Jump to content

Time to impeach?


Yes or No?  

86 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Congress of the US begin formal Impeachment proceedings against Pres Trump?

    • Yes
      61
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Putting the screws to someone only matters if they have shame. It is an effort to use their shame. Do you think Mitch Mcconnell has any shame? Our system will be forever corrupted by the precedent of

Impeachment inquiry might be one of the few things Trump has actually earned in his lifetime.

What I first typed just now: That's cool.  I can agree to disagree on whether it's a racist term.  But after researching it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching I think I'm goin

Posted Images

10 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

What do stars have to do with you overusing acronyms?  Your overuse is more indication you lost the argument long ago.

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent opinion piece by Charles Sykes -

OPINION

Dear GOP, Some Scary Advice on How to Survive Your Impeachment Nightmare

Take it from the movies, denying reality is not going to slay the monster.

By CHARLES SYKES

October 29, 2019

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/29/gop-advice-impeachment-nightmare-trump-229885

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sean said:

Excellent opinion piece by Charles Sykes -

OPINION

Dear GOP, Some Scary Advice on How to Survive Your Impeachment Nightmare

Take it from the movies, denying reality is not going to slay the monster.

By CHARLES SYKES

October 29, 2019

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/29/gop-advice-impeachment-nightmare-trump-229885

The problem here is that Sykes makes some rather unjustified (IMHO) assumptions

1- that Republican Congresscritters... especially Senators... have a spine and a conscience

2- that the Republican Party as whole is in favor of continued constitutional democracy

That aside, I really like the article

(quoted from above link)

You need to consider the full implications of the precedent you will be setting if you vote to acquit the president. Imagine a second Trump term beyond the reach of credible constitutional accountability. Consider what that would mean for our political culture, constitutional norms and the future of your party.

Looking at assumption #1, how many Republican congresscritters have even dared to condemn the "occupy impeachment hearings" panty-raid? If -ANY- have, I missed it. They have zero sense of right and wrong, only a sense of entitlement. They are willing toadies even at the cost of the dissolution of their own offices. Looking at assumption #2, somebody needs to wise them up that -IF- they continue to feed the bloated ego of President Trump and demand that Congress give up it's power, then they will also lose -their- power.

The reason our Constitution has worked in the past is the balance of forces. Each branch of government has specified powers which counterbalance the others. Once the President can make foreign policy on personal whim, for his own profit, and can spend Federal dollars on anything he chooses, why will the sub-toadies (lobbyists) pay them any mind at all much less make PAC contributions?

These people are not just worms and sycophants, they are not just anti-Democrat but anti-democracy, no surprise.... but it is a surprise that they are so short-sighted and stupid that they have no concern for getting booted off the gravy train once their Dictator no longer needs them.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jerseyguy said:

In his speech at a police chief convention in Chicago today, Trump ragged on Chicago, its mayor, and police chief.

He repeated this off told fable:A ‘strong-looking guy’ on a motorcycle: President Donald Trump resurrects tale of mystery cop who could clean up Chicago almost overnight”

I know who it was.  Nicholas Cage in his Ghost Rider costume.

Or it’s a fantasy that Trump has of bringing in members of a certain Russian Motorcycle gang to clean things up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The problem here is that Sykes makes some rather unjustified (IMHO) assumptions

1- that Republican Congresscritters... especially Senators... have a spine and a conscience

2- that the Republican Party as whole is in favor of continued constitutional democracy

I don’t get that from the article. He’s hoping that there are some vestigial remnants of a Republican spine and encouraging them to do the right thing. I think he knows it’s a long shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

What do stars have to do with you overusing acronyms?  Your overuse is more indication you lost the argument long ago.

What argument, your elk are predicting doom and gloom for POTUS,  I am not seeing it happen. My eyesight  is 2020 :lol:. In the meantime,  this thread and drip are providing wonderful history if Clean doesnt wipe them out after Nov 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, warbird said:

What argument, your elk are predicting doom and gloom for POTUS,  I am not seeing it happen. My eyesight  is 2020 :lol:. In the meantime,  this thread and drip are providing wonderful history if Clean doesnt wipe them out after Nov 2020.

