Pelosi's Surprising Move To Hold Vote On Impeachment Inquiry
Nancy Pelosi, in a surprising move, has now indicated that the House of Representatives will indeed hold a floor vote on the impeachment inquiry this Thursday. So far, few details have been released. The big question, however, is not what will be in the motion, but why it is happening now at all.
Up until this point, Pelosi has been staunchly resisting calls to hold such a vote, even from within her own party. She seems to have already weathered much of the storm over the issue, which arose a few weeks back. She insisted that: (1) there was no constitutional requirement for such a vote, (2) the House had previously impeached other officials (but not presidents) without such a vote, and (3) an impeachment inquiry was already underway, making a motion to begin one moot. She stood firm in this position, as she almost always does when she's made her mind up on an important issue.
Her political and legal position was even bolstered at the end of last week, when a federal judge ruled that the House could indeed see all the grand jury evidence that Robert Mueller had collected, as well as an unredacted copy of his report. The judge specified in his ruling that an impeachment inquiry had indeed already begun and there was never any need for the House to hold a floor vote for that to have happened. This was a vote of confidence from the judiciary, which strengthened Pelosi's position in a big way. So why hold such a vote now?
We can speculate as to her reasoning, but so far we just don't know what she is thinking. Pelosi is reportedly holding a vote on procedures to be used in the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, which would put the spotlight on what Democrats have been saying all along -- that we will indeed get to the point where all the evidence and hearing transcripts are laid before the American people, complete with open-door televised testimony from witnesses who have already appeared. Shifting the focus to this next phase will undercut the point the Republicans are trying to make about how the process is has worked up until now.
The Republicans' argument is weak, which they must surely know. They are drawing comparisons to the two modern presidential impeachment hearings, of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, but in both of those cases: (1) there were indeed closed-door witness interviews before the public ones, and (2) they both had already gone through an independent prosecutor's fact-finding, whereas in the case of Trump this has not happened yet on the Ukraine question. The House has had to do its own fact-finding, which is why the hearings have been closed up until now (so the witnesses can't "get their stories straight" before appearing). Whatever you think of such comparisons, though, the Democrats were always going to follow their fact-finding with a public presentation, so the arguments for transparency had a limited lifespan to begin with.
Pelosi could have just gotten tired of all the carping, and decided to go ahead and hold a vote. Or she might have planned to hold this vote all along, but delayed doing so in order to not appear to be doing the White House's bidding. If she had held the vote when Trump first demanded it, it would have made her look subservient, whereas after a few weeks of holding firm she can now claim the vote is being held on her timeline and for her purposes. There's a lot to be said for such an argument, since nobody saw today's announcement coming, and it obviously appeared when everyone in Washington was distracted by Trump's big news over the weekend.
Pelosi could just be planning to absolutely dominate Thursday's news cycle, since that will also be the day when an important National Security Agency official is scheduled to testify. Much like Bill Taylor, this witness appears eager to do so and has indicated through his lawyer that he will appear even though the White House is trying to stonewall all such appearances. This leads to the obvious assumption that he's got important details to add to the puzzle and wants to share such evidence with the House committees. If this leads to more bombshell revelations, it will happen on the same day the whole House votes on the formal impeachment inquiry. Both stories will doubtlessly make a big splash in the media.
The only other possible reason I can think of for Pelosi to act now is that the Trump administration is appealing the ruling on the Mueller grand jury material, and by holding a vote before any appellate or Supreme Court ruling, Pelosi removes one of the big arguments Trump has been making. After a vote is held, it will become impossible for Trump to argue in court that the impeachment inquiry is somehow unconstitutional or illegitimate. This will take a lot of the legal wind out of the coming appeal, in other words, as well as in all the other court cases that are winding their way through the judicial system.
No draft of the motion has been released, as of this writing. Will it include the things Republicans have been arguing for, such as giving them the power to subpoena their own witnesses? Will it allow a White House lawyer to be present and cross-examine the witnesses? Or will all of that be saved for the Senate trial, if the House does impeach Trump? Nobody knows, at this point, other than Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership.
Holding this vote will dominate at least one day's news cycle, as it will indeed be a historic vote. If the motion only lays out the process for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry -- when the evidence and witnesses are publicly presented -- then it will shift the focus to what we can all expect to see in November or possibly early December. Doing so shouldn't detract from all the fact-finding currently underway, with new bombshell revelations appearing whenever important witnesses testify. It will also undercut all the whining Republicans have been loudly doing, because they won't be able to complain about the process anymore if Pelosi is essentially giving them what they've been asking for. They might try to chalk this up as a minor political victory, but this isn't going to matter much in the larger scheme of things. A month from now, nobody's going to remember all the bickering about process, because the process will have moved on and the reasons for impeachment will have become even clearer than they already are now.
Personally, I've been rather ambivalent about whether holding such a vote would be a wise idea politically or not. Both sides of the argument seemed to have valid pros and cons. But now that Pelosi has acted, we will have an impeachment inquiry vote later this week. Doing so will completely undercut all the process arguments Republicans have been making (since they have found it impossible to argue the actual merits of the case against Trump). I trust Nancy Pelosi has her own reasons for acting now, and she's always shown a masterful sense of the politics of such chessboard moves. Perhaps in the next few days we'll get a better understanding of her reasoning for holding the vote now. Even if we don't, though, by week's end we'll all be spared all the GOP carping about the process, as they'll have to find some other non-issue to pretend to get outraged over. And that will be a welcome development indeed.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
This vote is simply a process vote, no?
Depending on what's in the resolution outlining the process for going forward, the vote could be much higher in favour than may be expected.
I think, or at least I hope, one reason for calling this vote would be to help in the process for developing support for the impeachment process - amongst rational Republicans in both houses of Congress and, more importantly, amongst a divided public.
But now that Pelosi has acted, we will have an impeachment inquiry vote later this week. Doing so will completely undercut all the process arguments Republicans have been making (since they have found it impossible to argue the actual merits of the case against Trump).
This is another great reason, if not for just the fun it will be to observe how the irrational Republicans will adopt new "arguments" to protect the president.
It is interesting, though, how people still fait to see the Pelosi strategy. I wasn't always a fan, as this blog will know, but her actions through this mess have been a pleasure to watch.
No draft of the motion has been released, as of this writing. Will it include the things Republicans have been arguing for, such as giving them the power to subpoena their own witnesses? Will it allow a White House lawyer to be present and cross-examine the witnesses? Or will all of that be saved for the Senate trial, if the House does impeach Trump?
I expect the investigation phase will remain unchanged.
But, I certainly hope that all of that will be saved for the Senate trial! You know, enough rope and all of that.
Nancy Pelosi has released a letter with her rationale laid out - so far I've only seen a screenshot which you can see here: https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1188901347774603264
Boils down to House is following all the laws/steps and with an official impeachment Blotus cannot refuse to deliver materials, honor subpeonas, etc.
What makes anyone think the president will change his spots and suddenly honour subpoenas and hand over documents when Democrats follow all the laws and steps of an official impeachment?
What laws and steps, by the way? There isn't much about that outlined in the constitution, is there?
[4] EM: maybe he won't - we'll see. But up until now, at least, courts have ruled impeachment means you have to hand stuff over.
