Page 4 of 57 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 680
  1. #37

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Only in America can a political party create a "collusion hoax" and then claim the person defending himself against the "collusion hoax" committed obstruction and should be impeached from office because he was publicly calling it a hoax. Lol.

    Paid-off politicians owned by lobbyists and special interests are doing exactly what they are told.





  2. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,932

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    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.
    Well thank God.


    I was afraid that the inevitability of the Republican Senate leaving the orange crook in office, would dissuade House Democrats from doing their constitutional duty. And the problem with that is, it sets the precedent that Trump's actions in office are "okay".



    I am disappointed in one thing: House Dems bending over so far backward in an effort to appear "reasonable" to moderate Repubs (as if there is such a thing!), that they only impeach on the narrow Whistleblower stuff. "Appeasement" has been a deeply-rooted feature of Dem congress-people in the era of Fox News. It's a huge weakness. The most important consideration is the precedent/posterity one: the House should have taken a stand on on the whole range of Trump's high crimes & misdemeanors. And from a pure tactics standpoint, should've made Team Trump defend the whole field.

    There should be two additional articles of impeachment:

    1. Obstruction of Justice, for the ten instances documented in the Mueller report (or some subset)
    2. Emoluments Violations, for the numerous payments from foreign governments to the Trump hotel

    That's not a minor quibble.



    But by far the most important thing is that the line has (for the most part) been maintained. A president can't do (most of) this shit and not be impeached. Repubs will lie and obfuscate and keep the crook; and that's fine. It's the world we have. Let it be on their head.





  3. #39

    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.
    If you dont believe this you are really ignorant. Its about as factual as you can get.





  4. #40

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Well thank God.


    I was afraid that the inevitability of the Republican Senate leaving the orange crook in office, would dissuade House Democrats from doing their constitutional duty. And the problem with that is, it sets the precedent that Trump's actions in office are "okay".



    I am disappointed in one thing: House Dems bending over so far backward in an effort to appear "reasonable" to moderate Repubs (as if there is such a thing!), that they only impeach on the narrow Whistleblower stuff. "Appeasement" has been a deeply-rooted feature of Dem congress-people in the era of Fox News. It's a huge weakness. The most important consideration is the precedent/posterity one: the House should have taken a stand on on the whole range of Trump's high crimes & misdemeanors. And from a pure tactics standpoint, should've made Team Trump defend the whole field.

    There should be two additional articles of impeachment:

    1. Obstruction of Justice, for the ten instances documented in the Mueller report (or some subset)
    2. Emoluments Violations, for the numerous payments from foreign governments to the Trump hotel

    That's not a minor quibble.



    But by far the most important thing is that the line has (for the most part) been maintained. A president can't do (most of) this shit and not be impeached. Repubs will lie and obfuscate and keep the crook; and that's fine. It's the world we have. Let it be on their head.
    It has to be kept simple for this country. The two articles of impeachment are indisputable and should suffice with a fair trial in the Senate.

    Im curious why McConnell would come out on the record saying he wouldn't even consider a fair trial. McConnell is a careful and artful strategist. I can only believe it's an attempt to make Pelosi do exactly what she is considering and that is to hold the articles back from the Senate. The only reason he would want her to hold them back is because he thinks their might be enough Republicans to vote for a procedure to permit witnesses. I really don't think Trump wants that to happen. Roberts might order the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani etc. If that happens, the stakes of the Senate trial switch into the Democrats favor.

    McConnell saying what he said, gives Pelosi the space to slow down the next step and I think public opinion supports Pelosi negotiating for better terms. Meanwhile, Democrats get to message the fact that Trump is now impeached which could swing public opinion more in their favor for a longer period prior to the Senate clearing him.

    It seems like an unforced error be McConnell. I just don't believe he makes that egregious of an error. I wonder what his strategy is?





  5. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,932

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelious View Post
    Roberts might order the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani etc.
    How would that happen?

    The chief's role seems to be largely ceremonial. Senate sets its own rules for the trial. Did Rehnquist "do" anything when he presided over Clinton's 20 yrs ago?





  6. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    15,932

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelious View Post
    McConnell saying what he said, gives Pelosi the space to slow down the next step and I think public opinion supports Pelosi negotiating for better terms.
    ??

