollhattan
@artem1s:
They’re joined by the knowledge that whatever crimes were committed by Republicans and shenanigans achieved by Russians, the Democrats are worse.
Barbara
@Raven Onthill: They aren’t blindsided by the information that John Bolton was told directly by Trump that he was holding up the money in exchange for Ukraine conducting a politically motivated investigation. They are blindsided that this information directly from the horse’s mouth (Bolton) has become very public. This is not a subtle difference.
rp
@zhena gogolia: Of course, but it’s a cost benefit analysis. It’s ridiculous that Biden is involved, but if he gets us Bolton it might be worth having him testify.
trollhattan
@Barbara:
1. What is your name?
2. What is your quest?
3. What is your favorite color?
Thus endeth the test.
Barbara
@rp: Nope. Wouldn’t do it. Not ever.
JMG
If one side gets witnesses, the other should too. That’s what most voters will say, and I agree. Biden on the stand would be the best possible thing for his candidacy. McConnell is smart enough to know that, but many GOP Senators aren’t.
randy khan
@gene108:
I would trade Joe Biden for John Bolton, but only because I think Joe would be a good witness for the Dems. He’d have a chance to do his righteous indignation thing (justifiably) and talk about how he never would do anything that wasn’t right for the country.
That also probably would be good for his campaign, of course.
danielx
@Cheryl Rofer:
Pretty decent metaphor for the Trump administration in general.
MattF
I’m not at all happy about Bolton placing himself at the center of the debate– he is, after all, a warmongering lunatic. But that’s where we are. Just bear in mind that it was none other than Trump who put Bolton into a position of responsibility. Reap that whirlwind, Donnie.
natem
Biden should offer to testify on the condition that “all relevant witnesses” be called before the Senate. This is an offensive move (meaning, “moves the ball back to the other guy’s court”). The Dems should make it. They won’t because it’s an offensive move, and they play not to lose.
randy khan
@Bruce K:
The Republican calculation on this is complicated by the undying loyalty of the MAGA heads. They know they can’t win in November (or, heck, get through state primaries) without them. So they will stick with Trump until his loyalists drop away in sufficient numbers. The likelihood of that seems pretty low, as it appears that most of the Trump loyalists in the electorate would keep supporting him if he paraded naked down Pennsylvania Avenue speaking gibberish and whacking random pedestrians with a golf club.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I think if Romney has enough votes to call Bolton, Graham and Cruz will demand the Bidens. I hold out hope for the old man to pull off something like “At long last, have you no decency, sir?” Of course, it’s Joe, so it’ll be something closer to “Lindsey? Come on, man!”
@artem1s: William McRaven called trump a threat to the Republic. Barry McCaffrey and Michael Hayden have been flame-throwing never-trumpers. Jim Mattis apparently likes kids in cages and war criminals being pardoned. I’m sure Colin Powell has many sad moments before changing the joke in his standard $200K speech for the National Conference of Ace Hardware Franchisees.
Gin & Tonic
@rp: Bullshit. Joe Biden is not relevant here in any way, shape or form. He is not a witness to any of the impeachable offenses and can offer no useful information.
It’s amazing how many people’s minds have already been poisoned by this Republican ratfucking.
MattF
@randy khan:
A low bar.
randy khan
@Cheryl Rofer:
Although it’s not part of the articles of impeachment, the server stuff has been out there for a while. He mentioned it during the “perfect” phone call.
It is, as you say, even crazier than the Biden stuff, because he seems to think that the company that helped the DNC is owned by a Ukrainian when the guy actually was from Russia and because there was no one server in the first place.
Bruce K
@randy khan: Yeah, that’s exactly the problem. They turn on Trump, they lose the Southern Strategy voters and the rest of the Trump-uber-alles red-hat MAGA goons, but based on the 2018 election returns, Trump’s already costing them elsewhere.
