View Full Version : Impeachment?
I think this impeachment spectacle has been highly entertaining. I just watched Nancy Pelosi place her hand over her heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance during her designated 3 minutes of speaking time during the Rules Committee debate. Now I wouldn't be surprised to see Antifa groups singing God Bless America during their regularly scheduled rampages. These are indeed interesting times. :)
ApatheticNoMore
12-18-19, 1:48pm
Well the problem is the Russian thing has too often been used for crazy ridiculous nonsense. Remember when Daniel Ellsberg was accused of being a Russian spy for release the Pentagon papers, well neither do I as I wasn't alive then, but yea wolf has been cried many times before. And Nixon was paranoid, still I'd take him in a heartbeat :P
I think this impeachment spectacle has been highly entertaining. I just watched Nancy Pelosi place her hand over her heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance during her designated 3 minutes of speaking time during the Rules Committee debate. Now I wouldn't be surprised to see Antifa groups singing God Bless America during their regularly scheduled rampages. These are indeed interesting times. :)
The funereal outfit was a nice touch.
The funereal outfit was a nice touch.
Yes it was, and the patriotism and love of our republican form of government as professed were truly heart wrenching. It was so moving she was allowed to go 2.5 minutes over her allotted one minute of speaking time without being stopped as every other speaker has. I may disagree with her on most things but man she can do theater as well as any thespian.
Yes it was, and the patriotism and love of our republican form of government as professed were truly heart wrenching. It was so moving she was allowed to go 2.5 minutes over her allotted one minute of speaking time without being stopped as every other speaker has. I may disagree with her on most things but man she can do theater as well as any thespian.
Who was it who said that politics is show business for unattractive people?
Who was it who said that politics is show business for unattractive people?Paul Begala?
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-19, 3:59pm
I was issued a directive this morning from corporate in LA. No talking on the floor or on site off the floor regarding the Impeachment proceedings. This one was hard for me to carry out but another supervisor who I owe big time held a brief meeting for me this morning.....they don't have the issues I di with such a directive so I found a way around having to directly deal with it first thing in the morning.
I have heard nothing of the proceedings as of this moment but the keynote speaker at the event I am supervising is speaking so I will break away and Google.
Regardless.....for you intelligent folks with political convictions of whatever stripe.....this is a historic day regardless of outcome. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-19, 4:00pm
Who was it who said that politics is show business for unattractive people?I beg to differ. I personally find Mayor Pete a very attractive man. Rob
I’m pretty sure the shrieking maenads pounding on the courthouse doors weren’t Republicans. I’m very sure the people insisting we believe accusations because they felt so right weren’t from the right side of the aisle.
I was referring to the actual, you know, hearing. On the one hand we had a measured and credible witness. On the other we had a shrieking man child and his angry defenders.
I think this impeachment spectacle has been highly entertaining. I just watched Nancy Pelosi place her hand over her heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance during her designated 3 minutes of speaking time during the Rules Committee debate. Now I wouldn't be surprised to see Antifa groups singing God Bless America during their regularly scheduled rampages. These are indeed interesting times. :)
I realize that pledging allegiance to this country isn't a republican thing these days, but how far has the republican party fallen that they consider people doing so to be "entertaining"?
I realize that pledging allegiance to this country isn't a republican thing these days, but how far has the republican party fallen that they consider people doing so to be "entertaining"?
It's only entertaining if the person doing so has made a career of trampling every constitutional principle duly enshrined as a barrier to government control of the people. You can't help but admire the balls that takes.
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-19, 4:13pm
It's only entertaining if the person doing so has made a career of trampling every constitutional principle duly enshrined as a barrier to government control of the people. You can't help but admire the balls that takes.You give politicians in DC too much credit, Alan. US police trample constitutional principles every day all around the United States - something which you seem to support via auto-siding with police at the drop of a hat. My point is there are other players beyond Donald J Trump actively trashing the Constitution on a daily basis. You can add US CBP to the list of such players, also. Rob
I think this impeachment spectacle has been highly entertaining. I just watched Nancy Pelosi place her hand over her heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance during her designated 3 minutes of speaking time during the Rules Committee debate. Now I wouldn't be surprised to see Antifa groups singing God Bless America during their regularly scheduled rampages. These are indeed interesting times. :)
At some point in the various testimonies it's all seemed like a show of rhetoric repeating the same things over and over. That has been interesting and an education in itself. If I were on trial for something it would be nice to have either side of the legal experts wordsmith my defense. They talk a fine talk. I've listen to samples from the beginning, but am sorry I missed the Pelosi oration. It does seem a little silly, but a good showing, too.
You give politicians in DC too much credit, Alan. US police trample constitutional principles every day all around the United States - something which you seem to support via auto-siding with police at the drop of a hat. It's not that I automatically side with the police in every instance, I just try to remind you that the police are not a single entity. When you go off on police it's the same as someone else saying all gays are pedophiles. When put that way I think even you can see that your stance requires a little pushback, cantcha?
It's only entertaining if the person doing so has made a career of trampling every constitutional principle duly enshrined as a barrier to government control of the people. You can't help but admire the balls that takes.
Sort of like when she begins a sentence with “As a Catholic...”
At some point in the various testimonies it's all seemed like a show of rhetoric repeating the same things over and over. That has been interesting and an education in itself. If I were on trial for something it would be nice to have either side of the legal experts wordsmith my defense. They talk a fine talk. I've listen to samples from the beginning, but am sorry I missed the Pelosi oration. It does seem a little silly, but a good showing, too.
Yes. It seemed like a contest between Pharisees. The evidence was either “overwhelming” or “nonexistent” depending who was speaking. Members either had no choice but to perform their constitutional duty or were weaponizing the process for petty partisan reasons. Didn’t someone once say something about patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel?
I was referring to the actual, you know, hearing. On the one hand we had a measured and credible witness. On the other we had a shrieking man child and his angry defenders.
I agree with what Orrin Hatch said about the Democratic questioners going “borking mad”, claiming he would destroy the constitution and bring in a new era of tyranny.
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-19, 6:38pm
It's not that I automatically side with the police in every instance, I just try to remind you that the police are not a single entity. When you go off on police it's the same as someone else saying all gays are pedophiles. When put that way I think even you can see that your stance requires a little pushback, cantcha?Not a good comparison, Alan. A pedophile that gets caught is going to face SERIOUS consequences - as they should in my book. Gay or straight has no rebalance here.....it's a sick and twisted crime period. Now police on the other hand? Have until very recently, until Ferguson showed the world what American police are truly all about, and smartphone video enabled victims to both sue for millions and shine a flashlight daily on the truth of American police...until these two events took place, police have enjoyed breaking the law, even to the point of murder with no consequence. Not the same thing, Alan, though I'd agree that slowly this is changing. Rob
Not a good comparison, Alan. A pedophile that gets caught is going to face SERIOUS consequences - as they should in my book. Gay or straight has no rebalance here.....it's a sick and twisted crime period. Now police on the other hand? Have until very recently, until Ferguson showed the world what American police are truly all about, and smartphone video enabled victims to both sue for millions and shine a flashlight daily on the truth of American police...until these two events took place, police have enjoyed breaking the law, even to the point of murder with no consequence. Not the same thing, Alan, though I'd agree that slowly this is changing. Rob
I guess I was wrong.
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-19, 6:46pm
I guess I was wrong.We all have our off days, Alan. Myself included in that. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-19, 6:48pm
My post above to Alan? Should be rebalance and not rebalance...autocorrect is so annoying. Rob
My post above to Alan? Should be rebalance and not rebalance...autocorrect is so annoying. RobMy mind does it's own version of autocorrect and I read that as relevance, I guess I was wrong again. :doh:
iris lilies
12-18-19, 10:28pm
Not a good comparison, Alan. A pedophile that gets caught is going to face SERIOUS consequences - as they should in my book. Gay or straight has no rebalance here.....it's a sick and twisted crime period. Now police on the other hand? Have until very recently, until Ferguson showed the world what American police are truly all about, and smartphone video enabled victims to both sue for millions and shine a flashlight daily on the truth of American police...until these two events took place, police have enjoyed breaking the law, even to the point of murder with no consequence. Not the same thing, Alan, though I'd agree that slowly this is changing. Rob
Ferguson cops are still showing the world what American police are all about. Today’s headline news:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/boy-dies-day-after-officers-pulled-him-from-icy-ferguson/article_bc09f42a-8894-5af5-b3b9-78dbb11412a2.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
tldr; Ferguson cops pull 10 year old boy out of icy swimming pool. Too bad, the kid didnt live.
I wasn’t going to respond to Rob’s post but the Ferguson story seem timely. Just as a reminder to real life, Mike Brown grappled with a police officer and was not an innocent victim when he was shot in August 2014.It is wise not to get into a physical altercation with a police officer.
Sort of like when she begins a sentence with “As a Catholic...”
She should hide her catholicism or be ashamed of it in some way? What is the standard by which we should judge whether someone is a "good" catholic? Does the fact that 98% of catholics in the US use birth control at some point in their lives mean that virtually all catholics should avoid mentioning that their catholicism might affect the way they view things since they obviously aren't "good" catholics?
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-19, 11:05pm
My mind does it's own version of autocorrect and I read that as relevance, I guess I was wrong again. :doh:Ay carumba. Revelance. There, finally got the word right. Rob
As someone who has watched/read a sizable chunk of the testimony and other evidence I'm curious about the people who think that it was nonexistent. And even more curious that those same people are the ones who don't want witnesses at the senate trial. Seems like they're trying to deflect or hide something.
She should hide her catholicism or be ashamed of it in some way? What is the standard by which we should judge whether someone is a "good" catholic? Does the fact that 98% of catholics in the US use birth control at some point in their lives mean that virtually all catholics should avoid mentioning that their catholicism might affect the way they view things since they obviously aren't "good" catholics?
There are no perfect Catholics. Some depart from doctrine in various ways with various degrees of regret. This does not make it less annoying when they use the faith for virtue signaling.
I’m reading now that Pelosi may delay sending the articles to the Senate for consideration until they agree to rules more congenial to the Democrats. I have trouble understanding how this puts pressure on the Senate Republicans. Why would it matter to them when the trial starts?
I’m reading now that Pelosi may delay sending the articles to the Senate for consideration until they agree to rules more congenial to the Democrats. I have trouble understanding how this puts pressure on the Senate Republicans. Why would it matter to them when the trial starts?
Because eventually the courts are likely to compel testimony from a bunch of people that the republicans would really prefer remain quiet. Hearing from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo, among others, in the house will likely make Moscow mitcg’s plans to perjure his impeachment oath more awkward.
Because eventually the courts are likely to compel testimony from a bunch of people that the republicans would really prefer remain quiet. Hearing from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo, among others, in the house will likely make Moscow mitcg’s plans to perjure his impeachment oath more awkward.
If that testimony would be so crucial, why didn’t the Democrats use the legal tools available to them and take the time needed to force those witnesses to talk during the process they could control? Why the hurry up and wait strategy?
If that testimony would be so crucial, why didn’t the Democrats use the legal tools available to them and take the time needed to force those witnesses to talk during the process they could control? Why the hurry up and wait strategy?
