Calling the Traitor(s) in the White House to Account

Counter-argument, which refutes itself in the person of the panty-sniffer making it:







157 replies
  1. 1
    rikyrah says:

    Anyone seen
    Masterpiece Theater- Les Miserables

    Netflix – Imposter

  2. 2
    rikyrah says:

    Congressman Cummings is one of the good guys.

    Dolt45 scared of him.

  3. 3
    NotMax says:

    What better time than during Passover to speak of Elijah?

    ;)

  4. 4
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    I have been one who is against impeachment because there is no way it will succeed in this GOP Senate, and I thought it an unnecessary political gamble when in depth investigations by the various House committees would accomplish the same goal of damaging trump beyond redemption. In the wake of how bad the Mueller report really is, I am willing to be persuaded by a compelling political argument in favor of impeachment.

    Never mind it being the “moral and right thing to do”, the ‘moral and right thing to do’ is to keep the House, take the Senate and win the WH come 2020. Anything that gets in the way of that is anti-productive. So, before I change my mind, I need to be shown that impeachment proceedings and a show trial in the Senate will lead us to these larger goals.

    And now I need to get busy, but I will be back to read any reasonable arguments and to ignore all spittle flecked diatribes attacking my status as DINO in chief.

  5. 5
    Neldob says:

    Cummings is amazing. I am so happy to be on his side in this universe.

  6. 6
    rikyrah says:

    Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) Tweeted:
    Trump sues Rep. Elijah Cummings to block a congressional subpoena of his financial records.

    This is not the way innocent people behave. Trump works for the American people, and Congress has the right to know if the president is engaged in corruption.

    https://t.co/oQGdPXFVyw https://t.co/f1smlTzcie https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1120318451854249992?s=17

  7. 7
    zhena gogolia says:

    @rikyrah:

    raven is watching Les Miserables and says it’s good. It’s too depressing a story for me right now, but it’s full of great actors, including Olivia Colman.

  8. 8

    Fyre Festival of a Presidency

    Oh, that’s great.

  9. 9
    RedDirtGirl says:

    IOKIYAR!

  10. 10
    rikyrah says:

    Damn…..

    Billionaire ASOS tycoon who is Scotland’s biggest landowner loses three of his four children in Sri Lanka Easter suicide attacks by Islamist terrorists that killed 290 people including eight Britons

    Anders Holch Povlsen is the second largest private landowner in the UK and biggest shareholder in Asos
    Has four children with wife Anne Storm, Alma, Astrid, Agnes and Alfred, but it is not known which have died
    Previously said he planned to leave large estate to children so they could continue his rewilding project
    At least 290 people were killed and 500 wounded after eight explosions rocked hotels and churches
    The blasts, mostly around Colombo, have killed at least 39 foreigners including Britons and Americans
    Eight British nationals, and two holding dual UK-US nationality, are among the dead, Sri Lankan officials said
    Sri Lanka has blamed attack on National Thowheed Jamaath (NTJ), who were subject of intelligence warning

    By DIANNE APEN-SADLER and JAKE WALLIS SIMONS, ASSOCIATE GLOBAL EDITOR, IN COLOMBO FOR MAILONLINE

    PUBLISHED: 03:06 EDT, 22 April 2019 | UPDATED: 10:41 EDT, 22 April 2019

  11. 11
    NotMax says:

    @OzarkHillbilly

    Not the time yet, but it’s coming into sight in the distance.

    1) Not merely the right thing to do, it’s a Constitutional obligation when the facts dictate.
    2) Following separate investigations and hearings, puts evidence and conclusions on one plate.
    3) Removes the possibility of a pardon being used during or post-presidency.

  12. 12
    Gravenstone says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: I suggest timing it out so that there is no trial for this current Senate. Pass the articles of impeachment during the lame duck session, letting the next Democratically controlled House re-pass them pro forma before handing them to a newly Democratically controlled Senate for trial. Use the continuous House investigations leading up to that time to lay bare all of Trump’s guilt so that the election doubles as a referendum on him and Republicans in general.

  13. 13
    rikyrah says:

    Tea Pain (@TeaPainUSA) Tweeted:
    If you see impeachment as only an “option”, you admit we’re livin’ in a Constitution-optional democracy. https://twitter.com/TeaPainUSA/status/1120319073781460992?s=17

  14. 14

    Good for Rep.Cummings!

  15. 15
    rikyrah says:

    Charlotte Clymer🏳️‍🌈 (@cmclymer) Tweeted:
    Pundit: Democrats should call for impeachment!

    Other Pundit: No, Dems should offer a policy vision!

    Elizabeth Warren: Why not both? While we’re seeking impeachment, I have a few dozen bold + nuanced policy proposals to change America.

    Pundit to Pundit: Did you hear something? https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1120312541052321792?s=17

  16. 16
    rikyrah says:

    Brit (@thatgirlfrmOhio) Tweeted:
    Bernie spent $444k of campaign dollars on his own books in 2015

    https://t.co/8GWsCyyCji https://twitter.com/thatgirlfrmOhio/status/1120080843823882240?s=17

  17. 17
    Gravenstone says:

    @rikyrah: Looks like a panic move by Trump. Because if the court decides against him, it’s open the floodgates time for appropriate Congressional oversight.

  18. 18
    Mnemosyne says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    I understand why people are wary of impeachment, especially with the MSM pushing hard against it, but it really is the sworn duty of the House to investigate “high crimes and misdemeanors” by the president as spelled out in the Constitution. The Republicans tried to destroy that with their shenanigans over Bill Clinton, but it still exists.

    However, IMO the House Democrats need to undertake this with all due deliberation and not rush out half-aased Articles of Impeachment. IANAL, but it sounds like the House basically acts as a grand jury in coming up with the Articles, and then as prosecutors in fhe Senate. The House should take that responsibility seriously and build their case against Trump for the public.

    I know there’s this whole myth that the Clinton impeachment “hurt” the Republicans but (a) it hurt them because the charges were so clearly bogus and (b) it emboldened them to steal the presidency in 2000 and continue their criminality, and they need to be stopped.

  19. 19
    rikyrah says:

    Please See Pinned Tweet (@JustAGurLnSwedn) Tweeted:
    Well, this was DUMB….. how about we NOT hand Bernie more bombs to throw at the Democrats.

    ‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum

    Please See Pinned Tweet (@JustAGurLnSwedn) Tweeted:
    Momentum happens when a person wins a primary, NOT before.

    You can’t have momentum if there have been no votes.

    Momentum implies winning, and Bernie has NOT won a fucking thing yet. https://twitter.com/JustAGurLnSwedn/status/1120314359622901762?s=17

  20. 20
    rikyrah says:

    Propane Jane™ (@docrocktex26) Tweeted:
    British intelligence reportedly told the CIA months before the election that Trump’s campaign had illicit contacts with Russia https://t.co/WuIc2ffa9l via @businessinsider https://twitter.com/docrocktex26/status/970857127941169152?s=17

  21. 21
    Nicole says:

    @rikyrah: I watched Episode 1 last week and will catch Episode 2 this week. I like it a lot so far. And as someone who thoroughly enjoyed The Wire and The Affair, it’s fun to see Dominic West using his own accent for a change.