I just hope, hope, hope that they’re already in a Kobayashi Maru scenario that they don’t yet recognize.
randy khan
@Bruce K:
So, just like 1974. Me, too.
The Dangerman
@randy khan:
I think Biden would do fine. He knows the Senate and almost all the Senators. My guess is he has a McCarthy style “have you no shame” moment…
…but Biden trade should be for Trump. If it came down to having either Bolton or Trump, that choice, I think, is obvious.
Hungry Joe
One of two things HAS to happen, if the world ever is to be set straight again: 1) Photo editors must begin selecting shots of Bolton doing something other than adjusting his glasses; or 2) Bolton must go to an optician and have them adjusted properly. Enough is enough.
West of the Rockies
Would Bolton’s testimony matter enough to lead to conviction and removal? Is his testimony relevant only for history and posterity, and to convince the 19 voters in America who still haven’t made up their minds as to whether Trump is a criminal?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Hungry Joe: there used to be a longer clip of this instance of almost elder abuse, I wonder if Rupert will send it back out now that Bolton has betrayed the cause of Hateful Old White Guys
Immanentize
@gene108: I don’t know why this “deal” about the same number of witnesses makes sense. The House should get the witnesses it needs to prove the case. Then, the defense should be able to call whoever they have as a fact witness to defend. This is not hard. If the defense can make the case that the Bidens actually have something relevant to say to clear the President, then by all means bring them on!
We have fallen into “this is all a game” trap. Democrats opposing defense witnesses proves the Republican’s argument that we are motivated by hate and bias. It is not the House Manager’s job to protect Joe Fucking Biden. It is their job to prove their case. To the Senators as jurors, sure (but that jury is corrupt). But they need to prove it to the American people as the second jury in this matter as well.
sdhays
@Barbara: This is what’s almost comical. They trusted Dump’s ability to keep a lid on more bad stuff, despite his poor record of being able to control information coming out of his administration (and his own rectum-like mouth). Did they think that if it came out after their vote to acquit that it wouldn’t look bad for them? Or did they seriously believe that no more would ever come out, even with Bolton squealing that he really wanted to talk if no one would be too mad at him?
Baud
@Immanentize:
It’s not that this is a game. It’s that the Dems have to get four Republicans to sign on to the witness list. You don’t have that problem in a real trial.
rp
@West of the Rockies:
Probably not, but it’s more like to lead to conviction than not having him testify.
I think his testimony could have a significant impact on the media and voters. Having a former member of Trump’s cabinet testify before the Senate would be a BFD and would generate a lot of media attention.
Immanentize
@Baud: I know that. And I still don’t think we will see witnesses. I am complaining about Democrats on the House team wasting one second of time trying to argue why the defense should get no witnesses. Of course they should! It’s a defense! I am not sure an impeachment could happen if the defense demanded witnesses and the Senate said no (unless they were irrelevant by a long stretch and relevance is a very low standard). Every person impeached (judges is what I know about most) is invited to present witnesses and evidence in defense of impeachment.
The media is making it sound like the Democrats are preventing defense witnesses from being called because they want a deal that involves a quid pro quo. That is how the question is always raised to the Democrats — “what about this deal to call two defense witnesses if you get two witnesses?” That is not any kind of deal, it is a threat, but the Dems always go off about how the Bidens must be protected and it’s just a fishing expedition, blah blah blah.
They should just say, we need to call witnesses that Trump has blocked then, if they have relevant defense witnesses, fine. They should not be arguing about the relevance of other witnesses even before they get witnesses. It makes them look bad, IMO.
danielx
@randy khan:
They’d keep supporting him if they saw him buggering a live child or dead pig (or vice versa) on the White House lawn.
Jager
@dmsilev:
Potatoes, she’s from Maine
Lord Fartdaddy (Formerly, Mumphrey, Smedley Darlington Mingobat, et al.)
Blindsided? That’s such horseshit. Every one of those senators has known who and what Donald Tяump is right from the beginning. What a bunch of weasels.