Part of the Dem strategy has been (whether for good or ill) to dot every i and cross every t so that when the Repubs whined it would be clear Dems were "following the rules". Per her letter, Dems will lay out steps for DJT; for provision of evidence, etc.
If Repubs, as they've threatened all along, want to protect DJT and stonewall, etc. Dems want to ensure the world sees Repub acts for what they are: obstruction and cover-ups to protect Blotus.
Dems will also be holding public hearings next and, I believe, will be folding in actions on several fronts as multiple committees are investigating multiple crimes.
So - Dems are serving - ball will be in GOP's court.
I can't wait for the public hearings!
CW: The only other possible reason I can think of for Pelosi to act now is that the Trump administration is appealing the ruling on the Mueller grand jury material, and by holding a vote before any appellate or Supreme Court ruling, Pelosi removes one of the big arguments Trump has been making.
This! I think the court ruling last Friday, 10/25, is exactly why she's doing it now. It's an awesome ruling in the House's favor.
https://www.scribd.com/document/432046744/Order-Redacted-Mueller-Materials
In her statement when the ruling was issued, Pelosi stated:
Combine that with her letter (see Paula's link), and it looks to me like Pelosi is simply striking while the proverbial iron is hot while making a relatively easy move to kneecap their whining about process immediately after the Court ruled in the House's favor.
The facts aren't on your side, she's saying, and that's a lousy process argument you got there; while the Court has ruled I don't have to do it, I'm going to do it anyway because... why not? I'm sorry this will require that you rework your entire messaging operation and get with the program with so little notice, so few facts on your side, and a loose-lipped president and his half-wit lawyer with an indictment... the lawyer not already in prison, of course. :)
Paula
5
Yep! Perfect.
So - Dems are serving - ball will be in GOP's court.
And what better timing than this since the Court literally just handed the ball to the House!? Game on.
Upcoming testimony: Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a decorated Iraq war veteran and the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council who listened in on the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. His statement is full of references to duty to country and patriotism:
On two occasions, the colonel brought his concerns to John A. Eisenberg, top lawyer at the National Security Council.
I'm guessing the right-wingnut propaganda machine will smear this patriot based on the fact that he's an immigrant from Ukraine. Cue the wingnut conspiracy theory dipshits in smearing a decorated American patriot in service to America for simply reporting the facts and his unwillingness to lie for the president wherein he heard every word of the phone call.
This is as good a place and time to post a link of former director of the FBI speaking the impact of Trump, the resilience of America and its institutions and the importance of mobilizing the majority of the American people who reside in the middle, politically speaking, to get them to vote.
One very important thing he said is that the concepts of 'right' and 'left' don't make sense to him anymore. I wish he would have expanded on that theme - recall "up-wing vs down-wing" which cuts across the usual party lines and ideologies.
But, anyway …
https://www.c-span.org/video/?465521-1/james-comey-nicolle-wallace-discuss-leadership-politics-politicon
Just to be clear, I am an unabashed Comey fan and always will be … because he has a deep belief in the promise of America.
I’ve got a question that I cannot seem to find an answer to regarding this upcoming vote, so I’ll ask the group:
This vote is on whether to accept the outline for upcoming impeachment hearing procedures — not whether or not the investigations into the impeachment query will take place, correct?
If Republicans oppose the outline for how the hearings will play out, will they be giving the Democrats full reign to decide how the hearings will play out since the courts have already ruled that a vote was not necessary for the impeachment process to take place?
Yep!!
Dems caved!!! :D
I can tell ya'all exactly what happened..
President Trump was reaping a PR whirlwinded BONANZA of good PR over the Baghdidi take down..
Pelosi simply HAD to go PUBLIC with something to try and stop all the good will towards President Trump..
Typical Dim move.. :D
It's also important to note that this will be the FOURTH time that the House has voted on impeachment..
ALL previous attempts to start impeachment have failed..
I guess Pelosi is think that the 4th time is the charm, eh?? :D
Most Democrats now support an impeachment inquiry, but a handful of vulnerable centrist House Democrats withheld their support for officially launching the inquiry last month and remain skeptical of impeachment, including Reps. Jeff Van Drew (N.J.), Kendra Horn (Okla.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Joe Cunningham (S.C.), Jared Golden (Maine) and Anthony Brindisi (N.Y.).
There are more than enough vulnerable Democrats that would lose their jobs if they vote to impeach President Trump to deny Democrats a majority in this impeachment vote..
Democrats will lose this vote.. :D
And Michale will be laughing and gloating all thru the Annual Weigantian Holiday Fundraiser.. :D
It's going to be EPIC!!! :D
Liz,
I can't wait for the public hearings!
You'll be waiting a long time..
Democrats will lose this vote...
After that, it's likely that Pelosi will simply drop this faux impeachment coup..
Because, with the FOURTH loss of an impeachment vote under her belt, it will be blatantly obvious to the MOST DULLARD Party sla.... er.. loyalist... :D
... that this faux impeachment truly is nothing but a coup...
The only other possible reason I can think of for Pelosi to act now is that the Trump administration is appealing the ruling on the Mueller grand jury material, and by holding a vote before any appellate or Supreme Court ruling, Pelosi removes one of the big arguments Trump has been making.
It's no big thing.. President Trump will simply appeal the decision to the SCOTUS and it will tie it up for another few more months.
And THEN the SCOTUS will reverse the Obama Judges' ruling... :D
CW,
Personally, I've been rather ambivalent about whether holding such a vote would be a wise idea politically or not. Both sides of the argument seemed to have valid pros and cons. But now that Pelosi has acted, we will have an impeachment inquiry vote later this week. Doing so will completely undercut all the process arguments Republicans have been making (since they have found it impossible to argue the actual merits of the case against Trump). I trust Nancy Pelosi has her own reasons for acting now, and she's always shown a masterful sense of the politics of such chessboard moves. Perhaps in the next few days we'll get a better understanding of her reasoning for holding the vote now. Even if we don't, though, by week's end we'll all be spared all the GOP carping about the process, as they'll have to find some other non-issue to pretend to get outraged over. And that will be a welcome development indeed.
Yunno...
In the OLD Weigantia, there would have been a detailed account of what would likely happen if Democrats LOSE this vote...
In today's HHPTDS suffering Weigantia, there is not even an acknowledgement of the possibility.. :(
I find that very disappointing...
"Oh how the mighty have fallen.."
-Guinan, STAR TREK TNG, Deja Q
The GENIUS of President Trump!! :D
Trump's Syria pullout lured the big ISIS rat out of his hole and ... boom!
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/trumps_syria_pullout_lured_the_big_isis_rat_out_of_his_hole_and__boom.html#ixzz63jfdID00
Masterful stroke of genius!! :D
Why would Pelosi hold a vote if she thought she might lose? Whatever her issues, nancy has always been great at whipping votes. And with public opinion leaning in favor of impeachment it seems unlikely that and dems would break off over a procedural vote. A few Republicans might even vote in favor.
It's simply amazing.
For a President who Trump/America haters claim he has NO IDEA WHAT HE IS DOING.....
He is uncannily smart at getting things done that are a benefit to this country.
And, at EVERY JUNCTURE, President Trump is PROVING Trump/America haters wrong...
EVERY TIME!! :D
Amazing... :smirk: :D
Why would Pelosi hold a vote if she thought she might lose?
