Repugs are desperately and stupidly whining on and on about process in a lame and cowardly bid to deflect from discussion of the content - 45SHOLE's (and several others) campaign law felonies and treason. Poor babies.
It's both hilarious and pathetic that 1 FAT CAN is too much of an idiot to understand Civics facts or is too cowardly to admit them, and that the "special" boy keeps citing a thoroughly discredited, vile source to back up his laughable ignorance.
That said, it's big of him to admit that he approves of serious lawbreaking and treason as long as the perps are White bigot cons like him, typical cop, and that he thinks that Senate Repugs so hate America that they will abet the 45SHOLE Klan despite:
Pew Research Center: As of last week, 54% approve of the U.S. House decision to conduct an impeachment inquiry. Gallup: 52% think Trump should be “impeached and removed from office”. Quinnipiac University: 55 percent found that Trump “abuses the power of his office.”
Well, now, kitty, I bet Paul Manafort and the others like General Flynn and whoever else is still awaiting sentencing as a result of the Mueller investigation would strongly (like trump says Putin did) disagree with your assertion the Mueller affair was a farce. Just the funds seized from Manafort alone almost pay for the expense of it. And the only whining going on is from the wannabe fascist bimbo in the White House. He's really losing it and you'll be able to see what you're advocating for sooner or later.
As they say, opinions are like assholes - everyone has one, and is entitled to it. So one could opine that Trump's actions aren't (yet) criminal, or that even though he has done X or Y that his continued appointment of right-wing judges and lip service to anti-abortionists and regulation hacking are worth putting up with him. One could even opine that destruction of the government is what they voted for from him. But if a person does not acknowledge that Trump's activities are at least suspect in comparison to normal legal, governmental, or business standards, and recognize that he does have a long history of disregard for the law going back to before he was President*, then that person is a fool whose opinion counts for nothing.
.... But if a person does not acknowledge that Trump's activities are at least suspect in comparison to normal legal, governmental, or business standards, and recognize that he does have a long history of disregard for the law going back to before he was President*, then that person is a fool whose opinion counts for nothing.
C'mon, foolish supposed LEOs that worship criminals can be entertaining. That's something.
I do not expect it to happen, but I would love to see an outing of all of the people that were on one or both ends of the call or otherwise knew about it and did not object. The only law abiding patriots here are the whistleblowers.
The Dems seem to be leaning towards impeaching solely based on the Ukraine call and China statement, and most of the pundits I'm seeing agree with this KISS strategy.
I don't disagree, but it makes me nervous that they're putting all of the eggs in one basket. What if well down this road something comes out that diminishes or confuses the egregiousness of it?
Then, it'll be a little disappointing that there will never be accountability for:
Emoluments clause violations;
Hush money campaign finance law felonies;
Encouraging Russian meddling in the election;
Colluding with Russian in meddling in the election;
Lying under oath;
Other obstruction of justice;
Other corruption.
Not only do these things matter, but Ukraine mostly just condemns 45SHOLE, Rudy and Pompeo while a wider trial condemns many other elected and unelected Repug officials and even Trumpettes in general.
What do y'all think?
Discussion of this beginning on page 7, including comments from neoplacebo, O Really, more from me, and the obligatory childish inanity from 1 FAT CAN. Still contentious among Dems, too:
... Those who favor a narrow inquiry say the Ukraine scandal shows clear impropriety that is easily understood by voters. Adding other angles, especially the sprawling Mueller report, could overwhelm the resources of the investigation and muddle the ultimate message that comes out of it. There is also concern among Democrats that an expansive inquiry would drown out the message of the party's presidential candidates in the months leading up to the 2020 election.
Advocates for broadening the inquiry, many of whom were calling for impeachment before the Ukraine scandal broke, argue that focusing only on Ukraine essentially gives Trump a pardon for what they see as a long list of other abuses of power — including self-dealing, obstruction, harmful foreign policy decision making and violations alleged in the Mueller report. Impeachment is the most powerful investigative tool Congress has and it should be used to give the country a full accounting of the president’s deeds, they argue....
Ironic if impeachment is hampered by 45SHOLE having done so very many illegal things.
Idk, I think these hush money campaign finance law felonies are solid since Cohen has already been convicted of them.
Do you think which charges the House sends over will affect a Senate conviction on any of them? Does "overcharging" make them more Trump-serving and able to get away with it than they already are, or do multiple charges make him more vulnerable?
Probably good I don't decide these things. I lean towards what's "right", not what's practical.
Because Trump has done so many things that any one of them would have sunk most any other office-holder in the US, Canada, or UK, it's gotten difficult to say "this is the final straw." Further, we've got Republicans in the Senate who are refusing to accept their lawful role as "jury members" to evaluate evidence presented so whatever is presented as grounds for impeachment must be such that it is close to impossible for a Senator to ignore it or to say "yeah, he did it, but we'll keep him anyway." Of course, that's a pretty high bar when you have people claiming the President* really could shoot somebody and not be indicted.
