Just to prove my point… Americans have the President that they deserve.
5 Likes
The people who talk to Gallup.
The people who don’t are different
5 Likes
"Mr. Barr, I served with Tom Hagen. I knew Tom Hagen. Tom Hagen was a friend of mine. Mr. Barr, you’re no Tom Hagen."
3 Likes
Yeah boy! Who needs the rule of law?
Not us.
Certainly not trump or those who work for him. I mean “work for him” literally because they sure as hell aren’t around to support and defend the Constitution no matter what any oath they take says…
Because of ‘the donald’ my country is crumbling around me.
3 Likes
I assume that since trump is immune from any law the rest of us are as well. And laws are just words on paper.
1 Like
“As long as my 401(k) is doing well…”
(PS: “Thanks, Obama!”)
14 Likes
Democrats have to be thinking ahead, past 2020. It’s entirely possible that Trump will win. For that reason, the House should be issuing subpoena after subpoena on a whole variety of issues, particularly DOJ issues. The regime will refuse to comply; the House will litigate; and the matters will come up for final judicial decision some time in 2021, when we will need every tool at our disposal to resist the dictatorship. There is no need to impeach for that purpose–indeed the impeachment of Trump showed that not even impeachment will elicit disclosure of documents. Just exercise very robust oversight that will have the secondary benefit of putting the regime, and the judiciary, under constant blue pressure.
16 Likes
Yeah, but our leaders aren’t really calling us into the street either.
And just in case you think I’m dinging Pelosi only, this actually applies to Bernie as well. His whole theory of change is based on mass action to overcome the opposition of republicans and shitlibs to m4a and other left policies. He’s got a big audience right now. Why couldn’t he mobilize to defend something so basic as the rule of law?
4 Likes
"Sarah! Didn’t you re-route Barney’s call to the Sheriff’s Office?
Huh?..
Gallup? They keep calling people round these parts and we don’t raise horses here!!! Wish they would bother them folks in the City!!"
2 Likes
I assume you are an American.
I know I am and I did not deserve this nor do I believe my country did so you can stop that stuff any old time.
15 Likes
You’re saying that Gallup does not know how to take random samples?
1 Like
These are very good points, if I may say so. Mass protest requires national leadership–requires alarm bells to be sounded by national officials with the means to organize and inspire a national protest. Why has this not been done? What is the thinking? Are we too afraid of the GOP? Whether you’re Pelosi or Bernie, you have failed in this regard. Somebody has to explain what the thinking is, and why it has been decided that a peaceful march of millions would not be a good idea.
5 Likes
Right on.
The end of American justice, perhaps?
3 Likes
Tell that to the millions out there proudly wearing #MAGA hats, the millions more that as long they are personally doing well don’t give a shit about anything else and the millions more that barely know who the president is.
1 Like
you tell it to the MAJORITY - we voted for Hillary and democracy.
7 Likes
There is pretty clearly no substantive – as opposed to public relations – reason to not move forward on impeaching Barr.
The matter need not eat up too much of the House’s attention, given that what he did in the Stone case was so obviously and clearly a violation of what is expected of the AG that four of the prosecutors resigned from the case over his action. Of course the matter should be looked at by a committee, with Barr given every opportunity to explain what sure seems to be an impeachable offense. When the committee is done with its work, if the House leadership feels impeachment is justified, it can schedule a vote, appoint impeachment managers, and that’s it. It’s not as if the House, with our current divided govt, can be so engaged in passing vital legislation that it can’t spare the time and attention of the relevant committee. Even if there is no question of impeaching Barr – for PR reasons – pretty much the same committee work needs to be done as part of House oversight of DoJ anyway.
And because this would not be a presidential impeachment, the House would not be tossing the Senate any remotely unreasonable drain on its time and attention by impeaching Barr. The Senate would be perfectly free to deal with this entirely in committee right up to the final vote. There would be no Chief Justice involvement either.
Our side isn’t going to be impeaching Barr, despite pretty clear agreement that he is abusing his office by interfering in the Stone prosecution, because our leadership has decided that it would not be politically useful, that it would be bad PR, to impeach the AG.
This is not an obviously foolish decision. In the short term, it’s pretty clearly good politics to avoid yet another impeachment so soon after the recent Trump impeachment. Long term, though, it’s a huge mistake.
Trump is engaged in the punishment of those who testified against him and pursued his impeachment, and the reward of those on his side of the Ukraine and Russia affairs, out of consistency. He believes he acted morally and correctly in those matters, or, if you think he is a criminal mastermind rather than demented, he wants to act as if he believes these things. Therefore, to be consistent he has to treat those who went after him for his perfect behavior in Trump-Russia and the Ukraine affair as if they were engaged in a fraudulent and malevolent campaign against him, and he has to treat his supporters in those matters as if they are being unjustly persecuted by his political enemies. So Vindman and Sondland are fired, and Stone’s prosecutors are ordered to ease off on sentencing.
To be consistent in the opposite view, that Trump’s behavior in these matters was abuse of power, our side has to respond to his latest actions in this same, ongoing affair. The abuse started with Trump-Russia, continued with the Ukraine affair, and is now continuing with Trump’s abusive moves against those who behaved properly in both those prior aspects of this ongoing struggle. For our side to fail to respond in kind by acting against the perpetrators of the Trump actions, tells the world that we value PR and immediate political advantage over standing up for what we believe to be right. We are abandoning Vindman, Sondland, and the civil servants who put their time and effort into the prosecution of Stone because we find it politically inconvenient to stand up for them and the cause they risked their careers over.
This course of action is neither moral nor wise. It only seems wise if we refuse to follow its logic. We are in the habit of issuing ourselves such license to avoid difficult stands when we imagine that might not be politically useful that we have lost sight of how others view that behavior of ours.
9 Likes
Your comment sounds to me to be right on target.
Unlike past administrations, if the Dems win in November the country and constitution can’t afford for them to take the usual course of not investigating/prosecuting the previous administration. Trump’s and the R’s attacks on the constitution are far too fundamental and damaging to be treated as “business as usual.” What we are seeing is so far outside of our basic principles of government that there has to be a response to reestablish the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
4 Likes
And then there’s this 
NBC/WSJ Likely Voters Country on Track Pre 2018 Mid-Terms:
Right Track 38%
Wrong Track 54%
Ipsos/Reuters Likely Voters Country on Track 2020
Right Track 34%
Wrong Track 53%
h/t L O’D
Starts @ 3:15
5 Likes
I agree with you in theory. In practice, I am not going to second guess Pelosi’s leadership - she’s been leading like fury. She’s been all the leader I could ask for given what she has to work with.
11 Likes