  22. 22

    @Mnemosyne: Do you have a diagnosis for Charlotte kitteh?

  23. 23
    rikyrah says:

    Trump and Bernie, Mueller is a cop. (@ReginaA1981) Tweeted:
    What kind of White centered BS is this? Nothing on civil rights, nothing on reproductive rights, nothing on K-12, nothing on retirement, nothing on reparations, nothing on voting rights nothing on paid family leave. They just went to Bernie’s white site and downloaded his shit. https://t.co/FgqRUYFyL3 https://twitter.com/ReginaA1981/status/1120043225513897985?s=17

  24. 24

    @rikyrah: Exactly and we don’t need multiple FP posts about how everyone needs to crawl over broken glass to vote for the Senator from Vt, if he wins the nomination. Let him win first, then write those posts.

  25. 25
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Gravenstone:

    You’re assuming that Trump gets re-elected in 2020. If he doesn’t, then impeachment is pointless, because you can’t have an impeachment trial for a lame duck president.

    You’re also probably vaguely remembering that the Clinton impeachment was done in a lame-duck session, but that was because the 1998 midterm election didn’t go the way the Republicans wanted and they lost seats, so that was their only option.

  26. 26
    cmorenc says:

    @Gravenstone:

    Pass the articles of impeachment during the lame duck session, letting the next Democratically controlled House re-pass them pro forma before handing them to a newly Democratically controlled Senate for trial.

    Unless the Ds win a 2/3 majority in the Senate in 2020, actual conviction and removal are nearly as remote a likelihood as they are now – and your hypo aslo asssumes Trump wins re-election in 2020, else impeachment is moot. But following the premise of your hypo, even with only a slim D senate majority post-2020, the Ds would control the trial process and permissible evidence, as opposed to an R-controlled senate inclined to put as grossly distorted and short-circutied face on it as Barr did purportedly releasing the Mueller report. The trial evidence would be heavily steered toward “nothing actionable to see here, move on” if the Rs control the Senate side of the process.

  27. 27
    Mnemosyne says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    It’s for Annie kitteh (someone got confused in that thread — can’t remember who — and I didn’t have a chance to correct them).

    We won’t have an actual diagnosis until the end of this week, but it does seem to be lymphoma, which is treatable. They have to figure out what type it is, though, because the treatment is different between large-cell (bad) and small-cell (less bad).

  28. 28
    rikyrah says:

    NewDemRicoP (@reesetheone1) Tweeted:
    I’m also annoyed with dems following Sanders on that little engine that Good no super Pac shit.

    Trump is gonna raise a billion dollars in 2020, have Russian help and the DOJ come in with. Necessary and disrupt and shutdown polling places in black areas in Battleground states.

    NewDemRicoP (@reesetheone1) Tweeted:
    Illinois had a rich Republican In office. How did we fight back?

    We voted for a billionaire in JB pritzker.

    Didn’t take long to get that 15 an hour minimum wage passed and now working on a progressive income tax. You don’t unilaterally disarm…. or resent wealth. https://t.co/EeO9b1MXrd https://twitter.com/reesetheone1/status/1120314702142291968?s=17

  29. 29
    Chyron HR says:

    @rikyrah:

    If you want to be a millionaire, just run for president and funnel campaign contributions to yourself under the table, duh.

  30. 30
  31. 31
    rikyrah says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    sending positive thoughts to your furry love :)

  32. 32
    randy khan says:

    I know I’m violating sacred Internet rules, but I really haven’t decided whether I think the Dems should pursue impeachment or not. This, in my mind, is a separate question than whether Trump has committed impeachable offenses (which it seems pretty obvious he has).

    I do think it’s important to understand, though, that the Constitution does not set any timetable for a trial once the House impeaches someone. Since Mitch McConnell is majority leader, that means that there will be no trial (and certainly no vote) unless he thinks it’s politically advantageous for them to happen. The two circumstances that would push him to do it are if he thinks that vulnerable Dems will be hurt by the trial or if he thinks that Republicans are toast if they don’t have the trial (which would mean that Trump would be convicted). I would tend to think the odds of the former are higher than the odds of the latter, but I also think neither is likely.

  33. 33
    rikyrah says:

    Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) Tweeted:
    Student loan debt is crushing millions of families. That’s why I’m calling for something truly transformational: Universal free college and the cancellation of debt for more than 95% of Americans with student loan debt. Read all about it here: https://t.co/IG9J5CiNb7 https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1120296821300060160?s=17

  34. 34
    rikyrah says:

    Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) Tweeted:
    Only liberals think this way. Republicans would have impeached Obama in a HEARTBEAT! https://t.co/JantCiOPmW https://twitter.com/CharlesMBlow/status/1120290733980827648?s=17

  35. 35
    rk says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Why do you assume that impeachment will get in the way of 2020 election? I wasn’t in favor of impeachment, but I am now. At some point you do have to do the right thing. When you don’t, you get people like Trump. We never did anything about Bush’s crime and lying about WMDs. We did not hold the big banks accountable for what happened in 2007. The message that has been sent to democrats by their party is that nothing matters, we are never going to hold republicans accountable for anything, because we’re too scared. Republicans on the other hand investigate democrats till the cows come home. Remember Benghazi, remember, fast and furious and assorted crap. It tarnished Hillary. It had an impact. I know some democrats who said “there has to be something there otherwise it wouldn’t have gone on so long”. It helps the republicans with their base.
    Start investigating Trump, get witnesses, investigate everything about him, tarnish his name, his reputation, and do it day in and day out. Make people come in front of congress, expose him and strip him bare for the world to see. Focus on his financial corruption and his ties to Russia. Focus on every wrongdoing. Then impeach him. You may fail, but you would have secured the democratic base and demoralized his people at best or they stick by him which will be the case even if you don’t impeach.
    Republicans tarnished Bill Clinton so much that Al Gore stayed away from him and lost to Bush. They tarnished Hillary so much that till today she is called corrupt by people who should know better.
    These tactics won republicans the house,senate and the Presidency. The fact that they screwed it up afterwards is not the point.
    Democrats have to impeach the bastard. Because it is not only the right thing but also strategically correct.

  36. 36
    rikyrah says:

    Stephen Robinson (@SER1897) Tweeted:
    The desire from some Dems for “white Obama” in response to Trump ignores that Trump himself was white America’s reaction to actual Obama.

    Stephen Robinson (@SER1897) Tweeted:
    This family was what made white conservatives desperate for someone vile enough to crush all that they stood for.

    Stephen Robinson (@SER1897) Tweeted:
    Majority of white people resented the Obamas so much they specifically wanted Trump to crush his memory.

    Stephen Robinson (@SER1897) Tweeted:
    The designer imposter Obamas running, especially Buttigieg, believe their whiteness will make them different. I almost look forward to seeing them proved wrong. https://twitter.com/SER1897/status/1120023498036891648?s=17

  37. 37
    tobie says:

    I’m glad Marcy Wheeler mentioned that there’s much more coming down the pike. Rosenstein so circumscribed the Mueller probe that Trump’s finances were off limits. We need to know the full extent of his and Kushner’s indetedness and not just to Russia but to the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, etc.

