Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm just going to park Representative Schiff's words here because they're worth revisiting:

 

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign,” he said. “My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help — no, instead that son said he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians. You might think it was ok that he took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s ok that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think it’s OK. I don’t.”

 

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility,” he added. “I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say, in terms of dirt on his opponent. You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser-designate secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK he lied about it to the FBI. You might say that’s all OK, that that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt, and evidence of collusion.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...

With windmill cancer and flying water tankers, Trump World is a fantastical place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Ok can we impeach now muller made it abundantly clear today!?

Seriously. His brief speech was basically: "I would have cleared him if I thought he was clean. Here's the trail of breadcrumbs I left if congress wants to go after him, because that's their job, not mine. Did any of you read my report? Is this thing on?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok can we impeach now muller made it abundantly clear today!?

 

To what end?  It is not like after POTUS is impeached, he is removed from office.  So many steps to go.  

 

The short hand version of the impeachment process is this.

1. Someone requests impeachment (no problem there)

2. A resolution is drawn up and sent the Judiciary Committee.  Hearings and investigations will happen.  This undoubtedly be a circus shit show.   

3. If the Judiciary committee believes there is an impeachable offense (no doubt a vote on straight party lines) it goes to the fully house for a vote.  Which needs a simple majority, likely but not 100%.  This vote will come in late 2019 / early 2020.  So that doubles down on the election politics.  

4.  If the House votes for impeachment we have a trial in the senate.  Which run by McConnell, will be a straight up joke and there will be a cold day in hell before the Senate votes to remove Trump from office.  

 

All the while Trump will be in office, on his twitter machine blasting out crazy shit.  We are inching closer to war with Iran, maybe North Korea, who is to say he does something to distract from this impeachment mess?  And do you think any impeachment any evidence brought forth will do anything to change someone's mind about Trump?  This could very well damage the reputations of some congressmen and senators.

 

Trump is an evil, stupid, thin skinned bastard.  He is guilty of numerous crimes and obstruction of justice.  But what good does it do to impeach him if he won't be removed from office?  The Mueller report, which is very damning, was spun as a win for the president.  You don't think that when the senate votes not to remove him from office, it won't be spun in the same way?  

 

Yes, it is cynical and politically driven way of looking at it, but without a chance of conviction by the senate, I can't see any good from starting this process.  

 

We have 600 days before Trump leaves office.  We shouldn't be focusing on impeachment, that will ultimately fail to remove him.  We should be focusing on getting the best damn candidate possible as the democratic nominee and winning back the senate.  Impeachment is fools game and a trap that I think Trump would like for us to be caught up in.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have 600 days before Trump leaves office. We shouldn't be focusing on impeachment, that will ultimately fail to remove him. We should be focusing on getting the best damn candidate possible as the democratic nominee and winning back the senate. Impeachment is fools game and a trap that I think Trump would like for us to be caught up in.

We can do both impeach and concentrate on election. If nothing else this will be a stain on him and they can get the additional information they’re withholding which may lead to his removal if bad enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell wouldn’t be running the Senate trial, it would be Roberts. And even though I agree that there’s no way that they would vote to convict, I think a trial would bring the findings of the Mueller report to life much in the way his 10 minute speech yesterday did. There’s a huge difference between watching someone of Mueller’s stature say something and reading the words in a report (especially since nobody reads things anymore). And when GOP senators stick up for Trump and try to attack him, that’s only going to hurt them.

 

Let’s not also forget how batshit crazy this would make Trump. His twitter feed would be full of rants and personal attacks against whoever is testifying against him. While that wouldn’t hurt (and likely would help) him with his base, polling shows us that it turns off everyone else.

 

But most importantly, I think Congress must act because it’s their fucking job. If they let this behavior go unchecked then what’s stopping the next president from committing crimes in office, knowing that they can’t be charged and won’t be held accountable? Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if you think it’s politically risky (which I don’t think it is).

Link to post
Share on other sites

But most importantly, I think Congress must act because it’s their fucking job. If they let this behavior go unchecked then what’s stopping the next president from committing crimes in office, knowing that they can’t be charged and won’t be held accountable? Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if you think it’s politically risky (which I don’t think it is).

Agree 100%

 

By the way how stupid is trump? He must have failed every class at business school especially Econ. Tariffs paid by consumers nice way to sink economy between China and Mexico!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But most importantly, I think Congress must act because it’s their fucking job. If they let this behavior go unchecked then what’s stopping the next president from committing crimes in office, knowing that they can’t be charged and won’t be held accountable? Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if you think it’s politically risky (which I don’t think it is).

This... A thousand times over!

Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell wouldn’t be running the Senate trial, it would be Roberts. And even though I agree that there’s no way that they would vote to convict, I think a trial would bring the findings of the Mueller report to life much in the way his 10 minute speech yesterday did. There’s a huge difference between watching someone of Mueller’s stature say something and reading the words in a report (especially since nobody reads things anymore). And when GOP senators stick up for Trump and try to attack him, that’s only going to hurt them.

 

Let’s not also forget how batshit crazy this would make Trump. His twitter feed would be full of rants and personal attacks against whoever is testifying against him. While that wouldn’t hurt (and likely would help) him with his base, polling shows us that it turns off everyone else.

