Results 37 to 48 of 751
Thread: A moral obligation to impeach
-
05-21-2019, 10:38 AM #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.
-
12-18-2019, 10:52 PM #38Four-eyed Raven
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Balt-Wash corridor
- Posts
- 24,662
Re: A moral obligation to impeach
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:
- Obstruction of Justice, for the ten instances documented in the Mueller report (or some subset)
- 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.
-
12-18-2019, 11:49 PM #39Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,595
-
12-19-2019, 12:19 AM #40Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
- Posts
- 160
Re: A moral obligation to impeach
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?
-
12-19-2019, 02:06 AM #41Four-eyed Raven
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Balt-Wash corridor
- Posts
- 24,662
-
12-19-2019, 02:21 AM #42Four-eyed Raven
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Balt-Wash corridor
- Posts
- 24,662
-
12-19-2019, 07:17 AM #43On The Practice Squad
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 53
-
12-19-2019, 08:01 AM #44Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
- Posts
- 160
Re: A moral obligation to impeach
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.
-
12-19-2019, 08:18 AM #45Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 3,074
-
-
12-19-2019, 10:13 AM #47
Re: A moral obligation to impeach
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
-
12-19-2019, 10:23 AM #48
Re: A moral obligation to impeach
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