  38. 38
    Barbara says:

    @randy khan: There should be no goal of “impeach” or “not impeach,” but there can absolutely be a goal of, “we are going to find out everything and investigate to whatever extent we need to” in order to determine whether to impeach or not. The drip drip drip of negative information should continue as far as the eye can behold.

  39. 39
    immanentize says:

    @rikyrah: That means Bernie paid himself 444K from his campaign donations and supporters.

  40. 40
    Gravenstone says:

    @Mnemosyne: @cmorenc: I’ll be honest that I brain cramped the timing and that for a new Congress to act would have to be as a result of Trump being re-elected. But unless we crush Sanders and his idiots post haste, I won’t discount that painful event being possible.

    And yes, I assumed the Senate would still be an impediment because even winning all the R seats up in 2020 (an impossibility) still would not afford a Democratic super-majority. The only hope would be if the House investigations, in concert with significant Republican electoral losses swayed enough of the remaining Republican senators to vote for impeachment.

  41. 41
    laura says:

    As Driftglass says, chop wood and carry water. Congress IS exercising its Constitutionally mandated oversight role. As facts are uncovered and the public is given a narrative trying the criminality to trump 8 ways to Sunday, let the groundswell build. Let Shitler flopsweat his way through a campaign on the back foot, and the rest of us can simultaneously support our Speaker and nominate a candidate and platform, and work the ground game of GOTV.

  42. 42
    immanentize says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    you can’t have an impeachment trial for a lame duck president.

    This is not true. You can impeach a past official — and remove their retirement benefits, Secret Service protection, etc. and prevent them from running in the future. But why bother if the person is politically defeated?

  43. 43
    The Dangerman says:

    Now imagine if Hillary were president, and a special counsel report found she won w/the help of Russia and she and members of her campaign welcomed the help…

    Actually, given I like my streets without bloodshed, I’ll not imagine, TYVM.

  44. 44
    James E Powell says:

    Democrats who are constantly being badgered about impeachment need to disconnect the question from the Highly Redacted Mueller Report. They need to state that until they see the entire report, they cannot say. They need to say that until they get Trump’s tax returns and financials, they cannot say. And then they need to say that if Trump refuses to comply with producing those items, that his refusal will be among the grounds for impeachment.

  45. 45
    immanentize says:

    @Barbara: This is critical. Knowing things that happened is what the House is required to do under their supervision authority. There is never a requirement that the House must impeach to prove its righteous indignation. Which is exactly what the Republicans did to Clinton. What Speaker Pelosi and others have said, is that it is their duty to perform actual oversight. Then decide. Why are we thinking so much like Bob Barr now? He certainly believed he was morally required to impeach Clinton.

    The only argument that has even swayed me a bit is the one put forward by Charles Blow in today’s NYTimes:

    Impeachment exists separately from removal. Impeachment in the House is akin to an indictment, with the trial, which could convict and remove, taking place in the Senate. The Senate has never once voted to convict.

    So, an impeachment vote in the House has, to this point, been the strongest rebuke America is willing to give a president. I can think of no president who has earned this rebuke more than the current one.

    But I still believe that is like saying shaking your fist at God is mandatory even if there is no God.

    The only other argument that resonated even a little with me is that actual impeachment might cause Trump to not pardon people. Then I remembered we are talking about Trump and it is more likely he would pardon people and force the issue.

    I think proceeding as you and NotMax suggest is the way to go. Not much is different between what the House is currently doing and what an impeachment process looks like other than the self-righteous gratification of printing “Impeached!” bumper stickers. I suppose not to be underrated.

  46. 46
    catclub says:

    @Gravenstone:

    Looks like a panic move by Trump. Because if the court decides against him, it’s open the floodgates time for appropriate Congressional oversight.

    it is also trump’s standard behavior with courts, first, deny, then fight in court, then refuse to fulfill court ordered demand, then turn over part of what is demanded, then finally quietly pay the fine. but the delay is the important thing.

  47. 47
    Barbara says:

    @immanentize: Even when you decide to indict/impeach, you need a plan to do so. For one thing, you need the redacted bits or the underlying documentation of the report.

    I agree with Charles Blow, and for that reason I really despise those like Hoyer who seem to have taken the prospect of impeachment off the table under any circumstances. That’s just a complete abdication of congressional authority.

  48. 48
    randy khan says:

    @Barbara:

    There should be no goal of “impeach” or “not impeach,” but there can absolutely be a goal of, “we are going to find out everything and investigate to whatever extent we need to” in order to determine whether to impeach or not.

    I am 110% behind investigating everything possible about Trump and his minions.

  49. 49
    Aleta says:

    @rikyrah: How to buy a house on the water.

  50. 50
    MisterForkbeard says:

    @rikyrah: I find myself completely unsurprised by the grifting.

    @rikyrah: Josh Marshall had a really good bit on it this morning from a reader. “Removal” is NOT the only aim or benefit of an impeachment hearing. Some of it is investigatory. Some of it is political: Just illustrating to the nation how corrupt Trump and his campaign were, and how Republicans refuse to do anything: Even on the cases where they say it was improper, they’re not willing to change laws or processes to address it.

  51. 51
    Jinchi says:

    I have no patience for politicians and pundits who condemn Trump, while ruling out impeachment and indictment for his actions. Especially grating are those who are quoted saying “I’d rather defeat Trump at the ballot box.”

    Stop trying to pass this off on the voters, get off your asses and use the power you have to punish corrupt behavior and prevent it from happening again.

    Losing an election is not a punishment for a crime. We live in a country where 54% of voters already rejected Trump at the ballot box and where the obstacles are constantly being placed to prevent millions from voting at all.

  52. 52
    Another Scott says:

    @Barbara: I don’t think he’s done that. Twitter:

    Steny Hoyer Verified account @LeaderHoyer

    THREAD: Contrary to Attorney General Barr’s assertion, the redacted report by Special Counsel Mueller is a damning recitation of lies, misinformation, and malfeasance.

    11:37 AM – 19 Apr 2019

    Steny Hoyer Verified account @LeaderHoyer

    In light of the very serious adverse implications of this redacted report, it is absolutely essential that the Congress & the American people have the opportunity to see, analyze, & decide the implications of the complete & unredacted report, including grand jury testimony.

    Steny Hoyer Verified account @LeaderHoyer

    Therefore, I urge Committees to pursue vigorously:
    1 The full, unredacted #MuellerReport
    2 An investigation of @RealDonaldTrump concerning obstruction of justice & the relationship b/w POTUS & entities carrying out efforts to compromise the free & fair exercise of our democracy.

    FWIW.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  53. 53
    jc says:

    The most dangerous thing to Trump is … the public knowing the truth. The thing Trump will fight for harder than anything is you knowing the truth.

    I don’t know about you, but when people in public office lie to my face in order to take advantage for their personal gain — that really pisses me off. And then when I demand the truth, and they pretend that *they* are the morally offended party — my anger turns to rage.

  54. 54
  55. 55
    J R in WV says:

    @immanentize:

    @rikyrah: That means Bernie paid himself 444K from his campaign donations and supporters.

    I’m only surprised that there wasn’t another zero on that amount.

    Why do something that low-down and slimy for a measly $444,000 when you could have gone for $4,440,000 with the same exposure? Proof of a total lack of integrity, as if we didn’t already know about that!!!