The corollary would be, why couldn't they just come forward. If there were no wrong doing they could add important information to the case. As it is, it looks like they are hiding something. Of course it would ruin the GOP defense that all the evidence is second or third hand.
The corollary would be, why couldn't they just come forward. If there were no wrong doing they could add important information to the case. As it is, it looks like they are hiding something. Of course it would ruin the GOP defense that all the evidence is second or third hand.
I think executives are funny that way, not wanting to give Congress too much authority over them. All President's seem to guard their executive privilege as much as possible so it always takes the courts to resolve issues between the executive and the legislative. I believe both sides want to keep the courts out of this one, if the Democrats get the courts to add force to their subpoenas it's very much likely that the Republicans can also force the Democrats to provide witnesses familiar with the origins of the initial complaint, and they don't want that.
Here's what Rich Lowry at National Review had to say:
It looks like Pelosi is going to delay sending over the articles of impeachment, which is a really bad idea. One, this is not a way to exercise leverage over McConnell, because he doesn’t care to have the articles sent over in the first place. Two, it’s bizarre to try to force the Senate to fight to get witnesses that the House didn’t make much of an effort to get itself. Three, this contradicts the argument that impeachment was such an urgent necessity that it had to be rushed. Four, it will make impeachment look even more partisan and political. Five, it is exactly the wrong tack to win over those Republicans who might be persuadable on witness like Romney and Collins. Besides all that, it’s a brilliant idea.
JaneV2.0
12-19-19, 12:33pm
I remember Clinton testifying, and again, McDougal being jailed (must of her sentence spent in solitary confinement) because she didn't.
Lying about adult consensual sex pales in comparison to Trump's criminality.
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-19, 12:34pm
At least the House impeached. I felt less embarrassed than I usually do when I texted my relatives in Vienna this morning. Of course I realize that the Senate will trample the will of the people to line Trump's and their own pockets. But at least yesterday one branch of the US government did the right thing. Since such is so rare in American politics under Trump, I'm wondering how difficult it would be to get a library or airport named after Nancy Pelosi, as a gesture of respect for everyday hard working Americans victimized by Trump's policies? Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-19, 12:39pm
I remember Clinton testifying, and again, McDougal being jailed (must of her sentence spent in solitary confinement) because she didn't.
Lying about adult consensual sex pales in comparison to Trump's criminality.I still believe, and always have, that the whole Lewinsky thing? Tawdry, yes.....but also none of our business. To me this matter resided exclusively with the Clintons and Ms. Lewinsky.....though I'd also say that their meetings - nice way to put it, no? - would have been better advised taking place somewhere not taxpayer subsidized....i.e., not in the Oval Office. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-19, 12:44pm
Ferguson cops are still showing the world what American police are all about. Today’s headline news:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/boy-dies-day-after-officers-pulled-him-from-icy-ferguson/article_bc09f42a-8894-5af5-b3b9-78dbb11412a2.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
tldr; Ferguson cops pull 10 year old boy out of icy swimming pool. Too bad, the kid didnt live.
I wasn’t going to respond to Rob’s post but the Ferguson story seem timely. Just as a reminder to real life, Mike Brown grappled with a police officer and was not an innocent victim when he was shot in August 2014.It is wise not to get into a physical altercation with a police officer.IL, I'm sure your post is true. I'll give you that but with one HUGE caveat. You are not telling the whole story. A big reason that Ferguson went ballistic in the first place? The extreme predatory fining of the Ferguson PD. Micheal Brown's murder was just an ignition device for the powder keg already there, fully created by those if whom you approve at the Ferguson PD. No one in Ferguson will forget the predatory fining and neither will I. It's too American. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-19, 12:45pm
IL, I'm sure your post is true. I'll give you that but with one HUGE caveat. You are not telling the whole story. A big reason that Ferguson went ballistic in the first place? The extreme predatory fining of the Ferguson PD. Micheal Brown's murder was just an ignition device for the powder keg already there, fully created by those if whom you approve at the Ferguson PD. No one in Ferguson will forget the predatory fining and neither will I. It's too American. RobShould be created by those of whom you fully approve above. Rob
Ay carumba. Revelance. There, finally got the word right. Rob
Well, close enough. ;)
iris lilies
12-19-19, 12:57pm
Well, close enough. ;)
Ok Boomer. ;)
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=revelance
Ok Boomer. ;)
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=revelance
DOH!
iris lilies
12-19-19, 1:45pm
IL, I'm sure your post is true. I'll give you that but with one HUGE caveat. You are not telling the whole story. A big reason that Ferguson went ballistic in the first place? The extreme predatory fining of the Ferguson PD. Micheal Brown's murder was just an ignition device for the powder keg already there, fully created by those if whom you approve at the Ferguson PD. No one in Ferguson will forget the predatory fining and neither will I. It's too American. Rob
Spare me the sanctimonious blather.
Cops on the street are hardly responsible for a municipality’s policy of raising revenue by traffic fines. That is policy put into place by the (largely) Democratic council of Ferguson and all surrounding municipalities just like them.
If that is HUGE it is easy enough to vote the baxtxxds out.
I remember Clinton testifying, and again, McDougal being jailed (must of her sentence spent in solitary confinement) because she didn't.
Lying about adult consensual sex pales in comparison to Trump's criminality.
Susan McDougal said she refused to answer questions in the Whitewater trial because she feared being charged with perjury if she told the truth because her ex-husband had previously given false testimony designed to protect Bill Clinton which was accepted as truth. That trial had more to do with illegal financial dealings than sex as I recall.
Here's what Rich Lowry at National Review had to say:
It looks like Pelosi is going to delay sending over the articles of impeachment, which is a really bad idea....
It actually seems like a reasonable move of political one upmanship to me. It would be a gamble to expedite witness testimony denied by the White House in a process faster than the lengthy and cumbersome court systems. I doubt it would come to it, but I could see an indefinite delay based on it not being an impartial trial, which would at least deny Donald legal exoneration and save face for the dems.
IL, I'm sure your post is true. I'll give you that but with one HUGE caveat. You are not telling the whole story. A big reason that Ferguson went ballistic in the first place? The extreme predatory fining of the Ferguson PD. Micheal Brown's murder was just an ignition device for the powder keg already there, fully created by those if whom you approve at the Ferguson PD. No one in Ferguson will forget the predatory fining and neither will I. It's too American. Rob
You keep saying murder. The County DA concluded it wasn’t murder. The federal investigation concluded there was no civil rights violation.
I think you need to back up your assertions with more than “because America”.
It actually seems like a reasonable move of political one upmanship to me. It would be a gamble to expedite witness testimony denied by the White House in a process faster than the lengthy and cumbersome court systems. I doubt it would come to it, but I could see an indefinite delay based on it not being an impartial trial, which would at least deny Donald legal exoneration and save face for the dems.
I don’t think Mitch McConnell would be all that unhappy with a delay of any length. Refusing to play the game because you don’t like the rules after rushing the House process would seem to me to be fairly damaging for the a Democrats.
I don’t think Mitch McConnell would be all that unhappy with a delay of any length. Refusing to play the game because you don’t like the rules after rushing the House process would seem to me to be fairly damaging for the a Democrats.I agree because I think it shows that the entire process was more about politics than the sad, solemn and desperate attempt to uphold the constitution as the Democrats have been coached to present it.
As an aside, it's been fun watching Democrats on TV looking all doe eyed and sad at being forced to do something they'd rather not have forced upon them.
Refusing to play the game because the senate majority leader has plainly stated that he doesn't intend to hold a fair trial would seem to me to be what people who care about their oath of office would do.
I have trouble imagining that after the last few years there is a single member of the Senate (or the House) who could accurately be called an “impartial juror” at this point. It’s hard to see how any of them would survive a normal jury selection process.
I also have trouble understanding what legitimate constitutional authority the Speaker of the House can exercise over Senate rules.
If she believes she can leverage the Senate by not doing something they would prefer she not do anyway, she would seem to have a faulty understanding of the concept of extortion.
It’s hard for me to believe there is a single Senator from either party who does not already know how he or she will be voting, whether that occurs next week or next year.
Refusing to play the game because the senate majority leader has plainly stated that he doesn't intend to hold a fair trial would seem to me to be what people who care about their oath of office would do.
Really? The worst thing that could happen would be a duplication of the Democrats flat out refusal to provide a single guilty vote during the Clinton trial. No, this is politics but this time it's an effort to place the Senate in a bad light for the upcoming election. It won't work.
After al the evidence seen thus far and Moscow mitch’s public statement that he will rig the process you think republicans will come out of this looking good to anyone who has ever pulled the voting lever for a non republican? Really?
It actually seems like a reasonable move of political one upmanship to me. It would be a gamble to expedite witness testimony denied by the White House in a process faster than the lengthy and cumbersome court systems. I doubt it would come to it, but I could see an indefinite delay based on it not being an impartial trial, which would at least deny Donald legal exoneration and save face for the dems.
It's too bad they can't negotiate with McConnell to expedite the impeachment paperwork when he gets some of the nearly 300 (mostly non-partisan) bills sent over by the house voted on. (I'm happy to see Amy McGrath polling so well. Hope she wipes the floor with him.)
After al the evidence seen thus far and Moscow mitch’s public statement that he will rig the process you think republicans will come out of this looking good to anyone who has ever pulled the voting lever for a non republican? Really?
Yes I do. You and I are pretty much partisans, but we're not the majority. Independents and moderates see what's happening and I'll bet they're keeping score. I'll also bet my side wins the day this time because your side can't do subtle.
Yes I do. You and I are pretty much partisans, but we're not the majority. Independents and moderates see what's happening and I'll bet they're keeping score. I'll also bet my side wins the day this time because your side can't do subtle.
It has pretty much confirmed my belief that I am unlikely to ever vote for either party’s candidates.
Yes I do. You and I are pretty much partisans, but we're not the majority. Independents and moderates see what's happening and I'll bet they're keeping score. I'll also bet my side wins the day this time because your side can't do subtle.
Time will tell but if moderates are persuadable I think the republicans had better come up with a better argument than hurry up so we can reach our predetermined conclusion before any new evidence might be learned.
I also wonder if moderates care about the delay. They didn’t seem to be bothered by the delay of metrics garland for blatantly partisan purposes.
I also wonder if moderates care about the delay. They didn’t seem to be bothered by the delay of metrics garland for blatantly partisan purposes.
I think the delay is immaterial, it's the perceived reason for the delay.
I think the delay is immaterial, it's the perceived reason for the delay.
Moderates don’t want the senate to do a legitimate impeachment trial instead of a hack job acquittal?
Moderates don’t want the senate to do a legitimate impeachment trial instead of a hack job acquittal?No, the delay is because the Senate will do a fairly quick acquittal on the charges just as it did for Clinton in 1999 and then it's over, they're a political entity and we'd be foolish to expect more of them. I believe the goal is to draw this out while putting out as much anti-McConnell, anti-Republican, rhetoric as possible so that after the acquittal people not paying attention will turn the Senate over to the Democrats in November. That's where I believe the Democrats are wrong.
I also believe that if Trump wins the next election, as I'm afraid he will, the Democrats will make history by impeaching him again.
