Gingrich had actually left the Speakership and the House when the vote was taken, and did not participate in the lame-duck session where it passed (including with votes from members who had already been voted out of office for saying they’d do it). Better to have mentioned Dennis Hastert, his successor, who got caught diddling his male wrestlers when a high school coach. Hyde, who claimed his own affair, in his forties, was a “youthful indiscretion” certainly counts, though.
ElvisL1ves:
Well, according to Wikipedia, “As lieutenant governor, [Sue] Ellspermann headed the Indiana State Department of Agriculture, the Office of Energy Development, the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority, the Office of Community and Rural Affairs and the Office of Tourism Development.”
I have no idea how that compares to the usual workload/day-to-day interaction of lieutenant governors (whether specifically Hoosier or of states in general), nor to how it compares to what a Federal Vice President is expected to handle. But she clearly wasn’t doing nothing but sitting home waiting for the coroner to call and ask her to identify Mike Pence’s body.
Gee, I didn’t know the Kennedys and LBJ were involved in the Clinton impeachment. :rolleyes:
I don’t know why you want to re-hash the prime example of the GOP locking, loading, and shooting themselves in the ass.
Nope. The Senate takes their role as jury very seriously and historically have based decisions for non-political reasons such as issues of their right to hold a trial if the person resigns. With Andrew Johnson the question of violating the Tenure of Office Act came down to an interpretation of the word “term” and with Bill Clinton there was great significance in his usage of “is”.
Well played. 
Impeachment and then…the comfy chair!
Seriously though, I agree with this:
A Senate trial may not be feasible but a thorough Congressional investigation certainly is, and once the Mueller investigation is concluded it can provide an appropriate basis for avenues to explore.
Why not? Republicans seems fine with this approach (see: Benghazi and indeed anything involving Hillary).
Voting for someone purely on the basis of their race and gender despite their qualifications or policy positions is silly at best and racist and sexist at worst. It’s important that people of different races, genders, etc are free (and even encouraged) to run for public office and it’s good to have a representative [sic] population in government, but they’ve also got to be able to do the job competently and in a way that represents the will of the voting populace.
From what I know of Haley she’s generally competent but her policy positions are likely to be a sticking point with Democrats.
I’m aware of that, Quartz. But it doesn’t change the issue.
You can look at somebody like Nikki Haley and declare that she’s not white. But then you go on to say that she’s still okay with you. And you think that’s a sign that you’re open-minded on race and everyone will applaud you.
But here’s the reality. Most people never judged Nikki Haley on her race in the first place. And if they did, they thought of her as being white. So they see you calling her non-white as a sign of how narrow-minded you are on race. And your attitude that she’s acceptable despite this as condescending.
And your attitude isn’t uncommon among conservatives. You collectively pat yourselves on the back for saying that you think some non-white people are okay - as good as white people even. And then you get confused why non-white people don’t flock to your banner.
RTFirefly: According to Senate Rules (cite: posted to a thread about mandatory Senate trials), the Senate is required to hold a trial.
Was it somehow not an ad hominem when you said it first?
You brought the subject up. I just pointed out that the accusation you were making against Democrats actually applied to Republicans. And then, unlike you, I provided some evidence to support for what I was saying.
So it’s not that the Republican party is racist. It’s just that people from other races don’t feel comfortable in the party.
The Senate has the power to change its own rules.
And if the majority party in the Senate chooses to simply ignore a Senate rule (rather than bother to change it), who can force that party to follow it?
I’m serious. I can totally see Mitch McConnell simply not holding a trial, and shrugging off anyone who points out the Senate rule to him.
It’s also that people who *are *racist *do *feel comfortable in it.
Totally coincidental, I’m sure, and nobody should construe that as evidence that the party might be racially biased.
In case anyone doesn’t recognize it, I was applying an old defense of segregation. People would say things like “We don’t practice segregation because we’re racist. It’s just that people from other races wouldn’t feel comfortable here.”
If the Republican Party keeps going in its current direction, they’re going to need to pull these old lines out of retirement.
Representative Steve King (R):
I wonder where we get this crazy idea that Republicans are racists?
And the GOP has had plenty of time and opportunity to say, “this guy isn’t really one of us,” kick him out of their caucus, and strip him of his committee assignments.
Instead, they had him chairing a committee up until they lost control of the House, and he’s still the ranking member.
So it isn’t just what King himself says, it’s that the rest of the Republicans in Congress still embrace him as one of their own, and rarely if ever condemn him for making racist statements, or for hanging out with white supremacists and the occasional neo-Nazi.
Nobody’s making the rest of the GOP accept King and condone his words and actions. They choose to do this.
I didn’t bother to read all the replies. I hope I am repeating what many already said.
Trump Inc. and their business partners have crossed so many lines that impeachment is no longer optional. This is the man who makes Nixon look like a saint.
By not impeaching the man we are essentially condoning his behavior (including crimes, corruption and obstruction of justice) and creating a precedent for future administrations.
Even if it’s on the last day of his term, this …(maybe Tlaib had a point after all)… sad excuse for a president needs to face the disgrace and humiliation of being removed from office and then be brought to trial for the crimes he committed.
That we will have to put up with Pence and his army of hypocrites in the mean time is the result of poor electoral choices and should serve as purgatory for a nation that has lost all common sense.
The only trouble with this is that it isn’t true. The only ones who think there is enough/any evidence to impeach Trump are nuts like Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib. Nuts like Pelosi and Schumer recognize that there isn’t any there there.
At least with Clinton it could be proven that he lied under oath and obstructed justice. You don’t have anything like that level of proof with Trump, and if the nuts in the House try impeachment it will fail badly.
Democrats control the House. It remains to be seen if nutcases control the Democrats.
Regards,
Shodan
:citation needed:
All well said. If we then have to deal with Pence, well ya gotta start somewhere. Trumps removal is a step, albeit a small one to show his supporters that we will not tolerate criminal morons running our country. Wrote my congressmen again yesterday.
Please. Trump admitted on national TV to obstruction of justice. That’s just the start.