    One more reason [petty thief] not to vote for or support Bernard Sanders for dog catcher, let alone Senate or President! Added to Russia, NRA, civil rights, sexual harassment and misogyny, and so many more I can’t list them all with looking up the long list.

    So glad I didn’t sign up for Bernie!

  56. 56
    Searcher says:

    Even if we all know that the Senate would never vote to remove Trump, it’s very obvious from his behavior that Trump isn’t so confident.

    If Democrats aren’t going to vote to impeach, because politics, they should at least use it for politics. Use it as a lever to get legislation through — “We’d prefer to work on legislation, but if none of that is getting anywhere, we might as well start holding hearings for impeachment, but if we had legislative work to do, we might have to table it.”

    That’s the problem with being as compromised as Trump is and holding office or similar trust: it makes you vulnerable to being compelled to further action against your own interests.

  57. 57
    rikyrah says:

    @immanentize:

    Impeachment exists separately from removal. Impeachment in the House is akin to an indictment, with the trial, which could convict and remove, taking place in the Senate. The Senate has never once voted to convict.

    So, an impeachment vote in the House has, to this point, been the strongest rebuke America is willing to give a president. I can think of no president who has earned this rebuke more than the current one.

    ICAM with Mr. Blow

  58. 58
    Jinchi says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Never mind it being the “moral and right thing to do”, the ‘moral and right thing to do’ is to keep the House, take the Senate and win the WH come 2020.

    I have a hard time following the logic of people who think that putting a giant spotlight on clear evidence that Donald Trump and his campaign actively encouraged an assault by a hostile government on our country, and then repeatedly attempted to shut down the investigation into that attack with the aid of the Republican political establishment,…… is somehow going to jeopardize Democratic attempts to win the House and the Senate.

  59. 59
    Johannes says:

    @Nicole: Ah, but have you seen him in The Hour? It’s good the first season, and better the second. (Adding Peter Capaldi generally has that effect.)

  60. 60
    The Moar You Know says:

    So, before I change my mind, I need to be shown that impeachment proceedings and a show trial in the Senate will lead us to these larger goals.

    @OzarkHillbilly: Post Clinton’s impeachment, the GOP got the presidency, kept the House, kept the Senate. And Clinton was popular.

    Trump isn’t.

    I’ve been beating the “no impeachment” drum for a long time and I think that has been a mistake. We should have done it to Nixon (absolutely), Reagan (probably) and Bush the Younger (probably). “Looking forward, not back” is great, but we’ve run out of road going forward and now’s the time to start looking back and making some folks pay the price for their crimes, or forswear any claim to be a republic of laws.

  61. 61
    J R in WV says:

    We just got a phone call from the NRCC, I answered and the guy asked “Is the Lady of the house available?” I said sure, and gave the phone to wife.

    Guy asks “Do you think President Trump is doing a better job than Obama did?”

    Wife says “Say that again!?”

    He asks it again. Wife says in an aroused voice “Good Lord, NO!”

    While I would have kept him on the line acting on the philosophy that the longer he’s talking to me, the less money he raises, that was a gut honest reaction from the wife. We’ve never been on any R list, don’t know why they would pay for a list with us on it, amusing vignette, tho.

    If that’s the best they can do, we’ve got a good shot at things in my book.

  62. 62
    Fair Economist says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Never mind it being the “moral and right thing to do”, the ‘moral and right thing to do’ is to keep the House, take the Senate and win the WH come 2020.

    The voting public as a whole rewards moral behavior. There have been three impeachments, and the political results correspond directly to how justified the impeachment was:

    Clinton was impeached as a naked power play. The public responded by giving him an unprecedented 2nd midterm Congressional gain.

    Johnson was impeached for policy reasons. The public basically ignored it and the election of 1868 came out about as you’d have expected.

    Nixon was impeached for criminal activity. The public responded with one of the biggest Congressional swings against his party.

    Now Trump might be impeached for treason (yeah I know not officially, but this is what the term means in everyday parlance). What do you think the result will be?

  63. 63
    Nicole says:

    @Johannes: I haven’t! I’ll have to check that out. Thanks for the recommendation.

  64. 64
    jonas says:

    Ken Starr says Democrats shouldn’t pursue impeachment of Trump because “it’s so bad for the country”

    There are certainly many contenders these days, but is there any more feckless douche alive currently polluting our airwaves than Ken Starr? Impeachment is too “divisive.” Really? JFC, the balls on these people.

  65. 65
    Gravenstone says:

    @J R in WV: Your wife must be a saint not to have lapsed into a prolonged and heartfelt stream of obscenity in response to such stupidity.

  66. 66
    brantl says:

    @immanentize: To keep that sonofabitch from getting any more of american citizens’ money for ANYTHING. And to remove his immunity.

  67. 67
    Fair Economist says:

    @randy khan:

    Since Mitch McConnell is majority leader, that means that there will be no trial (and certainly no vote) unless he thinks it’s politically advantageous for them to happen.

    McConnell refusing to hold a trial would be lethal for the Senate Republicans politically.

  68. 68
    J R in WV says:

    @brantl:

    To keep that sonofabitch from getting any more of american citizens’ money for ANYTHING. And to remove his immunity.

    This. And to get the nuke football out of his vicinity!!!

  69. 69
    les says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: I guess in some political sense, you’re right. But at this point, if running the process to say it’s unacceptable to have a traitorous, autocratic liar, cheat and thief as president* means we lose elections–what’s the fucking point? If “gotta be bipartisan” and “gotta be supported in the Senate” are the standards, the Dem majority in the House might as well go home. Nothing important to Democrats and democracy will be supported in the Senate.

  70. 70
    Fair Economist says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    However, IMO the House Democrats need to undertake this with all due deliberation and not rush out half-aased Articles of Impeachment. IANAL, but it sounds like the House basically acts as a grand jury in coming up with the Articles, and then as prosecutors in fhe Senate. The House should take that responsibility seriously and build their case against Trump for the public.

    A compelling indictment is extra important here because the Senate Republicans will do their best to sabotage a trial.

  71. 71
    Pa says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: Change the “goal”.

    Power lies in using the tools you can use.

    So, instead of seeing the end goal as “getting reluctant GOP Senators pushed to vote yes”, make the goal “damage DJT/GOP every single day through relentless hearings/investigations that show Americans the depth of DJT/GOP corruption.”

  72. 72
    germy says:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump says that “nobody” disobeys his orders, a reference to the Mueller report, which paints a deeply unflattering picture of his presidency.

    Trump made the comments Monday during the annual Easter Egg roll when asked by reporters about special counsel Robert Mueller’s portrayal of a White House in which staffers often ignore the president’s orders.

    The report suggested that some of those refusals helped protect the president from himself.

    But Trump insisted Monday that: “Nobody disobeys my orders.”

    Trump was also asked whether he was worried about impeachment, a talking point among some liberal Democrats.

    His reply? “Not even a little bit.”

  73. 73
    rikyrah says:

    Thread 👏👏👏

    Zerlina Maxwell (@ZerlinaMaxwell) Tweeted:
    In this Dem primary it’s not just important to say we need systemic changes, you have to tell voters how you will make those changes to bring about solutions. Kudos @ewarren and @kamalaharris @juliancastro who so far are leading and pushing the dudes w/ B names to show their work https://twitter.com/ZerlinaMaxwell/status/1120347082102059009?s=17

  74. 74
    Barbara says:

    @Another Scott: That’s good to know. His initial comments were ambiguous, and I don’t really understand why given his district.

  75. 75
    Kay says:

    @randy khan:

    I know I’m violating sacred Internet rules, but I really haven’t decided whether I think the Dems should pursue impeachment or not. This, in my mind, is a separate question than whether Trump has committed impeachable offenses (which it seems pretty obvious he has).

    I’m still undecided too. I’m to the point where I defer to Pelosi on these matters. Warren backing it is a strong endorsement for me too, simply because Elizabeth Warren has a very good track record and I therefore trust her.

    I’m glad I don’t have to decide, frankly. I don’t know.

  76. 76
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    And they don’t ask Star what he though he was doing in the late 90s? Gods our press is totally useless.

  77. 77
    Barbara says:

    @Fair Economist: The problem is that the voters have never been so divided along lines of age. This has been an escalating division, call it the Fox News effect or whatever you want, and although, of course, it was exploited in 2016 (by keeping younger voters less motivated or even voting third party), it’s a real thing. So I don’t think it is easy to predict what will happen.

  78. 78
    Kay says:

    I do get tired of the SURENESS on the internet re: impeachment, pro and con. Give me a fucking break. No one ‘knows” what will happen and we’re already into the Realm of Democrats Secret Motivations, which means we’re no longer in the land of the real.

  79. 79
    Chief Oshkosh says:

    I have been confused about some terminology. Maybe you guys can help me. Isn’t it that there is a difference between starting the impeachment process (i.e., Congressional investigations and hearings) and “impeachment” itself? I always thought, when I thought about it at all, that the impeachment process involved several impeachment investigations and hearings that, early in the process, were geared to discovering whether the impeachment should go forward. Also, I thought that investigations for an impeachment process in some way differed from “normal” Congressional investigations. And where in the process must “Articles of Impeachment” be stated? Beginning? Middle? End?

  80. 80
    Barbara says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques: The idea that anyone cares what Ken Starr thinks about anything is proof positive if you needed it that journalists are lazy people who are much more reliant on their rolodexes than on their actual initiative and brain power. Not only did Ken Starr puke up a biased report in an investigation that went insanely off course, but he then served as the president of a college that tried to cover up actual criminal behavior, not sort of misusing your office to seduce an intern who willingly went along, but actual, honest to goodness rape, that was bad for — not the country or anything really important — but your GD football team. Ken Starr should be working for free to help poor people with actual legal needs and just give up trying to be somebody influential or important to the rest of us.

  81. 81
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @Kay: I will point at that the California dems are really, really good at taking down corrupt Republicans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Quackenbush#Resignation

    The hearings they ran on Queackenbush left no one with any doubt about how corrupt he was.

  82. 82
    Barbara says:

    @Chief Oshkosh: An impeachment proceeding is like Congress serving as a grand jury, and it culminates in a vote to impeach. If the vote to impeach succeeds, it’s like an indictment, and the Senate serves as judge and jury in a proceeding that looks much more like a trial.

  83. 83
    joel hanes says:

    @Chyron HR:

    If you want to be a millionaire, just run for president and funnel campaign contributions to yourself under the table, duh.

    Don’t forget to set up a “foundation” that pays your family members high salaries for doing … whatever

  84. 84
    Kay says:

    I’m going to back Warren in the primary. I’ll never get another candidate who is so close to me on issues in my lifetime. It’s a perfect fit. I don’t think she’s in that strong a position so it may not be backing the winner and I’m committed to voting for whoever Democrats choose in the general, but I have decided my primary. Now we’ll see if she lasts to Ohio, right? :)

    And may the best man or woman win- I’ll try not to be a sore loser, although really that’s my personality so I don’t see “gracious losing” happening :)

    Luckily I’m also shallow so I’ll be over it by the general. By the day after the primary, probably.

  85. 85
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    I’m going to back Warren in the primary. I’ll never get another candidate who is so close to me on issues in my lifetime. It’s a perfect fit. I don’t think she’s in that strong a position so it may not be backing the winner and I’m committed to voting for whoever Democrats choose in the primary, but I have decided my primary.

    Did you see her new policy on College Education and Student Loan Debt?

  86. 86
    Raven says:

    @zhena gogolia: I mean it’s good in the sense .= that it has a great cast and wonderful production values. The story is awful but it’s a good look at injustice. I don’t know if there were as many Franco-Africans in roles such as nurses and police chiefs in those days but it make the story more interesting.

  87. 87
    coin operated says:

    Impeach. Start the daily drip-drip-drip of damming allegations. We won’t get Trump’s base…forget about them….we need anyone else paying attention to see just how depraved these clowns are. What better magnifying lens than a House Impeachment Inquiry?

  88. 88
    Raven says:

    @Chief Oshkosh: Impeachment is the process that comes from the House, Clinton was impeached but not convicted by the Senate. Shithead is not going to be convicted so I leave it to all the geniuses here to decide whether or do do it.

  89. 89
    Kay says:

    @rikyrah:

    I did. On just issue after issue she has the right diagnosis. I want someone who sees the problem. Doing something about the problem is the next step, but one has to come before two.

    It’s kind of convenient because if she loses NH she’s out, so I’ll be able to switch early if it just ain’t happening. You know I like TO HAVE A PLAN :)

  90. 90
    RandomMonster says:

    @rikyrah: Re: Les Mis, my wife and I just finished the series and thought it was quite good.

  91. 91
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @Barbara: yes, I suppose the show figures they can phone it in with a babbling idiot like Star. 20 mins of incoherent dialog while everyone plays League of Legends on their phones.

  92. 92
    patrick II says:

    There is enough in the Mueller report to impeach Trunp twenty times over. What surprises me is the narrowness of its scope. There are no mentionof finances, other than what mostly already known about his big hotel deal with Russia, but nothing about money laundering or bribes from Russians through real estate and loans which are relevent because they would go straight to motive.
    I get Trump has committed many crimes not directly related to the election or Russia which could not be investigated, but even with that unfinished work we have enough to
    impeach and convict him many times over. He has been a very busy Criminal.

  93. 93
    thalarctosMaritimus says:

    @Mnemosyne: All good wishes and hoping for Annie!

    Did she have a reasonably comfortable weekend?

  94. 94
    Wjs says:

    You’ll note that only Democrats are required to decide on impeachment, perform oversight of the government, solve the problem of the deficit, reach across the aisle, work in a bipartisan manner, fix global warming, defend the voting rights of Americans, and so on.

    There is no accountability for Republicans. They wrecked their party. They are protecting a criminal. Why aren’t they being asked to defend the Constitution?

  95. 95
    TenguPhule says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    . In the wake of how bad the Mueller report really is, I am willing to be persuaded by a compelling political argument in favor of impeachment..

    We can do the right thing and start the impeachment or we can dither and let the assholes win.

    Democrats ran on good government. Now we prove we meant it or else kiss the voters goodbye.

  96. 96
    Kay says:

    @Wjs:

    Because their base, both donors and voters, don’t care.

    Trump was right about one thing. He really could shoot someone and it wouldn’t matter to his fans.