I think the flaw in your thinking is assuming that moderates will just accept that the senate is willing to act so blatantly partisan for no other reason than partisanship. I think bae's frustration with both parties probably exemplifies the moderates thoughts more accurately. And in that case if they are going to be swayed at all it will be by the party that better justifies the reasons for their current actions.
I think the flaw in your thinking is assuming that moderates will just accept that the senate is willing to act so blatantly partisan for no other reason than partisanship. I think bae's frustration with both parties probably exemplifies the moderates thoughts more accurately. And in that case if they are going to be swayed at all it will be by the party that better justifies the reasons for their current actions.
Democrats have been searching for any reason to impeach for the past 3 years. During tonight's debate Tom Steyer bragged that he's been using his time and resources to promote impeachment for the past two years. It sounds to many people the Democrats have just recently found a possible basis for their coup and are running with it, so I think you're right, someone's gonna have to justify their actions and make a convincing case for why it's not their new normal.
Democrats have been searching for any reason to impeach for the past 3 years. During tonight's debate Tom Steyer bragged that he's been using his time and resources to promote impeachment for the past two years. It sounds to many people the Democrats have just recently found a possible basis for their coup and are running with it, so I think you're right, someone's gonna have to justify their actions and make a convincing case for why it's not their new normal.
I suppose if you ignore all the evidence that has been brought forward in the past couple of months this might matter. At the end of the day no matter how you slice it our president used the power of his office to withhold taxpayer funded military aid to try and extort a foreign country into assisting his reelection by opening a bogus investigation into his political opponent.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
“To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?”
Franklin Graham must be more than a bit peeved at this...
At the end of the day no matter how you slice it our president used the power of his office to withhold taxpayer funded military aid to try and extort a foreign country into assisting his reelection by opening a bogus investigation into his political opponent.What makes you think it's bogus? I think that the only winner in this whole thing is the Biden family, they're now effectively shielded from any serious investigation into the son using his father's influence to collect 10X the going rate for a director of an energy company, and we'll never be allowed to know how much influence was used to keep it coming.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
“To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?”
Franklin Graham must be more than a bit peeved at this...
It's hard to disagree with that, Trump's personality sucks and that should be a factor in an election, but it's not an impeachable offense.
catherine
12-20-19, 12:01am
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
“Remember who you are and whom you serve....Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?”
Franklin Graham must be more than a bit peeved at this...
I just happened upon this on Twitter, by mistakenly clicking on the wrong hashtag when looking for the debates. I'm not an Evangelical, but my spiritual orientation is Christian and I was raised Catholic and it's really in my DNA, and I applaud Billy Graham for calling out what I believe to be a truth--that supporting Donald Trump is a huge spiritual sell-out. I'll be interested in hearing how the Evangelicals respond--a cursory look at the Twitter feed indicates that many are willing to crucify Billy Graham and absolve Barabas Trump.
What makes you think it's bogus?
I'll let you use the googles to get outside the fox/breitbart bubble and find the answer.
I'll let you use the googles to get outside the fox/breitbart bubble and find the answer.
Fox/Breitbart bubble. That makes me laugh out loud. :~)
(didn't we used to have a strikethrough function?)Yes, the software didn't come with it but I installed it......poorly.....it's icon doesn't show up in the quick reply box but can be used by typing the script beginning/end on either side of the word or phrase you wish to strike.
Example: (strike) text to strike (/strike) where you replace brackets ( & ) with brackets [ & ] to get this text to strike
catherine
12-20-19, 7:01am
Yes, the software didn't come with it but I installed it......poorly.....it's icon doesn't show up in the quick reply box but can be used by typing the script beginning/end on either side of the word or phrase you wish to strike.
Example: (strike) text to strike (/strike) where you replace brackets ( & ) with brackets [ & ] to get this text to strike
It worked! Thanks!
Fox/Breitbart bubble. That makes me laugh out loud. :~)
Forgive me for making that assumption if it’s incorrect. It’s just that anyone who has other news sources has likely learned that the whole ‘Biden got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect his son’ story was debunked.
Democrats have been searching for any reason to impeach for the past 3 years. During tonight's debate Tom Steyer bragged that he's been using his time and resources to promote impeachment for the past two years. It sounds to many people the Democrats have just recently found a possible basis for their coup and are running with it, so I think you're right, someone's gonna have to justify their actions and make a convincing case for why it's not their new normal.
I understand that we are a nation of laws determined by the Constitution when it comes to impeachment, but they are not the only laws that determine a presidents fitness for office. I believe Donald's moral compass is broken and he is not capable of wise decisions regarding national security and global stability. There are laws common to many faiths that might resemble the Ten Commandments of which Trump has broken several. Like the CT article says, "it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence."
For those reasons I find no fault for looking hard at Donald's transgressions that would justify impeachment. He is a non-traditional if not radical president and the reality of that is that he would have a microscope on all of his dealings and he finally messed up. He is an expert in maneuvering through the legal systems and is wise in that matter. Something that his political associates such as Roger Stone and Manafort have not been so skilled. They had to get Capone on tax evasion even though they tried to arrest him for years on charges that would stick.
I'll stick by the laws of the nation as providing some form of justice, but find no fault in looking hard at all of Donald's dealings from the start of his inauguration. That's part of our legal freedoms, too.
I’d like to see Trump go. My preference would be to do that through the ballot box rather than a weaponized constitutional process.
I think the perception of much of the public is that after three years of searching for a hook, his enemies finally latched onto something they could work with. As presidential scandals and infractions go, this one seems pretty minor compared to much of the past century or so. I suspect a sufficiently motivated Congress could have found sufficient reason to impeach most of the presidents of my lifetime. This one will appear to be part of a political jihad regardless of the facts of the case. Much like the Clinton impeachment was. I think that is how many voters will remember it, and the aftertaste will be bitter for some years to come as the bar is lowered for the future. His enemies will couch their actions in patriotic sanctimony and pecksniff legalism; and they won’t be entirely wrong. But his enemies’ enemies will remember and wait for their chance at reprisal.
Does he deserve to be booted out of office? I think so. But I think the upcoming election is the cleanest way to make that happen. At very least, should he win a second term, No one will be able to say they weren’t warned.
JaneV2.0
12-20-19, 12:11pm
Yeah--I have to laugh at those characterizing the continuation and amplification of FDR's programs as "radical," when we have the most egregious radical possible sitting in the white house, colluding with our enemies to solidify his power.
Yeah--I have to laugh at those characterizing the continuation and amplification of FDR's programs as "radical," when we have the most egregious radical possible sitting in the white house, colluding with our enemies to solidify his power.
If nothing else, he may go down in history for finally getting the American Left to recognize Russia as an enemy rather than a honeymoon destination.
If nothing else, he may go down in history for finally getting the American Left to recognize Russia as an enemy rather than a honeymoon destination.
That's a high price to pay for a little clarity.
iris lilies
12-20-19, 4:08pm
That's a high price to pay for a little clarity.
hahaha,
i think you are both right.
That's a high price to pay for a little clarity.
It takes a lot to dispel over a century of self-delusion.
It takes a lot to dispel over a century of self-delusion.
Somebody forgot to notify Tucker Carlson...
Teacher Terry
12-20-19, 5:26pm
I would just like to wake up and the orange moron has disappeared:))
gimmethesimplelife
12-20-19, 7:17pm
I would just like to wake up and the orange moron has disappeared:))As long as we don't get him in the 85006! Like he'd really live there anyway lol. I agree with your lost 100 percent, TT. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-20-19, 7:18pm
As long as we don't get him in the 85006! Like he'd really live there anyway lol. I agree with your lost 100 percent, TT. RobShould be agree with your post above.
Teacher Terry
12-20-19, 7:40pm
Rob, I was thinking more like poof gone from the earth:))
frugal-one
12-20-19, 7:50pm
I’d like to see Trump go. My preference would be to do that through the ballot box rather than a weaponized constitutional process.
I think the perception of much of the public is that after three years of searching for a hook, his enemies finally latched onto something they could work with. As presidential scandals and infractions go, this one seems pretty minor compared to much of the past century or so. I suspect a sufficiently motivated Congress could have found sufficient reason to impeach most of the presidents of my lifetime. This one will appear to be part of a political jihad regardless of the facts of the case. Much like the Clinton impeachment was. I think that is how many voters will remember it, and the aftertaste will be bitter for some years to come as the bar is lowered for the future. His enemies will couch their actions in patriotic sanctimony and pecksniff legalism; and they won’t be entirely wrong. But his enemies’ enemies will remember and wait for their chance at reprisal.
Does he deserve to be booted out of office? I think so. But I think the upcoming election is the cleanest way to make that happen. At very least, should he win a second term, No one will be able to say they weren’t warned.
That is easy to say but a big problem in WI is gerrymandering!
That is easy to say but a big problem in WI is gerrymandering!
Unless some evil genius has figured out how to gerrymander state boundaries, I don’t think that will be much of an issue for the presidential election.
If nothing else, he may go down in history for finally getting the American Left to recognize Russia as an enemy rather than a honeymoon destination.
While at the same time convincing republicans that Russia is not our enemy. A remarkable feat.
While at the same time convincing republicans that Russia is not our enemy. A remarkable feat.
Obama didn’t authorize lethal aid for Ukraine against the Russians. Trump did.
Obama didn’t authorize lethal aid for Ukraine against the Russians. Trump did.
True, but for the record the GOP defense that Obama only provided blankets and pillows is and mostly false. He provided millions in military assistance that included radar defenses, Humvees, training, medical supplies, body armor, and surveillance equipment.
frugal-one
12-21-19, 6:54pm
Unless some evil genius has figured out how to gerrymander state boundaries, I don’t think that will be much of an issue for the presidential election.
It was in the last election. Many blacks in the Milwaukee area could not get to polling sites because of this.
iris lilies
12-21-19, 8:13pm
It was in the last election. Many blacks in the Milwaukee area could not get to polling sites because of this.
what do you mean? Be specific.
frugal-one
12-22-19, 7:40pm
what do you mean? Be specific.
gerrymandering
iris lilies
12-22-19, 8:33pm
I am at a loss to know how “blacks” were unable to “get to polling sites” due to what you call “gerrymandering.”
“Gerrymandering” is the epithet thrown at the process of redistricting political jurisdictions, a perfectly legal and necessary activity. The losing team who doesn’t have the power to draw district lines often cries “Gerrymandering.”
True gerrymandering is complicated to define; cases are in front of courts all over the country to identify it. Complicated math formulas are employed by both sides in court. I would shoot myself in the head if I had to be on such a jury due to the technical information presented.
but hey, yay for Milwaukee Democrats in pinning an election irregularity on race. That will get ‘em lots of traction.
I may go off to google this issue...
The decline in black turnout from 2012 to 2016 wasn’t due to gerrymandering. It was due to the different levels of enthusiasm for the Democratic presidential candidates.
Changing district lines generally doesn’t change polling locations, just the districts represented by the people who vote there.
gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is what the republicans do to reduce democratic representation in the house of representatives or in state legislative districts. For instance it's the reason why after the 2016 election Wisconsin's state house has only 39 democrats out of 99 districts, despite the fact that democrats won more total votes statewide. Gerrymandering does not have any effect on presidential elections. Vote suppression, ID requirement laws, and other shenanigans potentially do but those are not gerrymandering.
