While I have very little problem with Trump being removed from office for good reasons, the impeachment raises some questions.
1. Doesn’t beating Trump in the upcoming election solve the problem in the most expeditious and least divisive manner possible?
2. I’d hope that we can all agree that the Hunter Biden thing, has the appearance of influence peddling, and just generally appears corrupt. Given that, isn’t it appropriate to investigate real or apparent corruption or to ask that corruption be investigated regardless of the potential benefit to the person asking? When one adds in Biden requesting the removal of the prosecutor, and the large donations to the Clinton slush fund, it seems that a good prosecutor could make a case for an investigation or indictment.
3. It seems like the senate could find Trump “guilty”, yet decide that removing him from office isn’t the appropriate punishment. Wouldn’t that kind of defeat the purpose?
4. If the determination to have witnesses is made, then it certainly seems to open the door to putting the Bidens on the stand, as well as others who will either mitigate the current case, or significantly raise the possibility of “reasonable doubt”.
I’ve been channel surfing and have noticed that seemingly fewer outlets are broadcasting the trial this week as opposed to last week. It seems to me that by only covering the “prosecution” case more extensively than the “defense” case is slanting the coverage in favor of the DFL. It’s almost as if it’s intentional. I realize that it’s probably simple money, that Dr Phil probably draws more viewers, than impeachment. But, it’s an interesting theoretical conversation, especially for over the air broadcasters. It also calls any poll results into question, as a number of potential respondents might not have access via over the air TV. (Admittedly it’s probably a small number, but depending on how the sample is constructed).
I’d suggest that if you’re licensed by the FCC, then you either need to broadcast all of the hearings, or none of the hearings. You know, like the equal time rule applies or something.
37 comments:
1. Not for the Dems and others who would like to see him gone. While time on his term is running out, there is still enough for him to do even more great things for this country that would lessen the chance of his losing the 2020 election, which is gonna be tough enough if he stands pat.
2. It's always been appropriate. The problem is the left doesn't want to investigate any of their people (or Hillary would be in an orange jumpsuit already).
3. If the senate found Trump guilty, it would be a travesty given he's done nothing wrong.
4. If it is decided that witnesses should be called, then obviously both sides of the issue should have the option to call whom they choose. But, it must be kept in mind that it is the president for whom "fairness" and "impartiality" should be considered, not those trying to oust him.
I have a BIG problem with Trump being removed from office, either through this bulls**t kabuki theater or via a legitimate election in 2020. He's earned another term based on the good he's done, and while I'd never call his first term "perfect", his record of achievements far "trumps" considerations of style or what is now his wholly irrelevant personal history prior to his term. There is no justification whatever for a conservative to not support a second term should he decide to seek it.
1. If the goal is to simply remove him from office, then using the time tested method of simply winning elections should be adequate. Clearly their candidates aren’t strong and don’t reach a broad base of support, which calls victory into question, so I guess desperation might be in play.
2. Agreed.
3. Given the instance where people are convicted when they’re innocent, it’s a possibility. My point is that any situation that leaves Trump in office seems like a loss for the DFL. I’m asking if it’s possible for there to be a consequence short of removal.
4. It seems clear that the people prating about fairness, will fight tooth and nail to keep witnesses who don’t fit their narrative out of the process.
I understand, but you’re in the realm of your opinions and we’ve hashed this out before. I will say that I believe that the things you cite will continue if Pence is president and it’ll be freaking hilarious to watch the folx trying to turn mr. wholesome into Satan incarnate.
I can’t help but note that the recent rulings about the FISA warrants call into question the validity/legality/admissibility of much of what’s been alleged.
1. The reason that it is VITAL to the health of our free republic to impeach and remove Trump is to show that presidents can't get away with abuse of power and corruption and ignoring congressional investigations.