  97. 97
    TenguPhule says:

    @Wjs:

    Why aren’t they being asked to defend the Constitution?

    Why ask a question you already know the answer to?

  98. 98
    TenguPhule says:

    @patrick II:

    There are no mentionof finances, other than what mostly already known about his big hotel deal with Russia, but nothing about money laundering or bribes from Russians through real estate and loans which are relevent because they would go straight to motive.

    Keep in mind, much of the report is still redacted.

  99. 99
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    I did. On just issue after issue she has the right diagnosis. I want someone who sees the problem. Doing something about the problem is the next step, but one has to come before two.

    I want her to nail Biden to the wall over student debt.

  100. 100
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @The Dangerman: Would they have impeached her on inauguration afternoon for Bill lying about a blowjob 20 years ago before or after burning her at the stake?

  101. 101
    Wjs says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Very true.

    Is there any validity to viewing impeachment as a bailout for Republicans who think like Romney? You know, the kind that talks a good game but won’t vote for anything substantive.

  102. 102
    TenguPhule says:

    @immanentize:

    But why bother if the person is politically defeated?

    Because Donald Trump does not deserve any benefits on the presidenecy.

    ESPECIALLY lifetime SS protection. That needs to go away. And the sooner, the better.

  103. 103
    sukabi says:

    If Hillary had been elected the Republicans would have started impeachment proceedings 5 minutes after she was sworn in.

  104. 104
    TenguPhule says:

    @Wjs:

    Is there any validity to viewing impeachment as a bailout for Republicans who think like Romney? You know, the kind that talks a good game but won’t vote for anything substantive.

    It separates the goats from the sheep. Put them on the record so that when its time to settle accounts, their votes can serve to convict them of treason on behalf of Russia.

  105. 105
    TenguPhule says:

    @sukabi:

    If Hillary had been elected the Republicans would have started impeachment proceedings 5 minutes after she was sworn in.

    Lies. They wouldn’t wait five minutes.

  106. 106
    joel hanes says:

    @patrick II:

    There are no mentionof finances

    It’s my understanding that Mueller’s charter was “investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election”. I’ve also seen others write that Rosenstein wanted Mueller not to color outside that line, although my estimate of Mueller’s scrupulously-careful character makes me doubt that such direction was necessary.

    It’s up to Congress to investigate everything else : the money from Russia to Trump and the NRA and divers Republicans, the violations of the emoluments clause, the campaign finance violations, the obstruction of justice, the multiple orders to commit illegal acts, and everything that would require deposition of the President’s family or disclosure of their tax filings or other financial records.

    This is one of the reasons that the Mueller report is not an end point, but a starting point.

  107. 107
    germy says:

    @sukabi:

    If Hillary had been elected the Republicans would have started impeachment proceedings 5 minutes after she was sworn in.

    This isn’t even conjecture.

    They were quite open about what they planned for her.

  108. 108
    patrick II says:

    @TenguPhule: @joel hanes:
    The point I was trying to make, evidently ineloquently, is that even with the limited amount we can see in the report, there is still enough there to impeach twenty presidents. Remarkable given that we have a very good idea he has done so much more.

  109. 109
    germy says:

    So we just have to get [Trump] out of there and at this point I’m no longer worried about political repercussions — because what would those be? That if we acted like Republicans, Republicans will get mad? We might lose some votes in Fritters, Alabama? Fuck that. You want votes in the South, give us more Stacey Abrams and less George Wallace.

    If the majority of elected Democrats who are acting like dogs confronted with an intriguing but frightening smell — trying to get their noses as far forward and their tails as far back as possible — can’t understand that, then maybe they’ll understand this: Soon enough, even their traditional grift — roiling and shaking down the base with spooky Trump stories and doing fuck-all about it, then repeating the process — doesn’t work if nobody believes it, and at the moment, trust me, nobody believes it. AOC boycotting Pelosi’s incumbency-protection racket is the thin end of the wedge.

    Just pretending to fight back isn’t going to work. And if you can’t get the Senate to go along, so what? It didn’t do George W. Bush any harm. C’mon, earn your fucking paychecks.

    – Roy Edroso

    http://alicublog.blogspot.com/.....f-pot.html

  110. 110
  111. 111
    TenguPhule says:

    @Mike in Pasadena:

    Deems can hold investigative hearings even without impeachment. Public hearings. Televised all day everyday.

    And they typically get 20 seconds of airtime and are forgotten before the end of the week by the public.

    Impeachment is constant and ongoing and has the best chance of penetrating to our target audience.

  112. 112
    Kay says:

    @rikyrah:

    Oh, Biden. They’re going to love him here, I’m afraid. I can definitely see them voting for Biden. My mother in law is already backing him. She was screaming at me – “what’s the matter with JOE BIDEN?” like I’m completely unreasonable for even criticizing him.

  113. 113
    James E Powell says:

    @Jinchi:

    Especially grating are those who are quoted saying “I’d rather defeat Trump at the ballot box.”

    Especially since the surest way to defeat him and the Republicans at the ballot box is to expose their corruption and lies. Too many Democrats and almost the entire press/media world think that voters are as informed and attentive as they are. They fail to realize that the great mass of Americans – both willingly and unwillingly – are submerged in a swamp of Republican propaganda. There are no liberal sources for news.

  114. 114
    lurker dean says:

    i was more cautious about impeachment but not any more. the mueller report is bad, the traitor conspired with russia to get elected, and the only reason there isn’t sufficient evidence of that is the obstruction and mysterious russians dying in an untimely manner.

    even beyond that, the whole administration has been rife with corruption. we have gotten used to it but when it’s compiled like in this thread, it’s shocking.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1119974306870636544.html

    below are the first few parts of this thread, there are many more.

    “In today’s America, the president and those who work for him are above the law. The president can’t be indicted for crimes he commits. A majority in the Congress believe holding him accountable for his crimes is too politically divisive for justice to be done.

    Trump has already be cited for violating campaign finance laws with no effect. Mueller has showed conclusively he has obstructed justice and no consequences are likely. The Treasury Sec and head of the IRS have broken the law–likely with the WH advice–without consequences.

    The Commerce Sec has lied to the Congress and nothing is done. The president’s son and other chief advisors have done so as well, and nothing is done. Subpoenas are ignored without consequence. Rules are broken–from the Constitution’s emoluments clause to the guidelines that protect our national security information–and it does not seem to matter. Those who seek to guide the White House to follow the law–like senior employees at the Department of Homeland Security–are fired for upholding their oaths.

    Not only does the president lie serially to his employers, us, but those who are on the government payroll to provide transparency in the government–like the WH press secretary–lie as well with complete impunity.

    The attorney general, supposedly the nation’s top law enforcement official, acts instead as the president’s private attorney, lying and twisting the law to suit his personal ends. His predecessor, the acting attorney general, did likewise, also misleading Congress repeatedly.”

  115. 115
    Immanentize says:

    @Another Scott: Here is what Hoyer said the day before those tweets (April 18):

    “Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point,” Hoyer, the second highest-ranking House Democrat, told CNN. “Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgment.”

    I think maybe he got a call from Pelosi?

