IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?
Mike Pence has the charisma of a rock Charlie Brown gets on Halloween. I don't understand the concern about him winning anything but dog catcher.
jamie said:
The role of Republicans letting Trump do Trump is probably the most frightening aspect of what's going on at the moment.
Yes, but that has been going on for 3 years. Trump has been a narcissistic sociopath all his life, you almost cannot blame him for what he does. It's the republicans that have enabled him (and frankly voted for him) that are the real problem. If they will do this for Trump, who says they wouldn't do the same if a republican version of hitler shows up? Where are the republicans currently in office that say in public: hey, I know this guy is on my team, but this is not acceptable, I won't tolerate this.
I also do not believe this Ukraine thing is going to push Trump out of office. Republicans will close their ranks and probably use this to fire up their base and win re-election. The only good thing is that the longer this goes on, the more the GOP becomes the party of Trump, and that makes it unattractive for minorities, women, and young adults, hopefully for a very long time.
In the summer of 1973, right before I started high school, I watched a lot of the Senate Watergate hearings. I was watching when Alexander Butterfield popped up to disclose the existence of the White House taping system. As I think I recall correctly, even I at the time thought, "Wow, that's probably really important".
As part of the "whistleblower" complaint, we've learned about the super-secret, "eyes only", secure server where only the "toppest" of top secrets go - including memoranda detailing certain special conversations between Trump and a small collection of leaders. Trump's chats with his buddies Vladimir and MBS were the ones primarily memorialized there, but Trump's staffers were so concerned about what Trump said to the President of Ukraine that they squirrelled the memorializations of that conversation there also.
I think this investigation has to include the disgorgement of all of those communications. If they're anything like the conversation with the President of Ukraine, the American people deserve to know what kind of self-dealing Trump may have been involved in. That's at minimum; it may well be that they would be further evidence of potentially impeachable conduct.
nohero said:
In the summer of 1973, right before I started high school, I watched a lot of the Senate Watergate hearings.
We could use Barbara Jordan again...
I am the last person to post here saying, "Watch this video".
Given that, watch this video.
Professor Timothy Snyder, author of "On Tyranny", was on with Rachel Maddow last evening. In the midst of all the frantic tumbling out of news items regarding Trump and Ukraine, etc., it was great to listen to his thoughtful discussion of background and context.
By the way, I fully agree with Ms. Maddow's description of Professor Snyder's book, its necessity and its utility; my own copy is highlighted and marked up with notes.
jamie said:
Paul - do you recommend rawstory as a "go to" independent news source. I'm looking at their homepage and most of the headlines seem pretty juvenile - like they just cherry pick dumb lines from everyone for sensationalism journalism.
I don't read Raw Story on a regular basis, but I think they occasionally come up with a good story. I picked this headline because it accurately portrayed Pelosi's comment.
nan said:
ml1 said:
why are you against an inquiry into the allegations? So you wanted an investigation into whether Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, but you don't want an investigation into whether Trump tried to extort a foreign country to smear an opponent.
Okay.
Epstein should be investigated, but never will, at least during our lifetimes. There are lots of rabbit holes and they lead to lots of animals much bigger than bunnies. What would an investigation on Trump reveal? That he's a narcissistic, bloviating elitiest who does not think the rules apply to him? The only people on earth who don't know that are his supporters and they are going to defend him even stronger as he is attacked on such a flimsy accusation. From what I have read of the transcript, he made all kinds of comments but did not directly confront the guy. It's not black and white. He acted inappropriately, but it will be difficult to pin him with a real crime.
The whole thing will just be like a Pandora's box. You and your friend, nohero don't believe the stuff Paul (or I occasionally) have posted about Ukraine in the past few years. But, you were wrong about that and the stuff that happened in Ukraine in the past decade or so is complicated and messy and extremely corrupt and involves Biden, Clinton, McCain, The CIA, and a ton of other people--in a way-similar to Epstein, but not the same kind of crime. I actually would like to see a real investigation there, but like the Epstein case, that will not happen until long after I'm dead. In the meantime, the Republicans will launch a huge semi-real, to sort-of-real, to sometimes-real investigation and it will obscure any real attempt to defeat Trump in 2020 based on issues important to ordinary people, like healthcare and the environment.