Trump broke the law and you don’t care.  That’s the record here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem -

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html

Excerpt -

WASHINGTON — Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony. 

The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter. 

Colonel Vindman, who appeared on Capitol Hill wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform and military medals, told House impeachment investigators that he tried to change the reconstructed transcript made by the White House staff to reflect the omissions. But while some of his edits appeared to have been successful, he said, those two corrections were not made.

Colonel Vindman did not testify to a motive behind the editing process. But his testimony is likely to drive investigators to ask further questions about how officials handled the call, including changes to the transcript and the decision to put it into the White House’s most classified computer system — and whether those moves were meant to conceal the conversation’s most controversial aspects.

The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call, which was first reported by the C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry. There are plenty of other examples of Mr. Trump referring to Ukraine-related conspiracy theories and asking for investigations of the Biden family. But Colonel Vindman’s account offered a hint to solving a mystery surrounding the conversation: what Mr. Trump’s aides left out of the transcript in places where ellipses indicated dropped words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sean said:

Ahem -

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html

Excerpt -

WASHINGTON — Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony. 

The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter. 

Colonel Vindman, who appeared on Capitol Hill wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform and military medals, told House impeachment investigators that he tried to change the reconstructed transcript made by the White House staff to reflect the omissions. But while some of his edits appeared to have been successful, he said, those two corrections were not made.

Colonel Vindman did not testify to a motive behind the editing process. But his testimony is likely to drive investigators to ask further questions about how officials handled the call, including changes to the transcript and the decision to put it into the White House’s most classified computer system — and whether those moves were meant to conceal the conversation’s most controversial aspects.

The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call, which was first reported by the C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry. There are plenty of other examples of Mr. Trump referring to Ukraine-related conspiracy theories and asking for investigations of the Biden family. But Colonel Vindman’s account offered a hint to solving a mystery surrounding the conversation: what Mr. Trump’s aides left out of the transcript in places where ellipses indicated dropped words.

Well goll durn. That’s why those ellipses were in that memorandum. I am shocked I tell you. SHOCKED!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Well goll durn. That’s why those ellipses were in that memorandum. I am shocked I tell you. SHOCKED!

The article seems to carefully avoid what the "Light Colonel" wanted imcluded......

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Campaign finance violation

Bribery

Honest services fraud

Extortion

Witness intimidation

Obstruction of Justice

Conspiracy

Plus the five that Mueller hung around his neck.

 

Cites on each please, this Trump fellow seems felonious.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, warbird said:

Cites on each please, this Trump fellow seems felonious.....

You can start here. Not Void Ho. Let us know when you have finished and then we can move on to the rest. You're more than welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

Cites on each please, this Trump fellow seems felonious.....

1. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Chair_Weintraub_on_Illegal_Foreign_Contributions.pdf

2.  18 USC 201

3. https://www.justsecurity.org/66291/trumps-call-to-ukraine-may-constitute-honest-services-fraud-a-core-crime-of-public-corruption/

4. https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-whistleblower-is-right-trump-may-have-committed-extortion-and-bribery?ref=scroll

5. Trump said the whistleblower was a spy and said "you remember what we did to spies in the old days".

6. After the July 25th call to Ukraine president Trump had the files of the call moved to a separate secure server. that constitutes obstruction of justice.

7. conspiring with anyone to commit honest services fraud, bribery, or obstruction of justice.

8. Mueller https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

 

4 minutes ago, bhyde said:

You can start here. Not Void Ho. Let us know when you have finished and then we can move on to the rest. You're more than welcome.

