I disagree that Elizabeth/Bernie/whoever means equal odds. There is no way to know what the odds will be in 12 months. Either way, none of that should be criteria for whether or not to impeach. Because... 1. Only Trump's conduct should determine whether or not he should be impeached. We see that there is ample evidence to move forward with impeachment. 2. We don't know what the odds will be in 12 months (as mentioned). 3. So far, there is little to no evidence that impeachment will hurt the Democrats. I would posit that looking weak and ineffective going into the election for not doing their duty and holding Trump accountable would cause greater harm in the election chances for Democrats.
We don't have to find Trump saying it. Witness testimony is evidence and is enough to convict. If a group of people embezzled from a bank and they all testified that their manager was involved confirming what the reporting witness claimed, the manager could be convicted based on that evidence. The testimony backs and reinforces the actions of Trump being quid pro quo without any real wiggle room.
How can you tell from that pic if he was low level or not? Do you really want to play the game of association considering the people who worked for Trump and have been convicted?
Sondland, appointed by Trump as ambassador to the EU, has testified under oath that there was a quid pro quo. Taylor, the top diplomat to the Ukraine, appointed by Trump to replace the diplomat he fired, has testified under oath that there was a quid pro quo. Let's remember that although this is not the trial phase, testimony under oath is admissible evidence in a trial. There is a great deal of corroborating testimony (including from people who were listening to the call), but let's skip that for now. How on earth can you think that the above is politically weak? You could hardly get a more smoke from a gun than this. This whole paragraph addresses nothing about the actual right or wrong of the actions of the president of the United States, and addresses only pragmatic political plus/minus in the election horse race, regardless of principle. Yes, the democrats may indeed suffer a loss in 2020 because of this impeachment. If the republicans were slightly concerned with principle and the rule of law over political expediency, much of this wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. You appear to criticize the democrats for enforcing the constitution when it may hurt them politically. This is an unprincipled take. Does right or wrong exist beyond winning or losing elections? Even if I'm a biased liberal, that doesn't make me wrong when I'm indignant about the president breaking the law, abusing the power of the office, republicans at every level of government defending the indefensible, and smart people like yourself defending the indefensible. This is worth being indignant about. Everyone should be indignant about it. If it makes you happy that the democrats may suffer losses because of impeachment, fine, be happy about it. That changes nothing about the fact that it's the right thing to do.
Dude you are the only person talking about Biden and his 3 million dollar bribe. Are you talking about Burisma hiring Hunter Biden or is this something else. And somehow you believe the House Dems are going to throw Biden under the bus? This is the most wackadoo thing you have ever posted it makes zero sense. Where are you getting that the House does not like Biden?
I actually agree with you here (at least on the second and third statements). I really do think Elizabeth/Bernie is a problem though.
Regardless of what impeach now folks think of the article, it's got a pretty simple message that will be difficult for the impeachment crowd (who are suffering from boy who cried wolf syndrome) to overcome.
I have been frustrated in this way sometimes too, but I think Os is far and away most interested in human-centered politics and not necessarily fact-centered logic of what politicians actually do or say. So, he may (?) agree that logically the case against Trump as an abuser of power is quite strong, but still suggest that the political case (in terms of what random voters may think, as if independents still exist, I guess) might not be so strong. Either way, as I've said, checks and balances is more important than short-term politics to me at least. The Dems in the House had to do this, for the integrity of our country, whether or not it hurts their political calculus. To have avoided impeachment for some sort of political analytics would have been to abet damaging and improper executive behavior. Cheers.
I think this is a fairly accurate summary of what I tend to think about all this. I appreciate your trying to put it into some kind of summary
Those pesky framers eh? Gave us a process of impeachment and forgot to define exactly what a "high crime or misdemeanor" is. I'm smart enough to realize they weren't going to supply a definition, but I wonder as to their reasoning for this. I'll have to do some research into their writings on the subject.
We may never know, since Os is seemingly allergic to typing a strong take on something. He's probably posted the most actual typed words in the last two pages I've ever seen him do in a year, and still he leaves wriggle room for you to wonder this. Most of his posting is links, and most of those links are pro-conservative or anti-liberal, and several of them were really, really poorly written partisan essays. Agreed. Even if we examine this purely as political plus/minus, (lest Os call us out as sneering down from our white horses), Pelosi was in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't moment when the whistleblower rumors started in Sep: If she held her ground and didn't proceed with impeachment, which she certainly didn't want to, then she starts losing the energetic dem base, who would be righteously pissed that nothing was being done. So the dems keep some of the soft middle support but piss off the base. Impeachment risks solidifying the repub base, which it seems to be, and maybe solidify some of the soft support for Trump while luring some of them away. There's danger either way. It turns out that the impeachment route is actually principled and rooted in the enforcement of the rule of law and the constitution.
Lol... so all the answers aren’t from the late 18th century.... I guess we will have to come up with our own definitions.... I think a good one would be “if Hillary Clinton did this, would you impeach her for it”. Lolololl.