IF we let Trump get away with this abuse of power, then when there's a Democrat president in office and he or she refuses to cooperate with Congressional investigations and blocks testimony, on what basis would you hold them accountable? Republicans are slitting their own throats and undermining the notion of a president who is accountable to the people. Now, you conservative types may not give a damn about that, but we freedom loving people who believe in a government accountable to the people do.
2 & 4. The Bidens are not on trial. Let me help you out and say it again, slowly:
The. Bidens. Are. Not. On. Trial.
Trump has stupidly and dangerously continued to cite and promote fake news/conspiracy theory narratives while continuing to attack the legitimate press. That is dangerous and sick as hell and that can NOT be abided. We must not play into these sick, hellacious and ignorantly stupid false narratives that Trump lives on. You can't defeat corruption and treachery by pretending that there's some merit in them. You defeat them by denying their reality.
There is no reason to call the Bidens to testify. I don't know how else to say it to help the ignorant people of the world understand.
The Bidens were not part of Trump's corruption and lies, Trump is. What are they going to testify to?
One more time: The Bidens did nothing illegal.
Now, I FULLY support putting an end to these corrupt and wrong practices like letting the families of presidents/those in power trade on their names like Biden did and like Trump and his family do regularly. But it's not illegal and there's nothing to the conspiracy theories that Trump likes to imagine and promote. They are part of the narrative of the enemy (Russian and otherwise). Stop supporting the enemy by pretending there's something to conspiracy theories.
Good Lord.
1. It’s interesting that when we had a Democrat president who was actually convicted of a crime, actually found guilty of an actual crime, you didn’t feel this strongly about impeachment and removal. But, hey things change.
2&4, It impressive that you are able to state with certainty that the Biden’s haven’t committed a crime. What evidence can you cite to prove your claim? Unless I’m mistaken, Joe tried to get the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son fired. But that’s apparently A-OK.
Of course, one of the claims is that Trump tried to force the Ukrainians to investigate Biden. It seems reasonable to determine if there was a reasonable basis for Biden to be investigated, then the request is proper. So, it seems entirely proper that the Bidens should be called as witnesses.
You do understand that witnesses aren’t on trial, don’t you? You do understand that being a witness isn’t the same as being the accused?
You also understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty, being able to face one’s accusers, and being able to call witnesses in order to mount a defense, don’t you?
It seems as if y’all want the DFL to be able to call unlimited witnesses, ones they didn’t think were important enough to call in the house, but that Trump shouldn’t have the same ability.
So much for a fair trial.
Finally, it is potentially illegal for the families of elected officials to engage in the sort of thing Biden and the Clinton’s have done. Unfortunately the only way to determine that, is to investigate, something you clearly oppose. I guess your distaste for the Biden family actions will render you unable to vote for him if he’s the nominee.
I have to note that you haven’t actually answered 3/4 of the questions asked, I certainly don’t expect you to answer them, just noting the reality. Also have to note that the last sentence of your screed is simply a completely unsupported claim of fact. I realize that no proof will be forthcoming, but I had to point out the reality?
In reference to Dan's comments:
1. There is nor has been any abuse of power. Period.
2&4. Just as with your troll, it seems clear that you're more than eager to ignore any improprieties of your party. But aside from the fact that obviously the impeachment process here concerns allegations (laughingly labeled as such) against the president, Trump's concerns about Biden corruption is relevant to the case. As such, it would be great to get his sorry ass...and that of his son...on the witness stand. But whether or not any Biden is held accountable for any acts of corruption remains to be seen. Again, we have this double-standard phenomena constantly at work, so I personally wouldn't place a wager.
"Trump has stupidly and dangerously continued to cite and promote fake news/conspiracy theory narratives while continuing to attack the legitimate press. That is dangerous and sick as hell and that can NOT be abided."
Trump has done nothing with regard to the press that comes anywhere near as problematic as Obama's actions against members of the press. But you're just a hack who lacks honesty. Trump is entitled to his opinions about the failures of the mainstream press, as well as entitled to express them publicly. He has the same misgivings about them as at least half the nation, and rightly so as I have documented extensively at my blog. There's nothing at all either "sick" or "dangerous" about calling out a dangerously biased press and holding them publicly accountable for it. If you lefties were honest people, you'd be doing so as well, even if they act on your behalf.