Why did she hold the previous vote on impeachment??? She lost that one too..
She would risk it because she is desperate.. As you yourself mentioned, the GOP spin that this is a coup is effective AND working.. The claims that this is a secret star chamber coup is WORKING against the Dims..
Now add to that, President Trump riding a HUGE wave of approval for the Baghdidi take down??
It's easy to see why Pelosi went this route.. She is losing the PR battle and she is desperate to arrest the downward slide..
"Simple logic"
-Admiral James T. Kirk
And with public opinion leaning in favor of impeachment it seems unlikely that and dems would break off over a procedural vote.
There are at least 30 Democrats who will lose their jobs if they vote to impeach President Trump..
That is enough to deny Democrats the majority..
This vote will fail..
A few Republicans might even vote in favor.
Sure, one or two Trump/America haters with a -R after their name might.. But they ALSO know that they will lose their jobs.. So, probably not..
But Liz and I have agreed that 20 is the magic number to represent true bipartisanship..
You think Dims will get 20 GOP votes?? :D
The Democrats will lose this vote.. Just like they lost all the others before it..
It's THAT simple..
Impeachers Searching for New Crimes
The search for the perfect impeachable offense against President Trump is reminiscent of overzealous prosecutors who target the defendant first and then search for the crime with which to charge him. Or to paraphrase the former head of the Soviet secret police to Stalin: show me the man and I will find you the crime.
All civil libertarians should be concerned about an Alice in Wonderland process in which the search for an impeachable crime precedes the evidence that such a crime has actually been committed.
Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders.
Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15069/impeachers-new-crimes
Yunno... For Democrats who claim that they hate Russia...
They sure have the USSR Stalinist approach down pat..
So un-American...
Even taking the worst-case scenario regarding Ukraine -- a quid pro quo exchange of foreign aid for a political favor -- that might be a political sin, but not a crime or impeachable offense.
Many presidents have used their foreign policy power for political or personal advantage. Most recently, President Barack Obama misused his power in order to take personal revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last days of his second term, Obama engineered a one-sided UN Security Council resolution declaring that Israel's control over the Western Wall -- Judaism's holiest site -- constitutes a "flagrant violation of international law." Nearly every member of Congress and many in his own administration opposed this unilateral change in our policy, but Obama was determined to take revenge against Netanyahu, whom he despised. Obama committed a political sin by placing his personal pique over our national interest, but he did not commit an impeachable offense.
Nor did President George H. W. Bush commit an impeachable offense when he pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others on the eve of their trials in order to prevent them from pointing the finger at him.
This brings us to President Trump's directive with regard to the impeachment investigation. Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders. Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.
So, the search for the holy grail of a removable offense will continue, but it is unlikely to succeed. Our constitution provides a better way to decide who shall serve as president: it's called an election.
No matter how ya'all want to spin it..
Nothing President Trump has done is an impeachable offense..
It's really that simple...
Democrats will lose and LOSE big...
It is nearly universally agreed here in Weigantia..
The ONLY way this ends is with President Trump still in the Oval Office...
The Democrats will lose this vote.. Just like they lost all the others before it..
It's THAT simple..
And, if Pelosi all of the sudden cancels the House vote..???
You will know that SHE also realizes that Democrats will lose the vote..
:D
Second Democratic aide sentenced in Kavanaugh doxxing case
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/second-democratic-aide-sentenced-in-kavanaugh-doxxing-case
What *IS* it about Democrats?? Is their hate and bigotry THAT strong???
Funny though.. I don't recall seeing these two Democrats as MDDOTW recepients....
I guess these two's actions are perfectly acceptable as long as they are done against the RIGHT people, eh? :eyeroll:
Piers Morgan blasts Trump critics after al-Baghdadi raid: They 'shamed themselves and shamed their country'
Many of President Trump's critics shamed both themselves and the United States when they refused to acknowledge a White House victory after ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi died in a U.S. military raid, according to Piers Morgan.
There was a nationwide celebration when Usama bin Laden was killed under then-President Barack Obama's watch, but not so over the weekend after the ISIS leader died, Morgan told "Tucker Carlson Tonight."
"My mind went back to when Usama bin Laden was killed," he said.
"I was in New York City that night. There was widespread jubilation throughout New York, throughout Washington, throughout America. This was a unified response from a country jubilant at seeing the end of the grisly demise of the leader of Al Qaeda. Compare and contrast the reaction yesterday -- to the demise of Baghdadi."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/piers-morgan-al-baghdadi-killed-trump-critics-world-series
Ahh Mr Morgan... You don't realize..
These Trump/America haters HAVE no shame....
EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is legitimate... No action too low or too depraved..
As long as it's directed at the RIGHT people.. :^/
It's rather ironic..
I STILL have my OBAMA GOT OSAMA tank top... :D
Prior to Morgan's interview, host Tucker Carlson played clips of several media personalities largely refusing to compliment Trump after the raid, including former CIA analyst Philip Mudd, who said on CNN it was wrong for the president to celebrate a death, no matter the individual.
"You do not celebrate death -- I don't care if it's a terrorist, I don't care if it's someone you hate -- a human being has died, we do not celebrate that," Mudd said.
Mudd (what an appropriate name) did not complete his sentence..
"You do not celebrate death -- I don't care if it's a terrorist, I don't care if it's someone you hate -- a human being has died, we do not celebrate that, UNLESS IT'S A REALLY BAD TERRORIST AND IT WAS A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT WHO TOOK HIM OUT"
There...
Now you know..... The Rest Of The Story
Trump/America haters make me sick...
Ousted Republicans plot rematches with Trump back on the ballot
Former GOP lawmakers think having Trump up for reelection is their ticket back to the House, particularly during the polarizing impeachment debate.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/27/ousted-house-republicans-2020-rematch-056784
This is why Democrats will lose this 4th impeachment vote...
Because they Dims who won in those Trump areas KNOW that the GOP'ers they defeated are just licking their chops in anticipation of using that Dims' vote for impeachment so the GOP'er can win back their seat...
Those Demcorats are NOT going to risk losing their jobs for a Trump/America hating cause..
If Pelosi goes thru with the vote, the Democrats will lose..
It's THAT simple...
And with Trump back on the ballot in 2020, Tenney and her supporters see a chance to make her comeback.
“I think it’s going to be a good year,” Tenney said in an interview. “In a presidential year, I think we’ll be able to get some of those gains back.”
And she’s not the only one. A series of ex-Republican lawmakers who lost narrowly in Trump strongholds in 2018 are plotting rematches next year with dreams of riding on the president’s coattails.
Particularly amid an impeachment debate that has polarized the country, the former lawmakers think a juiced-up Trump turnout will lift them past their Democratic opponents and potentially help Republicans win back the House.
And, with Dumbocrats stoopid enough to push impeachment..
It will be a very VERY juiced-up Trump turnout... :D
Democrats are going to get shellacked... AGAIN!!!! :D
Only seven Democratic impeachment holdouts remain: Here's what they have in common
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/05/politics/dem-impeachment-holdouts-district-similarities/index.html
And you can bet that, for every 1 holdout identified, there are 4 who are NOT identified..
If Pelosi actually HAS the vote...
Democrats will lose...
Again, it's really THAT simple..