Instead, there will be lots of blather and grandstanding and Rachel Maddow will get her grove back. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar will be putting on their prosecutor's hats and trying to revive their sagging campaigns through the ghost of Sarah Bernhardt. Cory Booker will make his eyes really, really big. Pete Buttigieg will do 25 JFK taking the SAT/GMAT impressions. Adam Schifft already gave some exhaulted toned Attack on Democracy spew--I could not listen past the first five words--I am constructing my analysis by looking at his scrunched up weasel face. Nancy Pelosi will probably don an ermine coat and crown. The centrist establishment Dems will get all the attention, even after it fails to remove His Orange Pestilence. So, this will benefit them and it will benefit Trump. The only beneift that could come out of this is the possibility we might get rid of Joe Biden's campaign, but even that is not assured. It will not benefit ordinary working people who have been ignored by both parties for decades and who are continuing to slide into 3rd world misery and despair with growing wealth inequality and failed healthcare.
Nothing but a big sh** show.
There is a lot of truth to this. Dems are saying they want to make this process quick and focused , and present a case that’s understandable and compelling to the American people, but I’ll believe that when I see it.
And you knew who you were then
Crimea was Soviet; so was Ukraine
Mister, we could use a pol
Like Barbara Jordan again
paulsurovell said:
The short answer is that the Bernie hypothetical doesn't affect the reasons why I support censure over impeachment. By the way, you overstated the quid pro quo part of the hypothetical, since Zelensky didn't know about the delayed military aid until more than a month after the call.
And besides, Trump could probably get more info on Bernie's visit to the Soviet Union from the CIA and FBI than from the KGB.
As I've said previously, I'd be more than happy to support an impeachment of Trump for his many crimes against humanity (High Crimes) like withdrawal from the Paris Accord, Iran nuclear deal and INF treaty, removal of limits on methane releases, support for genocidal sanctions against Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia's genocidal bombing of Yemen, etc.
you might as well just say you're not in favor of impeachment under any circumstances. Because you know as well as I do that a president 's defense against your charges would be to state under oath that all those actions were taken under the sincere belief that they would ultimately lead to better outcomes. Or "better deals" in Trump's typical parlance.
PVW said:
---
I see the first subpoenas and depositions have gone out. What testimony are people most looking forward to hearing? I'd like to hear what former ambassador Yovanovitch has to say.
" What does Pompeo have to say about @realDonaldTrump’s threat that a career foreign service officer, lately our ambassador to Ukraine, is “going to go through some things” at the hands of Giuliani and Barr, who will “get to the bottom of”… whatever?"
https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1177681324842373120?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
eta - Too bad that Sheldon Whitehouse isn't on one of the committees that will be conducting the impeachment inquiry.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The short answer is that the Bernie hypothetical doesn't affect the reasons why I support censure over impeachment. By the way, you overstated the quid pro quo part of the hypothetical, since Zelensky didn't know about the delayed military aid until more than a month after the call.
And besides, Trump could probably get more info on Bernie's visit to the Soviet Union from the CIA and FBI than from the KGB.
As I've said previously, I'd be more than happy to support an impeachment of Trump for his many crimes against humanity (High Crimes) like withdrawal from the Paris Accord, Iran nuclear deal and INF treaty, removal of limits on methane releases, support for genocidal sanctions against Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia's genocidal bombing of Yemen, etc.you might as well just say you're not in favor of impeachment under any circumstances. Because you know as well as I do that a president 's defense against your charges would be to state under oath that all those actions were taken under the sincere belief that they would ultimately lead to better outcomes. Or "better deals" in Trump's typical parlance.
and by Paul's standards, every Prez for the last 100 years has committed multiple impeachable offenses.