For instance it's the reason why after the 2016 election Wisconsin's state house has only 39 democrats out of 99 districts, despite the fact that democrats won more total votes statewide.
In 2016, Republican Assembly candidates received 51.7% of total votes cast. Democrats received 45.5%.
In 2016, Republican Assembly candidates received 51.7% of total votes cast. Democrats received 45.5%.
You are correct. I was actually referencing the 2018 results.
frugal-one
12-23-19, 5:44pm
The decline in black turnout from 2012 to 2016 wasn’t due to gerrymandering. It was due to the different levels of enthusiasm for the Democratic presidential candidates.
Changing district lines generally doesn’t change polling locations, just the districts represented by the people who vote there.
BS.... the polling locations for blacks were changed by redistricting so many would have had to travel by bus for more than an hour. This limited the black vote!
Teacher Terry
12-23-19, 5:59pm
In Kansas in some small towns where many don’t own cars they put the polls 2 miles from the nearest bus stop. They didn’t want the Hispanics to vote.
You are correct. I was actually referencing the 2018 results.
If you look at 2018, I would have to agree with you. The proportions basically flipped, and the GOP only lost a seat or two.
BS.... the polling locations for blacks were changed by redistricting so many would have had to travel by bus for more than an hour. This limited the black vote!
Can you point to any credible reports on that? I lived in the area at the time, and I heard a lot of accusations of voter suppression connected to the voter ID law and some about longer lines at some polling places than others; but nothing about changes in poll locations driven by redistricting.
“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, said at the event.
I wonder how many elections they'd win if they didn't cheat; I guess we'll never know...
“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, said at the event.
I wonder how many elections they'd win if they didn't cheat; I guess we'll never know...
I don’t think either party can lay claim to virginal purity when it comes to the sordid aspects of elections. I can remember the necromancers of Cook County raising the dead to help JFK defeat Nixon.
frugal-one
12-23-19, 9:08pm
Can you point to any credible reports on that? I lived in the area at the time, and I heard a lot of accusations of voter suppression connected to the voter ID law and some about longer lines at some polling places than others; but nothing about changes in poll locations driven by redistricting.
Just read about it again this week in the WI State Journal. Also, people who have reported it happening to them.
And voter fraud, which Republicans are constantly warning about, is practically non-existent in real life.
And voter fraud, which Republicans are constantly warning about, is practically non-existent in real life.
Serious question: In those localities which allow illegal immigrants to be issued drivers licenses, can those licenses be used to register to vote without proof of citizenship?
Serious question: In those localities which allow illegal immigrants to be issued drivers licenses, can those licenses be used to register to vote without proof of citizenship?
In California you have to provide the last 4 digits of your ssn. And the CA voter database is then transmitted to the US DOJ to verify eligibility. Presumably this weeds out both documented and undocumented immigrants who might attempt to register.
In California you have to provide the last 4 digits of your ssn. And the CA voter database is then transmitted to the US DOJ to verify eligibility. Presumably this weeds out both documented and undocumented immigrants who might attempt to register.Thank you. I wonder about those areas with motor voter.
Looks like Pelosi will be admitting defeat and sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, who will apparently apply the same trial rules as they did in the Clinton era.
apply the same trial rules as they did in the Clinton era.
I don't remember Henry Hyde saying he was going to ignore testimony and coordinate with Bill Clinton and acquit him before the proceedings started.
I don't remember Henry Hyde saying he was going to ignore testimony and coordinate with Bill Clinton and acquit him before the proceedings started.
The same rules package as for Clinton. A full vote to open the trial and later votes to call witnesses. As with Clinton’s trial, it seems doubtful any evidence or testimony offered will much affect the ultimate result.
frugal-one
1-11-20, 7:46pm
The same rules package as for Clinton. A full vote to open the trial and later votes to call witnesses. As with Clinton’s trial, it seems doubtful any evidence or testimony offered will much affect the ultimate result.
...sadly!
Assuming that the details regarding trump's treason will keep trickling out over the next 10 months (or perhaps come flooding out if the courts rule that the house's subpeonas have to be honored) the republican senators may come to rue their decision to hold a sham trial.
Looks like Pelosi will be admitting defeat and sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, who will apparently apply the same trial rules as they did in the Clinton era.
Defeat is a matter of perspective. The controversy over the delay gave quite a bit of attention to the key witnesses that are being denied testimony. At least without the lengthy court procedures Donald is famous for. I suspect that was a primary intention. The rules may be the same as Clinton, but the relevance of witnesses testifying will be different.
It doesn't seem that the delay caused the public to be up in arms over which witnesses will or won't be called. The House could have done that with a longer subpoena fight without the appearance of petulant gamesmanship.
I have no problem with operating under the same rules as last time. I'm simple enough to think the same rules should apply to different players.
Pelosi's petulant gamesmanship seemed like a response in kind to the GOP defense that no first hand account testimonies were given, so could not to be trusted. She may have overplayed her cards a bit since the sides have pretty much been defined and the Iran issues have takes the spotlight away for the moment. The rules seem fair enough to me but the game is being played differently than the Clinton trial.
If the goal was to influence Senate rules, she failed.
If the goal was to increase public support for her position, she failed.
If the goal was to influence Senate rules, she failed.
If the goal was to increase public support for her position, she failed.
In the unlikely event that I should agree, I would say that she tried to get more of the truth out to the public and dispelled the silly GOP defense that the existing witness accounts were unreliable. It seemed to me like the right thing, even with the obvious knowledge that neckless Mitch would reject anything from the dems.
I noticed that Trump intended to claim executive privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying even if he was subpoenaed I can only guess at the lengthy legal barriers that would be raised to prevent first hand accounts of events.
In the unlikely event that I should agree, I would say that she tried to get more of the truth out to the public and dispelled the silly GOP defense that the existing witness accounts were unreliable. It seemed to me like the right thing, even with the obvious knowledge that neckless Mitch would reject anything from the dems.
I noticed that Trump intended to claim executive privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying even if he was subpoenaed I can only guess at the lengthy legal barriers that would be raised to prevent first hand accounts of events.
But if the truth was her paramount concern, why rush the House process and leave the subpoena battle for a hostile Senate to resolve? For someone so fond of lecturing others about their constitutional responsibilities, the House effort seemed pretty abbreviated.
Either she greatly overestimated the public pressure she could generate, or she was appeasing the elements of her party who have been pushing for impeachment for three years with a bit of political theater.
I noticed that Trump intended to claim executive privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying even if he was subpoenaed I can only guess at the lengthy legal barriers that would be raised to prevent first hand accounts of events.
The delay wasn't too bad when Obama claimed executive privilege during the Fast & Furious hearings. I think the Democrats didn't want to go down that road this time due to fear that if it would open up the requirement for additional witnesses that would reveal their complicity in identifying and encouraging a potential whistleblower.
iris lilies
1-13-20, 12:10pm
If the goal was to influence Senate rules, she failed.
If the goal was to increase public support for her position, she failed.
One pundit’s explanation was that Speaker Pelosi was waiting for opinions from the 40-some Representatives who won swing districts last time. “She listens to them, not to the leftie/radicals in her party” said this pundit.
These Congressmen went home over the break to talk to constituents, and pundit’s opinion is that these Congressmen said their people are in favor of booting Trump.
If the goal was to increase public support for her position, she failed.
57% of the public, including 56% of independents, support having witnesses at the senate trial. That's pretty much everyone but the forever trumpers. Not sure how having a solid majority of the public supporting her is failure. Assuming that moscow mitch moves forward with having a sham trial the only question left is how big of a price will senate republicans pay. The ones in purple/blue states should definitely be concerned about their political futures if they follow mitch down this path.
57% of the public, including 56% of independents, support having witnesses at the senate trial. That's pretty much everyone but the forever trumpers. Not sure how having a solid majority of the public supporting her is failure. Assuming that moscow mitch moves forward with having a sham trial the only question left is how big of a price will senate republicans pay. The ones in purple/blue states should definitely be concerned about their political futures if they follow mitch down this path.
Yes, but that was basically true before the kerfuffle commenced. The needle hasn’t much moved for quite a while. I think the people who want Trump out, in which number I include myself, would much prefer the standard electoral route. I think the Democrats ( and everyone else’s) interests would be better served by producing a viable opposition candidate than producing daytime drama.
Yes, but that was basically true before the kerfuffle commenced. The needle hasn’t much moved for quite a while. I think the people who want Trump out, in which number I include myself, would much prefer the standard electoral route. I think the Democrats ( and everyone else’s) interests would be better served by producing a viable opposition candidate than producing daytime drama.
I suspect within the context of national polls the line have been drawn and any effect the impeachment delay has had would be difficult to measure and is probably negligible. Here in my swing state we have a GOP senator up for re-election. State polls show more then 65% are in favor of calling more witnesses and evidence. Senator Gardner has been noticeably mum in offering opinions or indications of how he might vote, although he's pretty much towed the Trump line on other issues. When you get down to microcosms of possible effects, it's probably even more difficult to say the delay and more attention to with holding witnesses might have, but it could have some significance.
iris lilies
1-13-20, 2:07pm
I suspect within the context of national polls the line have been drawn and any effect the impeachment delay has had would be difficult to measure and is probably negligible. Here in my swing state we have a GOP senator up for re-election. State polls show more then 65% are in favor of calling more witnesses and evidence. Senator Gardner has been noticeably mum in offering opinions or indications of how he might vote, although he's pretty much towed the Trump line on other issues. When you get down to microcosms of possible effects, it's probably even more difficult to say the delay and more attention to with holding witnesses might have, but it could have some significance.
Your Senator will vote with his Republican colleagues. They all vote with their party when push comes to shove.
That’s why I don’t cotton with the philosophy of “vote for the best person at the ballot box” because every one of them, on the big issues, gather with their herd. That is when party is paramount.
Your Senator will vote with his Republican colleagues. They all vote with their party when push comes to shove.
I have no doubt that will be the case. Whether he will be re-elected and how the impeachment issues have or will influence his chances is the question.
iris lilies
1-17-20, 10:45pm
It is interesting that Alan Dershowitz is making the constitutional argument against impeachment on Trump’s defense team. I can just hear the voices here saying “so what? He is a well-known defender of reprobates like O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. “
But I still find it interesting that he is doing it. Today NPR had an interview with him and he was clear he is making a constitutional argument that opens the case, he is not working on the team’s strategy and he’s not advising in any other capacity. He also had to remind everyone that he voted for Hillary and is a well-known liberal type person.
I can think of a couple of black-and-white thinkers on this website who probably can’t wrap their head around that.
I suppose Dershowitz can make the argument that what trump did was not a high crime or misdemeanor. And I'm sure he'll make a pretty penny doing so. And convince approximately zero people.
Considering what Ken Starr had to say about executive privilege 20 years ago it's a good thing he's not on Trump's defense team. Oh wait...
https://twitter.com/ForTheRuleOfLaw/status/1218251416642473985/video/1
I suppose Dershowitz can make the argument that what trump did was not a high crime or misdemeanor. And I'm sure he'll make a pretty penny doing so. And convince approximately zero people.I've read that his participation will be limited to a one hour or so dissertation on why a President exercising power within his constitutional responsibilities, without compelling evidence of a crime, is not a basis for impeachment. But I think you're partly right, he won't convince anyone who made up their mind about the President's unsuitability for office before he was elected. The tragedy will be if he's unsuccessful and the standard for impeachment becomes a dislike for something as inconsequential as a spray on tan.