Since that starts with "Investigation into Russian interference....." I will ask for an abbreviated cited reference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

1. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Chair_Weintraub_on_Illegal_Foreign_Contributions.pdf

2.  18 USC 201

3. https://www.justsecurity.org/66291/trumps-call-to-ukraine-may-constitute-honest-services-fraud-a-core-crime-of-public-corruption/

4. https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-whistleblower-is-right-trump-may-have-committed-extortion-and-bribery?ref=scroll

5. Trump said the whistleblower was a spy and said "you remember what we did to spies in the old days".

6. After the July 25th call to Ukraine president Trump had the files of the call moved to a separate secure server. that constitutes obstruction of justice.

7. conspiring with anyone to commit honest services fraud, bribery, or obstruction of justice.

8. Mueller https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

 

 

#1, you are a fuckwad....

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

1. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Chair_Weintraub_on_Illegal_Foreign_Contributions.pdf

2.  18 USC 201

3. https://www.justsecurity.org/66291/trumps-call-to-ukraine-may-constitute-honest-services-fraud-a-core-crime-of-public-corruption/

4. https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-whistleblower-is-right-trump-may-have-committed-extortion-and-bribery?ref=scroll

5. Trump said the whistleblower was a spy and said "you remember what we did to spies in the old days".

6. After the July 25th call to Ukraine president Trump had the files of the call moved to a separate secure server. that constitutes obstruction of justice.

7. conspiring with anyone to commit honest services fraud, bribery, or obstruction of justice.

8. Mueller https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

 

 

#3, not adjudicated in articles of impeachment, you are a fuckwad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

1. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Chair_Weintraub_on_Illegal_Foreign_Contributions.pdf

2.  18 USC 201

3. https://www.justsecurity.org/66291/trumps-call-to-ukraine-may-constitute-honest-services-fraud-a-core-crime-of-public-corruption/

4. https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-whistleblower-is-right-trump-may-have-committed-extortion-and-bribery?ref=scroll

5. Trump said the whistleblower was a spy and said "you remember what we did to spies in the old days".

6. After the July 25th call to Ukraine president Trump had the files of the call moved to a separate secure server. that constitutes obstruction of justice.

7. conspiring with anyone to commit honest services fraud, bribery, or obstruction of justice.

8. Mueller https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

 

 

#4, If?  Not adjudicated, you are a fuckwad

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

1. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Chair_Weintraub_on_Illegal_Foreign_Contributions.pdf

2.  18 USC 201

3. https://www.justsecurity.org/66291/trumps-call-to-ukraine-may-constitute-honest-services-fraud-a-core-crime-of-public-corruption/

4. https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-whistleblower-is-right-trump-may-have-committed-extortion-and-bribery?ref=scroll

5. Trump said the whistleblower was a spy and said "you remember what we did to spies in the old days".

6. After the July 25th call to Ukraine president Trump had the files of the call moved to a separate secure server. that constitutes obstruction of justice.

7. conspiring with anyone to commit honest services fraud, bribery, or obstruction of justice.

8. Mueller https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

 

 

#8, May have..., might be ...., could have...., again, you are a fuckwad. The others items lack links to disprove your assertions so you may or may not be more of a fuckwad than you have already displayed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, warbird said:

#8, May have..., might be ...., could have...., again, you are a fuckwad. The others items lack links to disprove your assertions so you may or may not be more of a fuckwad than you have already displayed.

The crimes are on the first entry. The cites are on the next entry by me. Too bad if you don't like it, Richard Nixon cried in the helicopter, Trump will be crying and whimpering every day for the rest of his wasted life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

The crimes are on the first entry. The cites are on the next entry by me. Too bad if you don't like it, Richard Nixon cried in the helicopter, Trump will be crying and whimpering every day for the rest of his wasted life.

Maybe he can get a beautiful dog & have a perfect conversation with her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, warbird said:

 

Since that starts with "Investigation into Russian interference....." I will ask for an abbreviated cited reference.

