Page 1 of 57 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 680
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,949

    A moral obligation to impeach

    Nothing less than that, right?

    I guess I get Nancy P's concern. There is no way in hell this Republican senate would ever do the right thing. They've demonstrated for 12+ years their eagerness to put party before country. So in the sense of removing the Orange Clown from office, impeachment would be a "waste of time". The House would be playing into a stacked deck – like going into court where the judge & jury have been bought. Even faced with overwhelming evidence, they would deflect and justify and what-about and distract and inflame their base and lie: all the tricks they have developed to high art this past decade or so.

    So as I understand it, the "party leadership" take is that the inevitable loss in the Senate, would strengthen the Orange Clown heading into the '20 election. Would backfire & boomerang etc etc. Impeachment is not the politically savvy play. Would increase the odds of the Republicans keeping the White House. It's irresponsible to squander electoral resources and public attention and so forth on a quixotic lost cause.

    I get it.

    But political expediency is the wrong lens to look at it. This is not about politics. This is about the integrity of the Republic. Nothing less than that. Precedent matters. Not doing something is as impactful as doing something. Failing to impeach this crook would set a precedent. And that precedent is unthinkable. It's completely unacceptable.

    Yes, I get that it's probably inevitable that this Senate would leave the guy in office. But "likelihood of success" CANNOT be the principle used in making the decision. The ONLY principle is whether or not high crimes & misdemeanors were committed: whether it's The Right Thing To Do. Not political expediency, not whether it strengthens your hand going into an election cycle: none of that shit.

    The only question before the House is, whether or not Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense. That's it. They can either set the precedent that it isn't; or they can confirm the precedent set by Congress in 1974 and 1998 that it is.

    If the Republican senators wants to write their names into history as deciding that this crook should remain in office, then MAKE them. Not impeaching lets them off the hook. Make them look the evidence full in the face, and then vote to keep him. But at least do your part.

    I don't see that there's any other way to look at it.



    Now, if Nancy P is executing a slow-play, trying a bunch of "less confrontational" maneuvers that she knows will be rebuffed, so that the House can finally arrive at impeachment "more in sorrow than in anger" – working to create an appearance of not rushing into impeachment, but instead being forced into it reluctantly – then ok. But let's get to the climax of Act Two soon.

    If instead she's holding back from lack of guts: than that's disgusting. This whole batch of Democrats would need to be replaced with ones who have some conviction. Who haven't been brow-beaten and hypnotized by Bitch McConell & Friends. We need a real opposition party, not a bunch of whiners shuffling their feet and waiting for the thugs to start playing nice.



    Ugh. I guess I have to do what is just about the most impotent thing I can think of. I have to write my congressman.

    I'm sending a strongly worded letter, dammit!





  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,949

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Everyone's seen the DOJ Alumni Statement, right?

    We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

    Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

    The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming...
    Not really arguable.





  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,949

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    This is the thing that got me riled up tonight: opinion piece in the Washington Post a couple days ago, from a guy named Walter Dellinger.

    Dellinger is currently a Professor of Law at Duke; also leads Harvard's Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Clinic. Back in 1996-7 he was the acting US Solicitor General, arguing before SCOTUS. Before that he was an Asst US Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration. Not just some guy, in other words, but a fairly big name in Law.


    Democrats’ obsession with redaction is obscuring the obvious
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...766_story.html
    The more I review the report, the more absurd and misleading the we-need-to-know-more response seems to be. And the more it seems to have contributed to public misunderstanding. How different would it have been if a unified chorus of Democratic leaders in Congress and on the campaign trail had promptly proclaimed the actual truth: This report makes the unquestionable case that the president regularly and audaciously violated his oath and committed the most serious high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Mueller’s extraordinary 2,800-subpoena, 500-search-warrant, two-year investigation fully established not merely crimes but also the betrayal of the president’s office: a failure to defend the country’s electoral system from foreign attack and acts of interference with justice that shred the rule of law. Congress doesn’t need to read more to announce what is obvious
    ...

    My concern is that the House’s focus on process — such as requesting redacted material — constitutes a strong, implicit suggestion that what we have seen from Mueller is not enough to assess the president. That is just false. The report lays out in detail specific acts of obstruction by the president, as well as the extensive evidence that backs up those claims. More than 900 former federal prosecutors (including Republicans and Democrats) have publicly declared that, if anyone else had committed those same acts, they would be under indictment.

