Impeachment?

[Rogar]

Relative to the other issues, the pet dogs seem about as important as what the democrats had for lunch.

[LDAHL]

Relative to the other issues, the pet dogs seem about as important as what the democrats had for lunch.

The canine comfort companions seem about as important as which apparatchik passed a note in study hall about who said what to who, and then set the media to vaporing away about bombshells and walls closing in. Let’s hear some of the good stuff they’ve been leaking about from the double secret hearings under the cone of silence. Otherwise isn’t it just so much political theater?

I suspect the Republicans, most of but not all of whom seem to think making a coherent defense is unnecessary, will retaliate by holding lengthy Senate hearings when various Democratic candidates would prefer to be campaigning. This whole thing doesn’t strike me as a pivotal moment in history.

[Rogar]

Regardless of the so called pre-determined outcome that a Senate vote may hold, I think the public needs to know the facts that are being presented. Otherwise the president or his minions will continue obfuscate the information, intimidate witnesses, and do the same thing again with different circumstances. I don't think the impeachment process is so important as a legal proceeding, but what ever is being presented needs to be a consideration in the next election. It would be interesting if Giuliani or Perry or Pompao or who ever was involved in the secret side channels were allowed to testify. Like other instances like Donald's taxes one has to wonder what he is hiding.

[jp1]

How serious can it really be? Isn’t it pretty much a given that the House will indict but the Senate won’t convict? It all seems pretty scripted to me. Is the suspense so excruciating that the participants need to pet dogs and interns to function?

I guess my snarky answer was more on the money then.

[Alan]

I don't think the impeachment process is so important as a legal proceeding, but what ever is being presented needs to be a consideration in the next election.

I think that's the point, removing the President from office through impeachment is not the goal, it's influencing the public ahead of the next election. I can't decide whether or not it hurts or enhances his chances at re-election but I'm pretty certain its setting a dangerous precedent for future office holders.

[jp1]

The canine comfort companions seem about as important as which apparatchik passed a note in study hall about who said what to who, and then set the media to vaporing away about bombshells and walls closing in. Let’s hear some of the good stuff they’ve been leaking about from the double secret hearings under the cone of silence. Otherwise isn’t it just so much political theater?

I suspect the Republicans, most of but not all of whom seem to think making a coherent defense is unnecessary, will retaliate by holding lengthy Senate hearings when various Democratic candidates would prefer to be campaigning. This whole thing doesn’t strike me as a pivotal moment in history.

Indeed. Lets get Mulvaney and Pompeo and Gates to testify. Obviously that isn't going to happen if trump can at all help it because it would lay waste to the smear campaign defense that republicans are currently using to defend the indefensible.

If setting as precedent the idea that a president can withhold duly appropriated aid to an ally based on his desire to influence his upcoming reelection is not a pivotal moment in history I don't know what is.

[jp1]

but I'm pretty certain its setting a dangerous precedent for future office holders.

Absolutely. Just imagine what an actual intelligent president would be able to do to influence his or her reelection chances.

[LDAHL]

If setting as precedent the idea that a president can withhold duly appropriated aid to an ally based on his desire to influence his upcoming reelection is not a pivotal moment in history I don't know what is.

Suspending aid previously authorized by Congress is hardly unprecedented. Obama suspended aid to Egypt ( for real, not hinted at) and nobody proclaimed a constitutional crisis.

[Alan]

Suspending aid previously authorized by Congress is hardly unprecedented. Obama suspended aid to Egypt ( for real, not hinted at) and nobody proclaimed a constitutional crisis.

Nor was it considered particularly troublesome for the Obama administration to fund an anti-Netanyahu campaign in 2015. Using government funding to influence elections seems to have a long and illustrious history. It's our approval that seems to be conditional, and in this case it seems to be conditioned on the prospect of removing a duly elected President from office after other efforts failed to gain traction.

[Alan]

I liked her too, her questioning was concise and effective. But I liked her even more once I saw how some of the media reacted to her. Matthew Dowd tweeted that she was a perfect example of how simply voting for a woman or millennial was no guarantee you'll get what you need. Also, when she was allowed a question in the closed, top secret hearings held in a Sensitive, Compartmented, Information Facility, the witness turned to Adam Schiff and said "I thought staffers weren't allowed to ask questions".

I think people will learn not to under-estimate or scorn her before this drama is over.

And maybe they already have. Watching the hearing today and Adam Schiff refuses to allow the ranking member to yield his time to her for questioning, making the 5th time so far she, as a duly elected member of Congress, has been forbidden to speak. I'm not sure if they're afraid of her effectiveness or maybe they're annoyed because she may have said "OK Boomer" to the committee chairman.

I've found watching the hearings to be very informative. I've always thought the city, Kiev, was pronounced Key-ev but now know that it's properly pronounced Keeve. I hope I'm not the only one who didn't know that.