But I think you're partly right, he won't convince anyone who made up their mind about the President's unsuitability for office before he was elected.
Keep telling yourself that's the reason he was impeached enough times and maybe it will actually become truth? There must've been a third article of impeachment that I didn't hear about.
Keep telling yourself that's the reason he was impeached enough times and maybe it will actually become truth? There must've been a third article of impeachment that I didn't hear about.The articles of impeachment are irrelevant, they could have been for anything. There's been a concerted effort among the Democrats to impeach for any reason since the election and there are multiple threads here filled with wishful thinking on the subject since his first month in office. The pressure to impeach finally overcame Nancy Pelosi's better judgement, to the detriment of us all.
I kind of feel bad for the disappointment so many will feel when this effort fails to remove him from office and am equally disturbed that the Democrats have pretty much guaranteed another term rather than let a rational public choose from better candidates. Maybe you guys will eventually recognize the logic of "live and learn".
I’ve often wondered why there were only two articles, and fairly squishy subjective ones at that. What President hasn’t been accused of abusing his power or obstructing Congress?
If his enemies truly believed some of their own claims of treason, corruption or worse, why not take the time to secure enough evidence to indict him for that? Why demand a degree of thoroughness and impartiality from the Senate that the House did not demonstrate? And then why decide to delay such an urgent matter? Did it take that long to order Nancy Pelosi’s commemorative pens?
This whole thing smacks of bad theater to me. I’m guessing that if Trump manages to win re-election we will see a sequel. That is, if the Democrats retain control of the House. I hear AOC is working to “primary” some of the more moderate members, so we may see a more serious effort next time.
Having now spent some time looking at both CNN and Fox, it is impressive to see how many people are echoing the words of the various talking heads.
Having now spent some time looking at both CNN and Fox, it is impressive to see how many people are echoing the words of the various talking heads.
My alternative theory is that in a competitive news market the talking heads are striving to conform to the biases of their target audiences.
My alternative theory is that in a competitive news market the talking heads are striving to conform to the biases of their target audiences.These days broadcast news is a product to be sold and consumers choose the ones most likely to provide the desired slant. That's why I choose MSNBC as my preferred broadcast outlet, they require me to ingest salt, constantly, a few grains at a time.
My alternative theory is that in a competitive news market the talking heads are striving to conform to the biases of their target audiences.
I've just observed the relatively short time delay between some rather improbable-for-normal-people-to-use term-of-art or odd twist of reasoning appearing on the various news outlets, and it coming out of the mouths of "normal" people who would never use such phrasing on their own.
I think some of that percolates up from the bottom and some trickles down from the top. But I don’t think that in general our opinions are driven by the sirens of Fox News or the magisterial arguments of Rachel Maddow. I’m not sure all that many influenceable people even bother watching cable pundits. They’re watching Hallmark or streaming teenage vampires on their phones.
And I think it’s in the nature of language that terms go in and out of vogue. How can we really know how “disenfranchised”, “existential threat” or “violating norms” first came into fashion? I’m Inclined to view the chatterocracy as more a recycling operation than a manufacturer.
The articles of impeachment are irrelevant, they could have been for anything. There's been a concerted effort among the Democrats to impeach for any reason since the election and there are multiple threads here filled with wishful thinking on the subject since his first month in office. The pressure to impeach finally overcame Nancy Pelosi's better judgement, to the detriment of us all.
I kind of feel bad for the disappointment so many will feel when this effort fails to remove him from office and am equally disturbed that the Democrats have pretty much guaranteed another term rather than let a rational public choose from better candidates. Maybe you guys will eventually recognize the logic of "live and learn".
At the end of the day, no matter what the democrats wanted all along, if trump hadn't done what he did with Ukraine he wouldn't currently be impeached. Complaining that people wanted that impeachment all along does nothing to change what he did. He's not being impeached because people wanted it from the beginning. He's being impeached for specific actions he has taken that have been deemed impeachment worthy. Details matter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/16/how-finding-that-halt-aid-ukraine-was-illegal-overlaps-with-what-we-already-knew/
Putting a fine point on it:
The administration didn’t offer a rationale in the moment for why the aid was being held even to officials tasked with implementing it.
OMB staff members were concerned about the legality of the hold.
The hold overlapped with a period during which Trump’s teams both within the administration and outside it were pressuring Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically.
One administration official told Ukraine explicitly that aid was withheld until the inquiries were announced.
A former member of Trump’s external legal team claims that he conveyed a similar message to Ukraine.
Trump’s chief of staff indicated that the hold was linked to the investigations Trump demanded of Zelensky.
As the House moved forward in investigating the situation, the administration almost entirely stonewalled requests for information.
As the GAO investigation proceeded, it met with a similar response. It nonetheless determined that the law had been broken.
If you'd like to argue that he shouldn't be impeached you should focus on why you think what he did was not impeachment-worthy. Otherwise you are just complaining that people don't like trump, and since not liking trump wasn't an article of impeachment it's irrelevant to the discussion and about as meaningful as Senator McSally calling a reporter a liberal hack for daring to ask a reasonable, but uncomfortable, question.
If you'd like to argue that he shouldn't be impeached you should focus on why you think what he did was not impeachment-worthy. Otherwise you are just complaining that people don't like trump, and since not liking trump wasn't an article of impeachment it's irrelevant to the discussion and about as meaningful as Senator McSally calling a reporter a liberal hack for daring to ask a reasonable, but uncomfortable, question.Or, I may be implying that if you're going to impeach a sitting president, put a little more effort into it, do the hard work it deserves and for gods sake whatever you do, don't let your desire to hurt someone you detest diminish the gravity of your efforts.
Declaring there's not enough time to work through the process of whether or not executive privilege applies and throwing on a contempt of Congress article for thwarting one committee's desire for immediate compliance is setting up a very low standard for subsequent Presidents. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want the job.
So you don't think what he did warrants impeachment? There's plenty of evidence out there so it's not like there is any real question as to what happened.
So you don't think what he did warrants impeachment? There's plenty of evidence out there so it's not like there is any real question as to what happened.
No, there's lots of speculation, opinion and second hand information out there. If this were a criminal proceeding it would be thrown out of court. I think the country deserves better.
Trump and Mulvaney admitting what they did is speculation?
Trump and Mulvaney admitting what they did is speculation?
If I'm not mistaken Mulvaney said there were always conditions to be met in order to receive funding, without admitting to anything improper, and Trump admitted to asking for an investigation but without any admission of it being a pre-requisite to financial aid. Those are important distinctions that must be resolved properly, but have not.
Because this is a political investigation rather than criminal, there's obviously a lower standard for proof than I feel comfortable with, YMMV.
So I guess you’re in favor of witnesses at the trial to get to the bottom of this?
So I guess you’re in favor of witnesses at the trial to get to the bottom of this?Since the Senate adopted the same rules and procedures that governed the Clinton impeachment trial I believe there's no reason witnesses can't be called if 51 Senators would like to hear from them. That consistency is fine with me.
So you’re more concerned with consistency than actually finding out what happened?
So you’re more concerned with consistency than actually finding out what happened?
But if you were correct when you said earlier that there was no real question of what happened, shouldn’t the focus be on whether the two articles are for impeachable offenses or not? If they don’t rise to that level, what would be the point of confirming what has already been established beyond putting points on the political board? What is so sinister about rules that allow the Senate to call witnesses as the Senate sees fit?
Personally, I think the bar for overriding elections should be set pretty high.
But if you were correct when you said earlier that there was no real question of what happened, shouldn’t the focus be on whether the two articles are for impeachable offenses or not? If they don’t rise to that level, what would be the point of confirming what has already been established beyond putting points on the political board? What is so sinister about rules that allow the Senate to call witnesses as the Senate sees fit?
No, there's lots of speculation, opinion and second hand information out there. If this were a criminal proceeding it would be thrown out of court. I think the country deserves better.
Apparently there are people out there who won't be convinced until Guiliani, Pompeo, and Mulvaney testify in person to confirm what we already know.
It seems somewhat odd that they refuse to testify and clear things up if what we've already learned about their actions is inaccurate.
Apparently there are people out there who won't be convinced until Guiliani, Pompeo, and Mulvaney testify in person to confirm what we already know.
It seems somewhat odd that they refuse to testify and clear things up if what we've already learned about their actions is inaccurate.
I donÂ’t know that anything needs to be cleared up. IÂ’m convinced that Trump did what they say he did. IÂ’m convinced that is certainly an issue for the voters to consider. IÂ’m not convinced that it rises to the level that makes it the SenateÂ’s constitutional duty to remove him from office.
I think that at this point it is the SenateÂ’s job is to decide the matter of law rather than the facts of the case. Much like the Clinton case: there was no question that the President lied under oath, but the issue the Senate had to decide was whether that was sufficient grounds to remove him. I think it made sense for the founders to set the bar for removing a president so high because otherwise impeachment would become a routine vote of no confidence.
Had the House worked a little harder and pursued getting their subpoenas enforced, they would have eventually gotten their show trial. But for whatever reason they elected not to do so. All the somber civics lectures, funereal garb and stately marches seem to be calculated to distract from that. The weird withholding of the articles in an attempt to impact Senate rules seems like another distraction. So to me the question becomes whether the President obstructed Congress more than is normal for presidents to do so, and whether the President abused his powers more than is customary for presidents to do so.
So you think it’s acceptable for a president to extort foreign countries for personal benefit. Duly noted.
I think that at this point it is the SenateÂ’s job is to decide the matter of law rather than the facts of the case.
Yet the Constitution specifies that there is a trial. Often trials involve examining the evidence, deciding which evidence constitutes useful facts, then applying the law to the facts discerned.
So let's have that done. So far all we've had is the impeachment from the House, but no actual trial.
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
But if they are limited to the articles presented, and there is little dispute as to the facts concerning the two charges, what purpose will additional witnesses serve? What remains to be proved? The Clinton trial was a similar situation: only three witnesses were called.
So you think it’s acceptable for a president to extort foreign countries for personal benefit. Duly noted.
I don’t think it’s acceptable. I only wonder it it’s impeachment material. If we impeach every president who puts pressure on other governments to make him/her look more attractive to the voters,
we will be spending a great deal of time on proceedings like this.
I don’t think it’s acceptable. I only wonder it it’s impeachment material. If we impeach every president who puts pressure on other governments to make him/her look more attractive to the voters,
we will be spending a great deal of time on proceedings like this.
I think there's a difference between getting a foreign country to publicly make the president look attractive to voters and seeking a sham investigation into a political opponent and then attempt to keep it secret. The later is an attempt to covertly subvert our elections. If any previous president has attempted to do the later please share details because I'm not aware of it ever happening before.
When I was an elected official, it was made very clear to me that it was illegal to use public funds for private gain. Even if the "gain" was pretty minimal.
