To impeach, or not to impeach

[Classic-Xer]

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

I think the house Democrats have to impeach him at this point. I'd do it if I were them. I mean, is there a chance that any of the prominent players would lose their Congressional seats over impeaching Trump for whatever reason that suits them at this point? Personally, I think they've done pretty good for themselves with the portion of the Democratic party that seems to matter to them the most these days. If there is little to no concern of losing control over their portion of the Democratic party and their portion of the country then why not go through with it and continue functioning as they've been doing and have been allowed to be able to do and get away with for years.

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2019, 07:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 03:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Would most Republicans surrender democracy if that means keeping their guns, low taxes and abortion laws? You bet they would. The impeachment proceedings and the opposition by the Trump base to them are proof of this.

I don't think so. I think we value our right to vote and directly participate in the political process as much as we value our gun rights, our property rights, our wealth and value life in general.

I don't think so. Republicans think a president has every right to help determine his own election by using the powers of his office to smear his opponent with lies. Trump is obviously a wannabee dictator, and the Republicans would be fine with this.

Some Republicans did not approve of Nixon doing stuff similar to this. Nowadays, they are different. Trump's violations are much more serious than Nixon's, and yet his approval from his party is much greater.

[pbrower2a]

(11-18-2019, 07:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

I think the house Democrats have to impeach him at this point. I'd do it if I were them. I mean, is there a chance that any of the prominent players would lose their Congressional seats over impeaching Trump for whatever reason that suits them at this point? Personally, I think they've done pretty good for themselves with the portion of the Democratic party that seems to matter to them the most these days. If there is little to no concern of losing control over their portion of the Democratic party and their portion of the country then why not go through with it and continue functioning as they've been doing and have been allowed to be able to do and  get away with for years.

I see that you have concluded that the House likely has enough material for a bill of impeachment. Trump was getting little legislation done even when he had two Houses that would have done anything for him. The Democratic majority in the House and the Republican majority in the Senate are not likely to agree on anything more substantive than renaming federal buildings or commemorating "National Hula-Hoop Week". 

Trump's behavior is so egregious that it must be impeached. It was only a matter of time, and the President trying to blackmail a foreign leader made impeachment mandatory even if futile. After a series of affronts to sensibilities of liberals, we now have something that offends the military.

The composition of the Senate will matter in 2021, too, and Republicans might like to hold that Democrats are using impeachment as a political tool. The fault with such a sentiment is that President Trump gave the Democrats no alternative to impeachment -- and through his own callow incompetence, President Trump has put Senate Republicans in a bind for at least 2020 and perhaps 2022. Does one excuse the President and show oneself as an unprincipled toady, or does one take the risk of the anger that the President can dish out like despots of the past?

Welcome to the winter of our discontent. Such is a 4T.

[David Horn]

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

The hearings are already changing minds, so you seem to be totally wrong on this.  We're not looking at the Clinton Impeachment as a model.  Try Nixon.  The GOPpers may suck-up to the bloody end and vote to acquit, but the public is already getting off the Trump Train.

[David Horn]

(11-18-2019, 07:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

I think the house Democrats have to impeach him at this point. I'd do it if I were them. I mean, is there a chance that any of the prominent players would lose their Congressional seats over impeaching Trump for whatever reason that suits them at this point? Personally, I think they've done pretty good for themselves with the portion of the Democratic party that seems to matter to them the most these days. If there is little to no concern of losing control over their portion of the Democratic party and their portion of the country then why not go through with it and continue functioning as they've been doing and have been allowed to be able to do and  get away with for years.

There's also the minor matter of overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses.  Trump's clearly guilty of bribery and extortion, and he's also guilty of accepting (even soliciting) emoluments.  Both are defined offenses in the US Constitution.  If there has ever been a POTUS who deserves to be impeached and convicted, it's Trump.  If Trump gets a pass on this, the flood gates are fully open for misbehavior on a colossal scale, and the next offender may not be a GOPper..

[Classic-Xer]

(11-19-2019, 07:38 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 07:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

I think the house Democrats have to impeach him at this point. I'd do it if I were them. I mean, is there a chance that any of the prominent players would lose their Congressional seats over impeaching Trump for whatever reason that suits them at this point? Personally, I think they've done pretty good for themselves with the portion of the Democratic party that seems to matter to them the most these days. If there is little to no concern of losing control over their portion of the Democratic party and their portion of the country then why not go through with it and continue functioning as they've been doing and have been allowed to be able to do and  get away with for years.