    Not sure what you're talking about here. Nance has fired her cannon. She plays no role from here out: there's nothing to "negotiate". The House phase is over. The Senate majority is in full control from this point forward.





  7. #43

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    ??

    Not sure what you're talking about here. Nance has fired her cannon. She plays no role from here out: there's nothing to "negotiate". The House phase is over. The Senate majority is in full control from this point forward.
    I am most certain that the senate trial will be every bit as "fair" as the impeachment inquiry was in the house.





  8. #44

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    ??

    Not sure what you're talking about here. Nance has fired her cannon. She plays no role from here out: there's nothing to "negotiate". The House phase is over. The Senate majority is in full control from this point forward.
    I don't know if that's accurate. She can hold the articles back and if more information leaks and public opinion builds for removal, McConnell will find himself in a tough position. She isn't powerless and the facts are certainly on her side. My question though is why would McConnell say what he did? The 60% of this country who despise Trump aren't going to find that helpful. It doesn't make sense.





  9. #45

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelious View Post
    It has to be kept simple for this country. The two articles of impeachment are indisputable and should suffice with a fair trial in the Senate.

    Im curious why McConnell would come out on the record saying he wouldn't even consider a fair trial. McConnell is a careful and artful strategist. I can only believe it's an attempt to make Pelosi do exactly what she is considering and that is to hold the articles back from the Senate. The only reason he would want her to hold them back is because he thinks their might be enough Republicans to vote for a procedure to permit witnesses. I really don't think Trump wants that to happen. Roberts might order the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani etc. If that happens, the stakes of the Senate trial switch into the Democrats favor.

    McConnell saying what he said, gives Pelosi the space to slow down the next step and I think public opinion supports Pelosi negotiating for better terms. Meanwhile, Democrats get to message the fact that Trump is now impeached which could swing public opinion more in their favor for a longer period prior to the Senate clearing him.

    It seems like an unforced error be McConnell. I just don't believe he makes that egregious of an error. I wonder what his strategy is?
    I hear the gop is having a closed door meeting this weekend to draw up articles of impeachment for the next dem president. I hear obstruction of Congress is the first article.





  10. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    52,653
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelious View Post
    I don't know if that's accurate. She can hold the articles back and if more information leaks and public opinion builds for removal, McConnell will find himself in a tough position. She isn't powerless and the facts are certainly on her side. My question though is why would McConnell say what he did? The 60% of this country who despise Trump aren't going to find that helpful. It doesn't make sense.
    Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.

    RIP #25





  11. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    832

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by steelerhater View Post
    If you don’t believe this you are really ignorant. It’s about as factual as you can get.
    yeah... I've actually respected Jim up until this point. This was the most ignorant thing he's said hands down. There is literally an investigation, on paper, concluding that the FBI LIED to the FISA Court, and the FISA court is on record stating that is exactly what happened. This isn't a "myth" and anyone calling that isn't serious about researching politics... they are just screen grabbing their opinions off of Google.

    Complete loss of any referent power by Jim. Sad because he was actually the most interesting of the debaters....
    "Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else." -Margaret Mead





  12. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    832

    Re: A moral obligation to impeach

    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelious View Post
    I don't know if that's accurate. She can hold the articles back and if more information leaks and public opinion builds for removal, McConnell will find himself in a tough position. She isn't powerless and the facts are certainly on her side. My question though is why would McConnell say what he did? The 60% of this country who despise Trump aren't going to find that helpful. It doesn't make sense.
    Wait... if "facts" are on her side... like you claim... then why would she have to wait for more information? Does that make sense?

    The 60% of the country that despise Trump? That isn't even close to true. He's actually gained popularity during the impeachment. Currently a majority of Americans are against impeachment... that doesn't sound like 60% or even close.
    Emerson has the highest weighted poll at the moment on his general approval rating, and he's not even at 50% disapproval... and that's not "despise"... that is just, "I don't really like what he's saying..."

    I've called you out before for using made up %'s... knock it off man. You don't like Trump, and that is fine, but no need to be over-dramatic about it and just make stuff up...
    "Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else." -Margaret Mead





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