For instance, I couldn't withhold a payment to the runway paving contractor in order to coerce him into giving me a favorable bid on my own driveway - this would result in fines or jail time. (Or, in the specific case of a Port Commissioner in a nearby Port District, convincing the contractor to deliver "excess" paving material to his own driveway in exchange for the bid was found to be a bit out of line...)
I'm wondering what Republicans would consider impeachable when it comes to themselves--murder, maybe?
Trump and his henchmen have trampled any conventions of ethical behavior.
I’m not saying what Trump did wasn’t wrong. I’m not even saying it wasn’t a crime. I’m saying that we need to set the bar fairly high for the level of criminality we want to remove a president from office for. Otherwise we get into endless political squabbling and wasted time.
Clinton committed a crime when he lied under oath (nobody seemed particularly concerned about sexual harassment in his case). But the Senate decided it wasn’t crime enough to remove him.
Even with Jane’s murder example, what would have prevented a sufficiently motivated Congress from impeaching Obama for murder using some drone strike or assassination he authorized as a pretext?
I think there are eminently practical reasons for holding a US president to a different standard than a local highway commissioner. At least as long as they are in office.
Even with Jane’s murder example, what would prevent a sufficiently motivated Congress from impeaching Obama for murder using some drone strike or assassination he authorized as a pretext?Or maybe for providing weapons to Mexican cartels which would later be used to kill Americans and using executive privilege to deny Congress access to witnesses and documents for their investigation. I don't recall many Democrats getting their panties in a bunch about that one.
I think there are eminently practical reasons for holding a US president to a different standard than a local highway commissioner. So do I! Although I'm thinking Jane and JP1 will too when a President Sanders or Buttigieg are impeached for something similar.
I think there are eminently practical reasons for holding a US president to a different standard than a local highway commissioner. At least as long as they are in office.
I agree - I think the President should be held to a higher standard.
I agree - I think the President should be held to a higher standard.
If we were to do that, we would need to create an office of Prime Minister to administer the executive branch while the head of state was busy defending against the infinite technical and minor violations his enemies would raise.
Or maybe for providing weapons to Mexican cartels which would later be used to kill Americans and using executive privilege to deny Congress access to witnesses and documents for their investigation. I don't recall many Democrats getting their panties in a bunch about that one.
So do I! Although I'm thinking Jane and JP1 will too when a President Sanders or Buttigieg are impeached for something similar.[/COLOR]
This (IMO ill-advised) policy was part of the "gun walking" started under President Bush to track weapons to Cartel figures to result in their arrests. I'm sure if there were a chance in hell to impeach President Obama, Republicans would have pounced on it.
I'm not in favor of extra-legal assassinations of anyone. I would assume (probably foolishly) that such actions would be subject to military review and forbidden.
I'm not in favor of extra-legal assassinations of anyone.
I don't see where the Constitution awards the ius gladii to the President.
This (IMO ill-advised) policy was part of the "gun walking" started under President Bush to track weapons to Cartel figures to result in their arrests. I'm sure if there were a chance in hell to impeach President Obama, Republicans would have pounced on it.
I'm not in favor of extra-legal assassinations of anyone. I would assume (probably foolishly) that such actions would be subject to military review and forbidden.But if it were all Bush's fault, I wonder why they went to such lengths to thwart the Congressional investigation? I guess we'll never know.
I don't necessarily blame Bush; it was apparently a scheme someone (ill-advisedly) came up with. And I'm all for as much transparency in government as possible, barring national security issues.
If we were to do that, we would need to create an office of Prime Minister to administer the executive branch while the head of state was busy defending against the infinite technical and minor violations his enemies would raise.
It’s doubtful that if the senate removes trump that every future president will face perpetual threats of impeachment. Let’s be honest here. Everyone with a pulse and a tv or internet connection knew that he was a turd of a human being completely lacking an ethical or moral compass before he won the election. Abundant news about his life full of moral and ethical failings were publicly available before people voted for him anyway. If we don’t want a future of serial impeachments perhaps the answer is not to lower our standards of expectation of presidential behavior and actions but instead, to select reasonably ethical people for such an important position.
gimmethesimplelife
1-20-20, 12:12am
Or maybe for providing weapons to Mexican cartels which would later be used to kill Americans and using executive privilege to deny Congress access to witnesses and documents for their investigation. I don't recall many Democrats getting their panties in a bunch about that one.
So do I! Although I'm thinking Jane and JP1 will too when a President Sanders or Buttigieg are impeached for something similar.[/COLOR]I like how that sounds. President Buttigieg (finally learned how the name is spelled). Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-20-20, 12:12am
It’s doubtful that if the senate removes trump that every future president will face perpetual threats of impeachment. Let’s be honest here. Everyone with a pulse and a tv or internet connection knew that he was a turd of a human being completely lacking an ethical or moral compass before he won the election. Abundant news about his life full of moral and ethical failings were publicly available before people voted for him anyway. If we don’t want a future of serial impeachments perhaps the answer is not to lower our standards of expectation of presidential behavior and actions but instead, to select reasonably ethical people for such an important position.I could not agree more, jp1. Rob
I like how that sounds. President Buttigieg (finally learned how the name is spelled). Rob
He remains the only presidential candidate I have ever given money too. Even though he is gay, and a poster boy for homonormativity.
It’s doubtful that if the senate removes trump that every future president will face perpetual threats of impeachment. Let’s be honest here. Everyone with a pulse and a tv or internet connection knew that he was a turd of a human being completely lacking an ethical or moral compass before he won the election. Abundant news about his life full of moral and ethical failings were publicly available before people voted for him anyway. If we don’t want a future of serial impeachments perhaps the answer is not to lower our standards of expectation of presidential behavior and actions but instead, to select reasonably ethical people for such an important position.
While I don’t share your scatalogical fervor, I also hope to see Trump gone. But when I see an impeachment effort that essentially began on Inauguration Day, and the quest for some charge, any charge, to make, I can’t help but believe this to be a search for a crime to fit the punishment. I can’t help but wonder if this particular president is receiving a different treatment than another would in similar circumstances.
As long as thirty-four Senators vote to retain him, he will stay until the voters turn him out or his second term expires. That seems as certain as anything in politics. The Democrats are for the most part not stupid, and know this. This makes me think that this is all for show and spite rather than any more practical reason. I would hate to see that become a usual political tool. I suppose whether it does or not will depend on whether the voters punish them for it.
iris lilies
1-20-20, 10:12am
I could not agree more, jp1. Rob
Rob, how was your impeachment party? Did you wear your special outfit? Did you use the special tanging you bought to cook the special Impeachment chicken?
It is interesting that Alan Dershowitz is making the constitutional argument against impeachment on Trump’s defense team. I can just hear the voices here saying “so what? He is a well-known defender of reprobates like O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. “
But I still find it interesting that he is doing it. Today NPR had an interview with him and he was clear he is making a constitutional argument that opens the case, he is not working on the team’s strategy and he’s not advising in any other capacity. He also had to remind everyone that he voted for Hillary and is a well-known liberal type person.
I can think of a couple of black-and-white thinkers on this website who probably can’t wrap their head around that.
It's interesting that Dershowitz has such a fluid opinion about impeachment. I suppose if you pay a man enough money he'll say whatever he's paid to say.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/20/alan-dershowitz-1998-doesnt-have-to-be-crime-to-impeach.cnn
It's interesting that Dershowitz has such a fluid opinion about impeachment. I suppose if you pay a man enough money he'll say whatever he's paid to say.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/20/alan-dershowitz-1998-doesnt-have-to-be-crime-to-impeach.cnnAbout the same time you were posting this Dershowitz was on MSNBC being grilled about this very thing as the host tried to make the same negative insinuation as you. I missed part of his response because I was frying bacon at the time but he seemed to come away unscathed, to the obvious disappointment of Ms Hallie Jackson.
I'm sure a video clip of that exchange will soon be available somewhere, you might enjoy seeing it.....or not.;)
gimmethesimplelife
1-20-20, 12:14pm
He remains the only presidential candidate I have ever given money too. Even though he is gay, and a poster boy for homonormativity.I very much agree, bae. It's true that only a couple of people who post here have met me IRL and I'm sure I can come across as out there to some here given views/stances I hold/take. That said, on the surface I've very much homonormative myself - at least with strangers and in public (for the most part) and in the workplace. I don't know that Buttigieg's chances are all that great but I see such hope in that he's running as a serious candidate to begin with. And I like how he's more moderate than Bernie and Warren. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-20-20, 12:18pm
Rob, how was your impeachment party? Did you wear your special outfit? Did you use the special tanging you bought to cook the special Impeachment chicken?
No full on impeachment parties yet, IL, just a few scattered cookouts when the House voted to impeach. And no I didn't wear my outfit yet - if there's no impeachment hopefully I can wear it on the night he's not reelected. And it's spelled tagine - a conically shaped clay based piece of Moroccan cookware - wonderful for chicken. Rob
And no I didn't wear my outfit yet - if there's no impeachment hopefully I can wear it on the night he's not reelected. FYI, the impeachment has already happened, as Nancy Pelosi likes to giggle to anyone who asks "he is impeached, forever".
gimmethesimplelife
1-20-20, 12:27pm
]He's still in office, no? To me the job is left undone to date and my neighborhood agrees. No big block parties until then Orange Menace To Civilized Society is out of office.
FYI, the impeachment has already happened, as Nancy Pelosi likes to giggle to anyone who asks "he is impeached, forever".
Nancy Pelosi takes this issue seriously and doesn't "giggle."
Nancy Pelosi takes this issue seriously and doesn't "giggle."
Far from it. Like Rob, she had her impeachment outfit picked out. All in black, as for a funeral or a goth rage. And she had her name printed in gold on the 32 pens she used to sign the thing. Probably saved a couple for the Smithsonian so future generations of tourists will know how historically important she was. Of course, she wouldn't giggle when issuing the scarlet letter.
gimmethesimplelife
1-20-20, 2:42pm
Far from it. Like Rob, she had her impeachment outfit picked out. All in black, as for a funeral or a goth rage. And she had her name printed in gold on the 32 pens she used to sign the thing. Probably saved a couple for the Smithsonian so future generations of tourists will know how historically important she was. Of course, she wouldn't giggle when issuing the scarlet letter.The pen she signed should be saved.....in this case, the pen was used as an instrument of Human Rights. Future generations will shake their heads over how Trump could have possibly been elected and might just view said pen as worth saving/celebrating. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-20-20, 2:42pm
The pen she signed should be saved.....in this case, the pen was used as an instrument of Human Rights. Future generations will shake their heads over how Trump could have possibly been elected and might just view said pen as worth saving/celebrating. RobShould be the pen she signed with above. Rob
About the same time you were posting this Dershowitz was on MSNBC being grilled about this very thing as the host tried to make the same negative insinuation as you. I missed part of his response because I was frying bacon at the time but he seemed to come away unscathed, to the obvious disappointment of Ms Hallie Jackson.
I'm sure a video clip of that exchange will soon be available somewhere, you might enjoy seeing it.....or not.;)
Back in 1998, Chuck Schumer ran on a campaign promise to vote to acquit Clinton. Now he talks about the importance of impartiality. Politics is funny.