  116. 116
    Kay says:

    @lurker dean:

    I think they’re definitely going to interfere again, and the Trump Administration or their low quality hack AG won’t do jack about it, so in that sense impeachment would keep a spotlight on it, which is a plus.

    I just figure Pelosi can decide. She’s probably better at her job than I am.

  117. 117
    James E Powell says:

    @Immanentize:

    I think maybe he got a call from Pelosi?

    I wonder how many he got from voters.

  118. 118
    zhena gogolia says:

    @lurker dean:

    That is powerful.

  119. 119
    TenguPhule says:

    @lurker dean: The only way this ends is badly.

  120. 120
    Immanentize says:

    @Kay: I agree. She knows more and has better instincts than I.

  121. 121
    Groucho48 says:

    Assuming the Senate would never convict and quite likely won’t even try Trump, the main function of an impeachment would be PR and to sway and motivate people to vote Dem.

    To do that, we need not only a diligent and thorough process, we need articulate and well prepared Dems to flood every form of media and make the case to the public. Because it is an absolute certainly that Republicans will and the Media will listen to them uncritically. Unless we counter that, Reps will win the impeachment PR battle and probably the 2020 elections.

    We CAN win that battle, but, not if we assume, as we so often do, that we just have to put the facts out there and we’ll win. We will have to sell, sell, sell. Then, sell some more.

  122. 122
    rikyrah says:

    @lurker dean:

    Rules are broken–from the Constitution’s emoluments clause to the guidelines that protect our national security information–and it does not seem to matter.

    Whatever House Committee is over the Justice Department needs to haul folks from there to explain their redefining of the emoluments clause.

  123. 123
    Ruckus says:

    @immanentize:
    Trump pardoning people make things far worse for him because of the loss of their 5th amendment right of self incrimination. And because this would crush him and everything is about him…..
    @OzarkHillbilly:
    I’m one who agrees with you. Impeachment is a charge of illegal activity brought against a constitutional officer. There’s a lot of groundwork to be accomplished before that happens. We are getting there, and if we get blocked along the way we will most likely still have enough evidence to bring charges. That the senate won’t do anything about them is probably correct. But if the process proceeds reasonably that senate inaction would be worse for them politically. Not with their base but with the rest of the public.
    So, the process that is underway, holding hearings, publicly laying out as much evidence as possible, laying out the rest in closed sessions, and building a case for impeachment is the proper path and is what is being done. Impeachment is the last step in that process, not the first.

  124. 124
    TenguPhule says:

    @Ruckus:

    Trump pardoning people make things far worse for him because of the loss of their 5th amendment right of self incrimination. And because this would crush him and everything is about him…..

    Unfortunately one of Pelosi and Harry Reid’s failures was to never hold Cheney and Karl Rove to account for pissing on the Congressional testimony demand back when it counted. They won’t take the fifth because the fuckers will never show up to testify short of guns literally thrust into their backs.

  125. 125
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @immanentize: @TenguPhule: Let’s not forget about the Presidential pension – lifetime benefit of $191300 a year as of 2008 according to Snopes.

    Almost $200k of taxpayer money for Traitorous Orange Soviet Shitpile per year until his inevitable heart attack and/or stroke.

  126. 126
    Cacti says:

    If elected Dems are willing to let this go, we might as well just concede that we’re a failed Republic, a nation of men, not laws, and could the last one out turn off the lights.

  127. 127
    AnotherBruce says:

    I think that impeachment would bar Trump from being able to pardon is enough of a reason to impeach the motherfucker.

  128. 128
    Chief Oshkosh says:

    I’m still unclear on terminology, but it is clear that Trump, and other elected Republicans, need to have their actions investigated by Congress. As we see now, requests from Congress are being ignored (or worse) by the Executive. Much worse, subpoenas seem to be ignored. Thus, it seems that “normal” Congressional investigations will only result in Democrats continuing to look (and, to a degree, in fact be) weak. This will further embolden Trump and other Republicans. So, if calling an investigation “part of an initial impeachment proceeding” lends additional credence in the view of the public and press, and possibly actual force with weight of law, to a Congressional investigation, then I think Congress needs to name even the ongoing investigations as “part of an initial impeachment proceeding.”

  129. 129
    TenguPhule says:

    @Chief Oshkosh:

    I’m still unclear on terminology, but it is clear that Trump, and other elected Republicans, need to have their actions investigated by Congress.

    And that includes half of Congress.

  130. 130
    Ruckus says:

    @Another Scott:
    We always need to remember that the press is not our friend. They may or may not be our enemies either, but they are there to report what they think they see and what their bosses want reported.
    The clip of Hoyer saying one part or one thing, taken out of context supports their bias, it is not necessarily the truth. We always have to remember that, in every instance and with every person they talk to. Not only the answer but the question he was asked is important. As well as the complete statement. I’ve said here that I don’t think we should impeach. But that is not the entire statement, there has always been a YET there as well. Taken out of context my statement changes the meaning completely of what I said.

  131. 131
    TenguPhule says:

    @mrmoshpotato: Trump will not live long enough to collect a pension once his SS protection ends.

    Feature, not a bug.

  132. 132
    lurker dean says:

    @TenguPhule: i don’t see how the alternative, allowing trump to do all this, and then not impeaching him, and then watching trump crow that the lack of impeachment exonerates him, is any better. i agree it’s not an easy question because of possible political backlash, but the buck needs to stop somewhere or why even have impeachment. if impeachment is not warranted with this level of corruption and conspiring with the russians, when will it be warranted?

    i’m not saying impeachment immediately, but serious hearings need to be held that at least establish each of the many acts of obstruction that happened. hopefully nancy has the political sense that we all think she does. mueller already laid out the obstruction case to the point where we know all of the elements of at least several counts have been shown, so i guess i’m less worried about backlash. at the end of the day, i see it as necessary for the rule of law.

  133. 133
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @TenguPhule: Fat Bastard chugging a polonium-laced Diet Coke eh?

  134. 134
    joel hanes says:

    @TenguPhule:

    [Will not quote]

    I hate him too, but this is vile, more or less the moral equivalent of a prison rape joke.
    Back into the pie filter with you.

  135. 135
    Ruckus says:

    @Barbara:
    Ken Starr should just shut the fuck up and go sit in a corner and suck his thumb. It would be more productive of him than anything else and it wouldn’t inflict his shitty abilities on poor people.

  136. 136
    Emma says:

    @patrick II: There is enough in the Mueller report to impeach Trunp twenty times over. What surprises me is the narrowness of its scope. There are no mention of finances, other than what mostly already known about his big hotel deal with Russia, but nothing about money laundering or bribes from Russians through real estate and loans which are relevent because they would go straight to motive.
    Those were not under his remit. Mueller was tasked to investigate Russian interference in the election. Rachel Maddow, among others, has pointed out that the report is an outline for prosecution, and that is the best thing he could do. Unlike Starr, he’s an honest man.

  137. 137
    Jinchi says:

    @James E Powell:

    Too many Democrats and almost the entire press/media world think that voters are as informed and attentive as they are.

    Which is not too impressive, considering the number of “No Collusion!” articles that were printed immediately following Barr’s original 4-page whitewash summary.

  138. 138
    tobie says:

    @rikyrah: Zerlina Maxwell might be interested in this policy statement on immigration. In fact, it’s the most detailed statement issued by a candidate yet on immigration. Published in February on Medium.