good thinking there, Paul-o
Most of us are well aware of the long standing abuses of our intelligence agencies, the presidential misuses of the military, the assaults on civil liberties, etc. But IMHO it's the height of cynicism to say that Trump should get a pass on obvious abuses of power that are done out in the open because of those past actions of other presidents. How do we ever change things if we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere? Particularly with a president who is taking abuses of power and corruption to new levels out in the open and practically daring Congress to stop him.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
An investigation of any one of those high crimes would educate and raise the consciousness of the American people and make possible changes in the march toward catastrophe that we are on. There will be no meaningful changes resulting from the current investigations -- even if the Senate were to turn against Trump and put Mike Pence in the White House.
That’s a positive argument. But it doesn’t dispute that those impeachments, too, would dominate politics in an election season, excite the Republican base and fail in the Senate. (I’ll leave independents aside, since they’re always hard to quantify and predict.) So I think your complaint on those counts can be put to rest.
You're parsing words and ignoring the substance. The choice between my issues and the issue of the impeachment inquiry is a choice between existential issues (climate catastrophe and nuclear war) and corruption (abusing the Presidency to get political dirt).
So of course both would excite the Republican base and fail in the Senate, but my issues are High Crimes that should dominate the election season. Corruption and getting foreign political dirt are issues where Democrats are vulnerable -- Biden's quid pro quo and the Steele dossier for example -- and this investigation, like the Mueller investigation, is going to be a mess.
Edited to Add: In case there is any doubt, I know the Democrats are not even considering my issues of impeachment. Which explains why, as Chomsky has said, we are facing two imminent existential threats -- climate catastrophe and an increasing risk of nuclear war. Tulsi by the way is the only candidate who talks about the latter.
This is an uphill climb, given how almost everyone is referring to it and quoting from it, but I think it’s important to keep in mind that the reconstruction of Trump’s call with Zelensky is not a transcript. While the gist is supposed to be accurate, we don’t know what words were actually used, which means we’re missing the phrasing, inflections and other clues that we normally rely on to parse a conversation. Direct quotations only muddy the distinction.
ml1 said:
Most of us are well aware of the long standing abuses of our intelligence agencies, the presidential misuses of the military, the assaults on civil liberties, etc. But IMHO it's the height of cynicism to say that Trump should get a pass on obvious abuses of power that are done out in the open because of those past actions of other presidents. How do we ever change things if we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere? Particularly with a president who is taking abuses of power and corruption to new levels out in the open and practically daring Congress to stop him.
The broader context of Trump's abuse is -- Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine, the Ukraine government's interference in the 2016 election and Hillary's payment of foreigners to get dirt on Trump. That's why this is not a good case to make good law.
And censure is no more "giving him a pass" than a failed impeachment process.
paulsurovell said:
You're parsing words and ignoring the substance.
If there are two courses of action, and both have the same downside, it makes no sense to argue that one of the courses has that downside, because that argument applies to the other course, too. What makes sense is to argue that one’s upside is greater than the other’s.
I’m not ignoring your substance. I’m suggesting that you’d be better off sticking to it. As always, you’re free to disagree.
Something to bookmark because the claims will be repeated again and again:
[Edited in order to slightly, but accurately, change the link title from the actual article title]
Please excuse the use of a video, but Chris Cuomo's comparison between Trump's and Biden's actions in Ukraine is excellent (not that it will make any difference to Trump's supporters or Paul.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g529m_cZLhM
Edited to add Paul.
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The short answer is that the Bernie hypothetical doesn't affect the reasons why I support censure over impeachment. By the way, you overstated the quid pro quo part of the hypothetical, since Zelensky didn't know about the delayed military aid until more than a month after the call.
And besides, Trump could probably get more info on Bernie's visit to the Soviet Union from the CIA and FBI than from the KGB.