The pen she signed should be saved.....in this case, the pen was used as an instrument of Human Rights. Future generations will shake their heads over how Trump could have possibly been elected and might just view said pen as worth saving/celebrating. Rob
They’ll probably want to display it with a continuous loop of her celebratory fist bump will Bill Maher so future generations will understand what a somber and serious matter it was.
Beat that, Schuyler Colfax!
Nancy Pelosi takes this issue seriously and doesn't "giggle."Really, I thought I detected one at about 3min, 50sec into this video, right after smiling and saying "and you're impeached forever". At least it seemed giggly to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPyA5EwLmE8&t=217s
About the same time you were posting this Dershowitz was on MSNBC being grilled about this very thing as the host tried to make the same negative insinuation as you. I missed part of his response because I was frying bacon at the time but he seemed to come away unscathed, to the obvious disappointment of Ms Hallie Jackson.
I'm sure a video clip of that exchange will soon be available somewhere, you might enjoy seeing it.....or not.;)
I will certainly look for it. As a defense lawyer if he couldn’t talk circles around her something would clearly be wrong. Whether what he said shows him to be at all consistent with past stated views is another question entirely. Not that I expect him to. He doesn’t get paid to be consistent. He gets paid to win cases.
I will certainly look for it. As a defense lawyer if he couldn’t talk circles around her something would clearly be wrong. Whether what he said shows him to be at all consistent with past stated views is another question entirely. Not that I expect him to. He doesn’t get paid to be consistent. He gets paid to win cases.I think his point was that he was being consistent, it's just that we misconstrue the meaning of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and tend to use it as a catch-all to achieve the result we'd like to see rather than allow the electorate to correct improprieties through the ballot box. I think he further argues that if the low standard of 'abuse of power' and 'contempt of congress' were allowed to become the standard for impeachment, every President including Lincoln and Roosevelt and Kennedy should have been impeached and that every future President almost certainly will.
And we're back to the question of whether it's a minor thing that trump used the power of his office to withhold foreign aid to an ally that desperately needed it solely for the personal reason of getting them to open a sham investigation of a political opponent in the hopes of changing the result of an upcoming election in his favor. We can go in circles all day on this and Dershowitz can make all the flowery arguments he wants about it and roughly zero people will change their mind.
I'd love to hear more about how Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy made secret decisions that were not for the benefit of the country's objectives and solely for their own personal benefit.
There are plenty of examples of abuse of power and contempt of Congress. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and authorized borrowing and spending without going through Congress, as well as shutting down hundreds of newspapers. Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans by executive order. Kennedy used the FBI and IRS as weapons against his enemies throughout his tenure.
I suppose some of it comes down to what are impeachable offenses at all when you can hide behind executive privilege and presidential powers. I'm sure there are more obvious examples of high crimes and misdemeanors, but also some that are in grey areas and deserve some scrutiny and a ruling of an impartial panel. Maybe some of it depends on a public consensus of the day.
The idea that "all's fair in politics; winning is the only thing" (to mix metaphors) is a fast slide down a slippery slope, and we should fight it where and when we can.
Teacher Terry
1-20-20, 7:32pm
They are going to spend 3 long days lasting until midnight for the proceedings. What are they hiding doing it past business hours?
They are going to spend 3 long days lasting until midnight for the proceedings. What are they hiding doing it past business hours?As I understand it, they can't start each day until afternoon to accommodate the Chief Justice's schedule down the street.
They are going to spend 3 long days lasting until midnight for the proceedings. What are they hiding doing it past business hours?
They are also imposing new ‘security’ restrictions on the press to minimize the damage to republican senators.
They are also imposing new ‘security’ restrictions on the press to minimize the damage to republican senators.
Well, it *is* a trial, it's not typical for the press to have access to jurors during the proceedings.
Well, it *is* a trial, it's not typical for the press to have access to jurors during the proceedings.
True. Although in a typical trial the jurors don’t normally announce their decision And agreement to work with the defense on tv before the trial has started.
Teacher Terry
1-20-20, 10:28pm
Jp, talk about keeping people in the dark. I would ask how that can be legal but we all know that they don’t care about breaking the law.
I’m not all that concerned about the hours they meet. I’m sure the press and the leakers will keep us informed whether the sun is shining outside or not. Plenty of things go on in Europe while it’s still dark over here, but we still manage to hear about them.
If they’re accommodating the Chief Justice’s day job, I don’t see that as a blow against democracy.
True. Although in a typical trial the jurors don’t normally announce their decision And agreement to work with the defense on tv before the trial has started.
both parties have already announced their decision. The trial is just for the 2020 election tv commercials.
I think his point was that he was being consistent, it's just that we misconstrue the meaning of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and tend to use it as a catch-all to achieve the result we'd like to see rather than allow the electorate to correct improprieties through the ballot box. I think he further argues that if the low standard of 'abuse of power' and 'contempt of congress' were allowed to become the standard for impeachment, every President including Lincoln and Roosevelt and Kennedy should have been impeached and that every future President almost certainly will.
I listened to the Dershowitz interview with Anderson Cooper, although I'm sure he is saying the same thing to all the talking heads. If he is correct and if Trump is acquitted on that legal basis, does that set precedent for all presidents to openly use foreign powers to influence elections, just as they might use campaign contributions? As long as criminal like behavior like bribery and treason are not involved. How far can that door open before criminal behavior is committed and does it exonerate Trump of any wrong doing in spite of all the witness testimony being accurate.
I suspect bribery is a hard case to prove in these examples, where political deals are done under the table or could easily be disguised as having reasons other than elections for political favors.
If he is correct and if Trump is acquitted on that legal basis, does that set precedent for all presidents to openly use foreign powers to influence elections, just as they might use campaign contributions? All the presidents in my lifetime have openly used foreign powers to influence elections, sometimes even ours. Our last president used taxpayer money to help finance opposition to Israel's ruling party.
After 3 years of constant "foreign intrusion in our elections" talk from those hoping to discredit our last election we've lost sight of the fact we've been doing the same thing all along.
All the presidents in my lifetime have openly used foreign powers to influence elections, sometimes even ours. Our last president used taxpayer money to help finance opposition to Israel's ruling party.
After 3 years of constant "foreign intrusion in our elections" talk from those hoping to discredit our last election we've lost sight of the fact we've been doing the same thing all along.
I'm sure there's truth to all of that even thought it doesn't seem right. For example, asking Russia to dig up dirt on Hillary knowing they might use covert channels not legally available here, or that they might provide information that is inaccurate or based on conspiracy theory only to receive favors.
Edit to add, I think in the Israel example the taxpayer money was used to influence their election, not ours, so maybe not the best example. It's no big secret that we've used money and even assassination attempts and backed military coups to determine foreign leaders.
I guess it would follow from your argument that when a president uses coercion over a foreign power to influence our election, there's really legally nothing we can do about it other than vote him/her out in the next election. Although other foreign influence over our elections are not ok.
After 3 years of constant "foreign intrusion in our elections" talk from those hoping to discredit our last election we've lost sight of the fact we've been doing the same thing all along.
This has certainly crossed my mind more than once.
Given the scammy, cover up style rules that Moscow Mitch has crafted the senate might as well just vote to not convict right off the bat. It would save time and be more honest.
Given the scammy, cover up style rules that Moscow Mitch has crafted the senate might as well just vote to not convict right off the bat. It would save time and be more honest.
Aren’t they the same scammy, cover up rules that applied for the Clinton impeachment?
Aren’t they the same scammy, cover up rules that applied for the Clinton impeachment?I'm watching Schiff and Nadler on their daily propaganda appearance on cable news. They're arguing that this trial shouldn't be compared to the Clinton trial because his was done fairly and this one is not. This one is not bi-partisan because there's a very good chance he won't be convicted. I'm not sure why the previous non-conviction was bi-partisan and this potential one is not, maybe because that's not the desired result?
Aren’t they the same scammy, cover up rules that applied for the Clinton impeachment?
Did the Clinton trial require a require vote to allow new witness/document testimony or did these things just come forward voluntarily?
Did the Clinton trial require a require vote to allow new witness/document testimony or did these things just come forward voluntarily?
The apparently voted 56-44 to allow depositions from three witnesses. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/happened-senate-impeachment-trial-bill-clinton-200120144249727.html
I guess it would follow from your argument that when a president uses coercion over a foreign power to influence our election, there's really legally nothing we can do about it other than vote him/her out in the next election. Although other foreign influence over our elections are not ok.I think that using undue influence to achieve any result whether it be in elections or forcing citizens to purchase products they don't want or punish those believed to be guilty of thought crimes should be resolved at the ballot box. So yeah, I guess so.
Impeachment was designed to protect the country from someone putting their interests ahead of the national interest. I don't think the House made the case that the national interest was harmed in this instance, even though it was unseemly, and the real effort is to influence the next election through political theater. That leaves me wondering whether or not we should allow the Democrats to succeed in their efforts to influence that election through Congressional action or make a statement that we're tired of their foolishness.
gimmethesimplelife
1-21-20, 9:00pm
I am busy busy busy right now until April so I have not had time to keep up with this latest. So the question I have to pose is simple: Should I be anticipating an impeachment celebration or not? I'm sensing some impeachment momentum? Rob
So the question I have to pose is simple: Should I be anticipating an impeachment celebration or not? I'm sensing some impeachment momentum? Rob
Trump has already been impeached.
gimmethesimplelife
1-21-20, 10:31pm
Trump has already been impeached.Let me be clear then, bae. To me impeachment means being kicked to the curb. Rob
Let me be clear then, bae. To me impeachment means being kicked to the curb. Rob
Except that it doesn't, Clinton was impeached but not kicked to the curb, Andrew Johnson was impeached but not kicked to the curb. In the history of this country no President has ever been kicked to the curb. You should stop using that term if you refuse to understand it and be honest in your desires. You want the Senate to do something no previous Senate has ever done, remove a sitting President from office because you don't like him and fear that your party cannot field a candidate capable of beating him in the next election.
You should have had your party weeks ago cause if there's any political civility left in this country the celebration outfit you bought well before this impeachment process began will be out of style and moth eaten before you get another opportunity.
To me impeachment means being kicked to the curb. Rob
To me, impeachment means submerging wrongdoers in vats of peach ice cream until they realize the error of their ways.
ToomuchStuff
1-22-20, 10:57am
3106
There is for your shirt, Rob.
gimmethesimplelife
1-22-20, 11:10am
3106
There is for your shirt, Rob.? Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-22-20, 11:12am
To me, impeachment means submerging wrongdoers in vats of peach ice cream until they realize the error of their ways.Uggggh. Peach ice cream sounds horrible. Just not a flavor I see lending itself well to ice cream. Uggggh. Rob
ToomuchStuff
1-22-20, 11:15am
? Rob
Fat fingers on a keyboard. Typing in two tabs at once (sending a how to fix email to Rob, and trying to post this, where it was saved with the picture I needed to send him).
Teacher Terry
1-22-20, 1:35pm
Rob, unfortunately Trump isn’t going anywhere. I watched some of it yesterday.