"You can't defeat corruption and treachery by pretending that there's some merit in them."
You can't defeat corruption and treachery by pretending either exists where they don't, while ignoring where it does. But then, you're a lefty, so I don't expect you to give a rat's behind about honesty.
"There is no reason to call the Bidens to testify. I don't know how else to say it to help the ignorant people of the world understand."
There's no reason to impeach Trump, so there's that. But the reason he's being impeached is due to some nonsense about Trump extorting help from the Ukrainian president to investigate possible corruption by the Bidens as a means of interfering with Biden's campaign...as if anyone running for public office is officially exempt from the consequences of their misdeeds, or from being investigated due to credible evidence of misdeeds. Lying lefties like you might be too ignorant to understand this reality, but more likely you're simply not honest enough to acknowledge it due to your irrational grace embracing hatred toward Trump.
"They are part of the narrative of the enemy (Russian and otherwise)."
There's more than some "narrative of the enemy" at play. Biden is on record proudly admitting he extorted the Ukrainians...something he and the rest of your party like to pretend Trump was doing on his call with the Ukrainian president. But again, you lefties don't give a crap about the corruption of your own.
You should read and rely on actual news sources and not conspiracy theorists and wackos. Gullible and naive is not a good look for you.
Dan,
Perhaps you didn’t actually read my questions before you ignored them and wrote your screed.
That’s ok if if you’re not interested in actually learning the facts and engaging in dialogue.
It’s interesting that Dan brings up the Russia narrative. If Russia did interfere in the last election, in a manner that affected the outcome, then the responsibility for that falls on P-BO. P-BO was in office and in control when this allegedly happened. Further, the recent news we’ve gotten relative to much of the underlying investigation is based on a false dossier and lies to the FISA court. Perhaps it would have made more sense to sort out the validity of the “evidence” as well as the admissibility of the evidence instead of rushing forward and making things up as you go.
And Craig's last goes to my point. How could the "Russian collusion" have gotten as far as it did based on falsified evidence in the first place? It's that lefty double-standard and their morally bankrupt anti-Trump, anti-American agenda at work once again, and obviously so. I gotta tell ya, if it was my party (or favored politician) pulling thus kinda crap, I'd be out for blood given the impact on how the public would view the rest of us.
No one appears to be considering the other ramification here. We're supposed to have our presidential primaries in March. If the Senate impeaches him, we won't have a candidate to select because currently Trump is alone in the field. If they don't impeach him, at least the Dems have managed to publicly sully his character enough to make him nearly unelectable. Is this a strategy to influence the election?
Stan,
Not only that, but the senators running for president stand to personally benefit from Trump’s conviction, In any normal criminal proceeding they would be required to recuse themselves. Just one more example of the DFL being willing to sacrifice principle on the alter of political gain.
Whoops, the “head on a pike” quote that Schiff used is apparently false.
Good Lord, Stan. It is a "strategy" to be honest citizens defending against an immoral and corrupt con man that your people (white evangelicals) put into office. It is a "strategy" to defend our nation from those who would try to place the president above the law.
You all can disagree with us if you want, but it's part of your own blindness and hypocrisy that you can't acknowledge the simple reality that we are striving to do the right thing to prevent your lying pervert from destroying our nation with his false claims and corruptions.
Have the decency to acknowledge the decency in our efforts, even if you want to defend your pervert/king. (And yes, yes, yes, I KNOW that Stan and Craig "don't like" Trump and are squeamish about his perversions, but even with that, you all are missing the point of his true perversity and corruption, thereby giving a pass to him on the stuff that matters.)
I wonder if any of you all realize the great harm you all re doing to conservatism and to conservative/evangelical churches. The young people and people of color and a huge number of people across the spectrum now view conservative evangelicals as those who would defend even the most disgusting, harmful and perverted lies and corruption. You all have wallowed with the pigs and the stench will stay with you.