I see that you have concluded that the House likely has enough material for a bill of impeachment. Trump was getting little legislation done even when he had two Houses that would have done anything for him. The Democratic majority in the House and the Republican majority in the Senate are not likely to agree on anything more substantive than renaming federal buildings or commemorating "National Hula-Hoop Week". 

Trump's behavior is so egregious that it must be impeached. It was only a matter of time, and the President trying to blackmail a foreign leader made impeachment mandatory even if futile. After a series of affronts to sensibilities of liberals, we now have something that offends the military.

The composition of the Senate will matter in 2021, too, and Republicans might like to hold that Democrats are using impeachment as a political tool. The fault with such a sentiment is that President Trump gave the Democrats no alternative to impeachment -- and through his own callow incompetence, President Trump has put Senate Republicans in a bind for at least 2020 and perhaps 2022. Does one excuse the President and show oneself as an unprincipled toady, or does one take the risk of the anger that the President can dish out like despots of the past?

Welcome to the winter of our discontent. Such is a 4T.

I've concluded that the Democratic majority in the House will vote to impeach Trump themselves regardless of the outcome at this point. I don't think Trump could offend the military any more than the liberals have already offended them over the years. The way I see it, any Democrat who served in the military is just there propping up a party that has little to no credibility with most veterans these days. I'm sorry dude, the party that you are working to sustain is a crappy party that isn't worth the amount of debt owed.

[Hintergrund]

(11-18-2019, 06:51 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

If one observes the textbook definition of a landslide, which is the loser neglecting to reach the halfway mark (135) of the total necessary for election (270), then I would say that the Detroit Tigers, who finished 47-114 in the just-completed baseball season, have a better chance of winning the 2020 World Series than Donald Trump has of winning the 2020 election by a landslide.

I dunno. The Democrats are going crazy, not only about Trump, but also about the question whom to nominate. Bernie? Warren? Biden? Some minor candidate? Yeah, they're passionate about removing him, but that's become a problem for them. Obviously, nominating the wrong candidate would give Trump re-election, which they'd hate like hell, so the wrong candidate has to be prevented. - But who is right and who is wrong?

[Classic-Xer]

(11-19-2019, 03:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 07:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

I think the house Democrats have to impeach him at this point. I'd do it if I were them. I mean, is there a chance that any of the prominent players would lose their Congressional seats over impeaching Trump for whatever reason that suits them at this point? Personally, I think they've done pretty good for themselves with the portion of the Democratic party that seems to matter to them the most these days. If there is little to no concern of losing control over their portion of the Democratic party and their portion of the country then why not go through with it and continue functioning as they've been doing and have been allowed to be able to do and  get away with for years.

There's also the minor matter of overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses.  Trump's clearly guilty of bribery and extortion, and he's also guilty of accepting (even soliciting) emoluments.  Both are defined offenses in the US Constitution.  If there has ever been a POTUS who deserves to be impeached and convicted, it's Trump.  If Trump gets a pass on this, the flood gates are fully open for misbehavior on a colossal scale, and the next offender may not be a GOPper..

Dude, a crime must occur before one can be formally impeached or legally convicted of a committing a crime in America. Lets see, the whistle blower isn't technically a whistle blower and the so called whistle blower isn't even a witness because of concerns relating to their personal well being. Oh, what I've heard about the whistle blower and their connection to those who are in charge of impeaching Trump and connection to other interesting stuff and a partisan coup to remove Trump ain't good in general.

What you numb skulls don't seem to understand is the other half of the country has an interest in outcome of the next election and the bulk of the Republican base cares as much about following or sticking to rules as the blues these days. The table is now set and now we are going find out what the blues are truly made of over the next few years. Like I've said, the blues ain't seen nothing yet.

[pbrower2a]

(11-20-2019, 03:33 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 03:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 07:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

I think the house Democrats have to impeach him at this point. I'd do it if I were them. I mean, is there a chance that any of the prominent players would lose their Congressional seats over impeaching Trump for whatever reason that suits them at this point? Personally, I think they've done pretty good for themselves with the portion of the Democratic party that seems to matter to them the most these days. If there is little to no concern of losing control over their portion of the Democratic party and their portion of the country then why not go through with it and continue functioning as they've been doing and have been allowed to be able to do and  get away with for years.

