The full vote apparently hasn’t yet taken place, but here’s a place to go to see the action in the House. Representatives are declaring their stands, and people are worked up.
Here, from the New York Times, is where members stand on the vote. It’s going to be pretty much this when the votes are tallied later today. Even if every Democrat or Republican who’s undecided or hasn’t responded votes against impeachment, Trump will still be impeached. You don’t get division along party lines more obvious than this.
I’ve been watching while I work, as a matter of civic responsibility, but it is tedium personified. Is there a cable channel dedicated to sausage-making tout court?
Yeah, what we have is mostly grandstanding now. Nobody’s mind is going to be changed.
I was watching some of this earlier and there was a guy yelling about how nothing has been proven, nothing to see here, move along now. You know, the only defense the GOP has to offer. Screams and cries. Unfair! No QPQ! Get on with the business of the congress! They make the same non-points over and over, louder and louder. I can only take so much of that. I heard the vote would come this evening, after more venting.
Yeah I was watching then too. It annoyed me so I stopped watching.
For the good of our mental health.
Yeah it just depresses me. Of all the things going wrong in the world this douche exacerbates everything and distracts us with his shenanigans. The methane being released from the arctic has really terrified me and this doofus is sitting there enacting environmentally dangerous legislation, distracting the world from important issues, and destroying democracy in America.
Yeah it just depresses me. Of all the things going wrong in the world this douche exacerbates everything and distracts us with his shenanigans. The methane being released from the arctic has really terrified me and this doofus is sitting there enacting environmentally dangerous legislation, distracting the world from important issues, and destroying democracy in America.
That’ll do it to ya.
These are sentiments definitely worth stating twice. A comment not made in jest.
Yeah, the Republicans avoid the facts — avoid any discussion of that “hand grenade” Rudy Giuliani (and his indicted chucklefuck partners Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman), of their “drug deal” with Gordon Sondland and Mick Mulvaney, of the shanking of Masha Yovanovitch, of the testimony of Alexander Vinman and William Taylor and David Holmes, et al. — as though the facts just tested positive for an STD.
Today’s GOP — where integrity is considered as a character flaw.
You managed to get GOP and integrity into the same sentence! I didn’t think it possible. 😎
I like ‘Chucklefuck’. It sounds like a rejected name for Stickle Bricks.
Since I had to go to the dentist I skipped all of this. The hearings were worth watching but when it is just politicians it is gaslight time. The republicans have nothing to say so they just stall and hope for a midnight vote. I can watch the evening shows on MSNBC if I need any further information.
I see Gates got some probation and 45 days in prison, which he can do on weekends. And he continues to work for the prosecutors. I also see Manafort is having some health issues in prison. Still waiting to see what Stone gets and also Flynn.
This is the oath the senators take for the impeachment process:
The form of oath administered to each Senator, as set forth
under Rule XXV, is as follows:
I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that
in all things appertaining to the trial of the
impeachment of —— ——, now pending, I will do
impartial justice according to the Constitution and
laws: So help me God.”
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm
Any senator who states beforehand how he or she intends to vote (either for or against) puts them in violation of the oath they will take. But do they care? No.
Yes, before the trial I might say that I hope he fries in hot oil before being removed from office. However, after listing to all the evidence at trial I might just say guilty.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.
The good men (and women) — including Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Horn, and George (husband of Kellyanne) Conway (among a number of others) — have bid the Grand Old Party adieu to form the never-Trump super PAC “the Lincoln Project” to oppose Trump and his lackeys in 2020.
That’s encouraging.
I just listened to Steny Hoyer of Maryland (34 years in the house) give a fine speech imploring his colleagues on the other side to have some courage. That was encouraging.
Yes, that was a good speech.
I applaud the Democrats for undertaking this very difficult process, but it had to be done. The Great Pretender has earned a sound public rebuke. Even though the Senate might not vote against him, it will still be a win for the country and its constitution and democratic values.
I predict that this useful and chosen idiot will not be re-elected.
Yes. This is NOT a good day for our Republic but it had to be done. I fear it will be a disaster (in 2020) for the Dems. There is a moral high ground in congress (even if it is only nanometers above the surrounding political terrain) and they deserve some respect for taking it. Sadly, kudos (from some) is all that will accrue, not votes.
I hope you’re right. it’s a shambles what is going on in America right now. Who would think that there would be state TV in America (Fox News) that plays constantly in every public place in the red states?
Nancy Pelosi was very reluctant to move ahead: Impeachment can be a minefield.
I think the Dem congresspeople have decided that they can’t let Drumpf get away with this without a stiff public rebuke. if for no other reason to fulfill their oaths to protect the Constitution.
This is the real need: To warn off Drumpf and any future presidents from future similar behavior.
It (Drumpf’s behavior) cannot just be left to stand.
His acquittal is a foregone conclusion; but I think any independent voters who may have voted Trump in 2016 are regretting it big time.
How many convictions and guilty pleas in Drumpf’s entourage are needed for people to see through his lying and corruption? For his base, the number in infinite.
They continue to prove the “5th Avenue Scenario”. I have pointed this out many online. And they simply don’t get it. Obtuse doesn’t cover it. (And what the hell is Drumpf doing for them anyway? Sticking his thumb in the eye of liberals and pointy-heads and college boys. I guess that is enough for them.)
“On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” Mencken, 1920, Baltimore Sun
I’m reminded of the book, now released onto a website, that was written back in 2006 called The Authoritarians. What the author has written more recently about Trump is a good reminder of why his supporters will never abandon him.
I’m watching parts of this on CNN. The pundits noted how, under Pelosi’s direction, the Dems are not to “gloat” and must treat it as a solemn, serious occasion. That’s all find and dandy but it doesn’t allow for much pushback against the Trump/GOP narrative. They really need to find a way to tell the voters how ridiculous the Trump letter and the GOP defense are. Trump will “win” the trial so the real battle is convincing voters that Trump has to go. Screw solemnity! I want to see them fight back.
I don’t think anyone on the liberal-left has gotten remotely to grips with how to respond to right-wing populism. One side has ripped up the rule book and the other side is still pointing at their copy as though it still matters to people.
Maybe it still does, and maybe people really will vote for decency and reasonableness over cathartic rage and tribalism when it comes down to it, but at points like this it doesn’t seem likely.
It’s certainly difficult to respond but I think it can be done. However, the “let’s just do our jobs” attitude is fairly indistinguishable from no response at all. I understand Dems don’t want to sink to their level. Ridicule and embarrassment is definitely the way to go against Trump. He has zero sense of humor but says and does ridiculous things all the time. That’s why I maintain they should hire a good satirical comedy writing team and have lines for all occasions.
I think they need to frame the attacks on Trump properly.
Think about the things that you suspect are weaknesses with Trump’s own supporters and hone relentlessly in on them…
The billionaires in his cabinet despite the ‘drain the swamp’ bullshit. Healthcare. Making money off his own businesses. His scams and his bankruptcies, and screwing over the little guy. Treating his supporters like he owns them. Treating them like mugs. Be outraged on their behalf.
In passing, talk about looking at his supporters and understanding their anger, but feeling even more angry that they felt ‘they had no choice’ but to go with Trump. Act like you’re angry at the system, and characterise Trump as a horrible consequence of that system going awry. Most of all don’t insult him in ways that his supporters see as attacks on THEM. He is so perfect an avatar of white American conservatism that almost every attack on his stupidity, his rudeness, his ignorance, his dishonesty, is implicitly seen by his supporters as an attack on them. That’s why you should try not to constantly behave as though he’s beneath you.
And give them an out. Don’t back them into a corner. That’s crucial. Give them an out, by framing their vote as something they were ‘pushed into’. They had no choice, the poor things! It’ll stick in the throat, but it would work.
Because right now every Republican’s view is ‘we’ve burned our reputational bridges this far, why not go the whole hog?’. But if you give them an out you can talk them off the ledge. Maybe.
Makes sense. Dems would have to have strong leadership and stay together on message. It doesn’t take much to enrage tRump’s base through an offhand comment from one of the woke, radical left.
Dem leadership should hold a weekly press conference and say it’s a substitute for all the press conferences Trump doesn’t have, saying it’s because “the voters deserve to know what’s happening in our country”. The press would cover it. Fox News might even cover it.
There’s a good case to do a division of labour. Let the comedians do the silly but didactic stuff; let the senators and congresspersons do their job with appropriate gravitas; let the public debate amongst themselves and let the pundits do analysis and outrage.
Works for me.
This is the huge problem with journalism during the age of Trumpism. Journalists are rightly trained to show “both sides” of an issue as to counter complaints about bias. But this model of good journalism fails hopelessly when one side relies on lies. In this debate, one side is dealing with facts and trying to unearth facts, the other side is pushing conspiracy theories and outright lies; then the media dutifully (in their minds) reports both sides are telling the truth. NYT has fallen into this trap over and over again…it’s pathetic.
The NY Times is refulgent in its breathless, fatuous bloviation in the 12/19/19 hard-copy edition, to-wit:
“Few Surprises on a Day Far from Normal”:
“Presidents don’t get impeached every day . . . a clear and cold morning [it has to be some kind of weather, eh?] . . . ‘Impeachment’ can’t be brushed off like a subpoena . . . It’s [Impeachment’s] happened only twice before . . . President Trump seemed [how something seems to a reporter is a reportable fact, apparently] especially haunted [how could the reporter tell?] . . . .”
“After Fierce Arguments, House Approves a Charge That He Abused Power”:
“Far from showing contrition or contemplating resignation, as his predecessors have done in the face of impeachment . . . .”
Maybe I overlooked it, but I saw not one word of evidentiary support for that claim. Something must be true if a reporter says so, especially if it passes an editor’s scrutiny. Evidence would “seem” to be required, as I reasonably gather that precious few of us are sufficiently familiar with the Johnson impeachment to competently pronounce on his state of mind in this regard. Perhaps one is a little more competent to hold forth on Clinton. When asked by a reporter if he would resign, he replied “Never!”
The Times is good to make Nancy Pelosi’s attire worthy of reporting. A couple of weeks ago her all-white attire was scrutinized. A couple of days ago her all-black attire. In today’s page one article, “‘Lev and Igor’: Men on Mission to Aid Giuliani” (assigned to five reporters): “Mr. Giuliani . . . relaxed on the open deck in a bright blue polo shirt as the sun set over Lower Manhattan, a video of the event shows.” (Now that’s what I call evidence, especially regarding the supremely important topic of fashion attire.)
This has got to be the stupidest political move since Dukakis climbed inside a tank.
Trump’s approval ratings are up, the Democrats are having polling problems in swing districts. The only thing I don’t understand is why the GOP donors are giving money to Trump and GOP candidates for their re-election efforts. The money would be much better spent supporting the Democrats, who seem to be going all out to elect Republicans.
As predicted, the Trump fanatics moved harder for Trump, the Resistance fanatics moved harder against Trump, and the Independents moved toward Trump, wondering why if you vote for someone to do something serious about health care or infrastructure they would devote all their time to putting on a circus act instead, featuring a bunch of Washington Insider nobodies that no one in flyover country gives two figs about.
Here is Michael Dukakis signalling his support for the House Impeachment vote (actually its from 1988):
https://www.quora.com/Did-you-really-not-vote-for-Michael-Dukakis-in-1988-because-he-looked-stupid-riding-in-a-tank
It’s flat. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/presidential-approval-poll-tracker-n1102776
He has 42% (his core) and no one else.
Independents will (I think) think about what has done and tried to do (and all the convictions and guilty pleas surrounding him) and do the right thing and vote for whoever runs against him.
The fact of the matter is that it’s a matter of turnout. The Dems can outvote the GOP — if they show up.
They (dems) didn’t show up in 2016 and Drumpf won by 77,000 votes (nationally, distributed in PA, MI, and WI; 137,053,916 total votes). The election was a historic squeaker, 4th closest Electoral margin since 1940; and he lost the popular vote by 2% (2,868,518 votes).
Don’t let the GOP (BS) talk of “landslide” in 2016 fool you. It was a historic squeaker. Can he do that again, given his trail of destruction since 20-Jan-2017? Doubt it.
The Dems could make it happen of course. But the impeachment charges aren’t how they will do it if they do. Andrew Sullivan’s article the other day lays out how they will do it — if they do.
The Dems didn’t show up in 2016 (check the 2008 turnout):
http://www.berettaconsulting.com/barbarossa/M/stuff/inc/El/Popular_Vote_B.jpg
The gap between the HRC popular vote and the Trump popular vote in 2016 is wider than shown here (I need to update the graphic).
I think the main reason Dems didn’t show is because Hillary had been pilloried by the GOP, the news media, and the Russians. And, the fact that they thought she was a shoe in already.
I don’t think it was stupid, but it most definitely is a circus act. One set of performers, however, is acting with something like integrity in honoring their oaths of office; the very survival of our form of governance is at stake. But it is mostly theater, almost entirely a shitshow from top to bottom and the Democrats will come out of it stinking worse than the Republicans (if that’s possible).
I don’t understand that view. A guy tries to extort a foreign country into investigating his direct political rival a year before the election. What exactly is impeachment for if not for things like this? That’s a serious question – what kind of presidential behaviour should impeachment deal with if not precisely this kind of thing?
And what is an opposition party supposed to do exactly when presented with a president who behaves like this? Leave him to it in case his base has a tantrum?
Surely you let things go as they will. If the GOP clear him then voters can decide if that was an honest move or not. If they say no, he’s voted out. If they say yes, he stays and, well, who knows what happens.
But it’s utterly bizarre from this vantage point to see people criticising the Democrats as if they really have any alternative.
There will always be a parent who defends their child no matter what he or she does, who says you’re overreacting, or says it’s not fair, or you didn’t punish so and so’s child…but eventually if the kid’s enough of a little shit they push you into a corner and you send the little fucker to borstal(or you try to, at least). At that point they’ve left you with absolutely no choice.
I agree with this rebuttal. I’ll also add that once Trump is acquitted in the Senate, he’ll start doing shit that is even crazier than this. He’ll probably do another 10 outrageous fucked-up actions between now and 2020. People speak about the “strength” of Trump’s base since they’re so loud, pissy and immune to facts (and he has LOTS of rallies filled with his frenzied marks to prove it). What’s not spoken about is how pissed off the rest of us are, especially women and minorities. Just because we’re not rioting in the streets or acting like total assholes, doesn’t mean we aren’t energized. We are just gritting our teeth, patiently waiting for Election Day 2020. At the same time, electing a real good candidate would go a LONG way in securing a victory.
As an aside,
One fuckwit actually compared the “attacks” on Trump as destabilizing as the bombing on Pearl Harbor and another compared Nadler to Pontius Pilate and Trump to Jesus. The Trump GOP is ghastly beyond description.
…and one Democrat argued for Impeachment with a blown-up photo of a crying immigrant child. Almost all of this is theater. Underlying are some real impeachable offenses that the Dems rightly indicting him on (and which Saul made clear above). But make no mistake about it; this is theater and the Democrats will come out the worse when reviews (votes) come in.
Are you really claiming that Trump committed “real impeachable offenses” but that the Dems didn’t do the theater right so should lose the next election?
Jesus christ. Ok, no. I said it’s theater and the Dems are doing it too; I gave a bit of evidence of that with one idiot using a crying child as an argument to impeach Trump even though he is NOT being indicted on being a shithead to immigrants. You think no one (read voters) notices that? Pure theater. Anyone brave or foolish enough to listen to all the “arguments” presented today can find others.
I did NOT say that they “should” lose the next election, I suggested they might. Those are NOT the same. I suspect and fear they will lose the 2020 presidential race and this will be one reason for it. I think although the Democrats did what they ought to have done, they are damned because of the way the political world today is so tilted and fractured and because the one abiding feature of their party is ineptness.
That’s not a good comparison. Plus, how can you say it was theater on both sides? EVERY republican was spouting nonsense and lies and tearing their eyes out, and the majority of democrats were reasonable, serious and somber, laying out the facts. Yeah, the photo was dumb and had no relevancy, but it was a REAL photo of a suffering child. Now if the congressman revealed the photo and said Trump is like Hitler, not Jesus, or some such, then that would be fair comparison. False equivalency is a huge problem in this debate.
It is theater even when one side is doing it more than the other. More importantly, it is theater if that’s how the voting public sees it and since Trump will not be removed from office that is how the voters that matter will see this. Those voters are NOT Trump dead-enders or Democrats (they have all of them already made up their minds).
There was a reason why Pelosi bucked impeachment until she couldn’t stop it; for Democrats looking at a map to win the presidency next year, after an impeachment that cannot succeed, there be dragons and the Dems do not have anyone on board who can navigate.
I tried to watch some of it, and it does seem to be posturing.
I was thinking that, since Trump’s request is characterized as an attempt to interfere in the election for personal gain, that would seem to only hold true if both Bidens are guilty. Hunter B’s fairly well documented history has not so far seemed to affect Joe Biden. An investigation that cleared him of any wrongdoing here would help Biden and hurt Trump in the election.
I wonder how all this will look if some day Hunter B. is investigated and found to have engaged in criminal activity regarding Burisma. The allegations were public before the disputed phone calls were made. I even posted about it here in May. I agree that it would have been better form to have the attorney general appoint someone to make the investigation request, to adhere strictly to the treaty. But not investigating could itself be obstructing justice.
I am probably overthinking this.
Trump wasn’t looking for an actual investigation of Biden; he wanted Ukraine president Zelinskiy to announce an investigation of Biden on CNN so that Trump and his minions could use it as a cudgel to damage Biden’s candidacy. Trump had no business abusing the official powers of his office — the withholding of an official Oval Office meeting (you know, like the one he just had for the second time with the oleaginous Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov) and the withholding of foreign military assistance duly appropriated by congress — to get a vulnerable ally to do his personal political bidding.
Trump also wanted Zelinskiy to announce an investigation to the crazy, fever-swamp “Crowdstrike” story that the 2016 hack of the DNC computer was an inside job that Ukraine helped blame on Russia (thereby absolving Vladimir Putin of all responsibility and lifting the yoooge Russian-assistance cloud hovering over Trump’s tremendous 2016 victory).
Trump then did his damnedest to stonewall the legitimate congressional investigation of this conduct, a stonewalling that would’ve made Dick Nixon blush.
Ya beat me to it! 🙂
I think I understand those points, I was just thinking about whether the Biden’s guilt or innocence impacts the issue, in the long run.
And also, in my own mind, I am trying to untangle some of the implications. Back in May, the story was about whether Joe Biden obstructed justice by withholding aid to Ukraine to stop the Burisma investigation. Now it is about if Trump withheld aid to get the Ukrainians to investigate whether Biden’s withholding aid was improper.
Also the issue of whether a legitimate investigation of credible allegations of crime can be said to benefit only one person, or if justice is in the common good. Certainly if Trump called for the investigation with the knowledge that the allegations were baseless, it would be a purely political act. I was just trying to see the implications if the Bidens were in fact guilty of obstructing the Burisma investigation by withholding the original aid.
Right but that’s not what happened with Biden. He was enacting US policy and that of its allies. Getting rid of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor INCREASED the chances of Burisma and Biden’s son getting investigated. It was done in public and with the knowledge and agreement of everyone that mattered, even some of those GOP Congressman that are now backing this Biden conspiracy theory. They are completely without shame.
Looking back at this, I have even read that Biden demanded that Shokin be removed specifically because he was not aggressively investigating Burisma. That seems sort of unlikely to me.
When I was writing about this back in May, my concern was that Hunter Biden’s shenanigans were Joe Biden’s greatest liability. I don’t think anyone had or has yet proven that Joe actually interfered to keep Hunter out of trouble. I do think that Hunter’s employment history is pretty suspicious, and Joe at a minimum should have kept a distance between his families business interests and his own political responsibilities.
In 2008, the Obama administration was defending Hunter’s work for MBNA while Joe pursued their interests in the Senate. Joe’s brother James has his own history of similar issues.
Admittedly, I have issues with Trump. But perhaps I have a harder view on Biden than most people because my Dad had quite a bit of influence when I was choosing career paths, and he went far out of his way to make absolutely sure that nobody could ever have accused him of using his influence for my favor. To the point that paths were sometimes far more difficult for me than they needed to be.
I guess my position is that if Trump’s corruption can be proven, then good. But don’t let Biden and all the others get away with the same or worse.
I addressed some of these issues in a response to you here, Max. Don’t know if you ever got a chance to see it.
Thanks- reading it now.
You can bet that Trump and pals don’t have any real dirt on the Bidens. If they had, all they would have to do is pick up the phone and tell the Justice Dept and the FBI about their evidence and they would start an investigation. The fact that they didn’t and started with Ukraine, even using Giuliani to sort of go around the State Dept, tells you that they have nothing legitimate. Nothing else makes any sense at all.
I’m sure Hunter Biden got his position on Burisma’s board using his father’s name. That kind of thing always has a smell to it but I suspect most politicians would be in jail if they could be blamed for bad stuff their adult kids do. As I said above, to make a case that Hunter Biden sold access to his father requires real evidence. I don’t think Trump is motivated to hide it. It’s clear he has none.
But the new prosecutor dropped the investigation of Biden the younger and the company. So it had the opposite effect
It was probably dropped due to lack of any evidence. After all, that wasn’t the goal of getting rid of the prosecutor.
I’m looking at you, Ken K, to answer this one. 🙂
Here’s Gallup:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/271691/trump-approval-inches-support-impeachment-dips.aspx
Pretty good linear relationship between impeachment hearings and approval.
Public opinion is not likely to improve whether the Senate boots it immediately, or has McConnell engineered-trial. There is almost zero probability of a vote for removal, any GOP senator who votes against will be finished.
The problem with the optics is that it will seem like the House wasted their term dithering over impeachment instead of doing anything to legislate. Your median voters doesn’t care about Trump or the Resistance, they want their health care costs to go down, they want their kids not mortgaged by having to attend college, and they wonder why public infrastructure is collapsing.
Your last paragraph is pure republican gas. The House has passed hundreds of bills that were passed to the Senate and died right there because the republicans, and Moscow Mitch did not even allow votes. Everyone knows this, did you miss the read on this? Let the republicans gaslight but find something else to do.
I agree that its going to be a Republican talking point, and its going to be Republican talking point because i.) its true, and ii.) its effective with undecided voters.
Instead of impeachment, the Democrats could have passed an ambitious legislative agenda, waited for McConnell to kill it, and then run against McConnell (who’s not that popular even in KY) and made a case with voters for why they need to take the Senate. Give us the Senate, and we will be able to help you out!
If turnout is key to the Election, there is no need for the impeachment, do a censure vote, move on, and gin up donations to fund a turn-out-the-vote campaign. Focus on your own candidates and their strengths, and what they will bring to the table if elected, not Trump.
It has been shown that the number one issue with most voters is getting rid of Trump, not these other issues. If the Dems focus solely on what they will do if elected, they simply serve up more targets for the Trump-GOP lying machine to shoot down. On the other hand, the more Trump is forced to confront his real record, the worse he will do. Virtually everyone knew he was a terrible human being back in 2016 but some also thought he was perhaps a good businessman and they liked that he wasn’t a regular politician. In 2020 he has to run on his record and it only looks good if he lies about it.
That’s why the last paragraph begins with the words “The problem with the optics…”
It doesn’t matter what the House has done in terms of legislation, it only matters what it looks like they have done. I am aware that there are a ton of bills being held up by Mitch McConnell in the Senate, but you don’t hear about it. In fact even some posters on this site do not seem to be aware of the fact (see KD’s post below, for example).
Every time a Dem talks on the media they should be pounding this fact. Every time they get a chance they should be saying “we’ve got x bills in the pipeline waiting for Moscow Mitch to unblock them in the Senate”. For good measure they should also be pointing out that Moscow Mitch blocked legislation designed to prevent foreign interference in US elections.
I don’t understand what the hell Dems are doing. My Youtube feed isn full of clips of interviews with Republicans on CNN and MSNBC etc, usually cast as “Republican is humiliated” or whatever by some left of centre channel which Youtube deems I am interested in. The GOP is out there banging the drum for Trump constantly. Where are the Dems?
It looks like that from over here too. One side is marching in military lockstep and banging war drums, the other is behaving like nothing’s changed.
The advantage of backing yourself into a corner like the GOP is that you are at least all on the same page, and there’s only one direction in which you can attack. There’s no dissension on tactics because there IS only one tactic. Backs to the wall, fight like a trapped rat.
Yes, I agree totally. Dems are failing on the messaging.
The GOP will want to survive post-Trump so it is a wonder more of their politicians aren’t positioning themselves for that. I don’t see Trump anointing a successor or, if he did, that successor winning an election. People have talked about Ivanka or Don Jr. but they would never get elected. Thankfully, no one can replace Trump.
I just heard this new Trump interview that has surfaced. It is golden because it is so damning. I don’t know how to imbed it, but I’ll summarize.
Trump begins by praising Pelosi (“I like her a lot”) but he was critical of her for not impeaching W. Bush for lying us into the Iraq war. (So apparently, he thinks lying to the people is an impeachable offense.) He continues saying that impeaching Clinton for what he did was nonsense, but not impeaching Bush for what he did was a mistake.
I can’t wait for this interview to be used by his opponents.
IF Bush knowingly lied to get America involved in a war in which American soldiers shed their blood (essentially a fraud), then that should be an impeachable offense.
Holding up foreign aid for some kind of greasy deal to make Biden look bad (if true) is missing the American mother’s weeping that their son was killed on the basis of a lie. Not saying its not impeachable (if you have sufficient evidence it is true), but lacks the gravity.
On the other hand, from the Tet offensive forward, America has a long history of lying to its people to fight and escalate wars, so its one of those things, like genocide, that leaders generally get away with. In contrast, lying about a BJ from a intern, that’s impeachment worthy.
Bush probably should have been impeached over the torture policies in apparent violation of the Geneva conventions, but apparently there was a bipartisan consensus for barbarism.
From the Tet Offensive forward?
The American people were lied to from the wars very inception of the Vietnam War. See The Pentagon Papers. See David Halbertam’s The Best and the Brightest. See Neil Sheehan’s A Bright Shining Lie. See the daily “Five O’Clock Follies” in Saigon that were barely more believable than Baghdad Bob’s risible press conferences.
It won’t matter. The news networks run old clips of all the GOP players’ claiming the exact opposite of their current positions. I don’t think any of the Trumpists care. It’s all transactional to them. Trump has shown that once you drop shame and accountability, the world is your oyster. You just say whatever puts you in the most positive light regardless of truth and letting the chips fall where they may.
I have no illusions that this will actually have any impact on Trump supporters. It’s just a good pile on of GOP hypocrisy for those who aren’t indoctrinated in the cult.
Isn’t this just a party political sideshow?
As someone in the Clinton (Bill) camp was misquoted as saying: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Consummatum est.
For this stage of the proceedings, anyway.
Ha! Nice Christ reference.
You can take the boy out of the Church (which I did to myself just before turning 14), but you’ll never completely get the Church out of the boy. IOW, show me the (altar) boy, I’ll show you the man. 🙂
I stole this & tweeted it.
I think that, had he existed, even Jesus would say it’s free for the taking in the public domain. 🙂
What strikes me about these speeches is the blatant hypocrisy and disregard for truth on the Republican side. In the past, politicians were more careful with their lies and posturing.
One after another, the Republicans critized the Dems for basing their case on testimony from witnesses who did not hear the famous telephone call directly. Nevermind that the witnesses did observe things that corrobroated the claims made about the phone call. The only reason the Dems didn’t get any firsthand witnesses was because Trump blocked them from testifying. Stil the Republicans blamed the Dems.
I think the indiscriminate use of these blatantly dishonest arguments must mean that the Republican base really is not capable of objective thought on the subject of Trump. That’s frightening.
The way I look at it, politicians feel they have to obfuscate and lie from time to time just to be able to have influence and to continue there pet projects. However, they see that as an unpleasant necessity when they’re in a pinch. The current GOP seems to have lost touch with those realities. These people can’t actually believe what they are saying publicly, but they think their core is buying it, so they persist. It’s gone on for so long now they’ve lost what remained of their souls.
A detail that irritated me disproportionally was these Republican Reps going on about “The American People” having elected Mr Trump. No, Republicans, it was the EC, not “the people” that elected him.
Or ‘the voice of 63 million voters that voted for him’ is being stifled, and what about the 74 million voters that did not vote for him?
The Republican whining (because that was basically what they were doing) was was sometimes hilarious, like Rep Loudermilk, comparing Mr Trump to Jesus, the latter supposedly being afforded more rights facing Pilate (doubly ironic, since in all probability that story itself is completely fictitious).
I found Mr Schiff impressive, not trying to denounce every lie, but being very restrained in commenting only on the most outrageous ones. Compare that to babbling Mr Collins, who was sometimes completely unintelligible.
It’s disturbing that they keep bringing up “duly elected” like once you vote someone in he can do what he wants. I find that just terrifying because they are basically saying a dictator is fine as long as they voted him.
They’ll drop that line of logic like a hot potato as soon as a Dem is in office.
What needs to be called out is not any particular lie or crazy statement, but the constant pattern of bad faith argumentation.
Early in the day I looked in when Collins tried to respond to a Dem who had just raised the question of courage and honor in the GOP. He babbled incoherently for a minute, then said, “Maybe the other side could comment on that. I yield back.” He’d simply couldn’t find a talking point that made any sense. What a party hack!
I think the dems should hammer Trump on his hate of Obama and his ridiculous statements of having credible sources his birth certificate was a forgery.
Ads with every negative thing he has ever said about Obama should play constantly IMO.