Jinchi
@rp: No. There is no “trading” Biden for Bolton. Besides the fact that Dems don’t know for sure what the right wing Bolton will even say, Biden is not a witness to anything that Trump has done.
Smearing Biden is literally the basis of the crime Trump is accused of. It’s a Russian propaganda campaign. Trading him for a legitimate witness is literally letting the crime play out in prime time.
Baud
@Immanentize:
I think the issue is the GOP wants the Dem to actually sign on to the idea that the Bidens are relevant witnesses. I think the Dems would go for a rule that said each side gets to call X number of witnesses.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Baud: or they’re counting on the Bidens to be a poison pill to enough Dems that they can’t get a deal passed, and then they can blame the lack of witnesses on Dems.
randy khan
@Immanentize:
The only way they have leverage to get witnesses is to say that if the defense gets witnesses, they should get witnesses as well.
And more to the point, there is no circumstance in which a defendant would get to have witnesses in a regular criminal trial but the prosecution would not. (On occasion, the prosecution has witnesses and the defense does not, but that’s the defense’s choice.) So the Dems are correct in saying that it can’t just be one side that gets witnesses.
Baud
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
My guess is that the Dems will trade if they have to. They are probably also negotiating on documents and executive privilege issues.
gvg
We need a tape of Trump knowingly gloating about working with Russia or groveling to Putin or talking about screwing multiple GOP senators. Those are things that could open the floodgates like hearing Nixon in his own words. The first we have been assuming Trump is too stupid to do…
I am surprised tapes of something haven’t already dropped given how lousy Trump and company are at security. I suppose our allies don’t want to be accused of interfering in our elections.
Sturgeonmouth
If they do subpoena Hunter Biden, maybe the press could ask questions about this (which of course they should already be doing):
In 2006, Republican George W. Bush appointed Hunter Biden, who did not have a degree in choo-choo trains, to the board of Amtrak. He was confirmed by voice vote of the Republican controlled Senate that included:
Mitch McConnell
Lindsey Graham
Chuck Grassley
John Cornyn
Lisa Murkowski
Susan Collins
Lamar Alexander
Richard Burr
JPL
@Immanentize: Chuck Schumer has said several times that the republicans can issue subpoena’s if they want.
Kay
People should be really concerned about how corrupt Barr is. I get that he’s a Right wing ideologue but he’s going to bring the entire DOJ down with him and that isn’t ideological- it’s corruption. They just aren’t doing their job anymore. They’re compromised.
Immanentize
@randy khan:
Exactly. The defense should have witnesses! Of course. How else can you defend? Bring them on. Let them be subject to cross examination!
zhena gogolia
@Hungry Joe:
lololol
JPL
OT Mr. Peanut has received a last minute reprieve. Planter’s pulled the super bowl ad because of Bryant’s death.
Immanentize
@randy khan: The burden is a n the prosecution, so of course the defense doesn’t get a witness unless the prosecution puts one on. This is true in civil cases too. If the plaintiff puts on no witnesses, they lose.
JPL
@Sturgeonmouth: I did not know that.
Amir Khalid
@Sturgeonmouth:
Perhaps it should be questioned, but Hunter’s appointment to the Amtrak board is so far removed from Ukraine that such questions should really be left to an enquiry into Amtrak’s affairs.
James E Powell
@rp:
It would, at least, make the case for impeachment, for the general public, more than just “the Democrats say that . . . ”
The point of this impeachment, given Republican senators, is to make the case to the general public that Trump should not be president. It’s stunning to all of us that this is not obvious to everyone, but here we are.
Shalimar
@rp: There is nothing to trade. Republicans have 53 votes. They can have Hunter Biden testify anytime they want. They just can’t figure out how to do it without their corruption showing. If Bolton testifying too is how they appear fair, they will do it. If not, they won’t. Democrats have nothing to do with these deliberations.
