re: #212 lawhawk

He always thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room and knows more about everything than anyone else. We see this in every thing he spews - whether it’s the nonsensical ravings about wind power, or light bulbs, or coal and manufacturing.

He’s got such a fragile ego that it’s easy to goad him into doing what you want him to do, because he can’t help himself either.

So, the ongoing impeachment continues to eat away at whatever is bouncing around between his ears and he can’t stand that he’s not the one in control of the process.

That adds pressure to McConnell, who is his last line of defense here.

Trump will likely demand the ability to testify, even though everyone in the legal community knows that this would be disastrous for Trump. Doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you’re on, you know that Trump would implicate himself in not only the crimes directly before us, but admit to still other crimes under oath as a boast of what he can do, what he will do, and has already done. Allowing anyone else to testify would eliminate the second charge (obstruction of Congress) but open him up to still more criminal charges and jeopardy.

Pelosi’s living rent free in Trump’s head, and she knows it. She knows that impeachment is eating away at Trump, and there’s nothing he can do about it short of resignation. His ego wont allow resignation to even enter the discussion, but it should be what McConnell and others are telling him.

The GOP chances in 2020 depend on it, and the longer impeachment runs, the lower the GOP odds of holding on to the power they have declines (or it should).

There’s an interesting aspect to this impeachment trial as well… the vulnerable Republican Senators have to make a choice on two votes. There’s basically four ways it can play out:

1. they vote with Trump/McConnell on the rules and then for acquittal - in which case they’re probably fucked with their non-base voters.
2. they vote with Trump/McConnell on the rules and then to convict - assuming they know they don’t have 67 votes
3. they vote against them on the rules but to acquit - they can argue that they gave a fair trial, but then they have to explain why they ignored evidence in front of their eyes
4. they vote against them on the rules and to convict - again, assuming they know they won’t get to 67 votes.

Each move has problems. 1 and 2 likely screws them with moderates and independents. 3 and 4 screw them with the GOP base. 2 and 3 will be seen as splitting the baby and likely to piss everyone off. 1 is a godsend to a Democratic challenger. 4 is asking for a primary challenge.