So, impeachment again...


Looks like Pelosi is on board with it now. I am looking forward to seeing the transcript released.
«1

Comments

  • Pelosi's statement is that they will look into grounds for impeachment.  That's what they've been doing for the last two months.
  • I thought that she was being resistant to even that.
  • She remembers how well actual impeachment went for repubs in the 90s, and doesn't want to do it, but the activists still want that fight, and Pelosi doesn't want to appear irrelevant. 
  • I think you mean "still".
  • nbody said:

    Pelosi's statement is that they will look into grounds for impeachment.  That's what they've been doing for the last two months three years.

    Fixed that for you.
  • Don’t be so hard on Nancy. She just wanted to make a contribution to the campaign to reelect Trump.
  • MC Escher said:

    Don’t be so hard on Nancy. She just wanted to make a contribution to the campaign to reelect Trump.

    No kidding.  Nothing makes DJT look better than members of the house talking about impeachment.

    Nancy is like the mother in a grocery being hectored for sugary cereal, she knows the extra sugar won't be good for her retarded and emotionally troubled child, so she's says we'll see.  Her problem is that every child knows that we'll see means "nope".
  • nbody said:

     she knows the extra sugar won't be good for her retarded and emotionally troubled child, 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdr4WUcix6E
  • Either of you guys seen Judge Naps interview about the Ukraine Phonegate scandal yet?
  • MC Escher said:

    Either of you guys seen Judge Naps interview about the Ukraine Phonegate scandal yet?


    The main part of the interview is being misdescribed in some venues.  The judge's analysis was that if DJT asked for an investigation with an intent that the investigation would assist DJT's election, that's a campaign finance violation.  A lot of people are missing that "if".  It's the same issue Mueller investigated on the Stormy Daniels payment.

    The Judge also asserted that the IG was legally obligated to refer certain materials to Congress because Congress passed a law that required it.  If the IG is a member of the executive branch, Congress can't properly re-route the chain of command so that Congress effectively becomes part of the exec branch.
  • His latest Op Ed seems to indicate he thinks DJT committed an impeachable offense.



  • edited October 3
    It is also true that he concluded that an impeachable offense is whatever the house decides it is.

    He also engages in re-casting of DJT's speech, not to the degree Adam Schiff, has, but enough to then proceed to a conclusion that wouldn't work well if DJT were quoted directly.  He says that DJT endangered the WB's life by accusing him or the people who informed of the call of being spies.  Of course, DJT actually accused them of being "like almost a spy".

    DJT's spy soliloquy wasn't smart or helpful, but it wasn't an allegation that these people were spies, just as his remark about Mexicans wasn't that they are all rapists and murderers.

    Nap wrties, " By releasing it, Trump has admitted to its accuracy. In it, Trump asked Zelensky for dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, who at this writing is Trump's likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 presidential election."

    Yet, that isn't what the call memorandum recounts.  If DJT asked for assistance in the 2020 campaign from the exec of the Ukraine, that's an FEC violation.  Recall that both BHO's paid FEC fines for uncontested violations.  If these were proper subjects of impeachment, someone really dropped the ball under BHO.

    AG Barr had already promised that he would investigate the matter about which DJT actually inquired, the issue of Russian/Ukr involvement in the 2016 campaigns.  The test implicit in Nap's analysis is that a dem who could be the party's presidential candidate is insulated from otherwise legitimate corruption inquiries.  When has that been the test?
  • "Basically, that person never saw the report, never saw the call, he never saw the call — heard something and decided that he or she, or whoever the hell they saw — they’re almost a spy. I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now."


    So tell me, Mr. President, how did we use to handle an almost close to like a spy?
  • So, we did once shoot spies, and hanged them before that.  I'm not sure how the Rosenbergs were shown out.

    Is it plausible that the quote above is genuinely a veiled request to find and kill the WB?  Or is it far more likely that this was DJT's expression of contempt for this WB and the activity of politically hobbling him by means of dubious allegations of corruption?


  • Mostly the latter.

    but I do believe this was his way of issuing a threat, regardless whether or not his intention was to actually follow through with it.


    To say someone is like a spy, then to reference how we took care of actual spies doesn't seem that vague.

    To me anyhow.
  • You guys are missing the big picture.

    If he had actually done anything wrong you would not be hearing about it.

    Nancy needs something that looks similar to an impeachable offense without actually being one; because if they actually filed articles of impeachment that comes with subpoena power for Trump; subpoena power that lets his legal team subpoena anybody they want.

    The Democrats need to be seen as the dog chasing the car but the last thing they can afford is actually catching it.
  • All sound and fury, signifying nothing.
  • Even if they successfully impeached Trump and removed him from office, wouldn't Pence take over?
  • dgm said:

    Even if they successfully impeached Trump and removed him from office, wouldn't Pence take over?

    Yup.

    If DJT were to be impeached and convicted (use your imagination), who would be the most viable presidential candidate for repubs in 2020?

    It might still be DJT.  If you thought the flood of tears were bad in 2016, can you imagine if he were convicted and ran in 2020?
  • dgm said:

    All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    The constant corruption investigations are boring, but they do have a silver lining.  The storm of shrill accusation keeps the most odious parts of the dem party in the public eye, and to the degree they are all signaling how they hate DJT more than anyone else, they aren't proposing legislation.
  • nbody said:

    It might still be DJT.  If you thought the flood of tears were bad in 2016, can you imagine if he were convicted and ran in 2020?

    It would be worth it to see that. Epic Tears.
  • Could he actually do that?
  • 2.FOH. said:

    Could he actually do that?

    Not only could he, he wouldn’t be the first. Well, he would be the first president to do that but not the first elected official.

    Four equally exploded fun, if he were removed from office with less than two years remaining in his term then Mike Pence would not only take over for the balance of trumps term he could then be elected twice himself. He would not be able to serve more than a total of 10 years so timing is an issue.

  • edited October 10
    DJT has added another variable in his political equation with opening the door to Turkey to resume its kurd hunting hobby.

    Explaining why the US doesn't need to rescue every group that finds itself in a tight spot, and how limiting support to the kurds isn't a betrayal takes something more than an intuitive sense of US interests and "man in the street" candor.  Giving congressional repubs a valid basis for criticism helps them, but not him.  Some electorally weak repub is going to wobble on the merits of impeachment once video of turks slaughtering kurds turns up.
  • I was pretty gobsmacked by his decision to abandon the Kurds. I shouldn't have been. *facepalm*
  • So moving 50 troops one town over is abandonment?
  • Allowing the Turks to begin military operations against a regional ally that we already had a history of abandoning (DS I in Iraq) is troubling. Even if it was just one soldier stationed there, that was enough of a bulwark against Turkish aggression.

    Removal of fewer than a hundred troops doesn't really constitute a material draw down of our endless foreign wars, either.
Sign In or Register to comment.