Because Trump has done so many things that any one of them would have sunk most any other office-holder in the US, Canada, or UK, it's gotten difficult to say "this is the final straw." Further, we've got Republicans in the Senate who are refusing to accept their lawful role as "jury members" to evaluate evidence presented so whatever is presented as grounds for impeachment must be such that it is close to impossible for a Senator to ignore it or to say "yeah, he did it, but we'll keep him anyway." Of course, that's a pretty high bar when you have people claiming the President* really could shoot somebody and not be indicted.
If we assume that the America-hating, criminal conspiracy, Senate Repugs won't convict on anything, which is not certain, is it better for the 2020 election to impeach with many charges or just with Ukraine?
Because Trump has done so many things that any one of them would have sunk most any other office-holder in the US, Canada, or UK, it's gotten difficult to say "this is the final straw." Further, we've got Republicans in the Senate who are refusing to accept their lawful role as "jury members" to evaluate evidence presented so whatever is presented as grounds for impeachment must be such that it is close to impossible for a Senator to ignore it or to say "yeah, he did it, but we'll keep him anyway." Of course, that's a pretty high bar when you have people claiming the President* really could shoot somebody and not be indicted.
If we assume that the America-hating, criminal conspiracy, Senate Repugs won't convict on anything, which is not certain, is it better for the 2020 election to impeach with many charges or just with Ukraine?
I consider the self enrichment aspects to be as serious as the Ukraine stuff. If he's forced to turn over his tax records, it's quite likely that fraud will be revealed in the form of unreported income, providing false information to minimize tax liability or even false information provided for purposes of receiving a tax refund. Hard to say with any certainty which is more relevant; plus the fact that you're dealing with a cult must be taken into account. A lot of the cult members and GOP sycophants and enablers would not turn against trump even if it were shown that he's not paid any tax in more than a decade and has gotten millions in "refunds" instead. They would still support him no matter what.
Twelve House Republicans who stormed a closed-door impeachment hearing in protest on Wednesday already had permission to attend.
More than 30 House Republicans headed by Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL) forced their way into the hearing, delaying it for about five hours....
I blame billy.pilgrim.
They did not address the allegations against President Donald Trump in the impeachment inquiry, which centers on his request to Ukraine's president to investigate Joe Biden, the former vice president and a 2020 Democratic challenger to Trump.
Of course not - cowards.
But as Business Insider's Kelly McLaughlin highlighted, there are longstanding rules that witnesses are supposed to be interviewed in a way that can stay classified.
Duh.
Axios and BuzzFeed News reported that 12 of those Republicans were actually already able to attend the hearing because they sit on relevant committees, including the Oversight or Foreign Affairs committee:
...
Mark Green of Tennessee
...
Ralph Norman of South Carolina Mark Meadows of North Carolina
Yeah, Meadows is my bad . In other words, their pathetic stunt was a sleazy lie.
... Intelligence veterans who spoke with Business Insider's Sonam Sheth and Lauren Frias said the lawmakers could have jeopardized national security by entering a SCIF.
A SCIF is "designed to prevent electronic eavesdropping" from foreign intelligence services, a former top House Intelligence Committee staffer said, and no electronic devices are allowed in. But witnesses told The Washington Post that several of the Republicans brought their phones.
Glenn Carle, a former CIA covert operative, told Business Insider that phones in such a context were "essentially microphones for sophisticated intelligence services." ...
Trumpettes and other Repugs are THE greatest national security we face.
Washington — Republican Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a resolution co-sponsored by more than three dozen of his colleagues, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, condemning the House for a lack of transparency in the impeachment inquiry.
"Every American should be disturbed by what is taking place in the House of Representatives regarding the attempt to impeach President Trump," Graham said in a release. He told reporters in a press conference that the resolution is a "strong signal to our House colleagues" that "they're off-script."
The measure calls on Democrats in the House to hold a formal vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry, allow the president to call witnesses in his defense and give Republicans in the House minority the ability to issue subpoenas. Graham's office said the resolution had 44 Republican co-sponsors as of Thursday afternoon.
"It is imperative the President be able to confront his accuser, call witnesses on his behalf, and have a basic understanding of the accusations against him that would form any basis for impeachment," Graham said in his statement. "We cannot have a country where every American has rights except Donald Trump. I find the current process illegitimate and dangerous to the future of the presidency."
McConnell said in a statement that "House Democrats are even denying their own Republican colleagues basic procedural rights that the minority party was granted throughout previous impeachments."
Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Graham accused Democrats of "selectively leaking information" from the closed depositions to reporters. He also accused reporters of being unfair towards Republicans, saying that if Republicans were leaking information about an investigation regarding a Democrat, they would be criticized by the press.
.
. In other words, their pathetic stunt was a sleazy lie.