I haven’t said much about the impeachment for multiple reasons, but there are two things that lead me to believe that this isn’t serious.
1. The refusal of the senate dems to accept the rules passed 100-0 that controlled the Clinton impeachment trial.
2. This playing games by passing two vague articles of impeachment, then refusing to send them on to the senate for action.
The first is simply confirming that this is petty and political. The second indicates both a disdain for constitutional responsibilities, and (seemingly) a strategy designed to play on people’s ignorance of the process. It’s equivalent to charging someone with a crime, but not following through on the constitutional process of allowing the accused to face their accuser and put forth a defense.
I’m not sure how this’ll play out, but it’d be ironic if this is what gets Trump re elected in 2020.
It’s ironic the DFL expert in impeachment, Noah Feldman, has clarified that Trump hasn’t been impeached until the articles are sent to the senate.
5 comments:
1. I don't know the details on this, but given the gop's very treacherous and wickedly partisan abuse of rules to their own benefit, I find it hard to take this concern of yours seriously. McConnell unilaterally deciding that it was too late to even consider a Judicial nominee? Remember that?
Reality is that the GOP have been very partisan and uncooperative with Democrats and so the Democrats are dealing with that reality and taking steps to address it the best I can. It doesn't mean that we aren't concerned about the other corruption of this out early corrupt and dishonest president. Indeed, even Christianity Today is telling us how corrupt this awful Center man is and that the GOP and conservatives and evangelicals are damning themselves by their support. Do you agree with Christianity Today?
2. Again, the reality is that the GOP, led by McConnell, have promised to be unfair and biased jurors. Pelosi is doing what she can to try to ensure a fair trial. If the GOP wasn't being unfairly partisan, then you wouldn't have Pelosi taking this step. (Which by the way, I question the efficacy of.)
Regardless, that she feels compelled to deal with GOP corruption by trying this is not an indication that we aren't serious about the corruption of this very corrupt pig president. Again, even as Christianity Today has finally acknowledged.
I will say this, well it's very late in the game, good for Christianity Today. Doing their part to redeem the very damaged image of white evangelicals. How about you following their example?
Dan,
Perhaps you should stop communicating in things you admit ignorance about, and inform yourself first.
Your political biases and hatred seem to be informing your comments more than the reality that we’re seeing.
The fact remains that the current DFL is abdicating their constitutional responsibilities for partisan reasons. The fact that they can’t even support the rules used in the Clinton impeachment (passed 100-0) for this one says enough.
Wow. Dan really has his head up his ass on this one! (I know...how does one tell it's any different than any other time?) This entire process has been corrupt from the start as the Dems sought to impeach this guy before he was even sworn in. Dan's concerns are ludicrous, wholly ignorant and dishonest. They can be dismissed outright. He couldn't support his hatred of Trump if his sorry life depended upon it, or he would have done it by now. That is, he would have done it without repeating proven falsehoods as if true.
As to Christianity Today...so what? Does having "Christianity" in the title guarantee honesty, objectivity, logic, reason or even Christianity? No. It doesn't. Dan wants to pretend that there is some risk to the salvation of Christians who support this president, while his support of those who champion murder and sexual immorality bears no risk at all. Dan exposes his own corruption without any help from us.
Hat tip to Glenn for this piece from Tony Perkins about the Christianity Today bit that Dan cites as if it's worth a damn. One might have thought Dan wrote it, given the pearl-clutching tone of it. It's no more a reasonable scolding of Evangelicals as anything Dan's put forth yet, and even Albert Mohler is mentioned as less of a validation than Dan tries to make him.
By all means, let’s ignore that inconvenient history and the fact that you can’t impeach for things done before being elected.
As far as CT goes, they could worship Satan and Dan would laud this one editorial.
Post a Comment