As I've said previously, I'd be more than happy to support an impeachment of Trump for his many crimes against humanity (High Crimes) like withdrawal from the Paris Accord, Iran nuclear deal and INF treaty, removal of limits on methane releases, support for genocidal sanctions against Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia's genocidal bombing of Yemen, etc.you might as well just say you're not in favor of impeachment under any circumstances. Because you know as well as I do that a president 's defense against your charges would be to state under oath that all those actions were taken under the sincere belief that they would ultimately lead to better outcomes. Or "better deals" in Trump's typical parlance.
and by Paul's standards, every Prez for the last 100 years has committed multiple impeachable offenses.
good thinking there, Paul-o
That is correct. We have killed millions of innocent civilians over those years, overthrown progressive foreign governments in the interest of right-wing oligarchies, supported right-wing death squads in secrecy and waged numerous undeclared wars -- all of which were/are unconstitutional.
Yes. All of those actions are/were impeachable offenses.
https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list
Here's a glimpse of what we did in North Korea (from "Napalm" by Robert Neer)
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
Most of us are well aware of the long standing abuses of our intelligence agencies, the presidential misuses of the military, the assaults on civil liberties, etc. But IMHO it's the height of cynicism to say that Trump should get a pass on obvious abuses of power that are done out in the open because of those past actions of other presidents. How do we ever change things if we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere? Particularly with a president who is taking abuses of power and corruption to new levels out in the open and practically daring Congress to stop him.
The broader context of Trump's abuse is -- Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine, the Ukraine government's interference in the 2016 election and Hillary's payment of foreigners to get dirt on Trump. That's why this is not a good case to make good law.
And censure is no more "giving him a pass" than a failed impeachment process.
stop lying to us already.
it's so tiresome.
"Biden's extortion"
ridiculous
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The short answer is that the Bernie hypothetical doesn't affect the reasons why I support censure over impeachment. By the way, you overstated the quid pro quo part of the hypothetical, since Zelensky didn't know about the delayed military aid until more than a month after the call.
And besides, Trump could probably get more info on Bernie's visit to the Soviet Union from the CIA and FBI than from the KGB.
As I've said previously, I'd be more than happy to support an impeachment of Trump for his many crimes against humanity (High Crimes) like withdrawal from the Paris Accord, Iran nuclear deal and INF treaty, removal of limits on methane releases, support for genocidal sanctions against Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia's genocidal bombing of Yemen, etc.you might as well just say you're not in favor of impeachment under any circumstances. Because you know as well as I do that a president 's defense against your charges would be to state under oath that all those actions were taken under the sincere belief that they would ultimately lead to better outcomes. Or "better deals" in Trump's typical parlance.
None of the crimes that I listed are just "any circumstances". And it doesn't matter what Trump says. The Congress chooses the criteria for impeachment, the Senate votes. If we lived in a society that was awake and responsible, Trump would have been impeached for the first crime, which was probably withdrawal from the Paris Accord.
Climate Change is an existential threat.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
Most of us are well aware of the long standing abuses of our intelligence agencies, the presidential misuses of the military, the assaults on civil liberties, etc. But IMHO it's the height of cynicism to say that Trump should get a pass on obvious abuses of power that are done out in the open because of those past actions of other presidents. How do we ever change things if we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere? Particularly with a president who is taking abuses of power and corruption to new levels out in the open and practically daring Congress to stop him.
The broader context of Trump's abuse is -- Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine, the Ukraine government's interference in the 2016 election and Hillary's payment of foreigners to get dirt on Trump. That's why this is not a good case to make good law.
And censure is no more "giving him a pass" than a failed impeachment process.
stop lying to us already.
it's so tiresome.
"Biden's extortion"
ridiculous
At 52:00
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
Most of us are well aware of the long standing abuses of our intelligence agencies, the presidential misuses of the military, the assaults on civil liberties, etc. But IMHO it's the height of cynicism to say that Trump should get a pass on obvious abuses of power that are done out in the open because of those past actions of other presidents. How do we ever change things if we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere? Particularly with a president who is taking abuses of power and corruption to new levels out in the open and practically daring Congress to stop him.
