Actually, I think the SDNY and courts will damage Bloatard much more. Most people don’t understand or care about arcane constitutional stuff but they do understand naked corruption on a grand scale.
6 Likes
4 Likes
I don’t think it’s despondency so much as it is the urge for Democrats to at least put up a fight for once rather than surrendering without a shot fired.
I remember back in the Obamacare shit, when we kept on compromising and compromising, giving away vast swaths of it in exchange for all those Republican votes…
You don’t see that shit happening amongst the Republicans. They may be repulsive and evil, but when they have the majority, they just put up whatever they want, and the “negotiations” become “our way, or the collapse of civilization”.
4 Likes
Cohen didn’t say we must immediately vote on articles of impeachment. Particularly since the article we are commenting on says:
Other key committee members, including its vice chair Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a constitutional law professor, openly expressed support for opening an impeachment inquiry, adding to the public pressure.
(emphasis mine)
6 Likes
A member of the Gilded Guild hard at work.
1 Like
It would feel very good to open impeachment hearings on Trump (here on in known as “Don the con”), but it wouldn’t actually do any good for any one of the reasons expressed in this thread. It would fail in the Senate. It would fire up his base. It would make Dems vulnerable, etc., etc., etc.
I hope that McGahn is arrested and detained. That should shake up the foot draggers, and get things moving.
1 Like
And I posit (again) that not beginning impeachment hearings by July, will actually depress Democratic turnout in 2020.
9 Likes
Okay, I understand. You’re trying to stretch this out as long as possible until people are screaming for Whiny’s impeachment but how long do you really think you can keep this up before people think you are a do-nothing, just like in 2010?
Is any pollster or journalist asking why moderates or independents or whatever don’t want impeachment? It’s not enough to know just the phenomenon, the root of the problem is more important.
3 Likes
I agree with you.
Half of the new people in the House were elected on that basis. If not more.
This has gotten rather silly considering. There are so many ways that the Speaker could control the thing that would keep it from ever going to this Senate. Just control the schedule and never send it to McConnell. Wait for a new Senate. That’s what McCionnell would do. I wish to hell they’d start thinking like Mitch a little more.
12 Likes
They tend to authoritarianism and fighting. We are…wellllll you know 
I took some heat for saying this, but the Dems messaging is off. Of course, if I am wrong and all this was the messaging.
Then I am wrong.
1 Like
I think Josh’s post with the email from a lawyer about the need for speed in filing appeals, asking for rejecting stays, etc is relevant.
I would also not only help quell the hue and cry in the Democratic base to “do something” to hold trump accountable, but would actually go a long way to build momementium for the base and work against the GOP and Trump by attrition. (see my earlier post showing how Watergate eroded support for Nixon).
5 Likes
There is, of course, a third option: The “leaders” of the Democratic Party are happy with the status quo…
I believe you’re right, the “leaders” are happy with the status quo. Their focus has always been to keep progressives from having any influence or leverage over the party’s direction. They do not want a progressive in the WH and they have had enough situational power (for decades) to do exactly that.
But now things are more complicated for Pelosi & Gang of geriatrics. And their decisions and behaviors to stall stall stall is based on their desire to not give up the power they have had - and no longer deserve (since the 2010 midterm historic disaster). Would love to see new Blue Wave reps ban together and take her on.
And is there any sound reason for Democrats to NOT start impeachment hearings while continuing the ongoing House investigations AT THE SAME TIME?
3 Likes
I thought he was referring to the late 70s (1975-1980) y’know, the Gilda’d Age…
3 Likes
What noxious bullshit.
7 Likes
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
5 Likes
I always love your short cryptic obnoxious responses. I guess I’m suppose to know what you mean. Anyway …
You know what’s bullshit? Either that Pelosi is content with Vladimir Putin being in charge of our government for one more second, or all of Russiagate. You choose…
2 Likes
yes.
Democrats need to show they can “walk and chew gum at the same time”. The best way to do that is to segregate all the “Trump crimes” investigations under the “impeachment inquiry” umbrella, while the standing committees do “people’s agenda” work, like health care, voting rights, climate change, etc.
Additionally, the House could schedule its impeachment hearings for thursdays and fridays, and the “people’s agenda” stuff for the rest of the week.
4 Likes
I wrote to Josh when I saw that post…
Re: the “very important” letter on the mazar’s case, the author wrote
"....The issue is time-sensitive and has to be resolved quickly."
that’s where his argument falls apart. What makes this subpoena particularly time sensitive? If you read the Mehta opinion, there is no sense that Congress felt any particular urgency – congress certainly failed to spell out any specific urgent goal that required expeditious handling. And IIRC, it was Mehta’s idea to accelerate the case, and that was based on the (lack of) merits in Trump’s arguments, and Congress’ opposition to a preliminary injunction was similarly based on the fact that the Trump case was BS.
two other quick points –
- the citation of Bush v Gore is egregious. There were specific time constraints involved there. None such in the Mazar’s case.
1 Like