Or you could just man up and read the report. You've been spoon feed answers to every question you have asked multiple times by multiple people. Now it's your turn to show some spine and lay off the booze and smokes for an evening and try to actually figure out what is plainly obvious to most everyone else. Quit being a lazy fuck.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, warbird said:
8 hours ago, badlatitude said:

1. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Chair_Weintraub_on_Illegal_Foreign_Contributions.pdf

2.  18 USC 201

3. https://www.justsecurity.org/66291/trumps-call-to-ukraine-may-constitute-honest-services-fraud-a-core-crime-of-public-corruption/

4. https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-whistleblower-is-right-trump-may-have-committed-extortion-and-bribery?ref=scroll

5. Trump said the whistleblower was a spy and said "you remember what we did to spies in the old days".

6. After the July 25th call to Ukraine president Trump had the files of the call moved to a separate secure server. that constitutes obstruction of justice.

7. conspiring with anyone to commit honest services fraud, bribery, or obstruction of justice.

8. Mueller https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

 

 

#1, you are a fuckwad....

Careful

You may be offered a job on Trump's defense team, with your ability to make carefully enumerated childish insults

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Campaign finance violation

Bribery

Honest services fraud

Extortion

Witness intimidation

Obstruction of Justice

Conspiracy

Plus the five that Mueller hung around his neck.

 

don't forget

wearing the same bland blue suit day in and day out B)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Careful

You may be offered a job on Trump's defense team, with your ability to make carefully enumerated childish insults

- DSK

The eloquence of his response, and the number of words he used definitely puts him high up on the "should work for Trump" list.  Bigly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I don't think we give Warbird enough credit.  Prior to him, can you remember the last time you heard anyone use the term sissyboy?  Me thinks he doth protest too much.  

The guy is known as the Bard of Wisconsin.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It will be the 4th of July when he testifies.  He's going to hang Pence, Perry, and Pompeo as well.   Can probably throw some shit on Barr just for fun.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops.  Judge Napolitano points out that Rep. Schiff has followed the impeachment rules written by Americans in 2015 when they were the majority in the House.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/468316-foxs-napolitano-defends-schiff-hes-following-the-rules-of-the-house 

 

What say you, bullshitters?  Spin it up!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Vote is 232-196 to Impeach.

A colleague offered that 2 Democrats voting "Nay" renders this pointless.  They're truly trying to polish this turd.

So they approved rules....  I'm guessing that the Faithful will object on the basis of the rules from 2015 which they had been using (to which the Faithful objected) are now the rules that they should be using.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a fairly evenhanded view from CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/impeachment-vote-strategy/index.html

Many will call it "house votes to impeach".  What it is, is a vote for rules by which to conduct an impeachment inquiry.  The House has finally told us (and themselves?) what they're actually doing.  Good, it's long overdue, and letting the Intelligence Committee do it under double-secret probation was not a good "look" for the Dems, nor is Chairman Schiff a good figurehead, he's got that Latka Gravas thing, and has been economical with the truth about the whistleblower's interactions with his office.

Game on!!  This is just me guessing, but I expect the phone call, and the Ukraine in general or particular, will ultimately have less resonance with the average nonpartisan (or at least nonpolitical) Joe or Jane, than it does with those who follow politics and "take a side".  Now I could be underestimating how many of the latter there, and overestimating the former. 

When will we know by??  Christmas??  Twelfth Night?  Carnival??  Beats me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

the #1 rule of the Trump era for Trumpalo bullshitters is the rules don't apply to them. That applies everywhere

@Dog ain't going to show his face, and nolatom is going to whine that all the bullshitters have been driven away by mean democrats calling out the bullshitters on their bullshitting.

What, are you worried that nobody will be around to enjoy your head exploding any more?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Here's a fairly evenhanded view from CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/impeachment-vote-strategy/index.html

Many will call it "house votes to impeach".  What it is, is a vote for rules by which to conduct an impeachment inquiry.  The House has finally told us (and themselves?) what they're actually doing.  Good, it's long overdue, and letting the Intelligence Committee do it under double-secret probation was not a good "look" for the Dems, nor is Chairman Schiff a good figurehead, he's got that Latka Gravas thing, and has been economical with the truth about the whistleblower's interactions with his office.