There's also the minor matter of overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses.  Trump's clearly guilty of bribery and extortion, and he's also guilty of accepting (even soliciting) emoluments.  Both are defined offenses in the US Constitution.  If there has ever been a POTUS who deserves to be impeached and convicted, it's Trump.  If Trump gets a pass on this, the flood gates are fully open for misbehavior on a colossal scale, and the next offender may not be a GOPper..

Dude, a crime must occur before one can be formally impeached or legally convicted of a committing a crime in America. Lets see, the whistle blower isn't technically a whistle blower and the so called whistle blower isn't even a witness because of concerns relating to their personal well being. Oh, what I've heard about the whistle blower and their connection to those who are in charge of impeaching Trump and connection to other interesting stuff and a partisan coup to remove Trump ain't good in general.

What you numb skulls don't seem to understand is the other half of the country has an interest in outcome of the next election and the bulk of the Republican base cares as much about following or sticking to rules as the blues these days. The table is now set and now we are going find out what the blues are truly made of over the next few years. Like I've said, the blues ain't seen nothing yet.

Dude, criminal conspiracies are themselves crimes, and a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is itself a felony. Deeds done solely to facilitate a crime never done because law enforcement breaks the plot or because a participant or two decides that the deed is too risky or unpromising for personal taste  or because an intended victim does something to make the crime impossible (law enforcement tipped someone off), conspiracy has still happened.So suppose that people conspire to commit a bank robbery. Someone who does it on his own, which is typically an addict seeking money for a fix (that is right -- solo bank robbers are typically addicts who need large, quick money) typically goes in, shows a gun, and gets the cash... but often forgets to have a getaway car.  The rate of arrests and convictions for bank robbers is high; bank robbery is a very stupid crime.The take is small for the time that one gets, and conviction is easy.

I'm not going to give anyone any hints on how to rob a bank... but even scouting a bank to determine the best day for a robbery usually involves a conspiracy. The plot to commit the crime is itself a crime. Arrange for a get-away and you have committed a crime.  

What Lt. Col. Vindman related was an act of extortion. Extortion is a crime even if no material goods or desirable service takes place. The President apparently demanded something that was not for the President of Ukraine to offer as a service to him to do dirty work against a likely opponent in return for denying the Ukrainian government the funds that Congress had appropriated. It is just as evil as if the President had demanded that the Ukrainian government subsidize the building of a Trump property or had sought the 'classic' bribe of cash.

Extortion includes even a failed attempt to get goods or services for which the extortionist has no right to expect. Extortion is itself monstrously corrupt. When done by an elected official or by a government employee or is done to an elected official or government employee it is a crime. It is one of the most common forms of political and economic corruption. 

We have so far had few impeachment trials in our history -- so few that we have no clear definition of what 'high crimes and misdemeanors' are. Extortion is a felony crime, and we reasonably expect that our elected officials not be criminals. 

So what follows? Does the President get the most graceful exit possible? That could be up to Mitch McConnell, as he has his own concerns -- such as remaining the Senate Majority Leader after the 2020 election. Things are complicated, and there are ways in which impeachment and removal never appears as a Senate vote that could embarrass Senate Republicans.

[Eric the Green]

(11-20-2019, 03:22 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 06:51 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

If one observes the textbook definition of a landslide, which is the loser neglecting to reach the halfway mark (135) of the total necessary for election (270), then I would say that the Detroit Tigers, who finished 47-114 in the just-completed baseball season, have a better chance of winning the 2020 World Series than Donald Trump has of winning the 2020 election by a landslide.

I dunno. The Democrats are going crazy, not only about Trump, but also about the question whom to nominate. Bernie? Warren? Biden? Some minor candidate? Yeah, they're passionate about removing him, but that's become a problem for them. Obviously, nominating the wrong candidate would give Trump re-election, which they'd hate like hell, so the wrong candidate has to be prevented. - But who is right and who is wrong?

That's why we have astrology, to answer questions that can't be answered by normal means. It is there for those who want to use it. That lets you out, but in any case....

It says to nominate Biden or Sanders and not Warren or any of the others running.

[pbrower2a]

Remember -- an impeachment of this President is a warning to every President from hereon -- do not be a criminal while President. This will be a warning about corrupt deals... and (I would love to see the president's pointless abandonment of the Kurds in Syria as part of the bill of impeachment) crimes against humanity. If there is some attempted quid pro quo in our involvement in South Korea, then we need to deal with that.