Rob, you are completely and utterly wrong about peach ice cream.
gimmethesimplelife
1-22-20, 2:28pm
Rob, you are completely and utterly wrong about peach ice cream.OK, Tybee, you've inspired me to give it a try. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-22-20, 2:29pm
Rob, unfortunately Trump isn’t going anywhere. I watched some of it yesterday.Election Day is less than a year away.....let's hope the people evict him from his tyranny/unfortunate grasp on power. Rob
Rob, you are completely and utterly wrong about peach ice cream.
Indeed.
One of my favorite treats is to throw a handful frozen peach slices, a banana, and a bit of cream into the blender, and boom - instant ice cream.
In August you all are invited to the Clark County Fair here in SW WA where you may stand in a long line for peach ice cream at the Dairy Wives booth. The real stuff.
ToomuchStuff
1-23-20, 2:25am
? Rob
Fat fingers on a keyboard. Typing in two tabs at once (sending a how to fix email to Rob, and trying to post this, where it was saved with the picture I needed to send him).
Came back to this, thought I typed your name wrong or posted the picture showing left hand threads (the thing I was working with them, via email on).
Rob, since (at least as far as I know, today) he wasn't impeached in the Senate yet, you can't wear the full outfit, so put that on a t shirt. and have some fun with it, since you don't have big orange out.
So after several days of senate trial several republican senators groused to the press that they wished there was new evidence. After those same senators voted multiple times to not call witnesses or allow additional documentary evidence. Apparently they think voters are super stoopid.
And then trump bragged about obstructing congress saying “we have all the material”. Perhaps one of the reporters should have pointed to that and said ‘there’s your new evidence.’
Apparently they think voters are super stoopid. ’
That seems to be a fairly common belief. Else why the three days of tearful, portentous opening remarks aimed at preventing the voters from interfering in the next election.
Are you talking about the tears republicans were shedding when their coverup was pointed out to them?
i was thinking of awesome Adam's choking up over the gravity of the situation. I think Rep Nadler accusing anyone who didn't vote his way of treason was a rhetorical masterstroke that changed the hearts and minds of anyone still awake at that point.
Considering that 70% of americans wanted a real trial with witnesses and evidence, the republicans are right to be crying when it was pointed out that they are engaging in a coverup and that their heads will be on a pike if they don't suck up to their leader. They all took an oath to uphold the constitution during this trial and they've all been purjuring themselves ever since. Hopefully at least a few of them will, next november, suffer the fate that caused those tears of fear.
Hopefully at least a few of them will, next november, suffer the fate that caused those tears of fear.Isn't that the whole point of political theater?
If they'd agreed to an actual trial instead of a coverup they wouldn't have set themselves up to be the subject of democratic political theater. In other words, they brought it upon themselves to have their lack of integrity put in the spotlight.
Considering that 70% of americans wanted a real trial with witnesses and evidence, the republicans are right to be crying when it was pointed out that they are engaging in a coverup and that their heads will be on a pike if they don't suck up to their leader. They all took an oath to uphold the constitution during this trial and they've all been purjuring themselves ever since. Hopefully at least a few of them will, next november, suffer the fate that caused those tears of fear.
Except for the more rabid partisans on both sides, I suspect these histrionics will be long forgotten by November. I doubt the mass of voters reporting they favor fair trials will express a great level of outrage that the Senate followed precedent and did not comply with the House managers’ demand that the Senate exercise a great deal more diligence than the House did.
So the voters that didn’t want a coverup are worried about the republican version of precedent? Hahahahahahaha.
Ldahl, you’re smarter than that.
So the voters that didn’t want a coverup are worried about the republican version of precedent? Hahahahahahaha.
Ldahl, you’re smarter than that.
I think what I said was just the opposite. They simply don’t care. They do not believe the proceedings are anything but political on both sides. They do not believe Trump’s ramblings. Nor do they believe that the Democrats are dedicated guardians of the Constitution and “Our Democracy”.
And why should they? They saw the endless efforts to build something out of Russian conspiracy theories. They saw the hurry-up-and-wait House gameplay. They hear highlights of the hyperbolic speechifying in the Senate, and doubt the purity of anyone’s agenda. I don’t think anyone is worried about getting voted out of office over procedural disagreements.
The November elections will turn on many issues, and the Ukrainian phone call will be one of the least important.
gimmethesimplelife
1-26-20, 4:02pm
Way beyond my usual 85006 issues and my health care access/affordability issues in the US....I am deeply worried for the future of the US. Supposedly 1/2 of registered voters want Trump gone, 1/2 want him to remain in office. Given that Trump seems to inspire strong pro/con reactions.....meaning that it's hard to feel neutral or indifferent towards him, coupled with standard of living decreases and easy access to guns in a population that does not always provide access to mental health help.....this could perhaps become a perfect storm with long term consequences.
I'd be thrilled to be wrong here. Time will tell. Rob
I'd be thrilled to be wrong here. Time will tell. RobConsider yourself thrilled.
gimmethesimplelife
1-26-20, 5:46pm
Consider yourself thrilled.If only there were some way to peek into the future and see what really transpires, independent of both of us and our opinions.....I'm lacking faith living in the America I do, but I do hope you prove to be right. Furthermore I would prefer that you are right.....once again, time will tell. Rob
I think what I said was just the opposite. They simply don’t care. They do not believe the proceedings are anything but political on both sides. They do not believe Trump’s ramblings. Nor do they believe that the Democrats are dedicated guardians of the Constitution and “Our Democracy”.
You may be right generally about their opinions of both parties. But I think you're wrong that they don't care. A wide majority cared that there should be a fair and honest trial with witnesses and evidence. And for those voters I don't think "I had to follow procedure" is going to be an especially effective argument against "Why did my opponent vote for a coverup instead of a fair and honest trial?"
.....I'm lacking faith living in the America I do, but I do hope you prove to be right. Rob, don't take this wrong but you've loudly professed your lack of faith in America for as long as you've been posting on these forums, well before Trump. I've lost track of how many times you've told us you've felt that way since you were 8 or sometimes 11 or 14. I sincerely believe if you stop looking for and imagining reasons to back up that lack of faith you'd be much happier. So, be thrilled, everything's gonna be fine.
gimmethesimplelife
1-26-20, 6:29pm
Rob, don't take this wrong but you've loudly professed your lack of faith in America for as long as you've been posting on these forums, well before Trump. I've lost track of how many times you've told us you've felt that way since you were 8 or sometimes 11 or 14. I sincerely believe if you stop looking for and imagining reasons to back up that lack of faith you'd be much happier. So, be thrilled, everything's gonna be fine.Then it won't surprise you one iota that I lack faith here, no? And please realize that when I was 8 and 11 and 14 having the realizations I've posted, I never once factored an election fail to the level of Donald J Trump taking place. That's a new one for America.....a completely new level of fail.
All that said, I still sincerely you and not I are right here.....but I have no faith in this. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-26-20, 6:32pm
Should be I still sincerely hope above.
You may be right generally about their opinions of both parties. But I think you're wrong that they don't care. A wide majority cared that there should be a fair and honest trial with witnesses and evidence. And for those voters I don't think "I had to follow procedure" is going to be an especially effective argument against "Why did my opponent vote for a coverup instead of a fair and honest trial?"
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that a majority of voters would have to subscribe to your definitions of “fair and honest” as well as “coverup” for that to work. It’s easy to get people to say they’re in favor of fairness and honesty. It’s more difficult to persuade them that politicians aren’t trying to spin those terms in their favor.
Way beyond my usual 85006 issues and my health care access/affordability issues in the US....I am deeply worried for the future of the US. Supposedly 1/2 of registered voters want Trump gone, 1/2 want him to remain in office. Given that Trump seems to inspire strong pro/con reactions.....meaning that it's hard to feel neutral or indifferent towards him, coupled with standard of living decreases and easy access to guns in a population that does not always provide access to mental health help.....this could perhaps become a perfect storm with long term consequences.
I'd be thrilled to be wrong here. Time will tell. Rob
What sort of Trumpageddon perfect storm are you worried about, exactly? Some kind of uprising by MAGA-hatted armed militias? Crazy people with guns driven over the edge by their twitter feeds? Democratic Socialists striving for equality by liquidating the rich?
Personally, I think we are a long way from Bosnia.
Latest Fox News poll. 50% of voters think trump should be convicted and removed, compared to 44% who think he shouldn’t. Next up, how the always trumpers say that’s good news for him. Martha mcsally, on the other hand, will continue to berate reporters by calling them liberal hacks if they dare to ask her thoughts on having an actual trial of the president. And lastly, pompeo channels judge rapey mcbeer in an interview with npr. He was shocked that the reporter has a better grasp than he does of where Ukraine is. No one was shocked that he was so pathetic in dealing with the press. It’s not one of his skills.
frugal-one
1-27-20, 4:10am
What sort of Trumpageddon perfect storm are you worried about, exactly? Some kind of uprising by MAGA-hatted armed militias? Crazy people with guns driven over the edge by their twitter feeds? .
You are not far off. How many trumpeteers have already caused violence by his manic tweets? trump spouting neo-nazis gatherings that have incited violence.... undoubtedly trump supporters. many in trump’s base are of this ilk.
frugal-one
1-27-20, 4:40am
The delay wasn't too bad when Obama claimed executive privilege during the Fast & Furious hearings. I think the Democrats didn't want to go down that road this time due to fear that if it would open up the requirement for additional witnesses that would reveal their complicity in identifying and encouraging a potential whistleblower.
Whistleblowing should be encouraged!
Latest Fox News poll. 50% of voters think trump should be convicted and removed, compared to 44% who think he shouldn’t. Next up, how the always trumpers say that’s good news for him. Martha mcsally, on the other hand, will continue to berate reporters by calling them liberal hacks if they dare to ask her thoughts on having an actual trial of the president. And lastly, pompeo channels judge rapey mcbeer in an interview with npr. He was shocked that the reporter has a better grasp than he does of where Ukraine is. No one was shocked that he was so pathetic in dealing with the press. It’s not one of his skills.
That;s something, that a Fox news poll shows that. Who is "Rapey" McBeer? Are you calling that person a rapist? Confused.
I think Rapey McBeer refers to supreme court justice Kavanaugh.
I think Rapey McBeer refers to supreme court justice Kavanaugh.
Oh, thank you--I was looking for someone named McBeer. Duh, on my part.
What sort of Trumpageddon perfect storm are you worried about, exactly? Some kind of uprising by MAGA-hatted armed militias? Crazy people with guns driven over the edge by their twitter feeds? Democratic Socialists striving for equality by liquidating the rich?
I think we are so far away from some sort of social uprising or domestic conflict that it's not on the menu of possibilities. I'm much less sure about how far I trust Don J. on international issues and avoiding some sort of global destabilizing event. Among my historic what if's is, what if the Iranian attack on our airbase had actually taken several American lives. I don't trust the guy to make sound decisions, he doesn't seem to use his wizened and experienced advisers, and we've lost some standing in international support.
Not that the same would ever repeat itself, but what if we had events along the same lines as a Cuban missile crisis.
It’s hard for me to believe we are in for domestic violence on the order of the 1860s, or even the 1960s.
iris lilies
1-27-20, 10:33am
It’s hard for me to believe we are in for domestic violence on the order of the 1860s, or even the 1960s.
Radical actors of today just punch their keyboard rather than blowing up buildings. Maybe that’s a good thing?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.