Game on!!  This is just me guessing, but I expect the phone call, and the Ukraine in general or particular, will ultimately have less resonance with the average nonpartisan (or at least nonpolitical) Joe or Jane, than it does with those who follow politics and "take a side".  Now I could be underestimating how many of the latter there, and overestimating the former. 

When will we know by??  Christmas??  Twelfth Night?  Carnival??  Beats me.

Fundamentally, you have to ask yourself if it’s wrong for the president to use the power of US foreign policy to strongarm other countries into helping said president with his re-election. 
 

what’s next, threatening to bomb them if they don’t help? Would THAT be too much? Where’s the line Nola?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not just wrong. It is, but it is also illegal. However, it is DOJ doctrine not to prosecute a sitting President. So that is left to Congress with impeachment. He’ll be prosecuted after he leaves office as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Good, it's long overdue, and letting the Intelligence Committee do it under double-secret probation was not a good "look" for the Dems, nor is Chairman Schiff a good figurehead, 

 

Lots of people hate prosecutors.  Good prosecutors give zero fucks about their "look."  Time to do what Trump does: Carry on regardless.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Lots of people hate prosecutors.  Good prosecutors give zero fucks.



Fair enough, but that's not his role in fronting for the committee.  But politicians do care how they come across.  He doesn't come off well.  Your mileage with him of course may vary.  He was weaselly when asked if he and his committee had spoken with whistleblower, and caught flak for it from both sides.

But that's a sideshow now.  Now there's impeachment, and Congress (the House, anyway) is going to try to take the ultimate decision away from the voters.  Yeah, the Constitution says they can.  Should they?  Ultimately I think they won't, though the House will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Fair enough, but that's not his role in fronting for the committee.  But politicians do care how they come across.  He doesn't come off well.  Your mileage with him of course may vary.  He was weaselly when asked if he and his committee had spoken with whistleblower, and caught flak for it from both sides.

But that's a sideshow now.  Now there's impeachment, and Congress (the House, anyway) is going to try to take the ultimate decision away from the voters.  Yeah, the Constitution says they can.  Should they?  Ultimately I think they won't, though the House will.

Now it  is out in the open.........

Game on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ask yourself what you would want done if a democRAT President held back hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military aid from a country under attack from Russia, among other things, in order to get that country's President to make a phony public statement about an American Presidential Candidate being under investigation for corruption.  

I would find it wrong, I would find it to be a high crime and misdemeanor, I would find it to be bribery (among other things not specifically identified in the Constitution), and I would want the person doing it impeached. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Fair enough, but that's not his role in fronting for the committee. 

I think his role is what he chooses, not what you choose for him.  

Congress (the House, anyway) is going to try to take the ultimate decision away from the voters.

The election was a long time ago, trump has gotten to be president and fleece the taxpayers to the benefit of his ugly ass sons and hot daughter for three years despite being a crook and inducing the public to vote for him through bribery, extortion, and fraud.  It's only thanks to the immoral, unethical, criminal people who support him that he's gotten as far as he has despite having violated the constitution since day 1.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol, I might feel the same way.  But I'd wait til the investigation is done, at least.  And I just might end up concluding that I'd rather have a couple hundred million jurors (voters) decide it rather that a petit jury of pols who haven't particularly distinguished themselves, in my view.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I think his role is what he chooses, not what you choose for him.  

 

 

The election was a long time ago, trump has gotten to be president and fleece the taxpayers to the benefit of his ugly ass sons and hot daughter for three years despite being a crook and inducing the public to vote for him through bribery, extortion, and fraud.  It's only thanks to the immoral, unethical, criminal people who support him that he's gotten as far as he has despite having violated the constitution since day 1.

 

He's the Committee Chair, and speaks for the committee in that role.  I didn't choose that role, he did. 