The Presidency is not a means for getting rich. OK, book deals after the fact or being a well-paid official of a foundation -- well, that is collateral benefit. As voters we need to learn an important lesson: we need a good person as President no matter what his political stances are. I thought that we had fair warning when Donald Trump was exposed for saying something abominable on an open microphone. Well, it is up to all of us to assume that everybody is a potential 'open microphone' even if there is no obvious microphone. But from all accounts the Clinton Foundation is a

I have no children, including daughters, but if I had one and one of these circumstances emerged:

(1) her boyfriend (or girlfriend, were such the case) bragged about grabbing females by their "kitty-cats" I would demand that she break off the relationship if she were still dependent, or would give strong advice to break up the relationship.

(2) that if someone grabbed her by her "kitty-cat" without her consent, I would counsel her to discuss the matter with the DA's office. The term for such behavior in Michigan is "criminal sexual conduct", if not rape in the event that there be penetration.

Character is destiny, and Trump exuded bad character. We should have known better than to elect him.

Business? Another President had business failures too, and the first four letters of his surname were T-R-U-M, too. He went into politics and found that he was a better politician than a businessman, and never turned back. But Truman was young, and his business failures did not involve cheating people. Truman related a story of how he could have gotten rich as a county judge (the office had no judicial function): in the 1920's, he insisted upon good roads in Independence. The roads had to be built well enough that they would last a considerable time. In a neighboring county, one contractor built pie-crust roads that crumbled after a few months. That contractor offered Truman an opportunity -- that by building pie-crust roads instead of the better ones in Independence, the contractor could pass along some of the savings to him as a bribe. Truman rejected the offer. I'm not saying that the roads of Jackson County, Missouri are better than those in neighboring counties to this day... but we get the general idea.

...I have no idea why Mitt Romney did not run for the Presidency in 2016. He did about as well as one could challenging an above-average President, so he should have had a good chance in an open-seat election. Maybe it was for reasons of health -- his wife has MS. Consider how different things would be if Mitt Romney were President. There would be no culture of corruption in and around the Presidency. If there had been a nasty little scrape, then Barack Obama might be useful under the circumstances instead of being a political pariah at the decision of the President. There would be no capricious foreign policy. Romney would have told Erdogan to deal with the Kurds in Syria as a non-threat, and he would never have found any attraction in dealing with Emperor Kim Jong-Un.

The political debate going into 2020 would be very different, but there would be no fear of a despotic President.

[David Horn]

(11-20-2019, 03:33 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 03:09 PM)David Horn Wrote: There's also the minor matter of overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses.  Trump's clearly guilty of bribery and extortion, and he's also guilty of accepting (even soliciting) emoluments.  Both are defined offenses in the US Constitution.  If there has ever been a POTUS who deserves to be impeached and convicted, it's Trump.  If Trump gets a pass on this, the flood gates are fully open for misbehavior on a colossal scale, and the next offender may not be a GOPper..

Dude, a crime must occur before one can be formally impeached or legally convicted of a committing a crime in America. Lets see, the whistle blower isn't technically a whistle blower and the so called whistle blower isn't even a witness because of concerns relating to their personal well being. Oh, what I've heard about the whistle blower and their connection to those who are in charge of impeaching Trump and connection to other interesting stuff and a partisan coup to remove Trump ain't good in general.

Just so you know: impeachment does not have to be for criminal activity. I think that bar has been fully met, but it's not mandatory. Bribery and extortion are both Federal crimes. The violation of the emoluments clause is also criminal, though punishment is undefined. And what is it about the whistleblower anyway? Republicans loved them when they reported Fast and Furious and Bengasi.

C-Xer Wrote:What you numb skulls don't seem to understand is the other half of the country has an interest in outcome of the next election and the bulk of the Republican base cares as much about following or sticking to rules as the blues these days. The table is now set and now we are going find out what the blues are truly made of over the next few years. Like I've said, the blues ain't seen nothing yet.

OK, but don't mortgage the house placing bets.

[pbrower2a]

(11-20-2019, 01:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 07:38 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 07:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

I think the house Democrats have to impeach him at this point. I'd do it if I were them. I mean, is there a chance that any of the prominent players would lose their Congressional seats over impeaching Trump for whatever reason that suits them at this point? Personally, I think they've done pretty good for themselves with the portion of the Democratic party that seems to matter to them the most these days. If there is little to no concern of losing control over their portion of the Democratic party and their portion of the country then why not go through with it and continue functioning as they've been doing and have been allowed to be able to do and  get away with for years.

