IIRC, that was the third iteration of the muslim ban, and by that time it had been so watered down it really was more of a “travel ban” than a “muslim ban”. It was merely a face saving device so that Trump could say his “travel ban” passed muster.
3 Likes
Timing is everything. The Democrats need to publicly expose Trump through a series of investigations on live television. Once people see what he’s really done for themselves (most people haven’t read the Meuller report and have no idea what’s in it) public opinion of Trump will likely go down, considerably. That’s when the Democrats can pounce, not before.
1 Like
If the House Democrats don’t impeach Trump, they are exonerating him.
But still demonstrated that at the end of the day, Roberts wasn’t willing to put him in his place in what should have been a very easy call.
1 Like
well, that was “Diana Ross and the Supremes” not “The Supremes”… and IMHO, it doesn’t count (and its just the lyrics that sucked – musically, its a great track, and if BTS were to cover it in Korean, it would be a huge hit again today!)
The only really bad Supremes single was their last one – The Happening. Most of the stuff after the name change is inferior – some of it (especially everything from their last studio album) awful.
1 Like
This is the rub. Dems know they’ll lose the impeachment narrative with the media once it goes to trial in the Senate, so they need to have overwhelming evidence that can be released that builds up Trump’s guilt in the minds of the public (i.e. those waffling “independents” who don’t support impeachment) regardless of a failed trial in the Senate. You don’t do this by rushing in and starting an impeachment hearing now because you’ll lose the narrative. You do as much of the investigative and time consuming work first, so that when you’re ready, you can release information, have hearings and hopefully hit the media with a specific narrative of not just a criminal, but someone who has cheated the American people to benefit himself, and continues to do so, so that narrative is in the minds of the voter and if Dems do it right, that narrative supersedes an impeachment/trial narrative the media tries to create when the Senate clears Trump.
2 Likes
If they do impeach Trump without any more evidence than they have now, then the Senate will exonerate him. He’ll crow to the high heavens that he “won” and the Dems “lost” that fight. And he’ll be right.
This could change with evidence of a solid crime like money laundering, to shift the narrative. Something that can’t be spun as just a political hit with no underlying crime.
3 Likes
Waiting for the end, boys, waiting for the end.
2 Likes
Dems can impeach Trump without sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
And there are any number of good ways to explain why they don’t send them.
1 Like
Okay, so what do the Dems have to work with, to justify impeachment? Just the Mueller report? That isn’t enough, even if they get an unredacted version, because the principal investigator concluded that the Trump team was too stupid to actually work out a conspiracy deal with the Russians. They were just acting “in parallel.” No crime.
The only open question is obstruction, and that’s a very hard sell to the public at large because they don’t understand it. The R’s will parrot “How can there be obstruction if there was no crime” from now til election day.
I know there is the argument that impeachment gives the House a stronger hand in court fights to obtain documents. Aside from the fact that it won’t happen quickly (especially if it goes all the way to SCOTUS), it’s still basically a fishing expedition. It’s hoping to find something incriminating. Republicans will call it a fishing expedition, and they’ll be right.
In the meantime, the House can still move on other fronts without triggering impeachment. Let’s see what a $10,000 a day fine for inherent contempt for refusing a subpoena can do, for starters.
1 Like
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Sunday morning said that Rep. Justin Amash’s (R-MI) slam against President Donald Trump’s “impeachable conduct” isn’t enough to count as bipartisan support for impeachment proceedings.
So… let’s say that the parties were reversed right now. Can I get a show of hands as to how many think the Republicans would care that there were no Dems in favor of impeachment? I am certain that they would not care, and that is the lesson that the Democrats (at least the mainstream party leaders) have yet to learn. The GOP cares nothing for partisan politics, they only care about winning, and at any cost.
1 Like
Diana Ross sang through her nose and was supremely irritating.
2 Likes
Absolutely. But his rather complex statement does require close attention.
Knowing in advance that you’re going to be snippet-ized leads to some basic rules.
- First answer the question you want to be asked.
- Never explain, concede, or negate. (“We see no signs of that yet.”)
- Support your allies unconditionally. (“But … less to do with Justin Amash…”)
By these, Schiff should have said “The administration is engaging in a maxiumum obstruction campaign against congress. We take Justin Amash’s argument seriously and we hope his colleagues will too.”
5 Likes
IMHO, the Mueller report is more than sufficient, because the issue (or framing) should not be “obstruction of justice” – it should be “Russia attack cover-up”.
The Mueller report contains enormous amounts of detail on the Russia attack on the election – and Trump tried to cover that up by impeding, interfering and trying to shut down the investigation.
We were attacked!
Donald Trump tried to cover that up
It does not matter WHY – what matters is that he put his PERSONAL concerns ahead of the nations.
And he used the powers of the Presidency to do that.
That is the core narrative that the Dems can (and must, IMO) promote.
Its true.
Its visceral
its simple
and its versatile…because once that is the narrative, the “WHY” becomes relevant – and justifies all the investigations into Trump’s finances, etc.
[on edit]
I know there is the argument that impeachment gives the House a stronger hand in court fights to obtain documents. Aside from the fact that it won’t happen quickly (especially if it goes all the way to SCOTUS), it’s still basically a fishing expedition. It’s hoping to find something incriminating. Republicans will call it a fishing expedition, and they’ll be right.
IMO, the Courts will be far more likely to provide expedited consideration of cases when impeachment is involved than if its just oversight. As for calling it a “fishing expedition”, they are already calling it that (“presidential harrassment”) and they’re right. Dems should own what they are doing, and when the GOP says “fishing expedition” the Dems should own it – saying “we know he is unfit, and that put his personal concerns over America’s. And until the GOP decides to put America first, we’re going to keep looking for what Trump was trying to hide.”
In the meantime, the House can still move on other fronts without triggering impeachment. Let’s see what a $10,000 a day fine for inherent contempt for refusing a subpoena can do, for starters.
for various reasons, this is a horrible idea in an “oversight” setting.
put from a purely practical perspective – who is going to collect the fines?
2 Likes
Thank you. I hear she also - “shudder” - likes Cilantro…
(I’ll just go over here and hide under this rock until the next pun thread…)
1 Like
Looks a damn sight better in that pic than in this one.
The establishment Democrats are more Republican than they are Democrats. If the rolls were reversed in all of this, the take no prisoners Republicans would have already impeached Trump!
The establishment Democrats have chosen Trump over the US Constitution! They have more excuses to not impeach than Carter has pills.
1 Like
Democrats: “We can’t impeach unless the republicans LET US!”
3 Likes
HOW would it help republicans to have Trump’s many crimes, including treason, made public?
1 Like
So many questions when the answer’s in front of you, or in this case under you.