Now for some good news.. :D
I am going in for a heart stress test this morning.. So ya'all will get a break from me for a couple hours...
Or even longer if it doesn't go well.. heh...
I can hear some of ya'all praying already.. :D hehehehehe
@m,
Good luck with your heart
JL
JL,
Thanx..
"Proof that Tony Stark DOES have a heart"
-IRON MAN
:D
There is another reason why Pelosi is so desperate to have an impeachment vote..
Durham's probe has just turned into a CRIMINAL probe...
The deck is stacked so much AGAINST Democrats...
Pelosi is desperate to change the narrative..
That is why she is risking a vote she HAS to know she will, in all likelyhood, lose..
That's why I am betting that Pelosi cancels the vote.
Kick-7
I think you are on to something with the Mueller Materials.
Joe Biden in Danger of Humiliating Loss in Iowa, Top Democrats Warn
(Bloomberg) -- Joe Biden risks a humiliating third or fourth-place finish in Iowa early next year, according to nearly a dozen senior Democrats in the state who attribute it to what they see as a poorly organized operation that has failed to engage with voters and party leaders.
With fewer than 100 days until the Feb. 3 caucuses, Biden is failing to spend the time with small groups of voters and party officials that Iowans expect and his campaign’s outreach has been largely ineffective, according to 11 senior Democrats in the state. They worry that could send Biden to a crippling loss behind Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, who have highly organized campaigns in Iowa, said the Democrats, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the campaign.
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-danger-humiliating-loss-iowa-080000058.html
Who could have possibly predicted Biden's demise...
Oh... Wait... :D
Stig...
I completely agree with you..
Victoria is definitely on something with those Mueller materials.. :D
Common ground is such a wonderful thing.. :D
Who wins when leftists go lawless – in liberal citadels like D.C.?
This thinking echoes the famous "bodies upon the gears" speech of Mario Savio at the famous 1964 University of California, Berkeley campus riot: "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that ... you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop!"
After Berkeley came civil disobedience; the burning of ROTC buildings; and urban riots marked by looting, shooting and arson. Out of that came Richard Nixon's 49-state landslide, Ronald Reagan, and Republican triumphs in five of six presidential elections starting in 1968.
Bring it on.
https://www.wnd.com/2019/10/trump-facing-violent-60s-style-revolt/
The Left will definitely not win the coming civil war...
That's assured..
Calling Pelosi and Schiff’s bluff
President Trump has repeatedly slammed the secret impeachment hearings in the Capitol basement as a “kangaroo court.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi got the message. On Monday, she announced the full House will vote to formally launch impeachment proceedings that will be out in the open, instead of in the dark.
Democrats have been trying to suggest they have the goods on Trump. But fact is, none of the witnesses they have called so far have any firsthand knowledge of presidential wrongdoing.
Behind closed doors and with no media allowed, House Democrats have tried to put on the appearance of a legal proceeding. At the end of each session, they leak what they claim happened. The media are all too willing to play along, printing the Democratic pols’ claims as if they were fact.
“Powerful testimony from multiple State and national security officials,” The Hill reports, adding up to a “scathing picture of Trump and his allies withholding nearly $400 million in security aid from Ukraine.”
Politico called the testimony of Bill Taylor, the acting envoy to Kiev, “explosive” — though Taylor’s prepared statement merely regurgitated what other State Department bureaucrats had told him. His source was the rumor mill. It’s called hearsay.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/28/calling-pelosi-and-schiffs-bluff/
Now lets see how the Dims do with everything out in the open..
Assuming of course, that the Democrats actually follow thru with their pledges...
JL,
Before Pelosi’s announcement on Monday, Adam Schiff, the House intelligence-committee chairman who is overseeing the secret hearings, gave up on calling witnesses who have firsthand knowledge of Trump’s negotiations with the Ukrainian president.
Schiff caved after a key witness actually challenged the committee’s subpoena as illegitimate and said see you in court. Charles Kupperman, former deputy national-security adviser and one of the few people who was on Trump’s Ukraine call, filed a lawsuit, arguing that the House committee can’t compel testimony for an impeachment until the full House votes to authorize subpoenas for that purpose. That, of course, is the vote Pelosi was dodging.
“We are not willing to allow the White House to engage us in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope with the courts,” Schiff said. Translation: Democrats don’t think they would win in the highest court.
So, now you see the reason why Pelosi caved to President Trump's demands.
She was checkmated.. She KNOWS that the SCOTUS will rule in President Trump's favor on EVERYTHING until she has a House Vote under her belt.. She won't get the unredacted mueller report, she won't get ANY subpoenas, she won't get JACK without that House Vote..
So, Pelosi gave in.. She was forced to dance to President Trump's tune...
THAT is why Pelosi scheduled a vote she knows she very likely will lose..
Just as the 3 votes before this were lost..
Schiff’s cynical decision not to meet Kupperman in court indicates he also may not want to press for testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or Energy Secretary Rick Perry, or former National Security Adviser John Bolton — men who actually know the facts about Trump’s dealings with the Ukraine.
Additional witnesses are scheduled to appear before Schiff’s committee later this week. But they will offer more of the same. “It’s always people who talked to people who have talked to other people who think that he might have meant this,” says Rep. Mark Meadows, an intelligence-committee member witnessing the charade.
The public isn’t stupid, and Pelosi is a far better politician than Schiff. Polls show fewer than half of voters supporting impeachment in key swing states like Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. These are states Trump won in 2016, and Pelosi has been reluctant to put Democratic members from these states on the spot. Trump called her bluff.
Now the Democrats will have to put up or shut up.
And it's going to end very very VERY badly for Democrats... :D
You heard it here first.. :D
The Oct 28 New Yorker Magazine includes an outstanding article on the theory and history of impeachment. If you can get a hold of a copy, it's well worth the effort.
As NYMag sees it, Impeachment is an ancient relic of 14th century English of Law that by the 18th century was mostly obsolete and unnecessary in the Mother Country. The framers of US Constitution revived it for their own political cross purposes.
NYM - "The US Senate has held only eighteen impeachment trials in two hundred and thirty years and only twice for a President. Because impeachment happens so infrequently, it's hard to draw conclusions about what it does, or even how it works, and on each occasion, people spend a lot of time fighting over the meaning of the words and the nature of the crimes. Each impeachment is a political experiment."
To me it's all sort of like an old Frankenstein movie....It's Alive, it's Alive! and careening about.
Or maybe impeachment is more like bovine stomachs...lots of chambers, churning, and noises which are somehow expected to preserve the cow.
To answer CW's question as to why hold a vote now it's simple. The judge ruled that Congress will get the Muller papers unredacted. But that will likely be overturned on appeal because there is no formal impeachment hearing going on. Pelosi is scared that this particular issue will resonate and snowball so she is going to hold a vote. In other words she caved to President Trump's demands
i don't see pelosi losing this vote. the democrats have a 37 seat advantage in the house, and the law, the facts and public opinion are currently all on her side. republican table-pounding notwithstanding.
And now I'm off to my doctor appointment. Play nice:)
to some extent michale is probably right about the legal reason, though. a vote in favor short-circuits the procedural argument against the inquiry, and makes the current court ruling less likely to be overturned on appeal.