West of the Rockies
@rp:
So Bolton’s testimony would really be mostly about the court of public opinion? That’s pretty much what I thought. Dispiriting, but realistic.
Kay
It figures Bolton was savvy enough to report to cover his own ass, and it will work too. He reported to the attorney general. Then it was Barr’s job. Which Barr didn’t do, because he’s protecting Trump.
If these were less prestigious positions, if this was a county prosecutor, no one would mince words and show all this deference. They’d call it corrupt and act on it. These people are being held to a lower standard BECAUSE they are prestigious and powerful. They’ve flipped the whole “duty” analysis. They’ve made it so only lower level people are accountable. It’s just gross, because it comes out of a sense of entitlement. It has to.
Immanentize
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Exactly, and we have fallen into the trap of saying that getting witnesses must be part of some corrupt deal. We did that to ourselves and are still doing it. I know the Dem position is call witnesses and let the Chief Justice determine relevance. If we are going to lose this in the Senate anyway, then we should at least get some people on record in front of cameras. Then let the Republicans Benghazi Biden. They will do it anyway without ever hearing his voice.
zhena gogolia
@Immanentize:
The times I’ve seen them asked this question it has been framed specifically as the Bidens, not “defense witnesses.”
MCA1
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Exactly. And what Baud said, too.
The R’s don’t want to have to actually make a case as to why one of the Bidens testifying is relevant to the charges at hand. Partly because making that case rests on an implicit admission of the underlying charge, that Dotard withheld aid to Ukraine in an effort to extort a bs dirt-digging exercise on the Bidens. That alone is an abuse of office, as Congress did not place any conditions on the aid it appropriated for Ukraine. It’s also 100% outside of the appropriate channels a POTUS should use if they believe a U.S. citizen is engaged in foreign corruption. As blind as they seem to be, the R Senators are not so foolish as to think that Adam Schiff can’t hammer those point effectively.
As such, any arrangement by which either of the Bidens are allowed/approved as witnesses, without an open debate on why they’d be appropriate witnesses, is a L for the Dems.
If it were ever to get to the point that the parties are submitting lists of proposed witnesses (I still think it won’t), the Dems should just leave off Sondland and a few others who are obviously relevant but unnecessary to prove their case again. They can then point to the absence of those individuals, who might provide contradictory, confusing or otherwise exculpatory-seeming testimony, on the GOP list, contrast them to Joe Biden in terms of relevance to the proceedings, and highlight the bad faith.
Baud
@Sturgeonmouth:
Yeah, so, I think a lot of board members of a lot of companies aren’t necessarily experts in the company’s principal business. One of the reasons for having board members is to bring a diversity of knowledge.
Sturgeonmouth
@Amir Khalid:
Agreed. It is simply another glaring example of Republican hypocrisy and arguing in bad faith.
zhena gogolia
@Baud:
Yes, but at the House hearings the Nunes crew kept asking about H. Biden’s “qualifications” for being on the board of Burisma.
Immanentize
@zhena gogolia: And that is the trap I am describing. They are protecting Biden, not prosecuting Trump.
Baud
@zhena gogolia:
that’s because they are scum.
Sturgeonmouth
@Baud:
Yeah, that was a thing called snark because the Republicans are always pointing out how Hunter Biden was not an energy expert. I think I’ll go back to lurking.
Baud
@Immanentize:
They are trying to protect the integrity of the proceeding, which has the effect of protecting all irrelevant witnesses.
Immanentize
@MCA1:
That is true. And it is argument, not a fact known to all. So, even if the Bidens were on the list, do you think the Senators would actually allow the crazy White House counsel to question them in public on TV? I am doubtful. Like I said, it is a threat, not a deal.
Immanentize
@Baud: That ship sailed. There are better ways to do it.
ETA. The best way to protect the integrity of the proceeding is to do anything necessary to get the facts before the public. The rest of the integrity argument is high order wanking. If they can’t convince people the Republican Biden witness smear was just a continuation of the crimes impeached, then they suck as advocates.