 

But most importantly, I think Congress must act because it’s their fucking job. If they let this behavior go unchecked then what’s stopping the next president from committing crimes in office, knowing that they can’t be charged and won’t be held accountable? Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if you think it’s politically risky (which I don’t think it is).

Roberts would be the judge, but I do believe the Senate itself actually sets up the prosecution, etc. Which ultimately falls to McConnell as majority leader. Also the Senate preceedings are held in close door sessions. So we'd get the house version of events, but not hear anything about what the Senate does.

 

And there is no doubt Trump would go Bat-shit. I for one am worried about that. Not the twitter machine, but the fact he will have control of the US Military. I don't put it past him to start a war or whatnot.

 

Oversight is their job, I am not saying they should still investigate, hold hearings etc. But impeachment would ultimately accomplished nothing. It will not change anything. So why waste the time on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Energized his base to what end? To elect W as president?

 

Yeah, that's where the conventional wisdom falls apart. I think the reason folks suggest this is because of the rise in his approval ratings in general over the year, but approval ratings aren't elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's where the conventional wisdom falls apart. I think the reason folks suggest this is because of the rise in his approval ratings in general over the year, but approval ratings aren't elections.

 

So, Clinton's impeachment proceedings started in December 98, and wrapped up in February 1999.

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

If you scroll down this page, you'll see all historical presidential approval ratings over time. 

 

Clinton ended '98 pretty strongly, but his approval ratings slowly fell to the mid 50s early in '99. He recovered in 2000, and ended strongly, but his approval rating certainly didn't carry over to Gore's campaign. Yes, Gore won the popular vote, but lost Ohio, Florida*, and even his own home state, (and others) which Clinton had carried in the '96 election. 

 

I feel like impeaching Trump is a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition. If they don't impeach him, he'll say "See? They knew it was a witch hunt." If they do impeach him, and it dies in the Senate, he'll say "See? WITCH HUNT."

 

I recently got a call from a conservative political pollster (in Illinois) asking about my Representative - and the questions were so loaded it made me laugh. "If Casten votes for impeachment proceedings, which is a waste of everybody's time, would you vote to re-elect him even though he would be wasting time with the impeachment, and not doing what you elected him for?"

 

"Of course I would reelect him. I voted for him to get behind impeachment proceedings!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like impeaching Trump is a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition. If they don't impeach him, he'll say "See? They knew it was a witch hunt." If they do impeach him, and it dies in the Senate, he'll say "See? WITCH HUNT."

 

Yeah, I feel the same. I think Pelosi is pretty sharp in steadying congressional hands on that trigger. They would need to gamble that the process would unearth information that would thoroughly (further) disgust the majority of Americans, and that might actually get some GOP senators to feel like they need to turn their backs on their boss to earn cred with voters. Pretty high bar.

 

Then again, knowing what we know they might have a moral obligation to go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

is anyone else getting a hilary vibe from biden? think it would be a huge mistake for him to be the nominee. the donald would have him for lunch along with his big mac. also, being a long time politician from delaware he's most likely owned by the big banks & wall street. biden vs trump would be a no lose for them & the rest of the MI (military industrial) complex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is anyone else getting a hilary vibe from biden? think it would be a huge mistake for him to be the nominee. the donald would have him for lunch along with his big mac. also, being a long time politician from delaware he's most likely owned by the big banks & wall street. biden vs trump would be a no lose for them & the rest of the MI (military industrial) complex.

 

Yeah, he's my second to last choice for president. Trump of course is the last choice and I will do all kinds of rhetorical gymnastics to explain to my friends that their obligation is to vote for the lesser of two evils (thereby reducing evil) if he is the nominee. My bet is on Warren, but I'd take Sanders. There are things to like about Booker, Buttigeg and Harris, but there are things to wonder about. I kind of feel like everyone else is so far from a possible nominee that they're not worth talking about at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iowan here, so I matter more than most of you. Here's my current ranking:

 

1. Harris

2. Warren

3. Buttigieg

4. Booker

5. Castro

My list would be exactly the same. I’m really hoping for Harris or Warren get the nomination with Mayor Pete as the veep. As much as I’d love to see two women on the ticket, I don’t see that happening (and I don’t really think either one would be a good #2)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Booker's past with Betsy DeVos is disqualifying for me.

I get that. As a public school teacher, I totally agree. I can sympathize with a mayor of an impoverished urban area willing to take risks to improve the school system. I don't dismiss this, that's one of the reasons he's not higher on my list; but I don't disqualify him.

Do you ever think Nebraskans get jealous?

Fuck Nebraskans. They have a brilliant Springsteen album and that's more than enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that. As a public school teacher, I totally agree. I can sympathize with a mayor of an impoverished urban area willing to take risks to improve the school system. I don't dismiss this, that's one of the reasons he's not higher on my list; but I don't disqualify him.

 

I was a public school student, a public school engineer and am now a public school teacher, and seeing how charters have done nothing for students in Chicago and just take money away from neighborhood schools, I completely dismiss anyone who has ties to DeVos. Then there's the amount of money he's taken from Wall Street and Big Pharma as he opposed importing cheaper medications. If he gets the nomination, I'll support him, but he's nowhere near the top of my list.

 

1. Sanders/Warren (don't care who is at the top of the ticket but together they could be a force)

2. Castro

3. Harris (although her prosecutorial record is troubling)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...