[8] Kick:
I'm guessing the right-wingnut propaganda machine will smear this patriot based on the fact that he's an immigrant from Ukraine. Cue the wingnut conspiracy theory dipshits in smearing a decorated American patriot in service to America for simply reporting the facts and his unwillingness to lie for the president wherein he heard every word of the phone call.
Yep - naturally the effort at character assassination commenced immediately.
TS[42],
That was an interesting read … I mean your clear summary of the piece.
With all of the noise and analysis of Trump and his behavior and all that surrounds the impeachment inquiry, there really hasn't been a lot of enlightenment about the way forward here amongst the players in the WH, Congress and the media, not surprisingly.
This impeachment process, which the president has solely brought upon himself, has highlighted the devolution of American political and media culture.
Michale[14, etc.],
None of that makes any sense to me. Though, granted, I don't read most of them, anymore. :(
JL,
i don't see pelosi losing this vote. the democrats have a 37 seat advantage in the house, and the law, the facts and public opinion are currently all on her side.
In YOUR opinion..
Liz,
None of that makes any sense to me. Though, granted, I don't read most of them, anymore. :(
It's a natural reaction to facts that upset one's world view..
Don't sweat it.. :D
More reasons why Pelosi caved to President Trump..
Senator Lindsey Graham has created a new reality for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Graham has written a powerful resolution which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell joined in co-sponsoring. Together they have attracted 50 co-sponsors – which means with Vice President Pence supporting them they would win a vote to dismiss any phony impeachment from the House that failed to meet a key standard of fairness.
The resolution:
“calls on the House of Representatives, prior to proceeding any further with its impeachment investigation into President Trump, to vote to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry;
calls on the House of Representatives to provide President Trump, like every other American, with due process, to include the ability to confront his accusers, call witnesses on his behalf, and have a basic understanding of the accusations against him that would form any basis for impeachment; and
calls on the House of Representatives to provide members of the minority with the ability to participate fully in all proceedings and have equal authority to issue subpoenas and other compulsory process.”
Faced with this new reality, Speaker Pelosi suddenly ended months of avoiding a vote on the impeachment process and announced today that the House would vote this week.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/pelosi-announces-trump-impeachment-inquiry-vote-heres-what-i-am-on-the-lookout-for-now
This is a SUREFIRE resolution that will pass the Senate..
Treat President Trump fairly.. Give him access to ALL witnesses and ALL evidence and all the President to call witnesses..
If the House doesn't do this, then impeachment is DOA...
It's THAT simple... :D
i don't see pelosi losing this vote.
I am sure Democrats didn't see losing the first 3 votes either... :D
But THIS time... THIS time it's going to work?
Is that the story??? :D
The House Democrats have a clear model of a fair, systematic bipartisan approach in the rules adopted by the Democrats in 1973 and by the Republicans in 1998. Former Democratic Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Peter Rodino of New Jersey developed a bipartisan set of rules in 1973 during the Nixon impeachment proceedings. Rodino’s rules allowed the White House Counsel to be present at all hearings – including those held in secret. They also allowed the Republican minority to offer subpoenas to bring in the witnesses they wanted in addition to the witnesses the Democrats wanted.
THESE are the House Rules for impeachment.. They were created and implemented by a DEMOCRAT..
These are the same rules that the GOP followed in the Clinton impeachment..
If Pelosi and the House Democrats don't follow these rules then the impeachment is nothing but a scam..
An illegitimate coup...
And will get no support from the White House or the US Senate..
It's THAT simple..
I am sure Democrats didn't see losing the first 3 votes either... :D
What are you talking about?
Michale,
Do you have an opinion about the guy who is testifying as we tap this out?
What are you talking about?
This will be the 4th time that the House has voted on impeachment for President Trump..
All the times before, it failed..
And it will fail again..
Do you have an opinion about the guy who is testifying as we tap this out?
No.. It's being done in secret so NO ONE can have an unbiased informed opinion on the guy..
Yu didn't read the statement that he wrote and released?
California’s beleaguered governor grapples with blazes, blackouts and homelessness
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-chaos-newsom-grapples-wildfires
Ahhhh the wonders and competence of Democrat governance...
:smirk:
Yu didn't read the statement that he wrote and released?
A statement is not sworn testimony.. Anyone can say anything in a press release..
Why won't Democrats let all Americans see the sworn testimony??
What are Democrats afraid of???
Not having any facts.. THAT is what Democrats are afraid of..
Can you give me a link to support your claim that there were already 3 votes to impeach Trump and Pelosi lost them?
A statement is not sworn testimony.. Anyone can say anything in a press release..
It is apparent that you may be projecting, Michale.
JL,
to some extent michale is probably right about the legal reason, though.
Yes I am..
A vote loss or no vote at all will insure that this Obama judge's ruling will be reversed on appeal..
Pelosi and Schiff-head know that, without a full House vote on Articles Of Impeachment.. Not a PROCEDURE vote, but a vote on the Articles themselves..
Executive Privilege will ALWAYS trump a House fishing expedition...
Until Democrats hold an AOI vote the courts will always ultimately side with President Trump
It is apparent that you may be projecting, Michale.
Why, yes... Yes I am...
I am projecting FACTS... :D
Come talk to me when we can see some SWORN testimony for ourselves..
Until then, it's nothing but hearsay...
This impeachment process, which the president has solely brought upon himself, has highlighted the devolution of American political and media culture.
Actually, I've surprisingly seen the exact opposite. You know, there were times when I thought that we were headed down the road to fascism. But then America's institutions weighed in, and I knew that we would be all right.
What institutions?
The Press: is free. Ask Trump.
The Military: non-partisan, which is remarkable. Apparently 200 years of practice makes perfect.
Congress: partisan, and free-wheeling, as it should be. We forget that the founders kept the congress political for a reason. This is where the cacophony of the people (and the lobbyists and money, money, money) is heard and sometimes heeded.
The Court: even with McConnell's fascination, at best he can affect about 10% of the courts in this country. As for the SCOTUS, Trump's made two appointments, only one of which, I assert, is a certain Trumpster. Little hope that they'll burn the country down for him.
The Executive: this is ground zero. Trump's been making a game of dismantling the whole thing, but there are institutional blocks that make the entire enterprise very slow. The "Deep State" still has millions of civil service employees, all anxious to keep their jobs. So Trump can fiddle with the top managers, sure, and can order the military to war, but he can't stop social security or medicaid. One thing we can appreciate: Trump's reliance on inexperienced and feckless managers makes the dismantlement of these departments that much harder.
So no, we haven't devolved, not by a long shot. The premise that Trump can order the firing of nuclear missiles still worries me. The messes he creates both here and overseas worries me.
But I'll put my faith in the American people. If they think that Trump is their guy, they'll vote for him. But I think they won't. There's only so much fun in putting a troll in charge.
Actually, I've surprisingly seen the exact opposite.
You see the opposite and you find that surprising??
HA
The Press: is free.
And totally biased against the freely, fairly, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected President of the United States..
Of course you don't find that a problem because you are too..
But I'll put my faith in the American people.
Yea??? Did you do so when the American people ELECTED President Trump??
Of course not.. You never accepted the will of the American people..
Why should you start now??
And totally biased against the freely, fairly, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected President of the United States..
Of course you don't find that a problem because you are too..
So you don't consider Fox News, or your other right wing rags to be a part of the press?