 

I'm referring to the election that's going to take place next year.  Wasn't trying to be obscure on that...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Sol, I might feel the same way.  But I'd wait til the investigation is done, at least.  And I just might end up concluding that I'd rather have a couple hundred million jurors (voters) decide it rather that a petit jury of pols who haven't particularly distinguished themselves, in my view.

What line must a President cross for you to think he should be impeached. What do you think about Nixon’s? Clinton’s?

Trump’s violation is on the order of Nixon’s, in using the power of the presidency to help in his re-election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nolatom said:

He's the Committee Chair, and speak for the committee in that role.  I didn't choose that role, he did.  

 

No, but you chose to see him as 'not..a good figurehead' because of his behavior., and you chose that it's 'not his role' to act that way.

Or "He's bad at the job I just defined him as having".  It's like a straw man argument, only less honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Hey, y'all like Schiff, have at it!   Free country.  I don't.  Not crazy about Nunes either.  Both have beady eyes and miss a lot of social cues.

What did Rep. Schiff do wrong?

 

Is it wrong for a President to hold back hundreds of millions of dollars worth of appropriated military aid from a country under attack from Russia, among other things, in order to get that country's President to make a phony public statement about an American Presidential Candidate being under investigation for corruption? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nolatom said:

Sol, I might feel the same way.  But I'd wait til the investigation is done, at least.  And I just might end up concluding that I'd rather have a couple hundred million jurors (voters) decide it rather that a petit jury of pols who haven't particularly distinguished themselves, in my view.

What is the investigation going to turn up that might change your mind?

This is the same Trump who put a foreign agent into the National Security Advisor spot. This is the Trump who held a secret meeting INT THE WHITE HOUSE with Putin shortly after being elected. This is the Trump who gives the military orders to stay at his hotel. This is the Trump who gave his son-in-law top secret clearance after his son-in-law tried to establish a secret channel to communicate to the Russians. This is the Trump who goes to meet North Korea's dictator and tries to negotiate for building a Trump-branded beach front resort in Norklandia while talking about how much safer we are from North Korea's nukes which have continued to be built and test-launched with no hesitation.

Etc etc etc etc. There is illegal doings in pretty much ALL this and more, as well as it being directly contrary to the best interest of the country (the USA, I mean).

If you don't see Trump deserving impeachment now, you never will.

As I said a while ago, the Trumpublican party is waging war on the USA and they're pissed off that the USA is fighting back. What they don't see is how close they are to the pitchforks coming out.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

What did Rep. Schiff do wrong?

 

Is it wrong for a President to hold back hundreds of millions of dollars worth of appropriated military aid from a country under attack from Russia, among other things, in order to get that country's President to make a phony public statement about an American Presidential Candidate being under investigation for corruption? 

Well, when you put it like that, it would certainly be a bad thing for a Democrat to do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What is the investigation going to turn up that might change your mind?

This is the same Trump who put a foreign agent into the National Security Advisor spot. This is the Trump who held a secret meeting INT THE WHITE HOUSE with Putin shortly after being elected. This is the Trump who gives the military orders to stay at his hotel. This is the Trump who gave his son-in-law top secret clearance after his son-in-law tried to establish a secret channel to communicate to the Russians. This is the Trump who goes to meet North Korea's dictator and tries to negotiate for building a Trump-branded beach front resort in Norklandia while talking about how much safer we are from North Korea's nukes which have continued to be built and test-launched with no hesitation.

Etc etc etc etc. There is illegal doings in pretty much ALL this and more, as well as it being directly contrary to the best interest of the country (the USA, I mean).

If you don't see Trump deserving impeachment now, you never will.

As I said a while ago, the Trumpublican party is waging war on the USA and they're pissed off that the USA is fighting back. What they don't see is how close they are to the pitchforks coming out.

- DSK

Sadly, I don't think @nolatomwill answer that question. I asked an easy one, and nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Hey, y'all like Schiff, have at it!   Free country.  I don't.  Not crazy about Nunes either. 