I see that you have concluded that the House likely has enough material for a bill of impeachment. Trump was getting little legislation done even when he had two Houses that would have done anything for him. The Democratic majority in the House and the Republican majority in the Senate are not likely to agree on anything more substantive than renaming federal buildings or commemorating "National Hula-Hoop Week". 

Trump's behavior is so egregious that it must be impeached. It was only a matter of time, and the President trying to blackmail a foreign leader made impeachment mandatory even if futile. After a series of affronts to sensibilities of liberals, we now have something that offends the military.

The composition of the Senate will matter in 2021, too, and Republicans might like to hold that Democrats are using impeachment as a political tool. The fault with such a sentiment is that President Trump gave the Democrats no alternative to impeachment -- and through his own callow incompetence, President Trump has put Senate Republicans in a bind for at least 2020 and perhaps 2022. Does one excuse the President and show oneself as an unprincipled toady, or does one take the risk of the anger that the President can dish out like despots of the past?

Welcome to the winter of our discontent. Such is a 4T.

I've concluded that the Democratic majority in the House will vote to impeach Trump themselves regardless of the outcome at this point. I don't think Trump could offend the military any more than the liberals have already offended them over the years. The way I see it, any Democrat who served in the military is just there propping up a party that has little to no credibility with most veterans these days. I'm sorry dude, the party that you are working to sustain is a crappy party that isn't worth the amount of debt owed.

I saw much of the hearing in the Intelligence Committee (thank you, PBS!). The case against Donald Trump has solid documentation on issues of diplomacy and foreign intelligence alone. Usually Republicans have a cozy relationship with the intelligence services -- but not this time!

If I had a drink every time that I heard a Republican say "witch hunt" I would now be in either the emergency room or the morgue for alcohol poisoning. I'm 63, so I can't hold my liquor as well as I used to. That is the least of my problems with aging.

If I were military or ex-military I would be thoroughly disgusted with a President who abandoned the Kurds in Syria. I would prefer to have a steady hand as President. Trump may be the chest-beating super-patriot, and Obama may be a chilly rationalist, but who would you rather have in charge? Trump has done much to degrade the credibility of the United States as a military power. 

The Trump administration, which has deconstructed truth at every opportunity, now finds the truth deconstructing Donald Trump.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-21-2019, 02:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-20-2019, 01:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 07:38 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 07:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 06:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  Impeachment, if it fails, and it will fail, disgraces the Democrats not the President.  Or did you learn nothing from the Clintons at all?  If anything as the Impeachment drags out and more and more of it is feels and hearsay the more and more it looks like the President will win by a landslide this time round.

But feel free to continue with your delusions.

I think the house Democrats have to impeach him at this point. I'd do it if I were them. I mean, is there a chance that any of the prominent players would lose their Congressional seats over impeaching Trump for whatever reason that suits them at this point? Personally, I think they've done pretty good for themselves with the portion of the Democratic party that seems to matter to them the most these days. If there is little to no concern of losing control over their portion of the Democratic party and their portion of the country then why not go through with it and continue functioning as they've been doing and have been allowed to be able to do and  get away with for years.

I see that you have concluded that the House likely has enough material for a bill of impeachment. Trump was getting little legislation done even when he had two Houses that would have done anything for him. The Democratic majority in the House and the Republican majority in the Senate are not likely to agree on anything more substantive than renaming federal buildings or commemorating "National Hula-Hoop Week". 

Trump's behavior is so egregious that it must be impeached. It was only a matter of time, and the President trying to blackmail a foreign leader made impeachment mandatory even if futile. After a series of affronts to sensibilities of liberals, we now have something that offends the military.

The composition of the Senate will matter in 2021, too, and Republicans might like to hold that Democrats are using impeachment as a political tool. The fault with such a sentiment is that President Trump gave the Democrats no alternative to impeachment -- and through his own callow incompetence, President Trump has put Senate Republicans in a bind for at least 2020 and perhaps 2022. Does one excuse the President and show oneself as an unprincipled toady, or does one take the risk of the anger that the President can dish out like despots of the past?

Welcome to the winter of our discontent. Such is a 4T.

