Goodwin nails it
- Thread starter ctghawk
- Start date
I think it’s pretty typical for cult members to feel persecuted by outsiders and think everyone is out to get them.
Henchman and Jerry Nadler shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
Pelosi did everything she could to stave off impeachment. Daycare Donnie forced her hand by being so stupid as to brazenly attempt to influence the 2020 elections.
As I have said before, if Righties would have yanked Trump's chain with a motion of censure they'd have been doing themselves a giant favor. Instead the public sees that they are going to run a sham trial, and they'll be left with a swaggering bully in the White House who will feel even more emboldened.
Pelosi did everything she could to stave off impeachment. Daycare Donnie forced her hand by being so stupid as to brazenly attempt to influence the 2020 elections.
As I have said before, if Righties would have yanked Trump's chain with a motion of censure they'd have been doing themselves a giant favor. Instead the public sees that they are going to run a sham trial, and they'll be left with a swaggering bully in the White House who will feel even more emboldened.
What happens if the majority of the public doesn't see it that way? (that is the point of his article)
Of course the party or Moscow Mitch, Leningrand Lyndsey and Putin's Personal B-^tch Boy would suggest if they don't get everything they want then there should be a breakup of the US. Who do you think funded Brexit, Turkey essentially exiting NATO etc? Putin the former KGB intelligence officer mastermind has orchestrated the breakup of the West with magnificent virtuosity.
7/10 Americans want to hear more witnesses and more evidence presented.
The percentage isn’t even that high on caring about the impeachment or the trial.
The Senate IS Congress. And, it's their Constitutional job.
I’m sorry, I meant the House with Adam and Jerry. (and yes, I know House and Senate make up Congress) Shouldn’t they of called all of the witnesses?
The House DID their job.
They issued subpoenas for witnesses which were ignored.
That is obstruction.
If any of those witnesses would exonerate the President, they'd be front and center.
Use.Your.Brain
They tried. That's why Obstruction is on the list of Articles.
How were they supposed to do that? They deposed everyone they could. Trump prevented everyone close to him from appearing before the committee. Parnas wasn’t able to appear.
Trump blocked disclosure of key documents or just ignored the committee’s request.
What more could the House have done but wait indefinitely?
Damn, the FOXNews brainwashing is powerful, isn’t it?
Clearly there are a lot of people who don’t read and don’t use logic and common sense. And may not be all that knowledgeable to begin with.
That’s what the courts were for. The House decided to forgo the courts and push forward because of National Security and the threat POTUS imposed on the country. Then they impeach, and then hold the articles for a month or more for political reasons.
That’s why there are three branches of the government. If the Executive branch claims Executive privilege to avoid testifying, then the House goes to the Judicial branch and make a case on why Executive privilege should not apply.
The House made the decision not to go to the courts. They claimed a clear and present danger, then rushed it through the House in order to sit on the articles for a month or more.
Bull, the courts are where they decide Executive privilege holds water. The could have gone to court. But I have a feeling they knew Executive privilege had a wide enough net that the courts wouldn’t have sided with them
It would have been preferable to have courts rule on these subpoenas. Unfortunately, it would’ve taken months (or more) so I think the House took a reasonable approach.
If I was a US Senator I’d find Trump guilty on abuse of power and (even though I believe he obstructed the House inquiry) I’d let the obstruction slide.
That’s the head scratcher for me. The POTUS has the right to invoke Executive privilege. That is not obstruction of Congress. Had Congress gone to court and won, and he still refused, then that is obstruction
You took the first sentence and argued that, poorly, I might add.
If you’re being honest with yourself, my response was pretty much dead on. But I doubt you’ll be honest with yourself
Now the argument is the House is only a Grand Jury and yields its investigatory responsibility to the Senate. This was a transparent charade from the start.
Real questions about the blanket assertion of executive privilege, especially in the context of impeachment. How can Congress exercise its impeachment powers if the Executive branch can prevent the gathering and consideration of information?
The inappropriate use of the word "extremism" is a good clue that the speaker can't be taken seriously and should probably just be avoided.
But the majority of the public does see it that way. They may be more evenly divided over whether to remove him from office on the specific charges that have been brought against him, but a fairly strong majority recognizes that he is not a good person and not a trustworthy president.
They can’t without the help of the Judicial Branch. That’s what they’re there for.
If the House tried the courts and failed, then they have to make do with what they have
The courts don't move that swiftly, but you already knew that.
Things would more than likely have been held up in the courts until after the election this year. The Trump administration would have used a run-out-the-clock strategy.
The Court has already ruled that the type of thing Trump did is obstruction. Even Turley said so, and he was a Trump witness.
Trying to make the House go to court for the Court to REPEAT what it has already ruled is simply another instance of obstruction.
Yeah you keep saying that, but as I said above, there is only one poll that matters- its called an election.
They are doing it right. They impeached him on what they had.
Why should they wait when the charges are plainly accurate?
All that remains is for the Senate to say whatever it decides to say when they refuse to remove Trump from office - which we all know is where this is going, absent some last minute revelations (Bolton?).
We've learned twice in this millennium that our elections system is broken. How long will the people be content to watch their elections stolen? (Probably forever, I'm sorry to say.)
Just out of curiosity, WTH makes you think Trump would pay any more heed to a judicial order? Here's what his lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, is arguing:
“Assume Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to ‘its’ original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution.”
They want us to believe that a president can do any damn thing he or she likes absent a clear violation of the law. And when a law is broken - as in illegally holding up aid that has been approved by Congress - here YOU come saying, "So what - presidents do it all the time".
So tell us - of what use is impeachment? You seem to think it can never be employed. Deplorable doesn't even begin to describe that kind of thinking.
That's so unbelievable that I had to google it. Apparently he really did say that.
I wonder what he would consider impeachable?