Finally, a post that is logical and well thought out, without any misrepresentations or pronouncements of what is right or wrong.  I knew you could do it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Finally, a post that is logical and well thought out, without any misrepresentations or pronouncements of what is right or wrong.  I knew you could do it!

You left out the best part of his opine:  “Both have beady eyes and miss a lot of social cues.”. As my Texas friends are prone to say; those are some heavy sayins’.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Quid pro quo's happen everyday in international diplomacy.  

There’s a qpq in every deal. The vast majority are normal and quite proper. This is apparently not the case here. 

I agree that it’s a golden opportunity to do what Mueller wouldn’t, and they may. But I doubt it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree it was definitely illegal, but I don't think the average Janes or Joes will think so.  I think they will assume it's just the normal sausage making of international diplomacy.  

Isn't this a bit harsh?

I know most other countries peoples think the average USAnians are dumb, but I didn't realise that you thought that about yourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason all the other experts and officials are on the phone is to make sure crap like international shakedowns for private gain do not occur. 

This impeachment process has to happen and these safeguards strengthened in order for America to claim title to being a democracy.

If we fail to mandate the rule of law and the importance of (mostly) ethical policies and negotiations we cannot see the shitstain survive and then learn how to negate or circumvent these guardrails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

This has been my assertion all along.  The GenPop will most likely say "meh".  I'm not saying there isn't any "there" there.  Just that it isn't going to rise to the level of outrage.  I'm personally outraged by it, because it was a blatant trade for political favors from a foreign gov't to interfere in our elections.  But.... the average joe will assume that's just the way international affairs get done.  And to a degree they are correct.  Quid pro quo's happen everyday in international diplomacy.  

That's precisely why I think the D's are playing this hand poorly and squandering a golden opportunity to bring in the real stuff that will get shitstain impeached..... i.e. the Mueller report, Russian interference to get him elected, obstruction, conspiracy, etc.  Currently limiting this to the Ukraine phone call doesn't have the "pop" the other stuff would.  

olsinist will be along any minute to say that nancy can open it to anything she wants.  And yes while that's true, she's currently not doing so.  And every day that goes by that she doesn't, she loses the momentum to do so.  IMHO, of course.  

Do you think that people will be willing to limit their consideration to just the phone call or will they look at all of the other stuff that has come up? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I think he's hoping his TeamR colleagues will join him in being ex-TeamR.

Hope is nice, but then there’s reality. I like Amash - one of the few politicians with a backbone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some unsettling reading - 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/31/regime-cleavage-229895

POLITICAL SCIENCE

Why the Impeachment Fight Is Even Scarier Than You Think

Political scientists have studied what our democracy is going through. It usually doesn’t end well.

By THOMAS PEPINSKY

Excerpt -

Political scientists have a term for what the United States is witnessing right now. It’s called “regime cleavage,” a division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing system itself—in the American case, our constitutional democracy. In societies facing a regime cleavage, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions and laws may be ignored, subverted or replaced. 

And there are serious consequences: An emerging regime cleavage in the United States brought on by President Donald Trump and his defenders could signal that the American public might lose faith in the electoral process altogether or incentivize elected politicians to mount even more direct attacks on the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. Regime cleavages emerge only in governing systems in crisis, and our democracy is indeed in crisis.

Just look at the hardening split among the American people on impeachment: The fractionof citizens who oppose the impeachment inquiry is the same as that who approve of the president, signifying that partisan disagreement over policy has turned into a partisan divide over political legitimacy. This cleavage shows up in discourse across the American political spectrum that labels one’s political opponents as un-American, disloyal, even treasonous. But it is clearest in the argument that it would amount to a “coup” to remove the president via conviction in the Senate, and thus that the regular functioning of the legislative branch would be illegitimate. These divisions are over the laws that set out plainly in our Constitution how the president can be subject to sanction

Link to post
Share on other sites