Your children will rise up and call you all daft.
Dan,
Clearly you’re prepared to set aside certain legal niceties in your jihad against Trump.
Given the fact that you’re ignoring virtually everything that’s actually been said in favor of simply bulldozing ahead with your narrative is entertaining.
Finally, I’m sure it comforts you to believe the contents of your last comment, but I’m not sure that it represents reality. I’m seeing an increasing number of young people of color who are outspoken in their conservatism. Maybe you need to rethink the hubris that causes you to assert that your political position is definitely the inescapable wave of the future.
My dislike of Trump doesn’t mean I’m willing to put aside everything including the legal system in order to accomplish what should be easily accomplished at the ballot box. The fact that you can’t distinguish between asking questions about the process and supporting Trump in every particular demonstrates your choice to blind yourself to anything but your commitment to anti Trump jihad.
People across the political spectrum recognize that Trump is corrupt. People across the political spectrum recognized that his behavior in the Ukraine stuff was impeachable.
Did you see the survey that said 1/3 of conservative GOP types agreed that what Trump did with Ukraine was impeachable? And yet in spite of that, that same one third of conservatives think he should remain in office. Trump has proven to be prophetic in his dumbing down of his followers. He said that he could break laws, including shooting someone the middle of the street, and his supporters would still support him.
What he has done is impeachable. There is no Jihad. There's just a desire to stand against corruption.
The question is, why are so many white conservative evangelicals willing to go along with this utter corruption?
Of course, I recognized that Trump was corrupt and didn’t support him.
Your insistence that you can make these pronouncements of fact without offering proof is bizarre. You thinking that an opinion poll (un cites, unlinked, unproven), is the basis to make significant decisions is naive and childlike.
You’ve been on this jihad for years, and just keep getting more insistent while providing less and less proof.
That is a question, I’m not sure it’s the question. As always your anti corruption prating would be more effective if you had a history of consistent opposition to corruption on both sides of the aisle.
The question is, why are you unable to see the difference between support of corruption and raising issues of fairness and asking questions? The question is, how many of the legal protections for defendants are you willing to deny Trump? Are you really willing to allow only one side to call witnesses? Do you not understand that Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar not recusing themselves corrupts both the legal and political process?
That you don't recognize my consistencies does not mean your claim holds water. As a point of fact, I called for Clinton to step down for having a consensual affair and for lying about it. What Trump does/has done is MUCH WORSE than merely lying about a blowjob.
You see, part of the problem of being blinded by partisan allegiances and pre-conceptions is that one is often blinded to their own blindness. You don't even recognize that you're giving a pass to this corrupt tyrant and pervert by failing to acknowledge the very clear wrong he has done.
"One in three Republican voters (32%) in a new Pew national poll say that Donald Trump "probably" or "definitely" did something illegal either while running for president or during his first three years in office...
That same Pew poll shows that just one in 10 (12%) of those same Republicans thought that Trump should be removed from office by the Senate impeachment trial. By contrast, 86% of Republicans believed Trump should not be removed."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/trump-pew-poll-break-law/index.html
The fact is, I DO oppose corruption and always have. As is true for the vast majority of progressives and those conservatives who oppose Trump. That you all are blinded to that, preferring, instead, to guess with no support that our motives are partisan and negatively political, is yet another sign of your blindness.
You can't do it, can you? You can't recognize the reality that most of us who are opposed to Trump are opposed because...
1. He is utterly dishonest
2. He is utterly corrupt
3. He is harmfully perverted, attacking men, women and children
4. He is utterly amoral
And so on. Defend your pussy grabbing son of a bitch all you want, you defender of perverts. But you can't deny the reality that we are opposed to Trump PRECISELY because of his utter corruption. To do so would be a corrupt lie, itself.
I’ll note that you don’t provide a link to this claim and leave that alone.
