I think the Dems know that he won't be impeached but want to show as many of the American people just how corrupt he is BEFORE the 2020 election, make no mistake they know what they are doing, this is about winning 2020, nothing more. Everyone knows Trump won't be impeached in the Senate, but there will be a very public trial, it puts the Senate in a tough spot, if they rubber stamp a no, they look like traitors, so they will be forced to hold a proper trial......which keeps this active through much of 2020.... Smart play. DD
another healthy reminder that not everybody thinks this is the end of the republic and marching in lockstep on this one. don't shoot the messenger. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/ho-hum-4.php Posted on October 31, 2019 by John Hinderaker in Impeachment Ho Hum The House voted today to go forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump. This is, I guess, a news story, although it couldn’t possibly have been news to anyone. The Democrats have been talking about impeaching Trump since before he was inaugurated, and it was a foregone conclusion, when they took over the House last November, that he would be impeached. The brief pause in providing arms to Ukraine (which the Obama administration never did) and Trump’s entirely proper telephone conversation with President Zelensky are absurdly weak pretexts for the Democrats’ impeachment effort, and I doubt whether anyone takes them seriously. Today’s vote sets out procedures for the ongoing inquiry, which will proceed in multiple House committees. Republicans rightly objected to the procedures as unfair, in fact “Soviet-style.” That is a fair characterization: among other things, Republicans can only call witnesses if they are approved by the ridiculous Adam Schiff. Schiff will also retain the power to release redacted transcripts of testimony at his discretion, as he has been doing. The only difference is that until now, they have been leaks. The Democrats had hoped for a bipartisan impeachment inquiry, I think, but their case is so poor that they couldn’t get a single Republican to vote with them. Two Democrats, Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, voted against continuing the impeachment process. I have it on good authority that Peterson, the closest thing to a conservative in the Democratic caucus, has told Nancy Pelosi that Adam Schiff is killing their party (my paraphrase). Peterson will probably lose his seat in 2020; he certainly would have lost it if he had voted for impeachment. The impeachment process will wend its way through the House over the coming months, but its result is foreordained. President Trump will be impeached on grounds so flimsy as to be laughable. The Senate will then respond, probably quite briefly. That result is foreordained, too. Why are the Democrats doing this? Because they think that endlessly yammering about impeachment will smear President Trump more or less effectively, no matter how feeble their grounds are. At a minimum, they think that occupying newspaper headlines with the word “impeachment” will distract attention from the Trump administration’s impressive accomplishments, about which they have nothing to say. Thus they hope to increase their candidate’s chances of winning next year’s election. Time will tell whether they are right.
So what exactly is this supposed to mean? Yes democrats where always looking to get to impeachment, why is that news?
Why do you keep posting stuff and saying not everybody is marching in lockstep but the articles are always in lockstep with Trump? And why would anybody much less a self proclaimed Democrat think this is healthy? Healthy would be debating the case on the merits and not ignoring all evidence in the case so far.
1) Having read this editorial, your introduction doesn't make sense. Who is or is not marching in lockstep? (Maybe I missed something earlier in the thread?) 2) How should we know whether or not to "shoot the messenger" when we rarely know what your personal take is? You almost always post without comment. Do you personally agree or agree with anything this editorial says, which you yourself took the trouble to post here? You mostly post things that are either pro-conservative or anti-liberal, but seem touchy about being called out on any bias. 3) In my limited contact with you, you seem extremely intelligent, so 4) why would you post this editorial and the previous one? They are so, so f*cking bad. This particular one is utter partisan tripe. Regardless of your stance, isn't there higher quality stuff to share? Nope. For people who actually read news, it was very well known that Nancy has been against impeachment until very recently. Not an excuse for breaking federal law. Bullsh*t. Asking a foreign power or national for assistance in winning an election is a violation of federal law. After the nonstop bombshells of testimony over the last several weeks, what is absurd is people still defending the president. News flash: Republicans are also present in the depositions. They could leak things to. You wonder why they don't? Because none of the testimony looks good for them. HAHAHAHAHA!!! So if the republicans don't agree to self-immolate by impeaching their own God-emperor, it's because the democrats haven't proposed a strong enough case?? HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha Sonderland, Hill, Taylor, Colonel whats-his-name, we have corroborating testimony under oath from multiple parties that not only has the president coordinated a campaign to pressure the Ukrainian president to publicly announce an investigation into the "crowdstrike" conspiracy theory and the president's chief political rival, he president also withheld 391 million in aid to an ally as part of that pressure campaign. And this is just the testimony that we have so far. This case is damned strong. The case so far is already extremely strong. What's laughable is continuing to defend this criminal.
This is my sense after listening to conservative radio this morning. The host kept saying this is revenge against Bill Clinton’s impeachment and Trumps actions are not worthy of impeachment. The fact no House Republicans voted to proceed with impeachment really made me sullen about the whole affair. Not because it’s a partisan witch hunt as they’d want you to believe. Instead, this means if the House was GOP led in 2019, Trump would go wholly uncontested as he violates the constitution asking for dirt on Biden and tying foreign aid to said public declaration. The House GOP likely voted no unanimously because their polling showed their constituents favored No. So in the end, a minority but near majority support giving the president of their own political affiliation limitless authority. What happened to all that banter about Don’t tread on me? And Tea Party? Seems like it should’ve said don’t tread on me, just thee.
There is no defense. So, the strategy has changed to 1- The process is illegitimate, a witch hunt. 2- Redefining illegal behaviors to acceptable behaviors. While they once didn't want to defend the behavior, now they have no choice but to do so. What all this mean is what we all already assumed - the Republican will stand with Trump no matter what.
That sounds really healthy for the future of this country. Yeah, we will just from now on elect goombahs who go around the world using tax dollars and strong arm tactics to further their own re-elections. Sounds very great.
Trump Gets Note from Podiatrist Exempting Him from Impeachment WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a move that raised eyebrows in the nation’s capital, Donald Trump on Saturday secured a note from a podiatrist exempting him from impeachment. The note, written by Trump’s personal podiatrist, Dr. Harland Dorrinson, said that the strain of undergoing impeachment could “catastrophically inflame” a foot malady that has bedevilled Trump since the nineteen-sixties. While the doctor’s note drew howls of protests from congressional Democrats, the Attorney General, William Barr, supported excusing Trump from impeachment on humanitarian grounds. “Given the seriousness of the President’s ailment, impeachment is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional,” Barr said, adding that the Department of Justice would investigate Representative Adam Schiff and the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for “crimes against feet.” Another prominent Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, vouched for the fragile state of Trump’s health. “I have spent many hours with President Trump,” Graham said. “He is not a well man.”
