That moment will occur only when it appears that Trump’s base has started deserting him en masse.
And that, sadly, does not appear to be happening any time soon. After all, the Republicans have been training their supporters for decades for a Trump-like leader. They just never expected him to actually appear.
Wake me when something of substance occurs. Like Repubs actually taking part in removing Trump from office. Hell, any Senator saying enough is enough, I would appreciate. I won’t be holding my breath
Only the best people! You’ll get sick of winning so much.
To go back to the actual case, it doesn’t matter if a witness is a perjuror providing there is corroborating evidence from other sources. Cohen’s main difficulty is that there isn’t much corroboration (that we know of, yet, pending the Muller report and so on and on.)
At any rate the House will not vote for impeachment while the Senate is controlled by the Republicans, unless there is absolutely watertight evidence.
That is true and he currently enjoys ~90% approval among the Republican base. Nobody is saying how deep that support is, but the fact that it sits there means Republicans who value their offices more than their souls will not turn on him, and the few who value their souls have already left the party. If there were an option (Kasich, maybe?) his support would probably be less, but I suspect not by much. Those still supporting him will continue to do so. My God have mercy on their souls.
It’s the Amiga effect. The more the moderates leave the organization the more entrenched and polarized the remaining members are. This includes roughly 40% of the American public, and the live in states where their vote matters more than the average American so it’s not hard to see a future where Trump is re-elected thanks to the way the Electoral college works and the tremendous effectiveness of right wing propaganda.
I lived through the G.W. Bush re-election that played out pretty much exactly this way. The DNC thinks they have this one in the bag and puts up a safe but bland candidate to try to defeat the charismatic but disastrous president and they lose. It could easily happen again.
Why does no one ask Cohen about the “consulting fee” he received from Novartis for no work at all? That payment went into the same account that Stormy Daniels was paid from. Was that payment intended as a back-channel bribe of Trump?
The sequence of events:
Part of Trump’s campaign platform was to lower the price of prescription drugs.
Within days of inauguration, Trump personally meets with the CEO of Novartis.
Within a few more days, Novartis engages Trump’s lawyer as a consultant and makes a payment of $1.2 million dollars into that account.
Trump drops prescription drug prices as a priority.
Novartis cancels its agreement with Cohen. Novartis makes no effort to reclaim the $1.2 million payment, despite claiming no work had been performed.
Seems like all of Congress is tip-toeing around some monumental violations of the Emoluments Clause. Possibly because this is how they’re all getting paid, as well.
This seems like something that will be on page 637 of the Mueller report and would be a giant scandal with a regular president, but will be kind of lost in the forest with this one.
Of course, Bush (and especially his administration) was a lot more competent and vastly less personally odious than Trump, plus back in 2004, it wasn’t quite obvious yet to the greater public what an absolute shitshow with no redeeming qualities the Iraq invasion was.
(I’m pretty firmly convinced that if there hadn’t been the 9/11 attacks and everything that proceeded from there, W. would have been an one-term president mostly remembered for the dot-com bust and corporate scandals in his administration, sort of like a weaker version of his father’s presidency.)