That's interesting. What do you consider them to be?
Yea??? Did you do so when the American people ELECTED President Trump??
Actually, yeah, I did, even though he lost the popular vote by a little over five million votes.
Am I happy about it? No. Do I think it could happen for a second time? No. Even Bannon admitted that the campaign "drew to an inside straight" to win the last one, and Wild Bill Cody couldn't do that twice in a row.
i don't see pelosi losing this vote. the democrats have a 37 seat advantage in the house, and the law, the facts and public opinion are currently all on her side.
In YOUR opinion..
no, the 37 seat advantage is a fact. public opinion is now in favor of the impeachment inquiry. to the extent that polls are factual, that's also fact. as for the facts and the law, yes those are opinions, which are shared by CW as well as most non-partisan experts. yes that's a logical fallacy, but it's not meaningless.
So you don't consider Fox News, or your other right wing rags to be a part of the press?
So, you should see my point..
Your claims against FoxNews are 1000% accurate when applied to the rest of the MSM...
But YOU don't see it because THEIR bias is YOUR bias...
Actually, yeah, I did, even though he lost the popular vote by a little over five million votes.
In other words, you spin'ed the result with a totally inconsequential and totally irrelevant factoid to make the result more comfortable for you.
In short, you NEVER accepted President Trump's win in the election..
Am I happy about it? No. Do I think it could happen for a second time? No.
And the **FACT** that you have been WRONG in ***EVERY*** prediction you have ever made doesn't concern you in the least.. Right??
As I said.. TOTAL delusion...
But YOU don't see it because THEIR bias is YOUR bias...
"Equal perversion means NO perversion"
-Commander Riker
In other words, you don't see any bias because the majority of the MSM is as biased as you are.
Not to mention hateful, hurtful and bigoted...
JL,
OK, I'll rephrase..
i don't see pelosi losing this vote.
In YOUR opinion..
yes those are opinions, which are shared by CW as well as most non-partisan experts.
yes that's a logical fallacy, but it's not meaningless.
Neither are my logical "fallacies" of similar nature..
Yet, I don't get a break on those, eh?? :D
If they are logical fallacies, then they are ALWAYS logical fallacies..
And if they are "not meaningless" for the Left, then they are NOT MEANINGLESS for those that oppose the Left..
Yes or no??
I know where this is going.. :D
James Hohmann
@jameshohmann
·
4h
New poll from Suffolk University & USA Today shows most Americans want Trump to stop stonewalling. Asked if the White House has an obligation to comply with the subpoenas from Congress, 66% say yes. Only 26% say no. Even 35% of R's say WH ought to comply.
The rules for the impeachment have been released:
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116-HRes660.pdf
President Trump's approval ratings tops Obama's approval ratings at the same time as Obama's tenure..
And THAT comes from the OFFICIAL Weigantian Poll... Not some rinky dink cherry picked poll.. :D
I mean, if you WANT to talk about polls... :D
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116-HRes660.pdf
Can I get someone UNBIASED to translate this legalistic gobbeldy gok for me???
In the alternative, someone who is NOT a Party slave??? :D
I like this part:
Can I get someone UNBIASED to translate this legalistic gobbeldy gok for me???
In the alternative, someone who is NOT a Party slave??? :D
To be more specific...
Are THESE rules:
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116-HRes660.pdf
These rules:
The House Democrats have a clear model of a fair, systematic bipartisan approach in the rules adopted by the Democrats in 1973 and by the Republicans in 1998. Former Democratic Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Peter Rodino of New Jersey developed a bipartisan set of rules in 1973 during the Nixon impeachment proceedings. Rodino’s rules allowed the White House Counsel to be present at all hearings – including those held in secret. They also allowed the Republican minority to offer subpoenas to bring in the witnesses they wanted in addition to the witnesses the Democrats wanted.
To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.
Fair enough..
Then the CHAIRMAN must also Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.
What's fair for the GOP should also apply to the Democrats..
If that doesn't happen, then no dice..
This is not a legitimate impeachment..
Balthasar,
Please don't get me wrong about my stance on America - my very long-standing position is that I remain a firm believer in the promise of America and I agree with Biden when he says that America can do anything it puts its mind to so long as Americans work together to achieve it.
However, the trajectory that America has been on for quite some time now is not positive. Of course, much less can be said for the American media. If you want a realistic take on the world at large, including the US, watch and listen to the BBC.
Liz,
I agree with everything you say.. Just a minor correction..
However, the trajectory that America has been on for quite some time now is not positive.
That should read:
"However, the trajectory that America has been on for quite some time now is not, in my opinion, positive."
If one cannot acknowledge that other people's opinions might be 100% opposite of theirs and STILL be valid, then I would say that said one is missing the ENTIRE concept of what America is really all about..
Delivered with the utmost respect and affection..
What's fair for the GOP should also apply to the Democrats..
And if anyone has a problem with this, then my first follow-up question will be..
"Why are Democrats afraid of a FAIR fight??"
I love you, too.
I think most of here have the requisite critical thinking skills to discern opinions that are reality-based from those that are not.
As this is an opinion blog, please don't ask me to tap out any more than I have to, okay?
Paula-74
Short summary: Release the Kraken....
watch and listen to the BBC
I do! I do! Dr. Who on the telly, and "The Food Chain" late at night on the radio.
Ignore the unpositive. It will dissipate!
It won't dissipate on its own, Balthasar and will require decidedly more than the removal of Trump.
I suppose I should have said BBC News. But, I am a bit of a fan of the tenth Doctor.
[84] TS: Yep!
I'm beginning to sense - from all quarters - that there is an essentially concerted effort (though, NOT a conspiracy) to belittle the Biden campaign and Biden himself.
Of course, we Biden followers know that there is nothing new here, except for the fact that it is happening with Biden as the frontrunner since he announced in April.
I fear something is afoot.
I will make a prediction now, if I haven't already:
If Biden is not the Democratic nominee, Trump will be re-elected.
Every other candidate, and there are seventeen? at last count, is somehow hoping to take Biden and Warren out, or whoever the frontrunner is at the moment.
But it's still early Liz, a practical lifetime in political terms.
I'd hold my fire if I were you. Just sayin'...
I actually wasn't talking about his fellow candidates.
If Biden is not the Democratic nominee, Trump will be re-elected.
Sans an catastrophic event, President Trump is going to be re-elected regardless of who the Dem nominee is..
But I WILL give you that Biden has the best chance to beat President Trump...
Warren??? Buttigeg??? Sanders???
President Trump will eat them for breakfast without breaking a sweat...
I'd hold my fire if I were you. Just sayin'...
No reason..
Facts are facts..
Anyone but Biden have already disqualified themselves by their statements at the Dem debates...
Biden is the only one who would be allowed some wiggle room.. And he is the only one capable of wiggling effectively..
Wiggling effectively? I like it!
Sans an catastrophic event, President Trump is going to be re-elected regardless of who the Dem nominee is..
In your opinion, you mean ...
I think that most Republicans in Congress cannot wait for Trump’s trial in the Senate so they can be rid of him, once and for all!
Just look at their “attempts” to defend Trump: they are performances for one person and do not actually help Trump’s case in any way! They staged a sit in that lasted a few hours and didn’t stop the testimony from occurring, it merely knocked it back 5 hours.