I've concluded that the Democratic majority in the House will vote to impeach Trump themselves regardless of the outcome at this point. I don't think Trump could offend the military any more than the liberals have already offended them over the years. The way I see it, any Democrat who served in the military is just there propping up a party that has little to no credibility with most veterans these days. I'm sorry dude, the party that you are working to sustain is a crappy party that isn't worth the amount of debt owed.

I saw much of the hearing in the Intelligence Committee (thank you, PBS!). The case against Donald Trump has solid documentation on issues of diplomacy and foreign intelligence alone. Usually Republicans have a cozy relationship with the intelligence services -- but not this time!

If I had a drink every time that I heard a Republican say "witch hunt" I would now be in either the emergency room or the morgue for alcohol poisoning. I'm 63, so I can't hold my liquor as well as I used to. That is the least of my problems with aging.

If I were military or ex-military I would be thoroughly disgusted with a President who abandoned the Kurds in Syria. I would prefer to have a steady hand as President. Trump may be the chest-beating super-patriot, and Obama may be a chilly rationalist, but who would you rather have in charge? Trump has done much to degrade the credibility of the United States as a military power. 

The Trump administration, which has deconstructed truth at every opportunity, now finds the truth deconstructing Donald Trump.

You may not be aware that there is credible evidence that our intelligence services were used against Trump. Why didn't Mitt run again, that's an easy to answer. In our eyes, Mitt Romney already lost to what we viewed as an inferior opponent that he should have been able to walk all over/defeat so to speak.

[David Horn]

(11-21-2019, 10:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-21-2019, 02:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: … The Trump administration, which has deconstructed truth at every opportunity, now finds the truth deconstructing Donald Trump.

You may not be aware that there is credible evidence that our intelligence services were   used against Trump. Why didn't Mitt run again, that's an easy to answer. In our eyes, Mitt Romney already  lost to what we viewed as an inferior opponent that he should have been able to walk all over/defeat so to speak.

There is no evidence, credible or other wise, that the IC has been a deep state power actor outside it's official duties as defined by the law of the land. You assume that the majority see things as you see them. Sorry, but that's simply not true. There is no evidence that the intelligence community conspired against Trump, justified as that may have been. To be honest about it, it's more of the reverse. Yes, real experts get a bit miffed when no-knowledge laymen decide that 2+2=5, because they like it that way. Spending decades honing your knowledge and your craft should stand for something, but not to DJT. For him, it's all gut. That doesn't mean they've conspired behind his back.

And Mitt? He's a typical out-of-touch rich guy who punked himself. I actually think Mitt's basically a good guy, but oblivious in the extreme.

[pbrower2a]

(11-21-2019, 10:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You may not be aware that there is credible evidence that our intelligence services were   used against Trump. Why didn't Mitt run again, that's an easy to answer. In our eyes, Mitt Romney already  lost to what we viewed as an inferior opponent that he should have been able to walk all over/defeat so to speak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...ted_States

Historians disagree with you, so far, in rating Barack Obama as a President. Incumbent Presidents can usually get re-elected by promising more of the same unless such is failure (Hoover, Carter), or the President shows himself an inept campaigner (Ford, the elder Bush). The historical ratings have the 44th President in the first or second quartile among Presidents. That is difficult to beat. 

Mitt Romney's wife has MS -- multiple sclerosis. That is a huge complication to being a First Lady, and it might be too much for her.Were it not for his wife's malady, Romney might instead be President. If Trump could win, Romney could also win. He would have won bigger than Trump.

The most recent rating by historians of the Presidents of the last century (this goes back to Woodrow Wilson) gives the following ratings:

Wilson 11
Harding 41
Coolidge 31
Hoover 36
FDR 2
Truman 9
Eisenhower 6
Kennedy 10
LBJ 16
Nixon 29
Ford 27
Carter 26
Reagan 13
GHWB 21
Clinton 15
Dubya 33
Obama 17
Trump 42

Cleveland is not counted twice. The top five are  Washington 1, Jefferson 5, Lincoln 3, TR 4, and  FDR 2. Placement of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are matters of taste. Washington established what the Presidency is; Lincoln saved the Union; FDR (with his good buddy Churchill) saved Western Christian Civilization from demonic leaders of consummate resources and ruthlessness. Jefferson and TR are usually 4 and 5 in some order. 

The bottom? 