  139. 139
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @immanentize: The Republicans floated impeaching Hillary Clinton during the lame duck period if she won the 2016 presidential election. They could do it because she was a former Secretary of State and former senator.

  140. 140
    TenguPhule says:

    @joel hanes: its the truth. Aside from white nazis, there literally isn’t a single other group on earth that Trump hasn’t made an enemy of.

  141. 141
    TenguPhule says:

    @mrmoshpotato: Trump can’t keep a secret to save his life.

  142. 142
    JustRuss says:

    @rk: +1. I too have moved from “Why bother impeaching when the Senate will do nothing” to “We need to start calling this crap out.”

  143. 143
    TenguPhule says:

    @lurker dean: I don’t disagree with you. Its a Morton’s fork in that whether or not Democrats choose to do the right thing, it ends badly.

    But at least doing the right thing means the Democrats stand for something they can be proud of, no matter what happens after.

  144. 144
    Ruckus says:

    @joel hanes:
    I believe that TP was on suspension and has been released. It appears that release may have been too soon.

  145. 145
    lee says:

    I’m still on the fence about impeachment as well. I would like the press to finally start asking Republican Senators if there was any sort of situation they might even consider voting to remove Trump (obviously that would never happen).

    I would be happy if someone in the press just asked any GOP person if the Mueller Report had been about Hillary what their reaction would be.

  146. 146
    Jinchi says:

    @lurker dean:

    if impeachment is not warranted with this level of corruption and conspiring with the russians, when will it be warranted?

    They also, need to answer the question, If not impeachment, what should our response be when a candidate openly collaborates with a hostile foreign power to corrupt our elections?

    There has been a lot of congratulations on the fact that members of Trump’s staff refused to carry out orders by Trump to obstruct the investigation. Most of these were self-interested (I don’t want to go to jail) reactions, but at least there was some pushback. Still, it’s clear that plenty of Trump’s people are happy to carry out his orders whenever they believe they can get away with it. That’s how we end up with Muslim bans and Kids in Cages. As Trump slowly fires his more reticent staff, these problems will only get worse.

    The Republican party has already completely abandoned it’s responsibility to constrain Trump’s worst impulses. The Department of Justice is slowly purging itself of people willing or able to stand against a lawless Executive. The Democrats cannot shrug off their responsibility for fear of political backlash, or we’re pretty much screwed.

    Because, there will be life after Trump leaves the White House, and how we deal with him will determine whether the next generation of candidates thinks collaborating with America’s enemies is a good bet, or not.

  147. 147
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Kay:

    I’m to the point where I defer to Pelosi on these matters.

    Pelosi is also role-playing here so what she says should be carefully parsed. Probably the same for a few other cat-herders under her leadership.

  148. 148
    Bill Arnold says:

    Reminder (i.e.talking point about bipartisanship is that a 100% bipartisan house resolution calling for the release of the Mueller report was blocked in the Senate by McConnell, Graham, Rand Paul.

  149. 149
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    I am still agnostic on impeachment. There are three ways to remove a sitting president under the Constitution – impeachment, the 25th Amendment, and an election. Right now, I think that defeating him and the other Republicans in 2020 is the surest way to proceed.

    I would also say that, if he cannot be indicted while in office, the statute of limitations on any crimes is necessarily tolled during his presidency.

    Please feel free to fuck off if you want to argue that this route means that the US has become a nation of men not a nation of laws.

  150. 150
    cynthia ackerman says:

    This whole impeachment “debate” is a (deliberate?) distraction.

    Dem’s only concerns should be

    A) Investigate thoroughly, using what’s known from a number of sources already and as a matter of oversight. The longer this process takes, the more everyone knows about bad faith and bad actors (including Pence). If the window of opportunity for impeachment closes before this phase concludes, the groundwork for what follows is in place and getting stronger. Then,

    B) Impeachment is a secondary concern. If the timing works out, the decision among Pelosi and her core group should be straightforward.

  151. 151
    cynthia ackerman says:

    @cynthia ackerman:

    Dem’s shouldn’t be talking so much about impeachment, rather they should be screaming about investigation and oversight.

  152. 152
    Chief Oshkosh says:

    @cynthia ackerman:

    Dem’s shouldn’t be talking so much about impeachment, rather they should be screaming about investigation and oversight.

    But isn’t that what impeachment proceedings are? (The investigation part, anyway). We already have ongoing Congressional hearings/investigations. The Executive is either ignoring them (and it least in two instances, illegally ignoring them), or actively suing to shut them down. So screaming about investigation and oversight seems to not be working. And it makes the Democrats look weak.

  153. 153
    Dave W. says:

    @Chief Oshkosh: The President is stalling and delaying on turning over information to the inquiries, yes. There is no reason to believe he wouldn’t do the same with a formal impeachment investigation, while simultaneously whining about how long the Democrats have been taking on their impeachment inquiry. Not jumping immediately to an impeachment inquiry is one way to keep the narrative from being about that. Meanwhile, while he can delay the current inquiries, he can’t stop them from proceeding to litigation and other strategies to get what they need. Particularly on the tax return info, where the law is pretty damn clear that the information shall be turned over on request of the appropriate committee, he is likely to get slammed pretty hard by the courts, and have to give up the information in the end. That isn’t likely to make Democrats look weak, just restrained.

  154. 154
    J R in WV says:

    @patrick II:

    What surprises me is the narrowness of its scope. There are no mentionof finances, other than what mostly already known about his big hotel deal with Russia, but nothing about money laundering or bribes from Russians through real estate and loans which are relevent because they would go straight to motive.

    This is because of the commissioning memo that created the Special Counsel, which allowed that office to investigate only those crimes enumerated in that memo, and other crimes directly related to those enumerated crimes. ALL the other crimes the Special Counsel’s Office identified, and the evidence of those crimes, are transferred to other prosecutors in the proper districts where those crimes were committed.

    But those crimes and related evidence can and will be used in any House investigations, and potentially in Impeachment Hearings, after regular investigations have wrapped up all the high crimes and misdemeanors in a pretty package.

  155. 155
    J R in WV says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:


    I would also say that, if he cannot be indicted while in office, the statute of limitations on any crimes is necessarily tolled during his presidency.

    That sounds logical and proper, but is it the law? What would the Supremes think about that? I mean, I agree with you that to me it is necessary and required for any statute of limitations to be in abeyance if prosecution isn’t allowed for some specific period of time. But what is the law in this issue? Under what other circumstances do you see the statute of limitations held back?

    IANAL and so I defer to the many criminal lawyers, defense and prosecution, who show up here… What’s the story here, folks/??

  156. 156
    TenguPhule says:

    @Ruckus: I was sick.

    Not suspended.

  157. 157
    Jinchi says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Right now, I think that defeating him and the other Republicans in 2020 is the surest way to proceed.

    Aside from the observation that this puts Trump on the same level as John Adams, Teddy Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter, what is your plan for the possibility that on November 4th 2020 we’re reading headlines that Donald Trump has been re-elected to a second 4-year term with 46% of the popular vote?

    This country needs a better solution to the problem of a fradulent presidency than to wait four years and hope the problem solves itself.

Comments are closed.