Then you have Lindsey Graham’s Senate rebuke of the impeachment hearings, which if passed does....absolutely nothing!
My point is that if they were truly attempting to protect Trump, they’d have to attack the facts of the charges he will face. While it seems logical to say that they cannot attack them because they are so clearly damning...this is politics we are discussing — since when does “logic” rule the day?!?
No, Republicans are trying to distract the media right now, but that isn’t preventing the committees from doing their jobs in gathering evidence! That isn’t actually helping Trump, it is just keeping him happy and distracted.
I think that the Republicans cannot wait for Trump’s trial in the Senate to begin, and that we will see them flip on Trump in masse once the Articles of Impeachment are formalized and passed. Senate Republicans will need to stand together in this decision if they want to convince their base that it truly was the right thing to do for this nation in order to avoid their base turning on them.
And I can just imagine when it is Lindsey Graham’s turn to cast his vote, the biggest smile you’ve ever seen on his face, saying:
“In honor of my dear friend, Senator John McCain, I vote to impeach and remove Donald J. Trump from office!”
Charles Kupperman, former deputy national-security adviser and one of the few people who was on Trump’s Ukraine call, filed a lawsuit, arguing that the House committee can’t compel testimony for an impeachment until the full House votes to authorize subpoenas for that purpose.
Actually, he did no such thing! Nice try at spinning the truth. Kupperman’s suit asks the judiciary to tell him which side he is supposed to obey: the executive ordering him not to testify or the legislative subpoenaing him to testify. The courts have already ruled that the executive’s argument is complete bunk, so the outcome of this is a given!
Since this information is available to Kupperman, he might consider dropping his lawsuit and arranging a time to give his testimony before he faces criminal charges.
Russ, did you happen to see the Bret Stephens/Gail Collins piece in the NYTimes?
They were musing about Democratic voters making a bargain with the incumbent Republican office holders who fear the wrath of Trump (no profiles in courage here!) - if they vote for impeachment/removal, then Democrats will vote for them in the next election ...
Actually, he did no such thing!
Yea??
And your facts to support your claim??
{{cccchhhhiiiirrrrrpppppp}}
Yea, that's what I thought..
Liz,
}}}}Sans an catastrophic event, President Trump is going to be re-elected regardless of who the Dem nominee is..{{{{{
In your opinion, you mean ...
Absolutely.... See?? I am the ONLY one here who has NO PROBLEM admitting that..
The fact that it is ALSO the opinion of the majority of Weigantians who have expressed such an opinion is simply icing on the cake.. :D
Wiggling effectively? I like it!
Biden has been in the game long enough to know you don't make rock solid pronouncements that you KNOW will come back and bite ya on the ass..
That's why, when he skirted the line a couple times, it was very surprising..
Put another way..
ANY candidate who promised to give crimmigrants (illegal immigrant criminals) free and full health care.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS...
ANY candidate who promised to take away MILLIONS of Americans' health care plans that they like.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS
ANY candidate who promised to end fossil fuel use and end fracking.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS...
ANY candidate who promised to allow post-birth abortions.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS...
ANY candidate who promised to give reparations to black Americans.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS....
Plus several others I can't think of at the moment..
Looking down that list, there is only ONE candidate who POSSIBLY fits that bill that ACTUALLY has a shot at the nomination..
And that's Joe Biden...
The **ONLY** question???
Are Democrats SMART and give Biden a shot???
Or are Democrats STOOPID and give Warren the shot??
Considering the actions of Democrats to date???
STOOPID will win the day...
So... No one here who is unbiased and NOT a Party Slave can give me the House resolution in plain english..
Well, hell. At least ya'all are honest about it.. :D
Russ,
My point is that if they were truly attempting to protect Trump, they’d have to attack the facts of the charges he will face.
Dumbocrats DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS to attack..
It's ***ALL*** nothing but hearsay...
You don't have a SINGLE FACT....
That's what makes this entire procedure so LAUGHABLE...
There are **NO FACTS** to support ANYTHING Dumbocrats are saying..
The Head Of Joe Biden’s New Super PAC Is A Foreign Government Agent
Biden's new PAC is being run by a registered foreign agent for Azerbaijan.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/29/the-head-of-joe-bidens-new-super-pac-is-a-foreign-government-agent/
Apparently, Democrats don't MIND if foreigners assist DEMOCRATS in winning elections.. :D
OK Done for the day..
See ya'all in the morning, bright and early... :D
You don't really believe, [104], do you?
[98] EM: the wishful thinking in that concept - that if Repubs do what they should do on the basis of their oaths of office, common decency, patriotism, respect for the rule of law, democracy, the facts of the case, etc. should be rewarded by Democrats voting for them over Democratic opponents is a pretty good display of the way Republicans view the world - they think they deserve rewards for not-being-traitors-liars-Putin-puppets, etc. They think Democrats should always be crouching in supplication while they, the Republicans, should never pay prices for bad behavior.
Fuck 'em.
Highlight of the day: Nicole Wallace on CNN calling John-torture-memo-Woo, Laura-the-Succubus-Ingraham and Alan-used-to-be-a-serious-lawyer-Dershowitz "chickenshits".
It was lovely.
Also Rachel Maddow's last round of ratings have beaten the crap out of FOX.
Paula[107 - that last bit],
Somehow, someway your country is going to have to get past all of that - the rest of us civilized people out in the world are counting on it ...
New column up!
Paula [107] !!! bravo!
[108] Also true. I think it's all beginning to turn against the Great Pumpkin.
Why are you commenting on an old thread?
Mike
81
I agree with everything you say.. Just a minor correction..
However, the trajectory that America has been on for quite some time now is not positive.
That should read:
"However, the trajectory that America has been on for quite some time now is not, in my opinion, positive."
What part of her statement "my stance" in the first paragraph was confusing at all?
If one cannot acknowledge that other people's opinions might be 100% opposite of theirs and STILL be valid, then I would say that said one is missing the ENTIRE concept of what America is really all about..
Or, speaking of one missing the "ENTIRE concept," if one has terminal issues with reading comprehension and frequently and demonstrably cannot understand simple written English words like "my" and "stance" that were combined quite nicely in another one's comment to form the idea of "my stance," which Elizabeth had indeed already made abundantly clear in her comment in which you took issue, then perhaps the other one should cease and desist in the dispensing of post-writing advice and/or platitudes.
Delivered with the utmost respect and affection..
Sincerely, Mike's well-meaning yet illiterate one brain cell. *laughs*
_____
So to recap: What part of EM's phrase "my stance" was confusing at all? Rhetorical question. :)
EM
80
Please don't get me wrong about my stance on America - my very long-standing position is that I remain a firm believer in the promise of America and I agree with Biden when he says that America can do anything it puts its mind to so long as Americans work together to achieve it.
However, the trajectory that America has been on for quite some time now is not positive. Of course, much less can be said for the American media. If you want a realistic take on the world at large, including the US, watch and listen to the BBC.
Nice stance you got there, EM, and don't you allow any prat to tell you otherwise. Also: You're totally correct about the BBC. :)
Dumbocrats DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS to attack..
It's ***ALL*** nothing but hearsay...
Keep telling yourself that...it will make this process all the quicker to get rid of Been-a-dick Donald.
Trump has confessed to it. Mulvaney told the world that that is how this administration rolls...and that we just need to GET OVER IT!