The broader context of Trump's abuse is -- Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine, the Ukraine government's interference in the 2016 election and Hillary's payment of foreigners to get dirt on Trump. That's why this is not a good case to make good law.
And censure is no more "giving him a pass" than a failed impeachment process.
stop lying to us already.
it's so tiresome.
"Biden's extortion"
ridiculous
At 52:00
you're lying.
stop it.
I mean, sh!T, how could Biden as veep even have the power to do what you claim? He was a messenger for Obama and all of our allies who all wanted the guy out.
And you know it.
So stop lying about it.
cramer said:
Please excuse the use of a video, but Chris Cuomo's comparison between Trump's and Biden's actions in Ukraine is excellent (not that it will make any difference to Trump's supporters or Paul.)
I edited my previous post.
drummerboy said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
Most of us are well aware of the long standing abuses of our intelligence agencies, the presidential misuses of the military, the assaults on civil liberties, etc. But IMHO it's the height of cynicism to say that Trump should get a pass on obvious abuses of power that are done out in the open because of those past actions of other presidents. How do we ever change things if we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere? Particularly with a president who is taking abuses of power and corruption to new levels out in the open and practically daring Congress to stop him.
The broader context of Trump's abuse is -- Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine, the Ukraine government's interference in the 2016 election and Hillary's payment of foreigners to get dirt on Trump. That's why this is not a good case to make good law.
And censure is no more "giving him a pass" than a failed impeachment process.
stop lying to us already.
it's so tiresome.
"Biden's extortion"
ridiculous
At 52:00
you're lying.
stop it.
I mean, sh!T, how could Biden as veep even have the power to do what you claim? He was a messenger for Obama and all of our allies who all wanted the guy out.
And you know it.
So stop lying about it.
So you're saying that Biden extorted Poroshenko on behalf of Obama. OK, I'll stipulate to that.
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
Most of us are well aware of the long standing abuses of our intelligence agencies, the presidential misuses of the military, the assaults on civil liberties, etc. But IMHO it's the height of cynicism to say that Trump should get a pass on obvious abuses of power that are done out in the open because of those past actions of other presidents. How do we ever change things if we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere? Particularly with a president who is taking abuses of power and corruption to new levels out in the open and practically daring Congress to stop him.
The broader context of Trump's abuse is -- Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine, the Ukraine government's interference in the 2016 election and Hillary's payment of foreigners to get dirt on Trump. That's why this is not a good case to make good law.
And censure is no more "giving him a pass" than a failed impeachment process.
stop lying to us already.
it's so tiresome.
"Biden's extortion"
ridiculous
At 52:00
you're lying.
stop it.
I mean, sh!T, how could Biden as veep even have the power to do what you claim? He was a messenger for Obama and all of our allies who all wanted the guy out.
And you know it.
So stop lying about it.
So you're saying that Biden extorted Poroshenko on behalf of Obama. OK, I'll stipulate to that.
give it a rest. get some better talking points from whatever stink hole you seem to hang out in.
I've lost all patience with your b.s.
paulsurovell said:
So you're saying that Biden extorted Poroshenko on behalf of Obama. OK, I'll stipulate to that.
Putting words in someone else’s mouth aside, I wonder how foreign policy* (“if you do or don’t do that, we won’t or will do this”) works without “extortion.”
* I also wonder how foreign policy works without “meddling,” but that’s another thread.
Paul separately, I saw you won your age group in the Newstead 5k, congrats!
Among this group providing powerful impetus for an investigation, Rep. Mikie Sherrill.
When a group of moderate House freshmen moved from hard no to hell yes on starting an impeachment inquiry, they changed the dynamic for House Democrats, and even the course of history https://t.co/vD4aErWK1S pic.twitter.com/dTuotIFGyv
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
That’s a positive argument. But it doesn’t dispute that those impeachments, too, would dominate politics in an election season, excite the Republican base and fail in the Senate. (I’ll leave independents aside, since they’re always hard to quantify and predict.) So I think your complaint on those counts can be put to rest.