I see his MO differently - I think because his overriding motivation is his cowardice he cuts and runs. And while he’s cutting and running he’s loudly yelling that he won he’s the best ever in all of history nobody has been as big a winner as he is and this was all just because we don’t deserve him.
6 Likes
Yes, your honor. Guilty as charged.
Welcome back, by the way.
2 Likes
Thanks
1 Like
Well right but the other part of the equation is the Senate. If there’s no way to win conviction there, and they know it, that puts a damper on getting a vote for impeachment – even though it didn’t stop the Republicans in 1998, I don’t think Democrats will want to go down that road of voting for impeachment then knowing they won’t get a conviction.
So Rs in the Senate bailing is what I’m talking about, which would mean an impeachment vote for sure in the House. Could happen. Might well happen, time will tell.
As I say it’s mostly a political decision, and as others here have said if it gets bad enough for Trump that impeachment is possible, Democrats might actually prefer him to stay in office. I think Republicans at that point would be the ones who want impeachment.
At the rallies, be bellows, “get 'im outta here!!!”
There was a film a while back called “The Cowboy Way” in which one of the heroes was beat up.
By goons of the man the hero was against.
Trump “has people for” everything.
Are you familiar with Lew Tabackin’s body of work?
2 Likes
When Clinton was impeached in the House and then not convicted in the Senate Democratic voters didn’t care. They saw it as the culmination of a $70 million ($110 million today) witch hunt (sorry about that usage which has been rather poisoned of late) which went from a shady unsuccessful real estate deal through Confederate state troopers to lying about some seriously stupid White House hanky panky. Better than banging porn stars for $130K. Lewinsky wasn’t a whore. She pursued Bill.
By the way, he never had sex with that woman if third base is the definition of having sex. And Democrats saw that Lewinsky was enabled/cornered to tell all, and the report unnecessarily cynically and tastelessly printed every word in an effort to embarrass Clinton out of office.
If the same impeachment without conviction thing happened to Trump, who will probably soon be seen as obviously actually guilty of much more than is definite today, the Trumpsters will see it as their All Powerful Master of the Universe Super Id Daddy victorious in battle over the the attacking Communist Vandals. So, not the same thing.
I think Nadler was just saying the time isn’t right until a lot more investigation and nonalternative facts and charges come out and conviction in the Senate is a pretty sure thing, as has pretty much every other Democrat. Nadler is a really good guy. No need to nit pick.
5 Likes
I’ve taken recently to adopting the first line of an Emily Dickinson poem as my mantra.
Hope is the thing with feathers That perches in the soul,
There’s more and all in a hopeful vein. I see no point in saying “I surrender” before the first shot has been fired.
3 Likes
Yes thanks…By the way…One of the trombonists whom I have always admired was Frank Rosolino. He had a very tragic death. Nevertheless, his ability to play multiple-note almost waterfall-like passages on a horn in which the slide is IT was phenomenal.
1 Like
“You don’t necessarily launch an impeachment against the President because he committed an impeachable offense.”
Oh for fucks sake. Do these assgaskets even listen to themselves sometimes?
2 Likes
Everything about the impeachment was a farce, put on by hypocritical members of Congress who themselves had indulged in extramarital affairs. Poor Monica, she was too naive to understand the consequences of what became clear only later, which was confiding in a woman she thought was her friend Linda Tripp who then promptly took her story to whoever would pay the most for it.
The impeachment follies were also the stepping stone for Kav to make his up way up the D.C. ladder by being Starr’s right hand man.
2 Likes
He could hand the keys to the White House to Putin and the Senate Republicans would ignore it, as long as they get to keep their tax-cuts and judicial yes-men…
1 Like
What he said was so cautious it becomes borderline worthless not to mention confusing. Maybe Nadler shouldn’t speak at all and resort to a power point presentation and give predetermined answers to predetermined questions which will cause 300 million voters to throw their fur-lined slippers at their new flat screens.
1 Like
I’ve heard this too, namely that moron would be a far bigger, more desirable target in 2020 than any R who steps forward, but it’s about as cynical and unproductive as it gets.
That’s would he should have said. Not the fucking word-salad dunderheaded BS he said.
He could have said, “the problem is with moving for impeachment in the House is, there is no little indication the Republican controlled Senate will convict Trump, even though he has clearly committed impeachable offenses. Because they are more interested in the politically expedient pandering to the GOP base and covering for Trump, than following their duties and oaths of office to be a check on an out-of-control, criminal, Executive Branch.”
How hard is that?
4 Likes
Could go either way. But like russel wrote above, it’s not like he’s gonna bail until Mitch McConnell drops by and tells him he’s going to lose the conviction vote in the Senate by a huge margin that Trump is convinced that even he won’t be able to somehow coerce down no matter what. He is used to having Cohen to threaten and sue all enemies and then somehow sneak off with millions (even if he barely knew him and hardly ever talked to him). Then he will leave while pissing all over everyone.
On the other hand if Javanka are convicted of something first (and wouldn’t that fulfill our shadenfreude requirements)…but everything takes a long time and we’re halfway though a four year term.
Can’t imagine why not. It’s the conventional Democratic wisdom. But again he’s a good guy and may have his reasons. Not that important really.
I guess I’m one of only a very few people who believe that Nadler is not obligated to tell Jake Tapper on a Sunday morning CNN broadcast what Democrats’ strategy in 2019 will be be. You could call it cautious or worthless or any other criticism you choose, I call it discreet, holding his cards close to his vest, and some other worn out expressions.
5 Likes
I agree he didn’t have to give a committed answer, but he could have simply demurred and said we will investigate and perform our duties of oversight and see what the evidence leads to.