Baud
@Sturgeonmouth:
Don’t do that. I misread your comment because so many people seem to have bought into the GOP idea that Hunter is a loser who isn’t qualified to do anything.
Sloane Ranger
During his arguments Adam Schiff said something about how Trump would smear them (Republican Senators) if he decided it was in his interest to do so.
This isn’t that – quite – but blind siding them by sitting on this revelation while people went out and spouted the Administration’s talking points has certainly caused embarrassment and played them as marks; and I get the feeling that US Senators of both parties don’t like being played or embarrassed.
How that will play out I don’t know. It will be interesting to see how the Defence addresses it, or if they actually do.
As for witnesses, prosecutors and defense lawyers don’t engage in witness horse trading. Both should get to call who they want, perhaps up to a maximum number if there are concerns about the length of the trial.
My 10 pennyworth.
Baud
@Immanentize:
If they give too easily on Hunter and Joe, Trump will ask for Hillary and Obama next.
zhena gogolia
@Sturgeonmouth:
I understood your point. Don’t go back to lurking! We need all the voices we can get.
I wish raven would come back. He was often a useful counterpoint.
Immanentize
@Baud: Boo fucking hoo. They are adults. They can handle a circus.
BTW, Romney just said there are enough votes to hear from Bolton.
zhena gogolia
@Baud:
I read it more as a comment exposing the hypocrisy of Lindsay & Co.
zhena gogolia
@Baud:
Somebody on Fox already called for Obama, Hillary, Page, and Strzok.
zhena gogolia
@Immanentize:
Time for a serious dementia episode on twitter.
West of the Rockies
@Kay:
Barr is 69. Serious question: why does he now, after a long, celebrated (in rightwing circles) career, choose to out it all on the line for Trump? Money? Is he compromised? Is he a true believer?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@West of the Rockies:
check out his Notre Dame speech about “secularism” and “permissiveness”. He’s a warrior for sex-hating Jesus. I’ll responsibly speculate that he has issues with sexuality, his own or someone in his family.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 85 years old. That’s about 80% of our politics in a nutshell. Republicans see that. Democrats don’t.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Kay:
I watch all the Former Federal Prosecutors on MSNBC speak with (I believe) deep and sincere reverence for the Justice Department, and the career professionals still there who share their reverence, and I wonder: Where are the whistle-blowers? Then I think: Barr and his people are probably very good at staying within the letter of the law. And the NSC whistle-blower is getting death threats.
chopper
@Bruce K:
and as i try to point out occasionally, if this trial gets these assholes on record as firmly attached to trump’s ass like so many remoras, and then his financial records manage to come out over summer time and they’re even half as bad as we expect, they’re more fucked than they expected come november.
Immanentize
I just busted a gut laughing.
Amir Khalid
@Sloane Ranger:
This impeachment isn’t being run anything like a proper trial. In a proper trial, you wouldn’t have the court openly colluding with the accused to ensure acquittal.
rp
I’m sure many of you will think I’m crazy, but I say f*ck it: let Trump’s team call Biden and Obama and Clinton as witnesses. They’ll be 1000% more credible than anyone who testifies in Trump’s defense, and the more this is a media circus, the better IMO.
Sturgeonmouth
@Baud:
Choo-choo was supposed to be your clue-clue. Maybe my delivery needs work ;)
Barbara
@Immanentize: Susie, Susie, the only thing you need to do is vote “yes” when the question comes up. I really hate her.
Another Scott
@Shalimar: +1
The majority decides these things. The minority has nothing to do with what the majority decides to do.
Cheers,
Scott.
James E Powell
@chopper:
Pretty sure this will never happen. Roberts & Co are going to do everything they can to help Trump get re-elected.
chopper
@gvg:
even if those things happened, GOP senators would still stick with him. where else are they gonna go? their voters would have their heads anyway.
Martin
We are 100% on board with him withholding evidence from Democrats but how dare he withhold it from us!