Clinton was convicted of perjury. The subject of his lies is immaterial, it’s the fact that he lied under oath that constitutes the crime.
Of course, I’m not giving Trump a pass, it’s your blind hatred that doesn’t allow you to see that. I guess it’s interesting that you still only offer an opinion poll as “proof”. Of course you misrepresented to poll the first time you mentioned it. It’s not an issue because it’s simply an opinion poll. It’s not reality.
I’ll point out that your list is exactly the reasons I articulated during and since his candidacy. But it suits you to lie about those things to suit your narrative.
Personally, I’d be more likely to believe your claims about corruption if you weren’t so partisan in your condemnation. You’ve tended to be retroactive in your condemnation of corruption when it’s your folx.
Now, you have an opportunity to prove your alleged convictions.
Let’s see you come out unequivocally and express that you won’t support Biden or Warren if nominated due to their corrupt actions.
“Didn’t House Democrat impeachment managers say their case was clear and convincing?
But you’re saying you need more evidence?
Oh, the contradictions.”
Again with the lies. Dan relies upon them, wallows in them and perpetuated them willingly after having been corrected over and over again. He is blinded by his own corruption, supporting those who deny the right to life to the unborn, enable sexually immorality and steal personal property. He constantly lies about Trump's "lies" while totally and consistently ignoring the lies of those he supports...lies that are the basis of many, if not most, of their policy proposals.
Foremost among Dan's lies is his consistent referencing to Trump's remarks about grabbing women by their crotches, as if it is something he has engaged in or intended to perpetrate. This is typical of Dan who can't put his finger on one Trump "lie" that is more egregious than the many that are the basis of so many leftist policies he supports.
As to polling data, no doubt this is just another that queries 1000 or 2000 people as if that is truly indicative of the general opinion of the tens of millions who are not leftist hacks like Dan. More important to remember is that the opinions of any of those questioned are not important. The facts are. Trump committed no crime or impeachable offense unless Dan has the integrity to go back to previous presidents and indict them for all they did that was similar to, or worse than what Trump has been accused of doing. Dan has no such desire because he's only consumed with his grace embracing hatred for Trump. Dan, this defender of perversion, dare question the moral integrity of others. Remove the plank? Dan has an entire lumber yard obstructing his vision. What a vile hypocrite!
CNN Chief Legal Analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, says, ‘The Republicans are winning here. The President is is winning here”.
When the CNN legal analyst disagrees with you...
I haven’t looked at the poll in question, but as we’ve seen multiple times in recent elections polls aren’t as accurate as some would prefer. Further, we have no idea what they consider “conservative”.
“By giving up much of the first day, the White House gave a concise opening, relieved the jury, and pushed the main argument to Monday with a larger television audience. It was a sophisticated and effective strategy that paid off. A very strong start to their case . The White House did a particularly good job explaining its position on refusing discovery and also the unfair process. Moreover, it was a brilliant decision to limit the opening to a few hours. The House subjected the Senate to mind-numbing repetition for 22 hours. The House took a lot of hits below the waterline today. These were powerful points that gave ample foundation for senators to support acquittal without agreeing with the Dershowitz theory or the suggestion that everything was "perfect." I liked the low key, fact-based argument. Jeff Toobin just said that the White House was less than "spellbinding." However, the predictions just before the argument was that it would going to be nothing but distractions and attacks. The White House did very well. The tenor was right and the content was highly substantive.”
Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law professor at GWU
Now, we’ve heard Dan the learned biblical scholar flexing his legal scholarly muscles. Let’s contrest that with a couple of actual legal scholars. Both Turkey and Toobin, seem to be suggesting that mere outrage isn’t enough to remove a sitting president from office.
These facts seem problematic for the Ukraine assertions.
The transcript shows no conditionality
•Zelensky: no quid pro quo/pressure
•Ukraine didn’t know of aid pause
•No Dem witness testified that POTUS said any conditionality
•Ukraine got aid, did nothing for it
•Trump strengthened Ukraine support
I know we’d rather not get into a discussion of specific facts, when broad/vague accusations of corruption are easier to spout and can mean anything/everything/nothing depending on the needs of the moment.