Mike
20
Why did she hold the previous vote on impeachment??? She lost that one too..
You're obviously misinformed and seem quite intent to prattle on and on about something you clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about. There have been no direct votes whatsoever on impeachment of Trump because all the attempts have been tabled.
On July 17, 2019, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy moved to table Al Green's resolution and third attempt at consideration of articles of impeachment. Do you need the very simple concept of tabling explained to you too? It was Green's third attempt to bring a motion to the floor and a third vote to successfully table, meaning the House of Representatives postponed/suspended consideration on Green's pending motion.
On his prior two attempts when the GOP held the majority -- you know, before your frequently spewed prediction of a Red Tsunami failed to materialize in spectacular fashion -- then House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy moved to table Green's resolutions... thus postponing/suspending consideration of articles of impeachment by the House:
* January 18, 2018
* December 6, 2017
You seem blissfully unaware that Green has been unsuccessful in getting his motion onto the floor and the fact that all three have been tabled and thus postponed... very different from your oft repeated mischaracterizations and not at all how they likely described it in right-wingnut propaganda media, I'm sure, but those are the facts.
It's easy to see why Pelosi went this route.. She is losing the PR battle and she is desperate to arrest the downward slide..
"Simple logic"
-Admiral James T. Kirk
*laughs* Your attempts at logic are nothing if not simple.
There are at least 30 Democrats who will lose their jobs if they vote to impeach President Trump..
*laughs* There are quite a few Republicans who are quitting their jobs, and I need to update my running list since another Republican has indeed bitten the dust... and Tulsi Gabbard, of course.
This vote will fail..
The words "snowball," "chance," and "Hell" come to mind, and JL is correct that a few Republicans might even vote in favor.
But Liz and I have agreed that 20 is the magic number to represent true bipartisanship..
That's a good number for two decades ago... but in today's environment? Nope! More like three to five.
The Democrats will lose this vote..
*laughs* When pigs fly.
Just like they lost all the others before it..
You're comparing apples with cherries since all the prior votes were motions by Kevin McCarthy to postpone consideration... a whole different kind of pie. JL is correct about this; you could really learn a thing or two from him. :)
TS
42
Thanks! Will definitely read that article on impeachment.
Or maybe impeachment is more like bovine stomachs...lots of chambers, churning, and noises which are somehow expected to preserve the cow.
Eewwwwwwwwwwww. ;)
Mike
57
This will be the 4th time that the House has voted on impeachment for President Trump..
Not really. All the other votes were motions to table, meaning postpone any action whatsoever. You see, Mike, it's exactly like several other posters on this forum have explained to you that the vast majority of Democrats did not want to even consider articles of impeachment at the time they were raised since they were attempting to investigate said issue.
It's not complicated, Mike. The issue of impeachment has been successfully tabled on three separate occasions... with the help of Democrats. If you're expecting a similar outcome as that this time, well then, I've got really bad news for you. :)
EM
61
Can you give me a link to support your claim that there were already 3 votes to impeach Trump and Pelosi lost them?
No, he can't. :)
Mike
63
Until Democrats hold an AOI vote the courts will always ultimately side with President Trump.
You might want to check your dictionary for the definition of the word "always" since your statement there was already proven false last Friday when Trump lost in spectacular fashion.
I could explain how "executive privilege" works if I thought it would do any good so I'll refrain from doing that. :)
Mike
64
Come talk to me when we can see some SWORN testimony for ourselves..
At the beginning of a deposition, the witness is sworn in and then their statement is proffered and usually marked as an Exhibit and thereby sworn to. Pretty standard stuff, actually. So anyone who has already testified has sworn to their statements and it is indeed "SWORN testimony."
Until then, it's nothing but hearsay...
"Hearsay" is the report of another person's words by a witness. Statements are witnesses own words... so you got it exactly "bass ackwards." <-- technical term
Balthasar
65
Great post! :)
OK, since this column was written, the actual House Resolution was released to the public, so I'm going to ignore any comments speculating on what it contained -- I myself got several things wrong about it, such as Pelosi being trapped by the whole "vote on the impeachment inquiry being authorized" thing. Read today's column to see the more up-to-date news on that one.
Anyway, here goes:
LizM [1] -
I, too, have increased my respect for Pelosi through this process.
Paula [3] -
That would be nice, but I don't think for a minute Trump's going to end his stonewalling because of this vote...
LizM [4] -
Right. There's not a lot of detail in the Constitution in general, and none on this subject.
Paula [5] -
Ay, that's the rub -- what will the courts say? Back in Nixon's time, that's why we got the tapes...
Kick [7] -
Excellent points, all. Nice excerpt, too! Just had to say that...
Kick [8] -
MAN, did you call that one right:
I'm guessing the right-wingnut propaganda machine will smear this patriot based on the fact that he's an immigrant from Ukraine. Cue the wingnut conspiracy theory dipshits in smearing a decorated American patriot in service to America for simply reporting the facts and his unwillingness to lie for the president wherein he heard every word of the phone call.
That's exactly what happened. I live in shame that my CA tax dollars still go to pay John Yoo's salary, personally...
ListenWhenYouHear [10] -
Were your questions answered by today's release of the House Resolution?
Michale [11] -
BWAH Hah hah hah! Whatever allows you to sleep at night, dude...
Heh.
[13] -
You mean the House MAJORITY, that the American people elected, in total rejection of the Republican nonsense? That House?
Heh.
[14] -
After that, it's likely that Pelosi will simply drop this faux impeachment coup..
Oh, stop it dude, you're killing me.. seriously, do you really believe this stuff?
BWAH Hah hah hah!
As for SCOTUS, don't be too sure which way John Roberts will vote. He takes the long view about the court with his name on it, please remember...
[16] -
OK, dude, 1,000 Quatloos say the Dems will win this vote without even breathing hard... whaddya say?
Heh
nypoet22 [18] -
Exactly.
Michale [20] -
A "HUGE wave of approval"? You mean he might actually approach a 50 percent rating in the polls (non-Rasmussen polls, of course)? I'd put 500 Quatloos on that not happening, as well...
Michale [26] -
Might want to check what Trump had to say about Obama getting Osama back then, because it is pretty amusing now that he's claiming all the credit (and more) for the recent raid...
Heh.
Michale [31] -
OK, seriously, hope you are healthy and live a long time. If you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you as a sock puppet!
:-)
Seriously, though, hope you're doing well. Maybe they can offer you some electroshock to improve your mental reasoning while you're there?
Heh. Just kidding.
TheStig [42] -
Read that, and it was indeed interesting. Especially the bits about how impeachment has morphed over the years...
Michale [43] -
Except she didn't! Read today's article for further commentary...
Michale [52] -
Maybe not. McConnell hasn't scheduled a vote on it, to date. Maybe the chamber that is afraid of losing a crucial vote isn't the House? Just sayin'...
Michale [59] -
Um, yeah, like the GOP gov of FL is responsible for all hurricanes? Sheesh...
Balthasar [65] -
EXCELLENT post. Just had to say that.
OK, from about comment [75] on, the House Resolution was released, so I'm going to defer to my own article today on that one. Also, I've got Jack O'Lantern photos to process, and it's already past 2:00 in the morning...
More later...
-CW