@Immanentize:
Telling, because that implies there aren’t enough votes to hear from Hunter Biden. That was the play from the other side of the GOP caucus – we’ll give up Bolton if Dems give up Biden. They didn’t have the votes then.
Dems should put up a vote on all Americans on the Burisma board for joint testimony. That would bring in Hunter Biden but also Erik Prince and Cofer Black (used to work for Romney). Maybe they can explain why only Hunter and not the paramilitary guys were taking money and why only Hunter and not the brother of his Secretary of Education was targeted by Trump. Romney’s not going to shiv his own guy, and nobody is going to want to shiv Betsy DeVos’s brother. No fucking way Prince shows up anyway.
chopper
@James E Powell:
not saying it’s a certainty, more of a hope.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@gvg:
We pretty much have those. “Russia, if you’re listening…”. The Oval Office meeting with (I think) Kisliak where he bragged about getting rid of Comey, Jared wanting to set up a backchannel using the Russian embassy (!), the Helsinki meeting, his attacks on Flake and Corker.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@chopper:
Is there anyone who can do this without massive legal jeopardy? Except Melania?
Martin
@Cheryl Rofer: My favorite part of this is that the Clinton server and the DNC server have been merged into one fever dream. The Clinton server was a physical server. The DNC server was an AWS virtual instance – dozens of them, in fact. There was never any physical thing to turn over, and there’s no way it could be in Ukraine as a result.
sdhays
@Martin: Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man!
Cheryl from Maryland
@Sturgeonmouth: I agree with you — Hunter Biden specialized in corporate law. He is completely qualified to be on a board and give guidance. Your information makes it bi-partizan. While I think the smears against both Bidens are smears, there is already enough dirt out there for low information voters that I think their testimony would put those “clouds” to rest.
trnc
Who are the witnesses republicans want to call on? Neither Biden witnessed anything related to DT illegally holding Ukraine aid, so they aren’t valid witnesses. If they came in and answered every question truthfully, how does that inform the senators on the issue of illegally withholding aid? If it turned out that Joe actually did help his son get on the Burisma board, what does that have to do with DT illegally withholding aid?
The aid was approved by congress the previous year. The Pentagon verified Ukraine’s positive steps on fighting corruption. Even if it did turn out that Ukraine helped Hunter get his job at Joe’s request, it still wouldn’t justify DT withholding the aid. It would certainly be something to include in a review for next time, but not this time.
The Bidens have nothing to do with this other than being scapegoats and political rivals.
Barry
@artem1s: “I’ve kind of been wondering where all these guys are. Not just GOP but military too. They can’t all have been compromised by the Russian mob.”
These guys don’t have power, merely influence, and in the end I’ll bet that they are just wh*res, glad to sell out.
When the Executive branch and the Senate are fatally compromised, it’s not like they’ll actually risk their think-tank careers.
In addition, since the right is awash with GOP money, these guys (and their foundations, institutes, think tanks, etc.) are probably fatally compromised.
Barry
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: “I think if Romney has enough votes to call Bolton, Graham and Cruz will demand the Bidens. I hold out hope for the old man to pull off something like “At long last, have you no decency, sir?” Of course, it’s Joe, so it’ll be something closer to “Lindsey? Come on, man!””
Romney, in the end (and the beginning and middle) is just a GOP Senator. Even with a more moral base provided by Utah, he’ll support party over loyalty, every time.
Steeplejack (phone)
@Sturgeonmouth:
Some of us got your point. Well played.
Jinchi
Yes they will. There is no “trading” for witnesses and it wouldn’t stop with Biden. Republicans want a circus.
SWMBO
@zhena gogolia: What happened to Raven?
And has anyone heard from Steve in ATL?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@SWMBO: as I understand it, Raven is mad because Ola Azul got banned, and no one else talks fishing, and Steve has been traveling and busy and is fine
SWMBO
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Thank you. I still miss them though.