That’s smart activism–well done!
16 Likes
Merry XMas!
First off, it a bad look for the speaker of the House to be telling Nadler “to proceed with Articles of Impeachment.” Nadler should be allowed to do the job himself – it should look like the kind of top-down operation that Pelosi is presenting, where she decided it was time to make impeachment official, she decided that Schiff and Intel would lead the charge, and she is now deciding to “proceed”.
secondly, was this the first time she bothered to read the speech? The phrasing was completely off – like she was unfamiliar with what she was actually saying. This rendered some really powerful, well written words practically meaningless, since the listener had to do the work of actually “re-editing” the various independent phrases she said into coherent clauses and sentences.
That being said, its pretty clear that Pelosi just wants to get this over with. Donald Trump has been a danger to the Constitution and the country from day one, and the evidence of his unfitness was sufficient to launch impeachment investigations on the first day of this House term (although a two month grace period would have been a good idea.) For Pelosi to now insist that there is an urgent need to impeach Trump immediately, when for nine months she was opposed to even opening an official impeachment proceeding, is clearly driven not by Trump’s offenses, but on her real prioriity.
And that, of course, is making sure that Donald Trump is the GOP candidate in 2020. If Trump is the candidate, Dems with certainly retain control of the House, and Pelosi will remain speaker. But if Trump is forced from office – or forced off the ticket – uncertainty enters the picture. So the sooner Pelosi can get “impeachment” off the table, the more secure she feels.
2 Likes
Cervantes, I think this is a point worth considering. If an acquittal by the Senate is a certainty right now, might it make sense to slow down just a bit and see if other witnesses come forward with more evidence? It seems to me that it’s possible that the evidence could get more compelling and make it more difficult for the Senate to quickly acquit and allow the president to claim vindication. Just a thought.
5 Likes
I’ll talk to my friends who have pre teen daughters and say to them “who’s the better role model for your daughters?” “Ivanka, the Slovenian rental wife? “Or Fiona Hill and professor Karlan”.
12 Likes
It’s a good question. At this point I’m still inclined to say yes but others apparently are not.
5 Likes
I’m concerned that moving quickly cedes the advantage to the president and his supporters in the Senate. While the case is still in the House, the president is exposed to a daily dose of negative information and press. If support among the public for impeachment is slowly growing, why not give it a bit more time?
4 Likes
John Roberts is going to be a very important man in the Senate trial, and I hope the Democrats are preparing their briefs and arguments for motions to enforce subpoenas for testimony and documents that have thus far been withheld. Will Roberts allow the cover-up and stonewalling to continue?
9 Likes
I found it odd that Nadler was not even there with her.
2 Likes
I think the House is still planning on gathering evidence that could potentially be used in the Senate trial.
8 Likes
Turley was a mouthpiece for the GOP during the Bill Clinton impeachment hearing/trial. He is a complete and total hypocrite, arguing the exact opposite when Clinton was being impeached. Likewise during Obama administration.
12 Likes
Just how much more evidence do you want? Schiff’s committee report was over 300 pages long. Did you read it? How about the Mueller Report? That was over 400 pages long, and while it might not factor in any articles of impeachment, how much more would be acceptable to meet your threshold?
I find it curious how, in general, Democratic supporters wail about the timidity of Dems on the Hill, but seem themselves positively terrified of anything that remotely resembles assertiveness.
14 Likes
There are lots of moving parts to this which we do not know about.
Lots.
I have noticed that, with a few notable exceptions, the temptation is to throw up one’s hands in the face of the strongest corruption and group-think on the part of Trump, his crew, the GOP Congress and his voters I have even seen in a modern Democratic society post WWII.
But I have never equated rank pessimism (sans information, which, to my knowledge, is closely circumscribed even among the good guys) with foresight or knowledge. I have neither the time nor inclination to point out the political landscape of July/August 2019 and juxtapose it to the present day.
But I will say this:
Like a fisherman, I will hook a number of people with this post who will proclaim that we are actually either worse off or no better off. than in July 2019.
And, with that, imply greater “knowledge”.
As Tribe said last night. Trump is going to use the office of POTUS to win in 2016. We have to stop him…and Pessimism ain’t the right way. Otherwise, why don’t we all log off and go build a spaceship to go somewhere else?
9 Likes
Exactly. The Dems could bring to the Senate actual videotape and recordings of Trump giving Putin secret intelligence documents and cash payments for his election assistance and Republicans would still not waver in their support for him.
Knowing that, why seek any more evidence than the open and shut case they have right now?
13 Likes
Their aggressiveness and persistence is far superior to ours.
Even in fighting for their own destruction.
2 Likes
We have to start sometime. Trump can crime faster than we can investigate.
17 Likes
Just posted this on another thread. Worth reading just for some added perspective on how threatening these impeachment proceedings are to tRump’s self-esteem, and how dangerous for the rest of the country and the world he may become as a result.
13 Likes
I read fiction, too.
3 Likes
I did read both reports (just finished the House report late last night). I agree that the evidence is compelling and I am convinced that the president should be impeached. I also think he presents an existential threat to this republic. However, in spite of that, it seems all but certain that the Senate will acquit him based on the spin they have be able to put on the evidence thus far. It may be that if public support for impeachment grows as more evidence comes to light about Ukraine and other matters, the Senate will have a more difficult time conducting a sham trial and reaching a quick verdict of acquittal. If the goal is to actually remove the president from office as opposed to passing articles of impeachment for their statement value, then there may be an argument to slow down a bit. If the articles are passed in early February, I don’t see that as a terrible outcome if significant gains in public support for removal from office are achieved.
2 Likes
…That the Republican party will completely own
we’ll be saying “Sorry Chumps , you had your chance ,” when he completely melts down to the point where Faux can’t support him
5 Likes