A. Johnson 44
Buchanan 43
Trump 42 
Harding 41
Pierce 40
W. H. Harrison 39
Fillmore 38

To be sure, academics are having a difficult time adjusting to Donald Trump, who breaks many of the rules that other Presidents have followed. He is as much a break with the past as was Andrew Jackson, who rates 19. The Trail of Tears and the expansion of slavery weren't big problems in Jackson's day, but they are now.  I would be more charitable with William Henry Harrison, who made the catastrophic mistake of delivering a long speech outside in a cold rain while an old man... resulting in the shortest Presidency ever.  His blunder hurt only himself. 

To be sure, the Presidency has changed greatly over the last century... and the United States is not the 'suburb of Europe' that it was in the early nineteenth century. America is a great power, and the federal government has far greater power and responsibility. 

It is possible to be overall a below-average President (Coolidge, Dubya) to get re-elected. Both of those two bad Presidents did their big damage in their second terms. Coolidge sponsored a speculative boom that could only go bust, and he enforced reparations against a shaky Weimar Republic that ensured that in the event of a worldwide economic meltdown that the Antichrist had a chance to take over Germany. Trump's first term the second term of the second Bush look good by contrast. 

I rate Trump 43rd or 44th of 44 different Presidents (not counting Cleveland twice). Buchanan blundered badly, trying to save the Union by appeasing the slave-masters. I doubt that someone else could have gotten different results.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-21-2019, 12:45 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is no evidence, credible or other wise, that the IC has been a deep state power actor outside it's official duties as defined by the law of the land.  You assume that the majority see things as you see them.  Sorry, but that's simply not true.  There is no evidence that the intelligence community conspired against Trump, justified as that may have been.  To be honest about it, it's more of the reverse.  Yes, real experts get a bit miffed when no-knowledge laymen decide that 2+2=5, because they like it that way.  Spending decades honing your knowledge and your craft should stand for something, but not to DJT.  For him, it's all gut.  That doesn't mean they've conspired behind his back.

And Mitt?  He's a typical out-of-touch rich guy who punked himself.  I actually think Mitt's basically a good guy, but oblivious in the extreme.

How do you know that it isn't true? Are willing back up it up with your home? I hope you remember your own advice. Actually, there is pretty strong evidence which is why there is a REAL criminal investigation going on that involves high ranking officials affiliated with our intelligence agencies and legal justice system right now. You don't have to believe it, you can choose to ignore it or even pretend that there isn't one. I don't really care, it's a free country and all. I figure the majority will eventually see things my way. I still believe that the majority aren't liberals who see things the way the liberals do these days. 

Have you ever questioned a liberal who believes they're an expert? What I learned today is that one can't/shouldn't ever question a liberal expert or a liberal Democrat these days. Yes, I could see that the liberal expert got a bit miffed when questioned by someone that they view as being below them.

[pbrower2a]

(11-22-2019, 06:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-21-2019, 12:45 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is no evidence, credible or other wise, that the IC has been a deep state power actor outside it's official duties as defined by the law of the land.  You assume that the majority see things as you see them.  Sorry, but that's simply not true.  There is no evidence that the intelligence community conspired against Trump, justified as that may have been.  To be honest about it, it's more of the reverse.  Yes, real experts get a bit miffed when no-knowledge laymen decide that 2+2=5, because they like it that way.  Spending decades honing your knowledge and your craft should stand for something, but not to DJT.  For him, it's all gut.  That doesn't mean they've conspired behind his back.

And Mitt?  He's a typical out-of-touch rich guy who punked himself.  I actually think Mitt's basically a good guy, but oblivious in the extreme.

How do you know that it isn't true? Are willing back up it up with your home? I hope you remember your own advice. Actually, there is pretty strong evidence which is why there is a REAL criminal investigation going on that involves high ranking officials affiliated with our intelligence agencies and legal justice system right now. You don't have to believe it, you can choose to ignore it or even pretend that there isn't one. I don't really care, it's a free country and all. I figure the majority will eventually see things my way. I still believe that the majority aren't liberals who see things the way the liberals do these days. 

Have you ever questioned a liberal who believes they're an expert? What I learned today is that one can't/shouldn't ever question a liberal expert or a liberal Democrat these days. Yes, I could see that the liberal expert got a bit miffed when questioned by someone that they view as being below them.

Only fools put their home at hock. Good reason exists for not allowing second mortgages except for household repairs and remodeling. Bankers rightly tell people who want to borrow against household equity for a car or an expensive vacation to sell the house, take the equity, downsize or become a renter, pay the taxes, and buy the car or go on the second honeymoon.

