I don’t understand this line of reasoning. Even if the actual working with Russia to influence the election wasn’t “while president”, the coverup of it WAS. The coverup is what the whole obstruction of justice thing is about. This is the right grasping at straws to save their tangerine tyrant.
Besides which, IIRC, the “scandal” that started out the investigation against the Clintons was something that happened before Bill was president (Whitewater). Can you really tell me that if it had panned out that there was actual illegality on the part of either Clinton in Whitewater that the House and Senate would not have impeached and convicted him on it?
Trump seems to think that being president has put him above the law. His supporters also seem to believe that. When he is out either by votes, resignation, or impeachment, he is going to be facing serious state crimes that cannot be pardoned by the incoming president. At that point, a Governor(s) has to do it.
I think that the one thing that Trump may understand is that the only way to stay out of courtrooms, is to remain President.
Yes. That does not give Newt “Divorce Wife Dying of Cancer So He Can Marry Next Wife” Gingrich and Henry “Handwave Illegitimate Daughter as A Youthful Indiscretion” Hyde coverage to waste their time and the taxpayers money for a political shitshow to appease their knuckle-dragging base.
No, that kind of identity politics is a Republican thing. That’s why you’re always accusing the Democrats of it.
I’m a white man. If the Democratic Party was discriminating against me, I’d notice it.
The conservative problem is that they feel it’s not enough for white men to be treated equally. They feel white men deserve special treatment. They feel that any system that’s not being biased in favor of white men is biased against white men.
Evidence? Here are the new Democrats elected to the House of Representatives. Here are the new Republicans. Look at those photos and tell me which party is practicing identity politics.
The Senate can choose any standard they wish. They can declare that impeachable offenses don’t count if they were committed on a weekend.
But there’s no such legal standard. The Constitution doesn’t specify that the offense had to occur while somebody was in office. They can be impeached for an offense they committed while running for office. Or even an offense which occurred years before.
You forgot to mention the Kennedys. And Johnson. And everyone connected to Tammany Hall, or Chicago’s city hall and da Mayor’s office. Maybe you want to start another thread?
Not that Quartz isn’t largely wrong-minded on his best days, but this is likely a difference of national perception. To people who grew up in the US, with our peculiar racial history, she looks white. To British people, who grew up with India as a former colony, she doesn’t.
If the answers to those questions are “near zero,” doesn’t that reinforce rather than refute the idea that the GOP is the party for whites? True, you can’t vote for people of color who aren’t on the ballot – but why aren’t they on the ballot?
Seriously? We’re talking about the people involved in the Clinton impeachment, and you go back 50-100 years for completely unrelated scumbags who happen to be Democrats? Why not just dredge up the Civil War-era opposition to Lincoln while you’re at it?
Hahahaha. Apparently you couldn’t read the quoted post which I had included in my post for your reading pleasure. You know, the post I was responding to, but you chose to give a pass to. Better luck next time.
Are we in agreement that the “Impeach the Motherfucker” Caucus will simply hush up and go along with the Speaker’s decision (if so) to not seek impeachment?
I’d think they would be far rowdier than the “Freedom” Caucus, if only because they are generally younger in age and, clearly, have a much fiercer name.
If this animates the progressive wing, how can Pelosi pacify them if she doesn’t push for impeachment. Or, at this point, the Green New Deal?
I’d say no, they aren’t going to hush up and go along. Not ever really sure they should. Formally, the Dems aren’t going to push, as a group, for impeachment until and unless something solid comes up. But individual Dems? Why wouldn’t they speak out?
All Pelosi has to do is keep them, as a group, on point, not pacify them individually. JMHO and all.
It just doesn’t matter. The fact that she’s of Indian extraction is neither here nor there with Americans. They’re not a minority that’s historically been discriminated against, or that anyone really cares about, one way or the other.
Between that and the reality that, to Americans, she’s perceived as white, any attempts to claim that Dems are voting against her nomination, should that happen, out of prejudice are going to go nowhere.
Yes, given that the historical meaning of “white” in the US is “Not black, like the slaves and their descendants”. That elides all distinctions in European origins, and lets Asians and others be honorarily white if they act white enough. So yes, in the US Haley is white.
And Starr and the Republicans had the option of not getting into an area that was none of their damn business. But that would have required admitting that they couldn’t find anything else to get him for.
How much of a role did he let her play in actual governance, or any other day-to-day stuff?
The one slamming Gingrich and Hyde? Yeah, I read it. Did you miss the connection that Gingrich and Hyde were involved in the Clinton impeachment, whereas Kennedy, Daley, et. al. had nothing whatsoever to do with it?
Speaking of non-sequitors, your hovercraft is full of eels.
