there's a jury selection congress. if the same were true of impeachment, my at ude towards it would be different.
recognizing the futility in some impeachment "inquiry" is different than being cool with obstruction of justice
its akin to people who vote for third party presidential candidates tbh. just because i held my nose and voted for clinton over trump doesn't mean i loved everything about clinton as a candidate. its a matter of pragmatism
there's no need for some grand jury inquiry. you have mueller's report which lays out your obstruction case for you. just a month ago, the house voted 332-95-1 to table/scrap impeachment
Nadler has to persuade a court to have access to underlying evidence that barr is covering up
The law says that impeachment is a persuasive argument to make as impeachment is an official judicial proceeding
lets see if the courts also bend over for the orange traitor
everyone else is bending over so far
just look at all the trump defenders in here cheering for a lawless buffoon
This should go well
Skip to 1:00
Oh, a CNN clip.
What good is the report if there's no accountability for the actions it describes? What is the precedent we're setting for future presidents who commit overt obstruction?
We've seen this movie before. Trump's not going to face accountability after his term either, because they'll say that's political suicide and the country just needs to move on (same reason Nixon was pardoned by Ford.)
idealism vs pragmatism tbh
Sure, I just hope we don't pragmatize ourselves into complete Idiocracy because of the bar we're setting. But that may be inevitable.
its ultimately up to the people, for better or worse. if you're going to re-elect guys like gohmert into the house and graham/grassley/mcconnell in the senate, you're never going to have accountability. the cons ution decides how to hold presidents accountable, and you have to rely on the senate/house to do their duty
in the meantime you have these dem house reps taking all these (ultimately) symbolic steps that they damn well know will amount to nothing purely as a political play. if the senate wont convict him, they're hoping to "try" trump before the public, and that in the face of whatever evidence they think they'll find, his voters will abandon him. its a fools errand
Accountable for what, exactly? Wanting to fire Mueller?
peruse through vol 2 of the mueller report
Might it not be pragmatic for the Dems to adopt the raw power tactics of their opponents and throw all the in on the wall? Roles reversed, you know what the GOP would do.
If an obvious demagogue, grifter, and self-dealer like DJT can't/shouldn't be impeached, who can?
Blatant self-dealing, lying, and contempt for law.
A high crime or misdemeanor is anything a majority of US reps says it is.
20 years ago lying about a blowjob was enough. DJT's corruptions go way past lying under oath, though I wouldn't necessarily exclude that.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-26-2019 at 05:47 PM.
The op ed volume? That Mueller obviously didn't author?
It worked with Nixon. A different time, to be sure, when we weren't as trained to be cheerleaders. But as revelations were made during the impeachment process, public support trended heavily towards removal. While I have no faith in McConnell, GOP Senators, or our partisan media outlets having a shred of objectivity towards such a process, regardless of public opinion, I'd rather they be forced into a decision with a fully informed public.
Merely to establish a record
against a political foe and discredit him/her.
That's essentially what seven Congressional investigations of Benghazi sought to do.
i know there's probably no turning back from what mcconnell has done to our government... but scorched earth certainly wont help. again, that might be another pragmatic decision, as you suggested
valid points...
This ain't Watergate, folks.
Ugh, the Democrats' 2020 message is again going to be "Look how much of an asshole Trump is." They can't win running negative campaigns since it depresses turnout so much, but they seem bent on it again.
What was Watergate about, Darrin?This ain't Watergate, folks.
negative campaigning, negative ads work, that's the both parties do it.
The top Dem candidates are NOT full-on pointing out how ty Trash is. Plenty of policies, programs, are the leading campaign points, NOT Trash.
A cover-up of an ACTUAL crime.
what crime was nixon guilty of?
is an underlying crime required for there to be obstruction of justice?
Never found guilty. He resigned.
Squirmin' Darrin will never answer the second question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote