Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
37 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, GDR, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,985 Year: 22,021/19,786 Month: 584/1,834 Week: 84/500 Day: 42/42 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 3616 of 3668 (867553)
11-27-2019 4:11 PM


The Broader reason for impeachment -- from the Founding Fathers
quote:
Trump’s Crime Against America

The president’s offense is abusing his power to stay in office, not disputing Ukraine policy.
November 22, 2019

Over the past two weeks, a parade of sober and coldly furious civil servants has come forward to testify before Congress about President Donald Trump’s decision to withhold congressionally approved aid to Ukraine.

All of these arguments, ranging from the weak to the false, obscure the core reason for the impeachment inquiry, which is that the Trump administration was engaged in a conspiracy against American democracy. Fearing that the 2016 election was a fluke in which Trump prevailed only because of a successful Russian hacking and disinformation campaign, and a last-minute intervention on Trump’s behalf by the very national-security state Trump defenders supposedly loathe, Trump and his advisers sought to rig the 2020 election by forcing a foreign country to implicate the then-Democratic front-runner in a crime that did not take place. ...

It was, in short, a conspiracy by Trump and his advisers to keep themselves in power, the exact scenario for which the Framers of the Constitution devised the impeachment clause. This scheme was carried out by Trump-appointed officials, and by the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, running a corrupt back channel aimed at, in his words, “meddling in an investigation.” ...

As the Trump-appointed U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified Wednesday, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky “had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.” And as the U.S. official David Holmes told the House Intelligence Committee, Sondland had told him that Trump was merely concerned about “‘big stuff’ that benefits the president, like the, quote-unquote, ‘Biden investigation’ that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.”

This point is crucial. Trump was not concerned about “corruption” in Ukraine—his own Pentagon and State Department had certified that Ukraine had taken sufficient steps to root out corruption. Nor was Trump particularly interested in an actual investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden—what he wanted was a public accusation that he could use to cripple a political rival’s aspirations. Trump was not defying the bipartisan war lobby in an effort to extricate the U.S. from foreign entanglements, and he was not engaged in a dispute over policy with unelected bureaucrats pursuing their own agenda, because he was fundamentally uninterested in the policy in question, except in that it might be exploited to benefit him personally.

A president who was genuinely opposed to U.S. entanglement in Ukraine, concerned about corruption, or involved in an internal struggle with bureaucrats over the ideal policy toward Ukraine would not have released the aid, because those concerns would have remained unaddressed. A president defying the bipartisan war lobby, seeking to prevent U.S. aid from being misused, or seeking to develop a better Ukraine policy would have had no reason to be concerned by the complaint. But the aid was released because a corrupt scheme to defraud the American people had been exposed, and so withholding it served no further purpose.


quote:
Why Republicans Aren't Turning on Trump

The Framers underestimated the extent to which a demagogue might convince his supporters that the president and the people are one and the same.
September 26, 2019

As Jeffrey Engel writes in Impeachment: An American History, the authors of the Constitution foresaw the possibility of a corrupt president who abuses his power to stay in office. James Madison argued at the Constitutional Convention that it was “indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate.” George Mason asked, “Shall the man who has practised corruption and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?” And as Gouverneur Morris concisely put it, “This Magistrate is not the King but the Prime Minister. The people are the King.”

This is one reason that perceptions among Democrats shifted so fast. In a republic, the people are sovereign. The president used his authority to criminalize or suppress his political rivals, in violation of the people’s right to choose their leadership. His acts exemplify the scenario the Framers feared when they contemplated a corrupt president using executive power to keep himself in office, unaccountable to the people who elected him. Trump’s conduct here is not just impeachable; it is why the impeachment clause exists.


What they did not imagine was an equally corrupt Senate Majority Leader complicit in this attack on America.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3617 by jar, posted 11-27-2019 4:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 3618 by JonF, posted 11-27-2019 7:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31766
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 3617 of 3668 (867556)
11-27-2019 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3616 by RAZD
11-27-2019 4:11 PM


Re: The Broader reason for impeachment -- from the Founding Fathers
It can't happen here!

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3616 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2019 4:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5610
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 3618 of 3668 (867563)
11-27-2019 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3616 by RAZD
11-27-2019 4:11 PM


Re: The Broader reason for impeachment -- from the Founding Fathers
McConnell and Trump are far from the only ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3616 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2019 4:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19076
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 3619 of 3668 (867565)
11-27-2019 9:31 PM


Trump Contradicts Himself
On one of these occasions Trump is lying. This is from the White House transcript of the Trump/Zelensky phone call where Trump tells Zelensky he wants him to talk to Giuliani about initiating some investigations Trump wants:

quote:
"Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you...Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.
...
"I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call...
...
"I will tell Rudy...to call."

And this is Trump in an interview last night. In response to a direct question about whether he directed Giuliani to work with the Ukraine on investigations Trump denied telling Giuliani to do anything:

quote:
"No, I didn't direct him, but he's a warrior, Rudy's a warrior. Rudy went, he possibly saw something. But you have to understand, Rudy (has) other people that he represents..."

Testimony from diplomats before Congress repeatedly stressed the involvement of Giuliani. Mick Mulvaney, the president's chief of staff, defended the president's directing Giuliani to get involved in Ukrainian affairs at a press conference last month. US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, testified that Trump ordered him to work with Giuliani on extracting a commitment to investigations from the Ukraine.

The president is lying. Again.

--Percy


  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5610
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3620 of 3668 (867605)
11-28-2019 4:32 PM


Bringing us together at Thanksgiving

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5610
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 3621 of 3668 (867643)
11-29-2019 10:02 PM


The September 9th call that never was
There was no September 9th call between Trump and Sondland. And the reason why they said there was is damning.

Here’s the Proof that Trump’s “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Never Happened

quote:
At the heart of the impeachment inquiry, members of Congress may have been mistakenly led to believe that there were two phone calls between President Donald Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland in early September—with the second call having the possibility of helping the President’s case. That’s not what happened. There was only one call, and it was highly incriminating.

The call occurred on September 7th. In this call, Trump did say there was “no quid pro quo” with Ukraine, but he then went on to outline his preconditions for releasing the security assistance and granting a White House visit. The call was so alarming that when John Bolton learned of it, he ordered his’ deputy Tim Morrison to immediately report it to the National Security Council lawyers.

Sondland has testified there was a call on September 9th in which Trump said there was “no quid pro quo,” but that he wanted President Zelenskyy “to do” the right thing. A close reading of the publicly available evidence shows that the latter call was actually the very one that sent Morrison to the lawyers, and that Ambassador Bill Taylor foregrounded in his written deposition to inform Congress of the quid pro quo.



  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 3622 of 3668 (867702)
12-01-2019 4:55 PM


Interference with the JURY? Recusal of tampered senators?
quote:
Trump opens up Camp David as an ‘adult playground’ to woo GOP lawmakers during impeachment

Since then, Mulvaney and top White House officials have hosted weekend getaways for Republicans at the historic lodge, seeking to butter up Republicans before the big impeachment vote. The casual itinerary includes making s’mores over the campfire, going hiking, shooting clay pigeons and schmoozing with Trump officials, some of whom stay overnight with lawmakers.

During dinners, Trump has called in to compliment members personally.

“I’ve worked with a number of Republican presidents over various administrations . . . and I’ve never, ever been invited to Camp David,” said Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.). “It was amazing to go for the short weekend. So historic.”

The Camp David excursions are one prong of a broad White House charm offensive, meant to hold House and Senate Republicans in line through a House impeachment vote and a trial in the Senate that appears all but inevitable.

Never shy to feud with his own party, Trump has for weeks refrained from full-throated attacks against Republicans who have been even remotely critical of the conduct now under scrutiny by the House: The president’s attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee.

The White House has made sure that a small clutch of Republican lawmakers have accompanied Trump to a trio of recent sporting events, whether at the Ultimate Fighting Championship in New York, the World Series in Washington or at the football game in Tuscaloosa, Ala., between the University of Alabama and Louisiana State University

The systematic courting may prove to be one pivotal factor if Republican lawmakers continue to rally behind Trump, who is almost certain to become the third U.S. president in history to become impeached by the House in the coming weeks. The idea, at least for the Camp David getaways, is to make Republicans feel as if they are part of Trump’s family — and make it more difficult for them to vote in favor of impeaching him.

The administration-wide effort to court Republicans was described by 20 lawmakers, administration officials, congressional aides and others familiar with the endeavor.

In all, Trump has met with or reached out personally to 100 GOP members of the House since the impeachment inquiry was launched, and 50 of the 53 Senate Republicans have attended a White House lunch — where chicken is often served — with the president. More than 40 House Republicans, from moderates to conservatives, have made the visit to Camp David at the invitation of Mulvaney and the legislative affairs team — who have invited groups of about 10 for overnight stays.

Multiple lawmakers who have visited the retreat — nearly 90 miles from Washington — have described the trips as “surreal” and “incredible,” according to a half-dozen lawmakers and aides familiar with the outings. An invitation is now considered “the envy of the conference,” according to one member who attended.

“It’s an impressive effort to engage at the member level,” said the GOP lawmaker, who like several others spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the coveted invites. “My colleagues have been blown away by it. And by the way, notice Republicans are united on impeachment.”


In any court of law this would be called tampering with the Jury.

quote:
Impeachment in the United States

Impeachment in the United States is the process by which a legislature (usually in the form of the lower house) brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, this is at the discretion of the House of Representatives. Most impeachments have concerned alleged crimes committed while in office, though there have been a few cases in which officials have been impeached and subsequently convicted for crimes committed prior to taking office.[1] The impeached official remains in office until a trial is held. That trial, and their removal from office if convicted, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. Analogous to a trial before a judge and jury, these proceedings are (where the legislature is bicameral) conducted by the upper house of the legislature, which at the federal level is the Senate. However, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, as the defendant does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty or property; the only penalties are removal from office and disqualification from holding further federal office.

The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. The Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached.[29] The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State.[19] Upon conviction in the Senate, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office.

To convict an accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the [Senators] present" for at least one article is required. If there is no single charge commanding a "guilty" vote of two-thirds majority of the senators present, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.


Now we have a situation where some senators have a conflict of interest, in that they have met with the president to discuss the impeachment, and received favored treatment at the specific behest of the president.

Shouldn't they recuse themselves from the proceedings?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3623 by JonF, posted 12-01-2019 4:57 PM RAZD has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5610
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3623 of 3668 (867703)
12-01-2019 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3622 by RAZD
12-01-2019 4:55 PM


Re: Interference with the JURY? Recusal of tampered senators?
Hell, the jury already met with the accused to plan the trial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3622 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2019 4:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3624 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2019 11:16 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 3624 of 3668 (867726)
12-02-2019 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3623 by JonF
12-01-2019 4:57 PM


Re: Interference with the JURY? Recusal of tampered senators?
Hell, the jury already met with the accused to plan the trial.

While the GOPs been complaining about due process etc etc etc -- so everyone that met with Dumbty on how to plan the trial should recuse themselves from the jury.

Or they are guilty of jury tampering.

Meanwhile Dumbty has been screaming about when he gets to call witnesses and cross-examine them, so he's invited to the next hearing to provide his input and provide any exculpatory evidence he has and ...

... he takes a pass

quote:
Impeachment inquiry: Trump and his lawyers refuse to attend 'unfair' hearing

President Donald Trump and his lawyers will not participate in a congressional impeachment hearing this week, the White House has said, citing a lack of “fundamental fairness”.

Trump’s aides responded defiantly on Sunday to the first of two crucial deadlines he faces in Congress this week as Democrats prepare to shift the focus of their impeachment inquiry from fact-finding to the consideration of possible charges of misconduct over his dealings with Ukraine.

The Democratic-led House of Representatives judiciary committee, tasked with considering charges known as articles of impeachment, had given Trump until 6pm on Sunday to say whether he would send a lawyer to take part in the judiciary panel’s proceedings on Wednesday.

White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote to committee chairman Jerrold Nadler, according to a copy of a letter seen by Reuters: “We cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the judiciary committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings.”

Cipollone cited a “complete lack of due process and fundamental fairness afforded the president” in the impeachment process but did not rule out participation in further proceedings. But he signalled that Democrats would first have to make major procedural concessions.


There is no "due process" in impeachment hearings. That happens in the Senate, which is the trial.

Coward doesn't want to attend, even after special consideration was provided.

Whine whine whine. The democrats do not need to do squat to continue hearings with or without Dumbty.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3623 by JonF, posted 12-01-2019 4:57 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19076
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 3625 of 3668 (867779)
12-02-2019 10:41 PM


“Doing what’s right” versus “Doing what’s right for me”
It’s disappointing to read this from the Washington Post article Democrats quietly debate expanding impeachment articles beyond Ukraine:

quote:
Members of the House Judiciary Committee and other more liberal-minded lawmakers and congressional aides have been privately discussing the possibility of drafting articles that include obstruction of justice or other “high crimes” they believe are clearly outlined in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report — or allegations that Trump has used his office to benefit his bottom line.


The idea, however, is running into resistance from some moderate Democrats wary of impeachment blowback in their GOP-leaning districts, as well as Democratic leaders who sought to keep impeachment narrowly focused on allegations that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely.


Democrats have to do what’s right for the nation instead of what’s right for their re-election, otherwise they just become the same as those who have lost their moral compass while caught in Trump’s apparently mesmerizing glare.

—Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 3626 by dwise1, posted 12-03-2019 4:55 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 3627 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2019 8:38 AM Percy has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3867
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(4)
Message 3626 of 3668 (867785)
12-03-2019 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3625 by Percy
12-02-2019 10:41 PM


Re: “Doing what’s right” versus “Doing what’s right for me”
Probably leading in with a reference overloaded with connotations, but about half a century ago in high school I read Machiavelli's "The Prince". There was one piece of advice in particular (as well as the advice against relying on mercenaries whose loyalty goes no further than their paycheck) that struck me as being true. His advice was that the ruler's primary concern was to ensure that he remained in power. The argument was that you may have all the best intentions to do the best that you can for your subjects, but if you lose power then all your best intentions would be for naught. For you to do any good at all for your subjects, you must remain in power.

William Claude Fields knew which end of the bull was which ("There comes a time in the affairs of man when you have to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation.")

Then there was that episode of My Favorite Martian where Tim (Bill Bixby) wanted "Uncle Martin" (Ray Walston) to read a local politician's mind to know what he's really thinking. Uncle Martin reported back that it was like a ping-pong game inside that politician's brain, constantly weighing one side against the other against the outcomes.

That TV example was a simplistic example of political calculus in which the local politician has to sense which way the voters are leaning and hence cannot hold a single stable position of his own (realize also that that was the mid-1960's TV). The political calculus in Congress is more complex. In both houses, the calculus is based on vote counts. You know what you want to accomplish, but you also have to factor in how many votes you can count on.

Speaker Pelosi is a master at that kind of calculus, as is Moscow Mitch. Regardless of how much your proposals may be for the nation, if you cannot get the necessary votes then you cannot succeed in benefiting the nation. So what does it take to get those necessary votes? Maybe swaying public opinion?

Democrats have to do what’s right for the nation instead of what’s right for their re-election, otherwise they just become the same as those who have lost their moral compass while caught in Trump’s apparently mesmerizing glare.

If Democrats' only motivation is their own re-election, then their souls are truly lost.

But if their motivation is to obtain and retain control of both houses of Congress (which is needed in order to implement what is needed to save America from the Republicans' dismantling of America), then those efforts to ensure their re-election would be justified.

Basic Machiavellianism (as per that primary lesson I had learned half a century ago). You cannot possibly make those changes that are needed unless you are in power and you cannot be and remain in power without ensuring that you are in power.

For example, how many House bills have piled atop the GOP-controlled Senate's table? More than 100 bills. Over 200 bills? Trump's claims of a "do nothing Democratic House" are pure BS, since the Democratic House has sent a great many bills to the Senate, where Moscow Mitch just sits on them.

Edited by dwise1, : trimmed off a final meaningless line


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3625 by Percy, posted 12-02-2019 10:41 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 3629 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-04-2019 1:35 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 3627 of 3668 (867788)
12-03-2019 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3625 by Percy
12-02-2019 10:41 PM


Re: “Doing what’s right” versus “Doing what’s right for me”
Democrats have to do what’s right for the nation instead of what’s right for their re-election, otherwise they just become the same as those who have lost their moral compass while caught in Trump’s apparently mesmerizing glare.

I agree, but also with dwise1 that it is important to gain the Senate and keep the House.

If they don't include items from the Mueller report, then we might as well forget about any future special prosecutors investigating presidents -- in essence giving them special privileges that don't apply to anyone else.

Personally I think they can only do that if they stand on a united firm ground of pursuing documented infractions of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, endangering national security, intimidating witnesses, and possibly of lying to people/congress with his twitter comments (not made under oath) during the hearings, and letting the Senate determine which if any of them are grounds for dismissal.

They should also be vocal about Trumpty wining and dining Senators before the trial being improper and an abuse of power (tampering with the jury)

They should also be vocal about Trumpty discussing how the Senate trial should proceed with #MoscowMitch being improper and an abuse of power.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3625 by Percy, posted 12-02-2019 10:41 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3628 by Percy, posted 12-03-2019 8:51 PM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19076
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 3628 of 3668 (867838)
12-03-2019 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3627 by RAZD
12-03-2019 8:38 AM


Re: “Doing what’s right” versus “Doing what’s right for me”
RAZD writes:

Democrats have to do what’s right for the nation instead of what’s right for their re-election, otherwise they just become the same as those who have lost their moral compass while caught in Trump’s apparently mesmerizing glare.

I agree, but also with dwise1 that it is important to gain the Senate and keep the House.

Politically, sure. Morally, no.

If they don't include items from the Mueller report, then we might as well forget about any future special prosecutors investigating presidents -- in essence giving them special privileges that don't apply to anyone else.

Yes, the obstructions of justice from the Mueller report should be considered for inclusion as articles of impeachment.

Personally I think they can only do that if they stand on a united firm ground of pursuing documented infractions of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, endangering national security, intimidating witnesses, and possibly of lying to people/congress with his twitter comments (not made under oath) during the hearings, and letting the Senate determine which if any of them are grounds for dismissal.

Yes, that's a good list. I would like to see the Republican members of the Senate have to weigh in on every offense of these types. In addition to witness intimidation I would add witness tampering.

They should also be vocal about Trumpty wining and dining Senators before the trial being improper and an abuse of power (tampering with the jury)

Yes. The other kind of witness tampering I was thinking of was holding out the possibility of a pardon.

They should also be vocal about Trumpty discussing how the Senate trial should proceed with #MoscowMitch being improper and an abuse of power.

Again, yes.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3627 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2019 8:38 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3630 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2019 3:39 AM Percy has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 3629 of 3668 (867846)
12-04-2019 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 3626 by dwise1
12-03-2019 4:55 AM


Re: “Doing what’s right” versus “Doing what’s right for me”
Might this whole situation be looked upon as not merely being the impeachment of Trump, but rather the impeachment of the bulk of the Republicans in Congress?

Not only is Trump wholly unsuitable to be President, the Republicans of Congress are wholly in support and defense of him.

Moose

BTW - gave the dwise1 message a POTM.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." - John Kenneth Galbraith

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman (as stolen from Chiroptera's signature)

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3626 by dwise1, posted 12-03-2019 4:55 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 3630 of 3668 (867848)
12-04-2019 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3628 by Percy
12-03-2019 8:51 PM


Re: “Doing what’s right” versus “Doing what’s right for me”
I agree, but also with dwise1 that it is important to gain the Senate and keep the House.

Politically, sure. Morally, no.

Morally because the House and Senate do not truly represent the people when gerrymandering and voter suppression laws and massive amounts of money determine race "victories" not votes. If the current system of voting is immoral, then we need to fix that, and that means bipartisan agreement of enough politicians to do that, and voting out those that don't or won't agree.

Yes. The other kind of witness tampering I was thinking of was holding out the possibility of a pardon.

Which it looks like is included in the report.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3628 by Percy, posted 12-03-2019 8:51 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3631 by Percy, posted 12-04-2019 7:41 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019