    What will we say in the event the remaining 7 percent of text adds little or nothing to the overwhelming case of presidential wrongdoing already made out by the report? By not having begun impeachment proceedings or taken other strong action, Democrats may have conceded the debate over the Mueller report’s conclusion.
    That's how I feel about it. Ol' Nance is parsing grammar and ignoring the big pic.

    Hopefully I'm wrong.





  4. #4

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Stay tuned for the real collusion and obstruction charges. Tick, tick tick.





  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,949

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by CarrollCoRaven View Post
    Stay tuned for the real collusion and obstruction charges. Tick, tick tick.
    Oh, is this the myth that Democrats and the FBI colluded to fabricate an investigation against Trump and his campaign?

    Yah, sure. Have fun with that.





  6. #6

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Oh, is this the myth that Democrats and the FBI colluded to fabricate an investigation against Trump and his campaign?

    Yah, sure. Have fun with that.
    Not a myth. It’s pretty obvious if you’ve been paying attention.





  7. #7

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    This is the thing that got me riled up tonight: opinion piece in the Washington Post a couple days ago, from a guy named Walter Dellinger.

    Dellinger is currently a Professor of Law at Duke; also leads Harvard's Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Clinic. Back in 1996-7 he was the acting US Solicitor General, arguing before SCOTUS. Before that he was an Asst US Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration. Not just some guy, in other words, but a fairly big name in Law.


    Democrats’ obsession with redaction is obscuring the obvious
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...766_story.html


    That's how I feel about it. Ol' Nance is parsing grammar and ignoring the big pic.

    Hopefully I'm wrong.
    You do realize that Obama was the President that failed to “defend the electoral system from foreign attack”, right? So I guess in your mind buying Facebook ads is worse than the Saudis pumping millions into the Clinton “Foundation” in return for them running this country after she was elected.





  8. #8

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by steelerhater View Post
    You do realize that Obama was the President that failed to “defend the electoral system from foreign attack”, right? So I guess in your mind buying Facebook ads is worse than the Saudis pumping millions into the Clinton “Foundation” in return for them running this country after she was elected.
    Plus ol' Walter is a democrat so of course he wants Trump to be impeached. More dreams from the democrats.
    "A moron, a rapist, and a Pittsburgh Steeler walk into a bar. He sits down and says, “Hi I’m Ben may I have a drink please?”
    ProFootballMock





  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,949

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by darb72 View Post
    Plus ol' Walter is a democrat so of course he wants Trump to be impeached.
    Anyone with an interest in the rule of law wants Trump impeached.

    So, that excludes Republicans.





  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,949

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by steelerhater View Post
    You do realize that Obama was the President that failed to “defend the electoral system from foreign attack”, right?
    Obama failed to stop the Trump campaign from committing crimes! He's the real villain here!

    Well done.


    Quote Originally Posted by steelerhater View Post
    So I guess in your mind buying Facebook ads is worse than the Saudis pumping millions into the Clinton “Foundation” in return for them running this country after she was elected.
    Clinton Foundation tax returns have been publicly available and auditable (is that a word?) for ~20 years. Please compare & contrast that level transparency with the Orange Clown's.

    You have innuendos about Clinton, and documented actions about Trump. And you believe Clinton's (unspecified) actions were somehow criminal and/or shady; while the Crook-In-Chief is squeaky clean and above-board. Yah, that's credible.





  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,949

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by darb72 View Post
    Plus ol' Walter is a democrat so of course ...
    Gotcha. Anyone who ever served at any level of government in a Democratic administration, is incapable of fairness and judgement. Understood.

    Only Republicans can be trusted, I suppose?





  12. #12

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Obama failed to stop the Trump campaign from committing crimes! He's the real villain here!

    Well done.


    Clinton Foundation tax returns have been publicly available and auditable (is that a word?) for ~20 years. Please compare & contrast that level transparency with the Orange Clown's.

    You have innuendos about Clinton, and documented actions about Trump. And you believe Clinton's (unspecified) actions were somehow criminal and/or shady; while the Crook-In-Chief is squeaky clean and above-board. Yah, that's credible.
    Quite a coincidence that the Saudis and other foreign countries stopped their very generous “donations” to the Clinton Foundation once she lost the election.

    What documented actions about Trump are you talking about? By the way, I don’t believe Trump is squeaky clean, but I’ll take him any day over Hillary.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site