Wow. Toobin's generally a clown. If even he gives the White House props, what does that say about the looney lefties pretending Trump is hellspawn and worthy of impeachment?
The left began working on impeachment as soon as they realized the vote totals put Trump in the driver's seat. They needed nothing but his win to put that in motion. All that was left was trying to find something...ANYTHING...with which they could pretend they had a legitimate reason to push for impeachment. It didn't have to be real or true. They just needed to get enough people to agree, and they felt they had those numbers all along. It's the corruption of the Democrat party and never-Trumpers that Dan refuses to acknowledge.
Of course Toobin is biased or he wouldn’t be at CNN. My point is that if shills like him are saying this, then the kool aid drinkers are probably in trouble.
Certainly. I was merely reacting to the news of his statements. I was unaware of them until reading them here, as I don't pay attention to the fool unless more intelligent, honest people...like Mark Levin...respond to him.
Of course Toobin is biased or he wouldn’t be at CNN. My point is that if shills like him are saying this, then the kool aid drinkers are probably in trouble.
Blogger sucks. I just write a long comment, which disappeared.
“MSNBC anchor Ari Melber had harsh words on Friday for House Democrats’ impeachment case against President Donald Trump, saying that the House managers failed to “land” their case on one of the articles of impeachment and that there was not an “overwhelming” case. “As we are now here with a few hours left and always ready to watch how the evidence unfolds, I do not see an overwhelming case and overwhelming evidence by these Democrats to support convicting on obstructing Congress,” Melber said. “And I’ll tell you why,” Melber continued. “This is important, because each of these are independent. Obviously, like any trial, one would be enough, one conviction would be enough – that would potentially remove a president, but on the obstruction of Congress, what the Democrats are arguing is that basically something that began three months before they actually voted to impeach should now be resolved by the removal of the president.” “And in every other case, including Nixon, we know the rule has been, the president is allowed to fight within the law, is allowed to deny and yes ‘defy’ all the way up and until the Supreme Court, which takes often more than a year,” Melber continued. “So, is there enough evidence to support the immediate removal of the president? … I haven’t seen them land that, I don’t see the Democrats having provided enough evidence yet to convict on article two.”
Hell, if the MSNBC anchor isn’t buying it..
“Gloom settling on Democrats as they realize they’ve taken their best kill shot & missed. Dems in despair. Republicans United. @realDonaldTrump survives & #Impeachment all over but the shouting.”
Geraldo Rivera
“BLACKOUT: CBS, ABC & NBC--all regulated by the FCC--are NOT giving equal time to covering lawyers arguing in defense of Trump in front of Senate now, as they did last week when they covered Schiff & Dem prosecutors arguing for Trump's removal in wall-to-wall preemptive coverage.”
Paul Sherry
Who knew I’d see this after I just addressed this issue.
“Defeating Donald Trump seems so simple. Stay steady, appear largely sane, express respect for his key demographics. But he drives his opponents into such an incoherent rage, they start shooting like stormtroopers on a Death Star manhunt.”
Emily Zanotti
As the impeachment fizzles out, a few things that bother me.
1. If y’all wanted to call all of these witnesses why didn’t you? If you didn’t because you were in a hurry, then why sit on the articles?
2. In general the US legal system is biased in favor the accused, this process was clearly not.
2a. If 2 is the case, then had witnesses been called it would have been necessary to give the defense significant latitude to call witnesses. You can’t deprive one side or something you give the other side.
3. The fact that there are members of the jury who have a potential personal/political benefit if Trump is removed from office, yet are not required to recuse themselves is absurd.
“How telling that the media never presses the Democratic leadership on whether it is appropriate for Democratic Senators like Sanders and Warren to vote to remove their fall election opponent. Does being on the Left excuse one from all conflicts of interest?”
Post a Comment