We liberals question the authority of people whose qualifications are suspect.

[David Horn]

(11-22-2019, 06:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-21-2019, 12:45 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is no evidence, credible or other wise, that the IC has been a deep state power actor outside it's official duties as defined by the law of the land.  You assume that the majority see things as you see them.  Sorry, but that's simply not true.  There is no evidence that the intelligence community conspired against Trump, justified as that may have been.  To be honest about it, it's more of the reverse.  Yes, real experts get a bit miffed when no-knowledge laymen decide that 2+2=5, because they like it that way.  Spending decades honing your knowledge and your craft should stand for something, but not to DJT.  For him, it's all gut.  That doesn't mean they've conspired behind his back.

And Mitt?  He's a typical out-of-touch rich guy who punked himself.  I actually think Mitt's basically a good guy, but oblivious in the extreme.

How do you know that it isn't true? Are willing back up it up with your home? I hope you remember your own advice. Actually, there is pretty strong evidence which is why there is a REAL criminal investigation going on that involves high ranking officials affiliated with our intelligence agencies and legal justice system right now. You don't have to believe it, you can choose to ignore it or even pretend that there isn't one. I don't really care, it's a free country and all. I figure the majority will eventually see things my way. I still believe that the majority aren't liberals who see things the way the liberals do these days. 

Have you ever questioned a liberal who believes they're an expert? What I learned today is that one can't/shouldn't ever question a liberal expert or a liberal Democrat these days. Yes, I could see that the liberal expert got a bit miffed when questioned by someone that they view as being below them.

Whoa!  Ease up on the Kool-Aid, please!  Stop for just one second and ask yourself: why is it that all 17 IC agencies and even members of Trump's own White House staff see this as Russian meddling, Trump enabling and extorting a small country for his benefit, while you, and a few diehards in the Forever Trump phalange, see it differently?  Who's investigating if all the career professionals are on the "other side"?  Why is it that you can ignore the obvious: Trump and his Chief of Staff both admitted this on television!  Are you  being played?  I think so.

And on the topic of experts, here's the score.  On the Trumpist side is the dairy farmer Devin Nunes, opposed by, among others, Fiona Hill who has made a career of studying the Russians since 1987.  Also note, she is anything but an elite.  And fwiw, you wouldn't tolerate a no-nothing telling you how HVAC is supposed to work and mandating that you have it installed wrong -- as you shouldn't.  Everyone has an area of expertise.  That should be respected.

[pbrower2a]

It is extortion. Congress appropriated, and the President held up those funds so that he could get a corrupt benefit for his campaign.  

Extortion (also called shakedown, and, in a legal sense incorrectly, exaction) is obtaining benefit through coercion. In most jurisdictions it is likely to constitute a criminal offense, the bulk of this article deals with such cases.


Extortion is sometimes called the "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties; though often, and almost always, such "protection" is simply abstinence of harm from the same party, and such is implied in the "protection" offer. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime. In some jurisdictions, actually obtaining the benefit is not required to commit the offense, and making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense.[1] Exaction refers not only to extortion or the demanding and obtaining of something through force,[2] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.[3]

The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. Neither extortion nor blackmail requires a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc.[1]

In law extortion can refer to political corruption, such as selling one's office or influence peddling,[citation needed] but in general vocabulary the word usually first brings to mind blackmail or protection rackets. The logical connection between the corruption sense of the word and the other senses is that to demand bribes in one's official capacity is blackmail or racketeering in essence (that is, "you need access to this resource, the government restricts access to it through my office, and I will charge you unfairly and unlawfully for such access").[citation needed]

Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In robbery, whether armed or not, the offender takes property from the victim by the immediate use of force or fear that force will be immediately used. Extortion, which is not limited to the taking of property, involves the verbal or written instillation of fear that something will happen to the victim if they do not comply with the extortionist's will. Another key distinction is that extortion always involves a verbal or written threat,[1] whereas robbery may not. In United States federal law, extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon.


In blackmail, which always involves extortion, the extortionist threatens to reveal information about a victim or their family members that is potentially embarrassing, socially damaging, or incriminating unless a demand for money, property, or services is met.[4]
In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a computer system, phone, by mail, or in using any instrument of interstate commerce. Extortion requires that the individual sent the message willingly and knowingly as elements of the crime. The message only has to be sent (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

More detail:

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 24(b), 65 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), (K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)