This perfectly-describes a common view of what the dems have been doing to President Trump ever since he won the election.
No, I mean the majority of the country that didn’t vote for him and hate his orange guts.
No he can’t. This canard has been repeatedly disproven in another impeachment thread.
Just to put it in a historical context, many of the Senators that voted to acquit Clinton also voted to convict Judge Walter Nixon on pretty much the same thing less than a decade earlier (perjury to a grand jury). And just before THAT Judge Harry Claiborne was convicted of perjury although his was more about filing false tax returns than the actual lying - but as pointed out in the Articles of Impeachment the tax returns were filed under penalty of perjury. So impeachment & conviction for perjury was very much a thing at the time. It wasn’t until Clinton’s impeachment that all of the sudden perjury was not an impeachable offense.
You’re correct that common views are often dumb as shit and manufactured by those with vested interests, and I appreciate your pointing that out.
Kudos to Pelosi for holding off those who wanted to start impeachment months ago. It’s a serious undertaking, and she has been properly thoughtful and thorough before announcing this, which suggests to me that there may be another smoking gun or two besides the Ukraine issue that have convinced her to move forward.
But the majority of the country does not want him impeached.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
If America has any chance of regaining its stature and not devolving into a has been banana republic, we need to prosecute this administration for every crime it has committed. Let the republicans explain how they went along with it.
If republican voters want to keep this charade up, let’s get it out in the open and call a racist a racist, a religious zealot a zealot, a criminal a criminal.
Yet.
You’re so absurdly partisan that you’re incapable of having an informed opinion on this issue.
The Republicans were desperate to run powerful investigations into minor stuff, and the democrats are loathe to do anything despite massive scandals on the part of the Trump administration. What you think is exactly the opposite of true.
Your thought goes as deep as “okay, so the Republicans were hostile to thinks that Clinton did, and democrats are hostile to the things Trump does, so it’s all the same” and ignoring the fact that the Republicans launched every extremely partisan investigation into Clinton’s minor corruptions as they could find, whereas the democrats are reluctant to launch any investigations into huge, gaping corruptions. Do you think the Benghazi hearings and the Mueller report were equally partisan?
Trump has committed at least 100 acts that if Obama had done them instead, there would be the loudest screeching you’ve ever heard out of any political party in addition to right wing violence and calls for violent revolution. In comparison, the cowardly democrats are massively under-responding to everything Trump does, pretending that it’s just politics as usual. No one with a shred of objectivity could honestly think that these situations are equivalent - they are, in fact, almost exactly as opposite as you can get in politics.
I think Speaker Pelosi would have preferred to delay for another month or so if possible, in order to get the rulings from the various circuit courts/SCOTUS that are going to compel compliance with Congressional subpoenas and testimony. However, she also knows the value of striking while the iron is hot. The trade-off is worth it to catch both Trump and Barr off guard. They did not get the jump on the narrative this time.
I think we’re a little ahead of her schedule, but not much.
Rulings in the case addressing subpoenas for Trump bank and tax records from Deutsche Bank and his tax advisors, Mazars, are expected in November. Deutsche Bank and Mazars have both indicated they will comply with the subpoenas already issued by the House if ordered by the courts. The documents are expected to reveal a long, extensive history of Trump fraud and money laundering on behalf of both Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Rulings in the case to compel testimony by Don McGahn are also expected before the end of the year. The final ruling on this case will have far reaching implications for all Trump witnesses. McGahn has said he will testify if ordered by the courts.
The defenses mounted by DOJ in these cases are weak, weak sauce. Barr & Co. know it. They’re just playing for time. It’s unlikely even Trump-appointed judges will rule in his favor, any more than the Trump-appointed whistle blower did, or the Trump-appointed inspector general who alerted the House about the whistle blower’s complaint – or even the Trump-appointed SCOTUS justices.
It’s one thing to ignore “Demoncrats” in the House. It’s another to ignore a SCOTUS ruling. Some Trump Republicans may be willing to do it, but not many.
Hope this helps.
And what Chefguy said.
Keep in mind he didn’t say he believed that; he just described it as “a common view.” Which is fortunate for me, because if he actually did hold that view, I’d probably get warned for describing it as dumb as shit.
But if he’s unwilling to take responsibility for the view, I can hardly be blamed for describing it accurately :).
That sort of “some people say” nonsense should be reviled and mocked, and has no place in a reasonable discussion.
My understanding–and I can dig up a cite if necessary–is that congressional oversight in an impeachment proceeding is near-absolute and stems from the heart of a constitutional duty. It’d be extraordinarily unlikely for a court, even one as partisan as the current Supreme Court, to rule against congress’s oversight requests made as part of impeachment proceedings.
I’m just afraid the whistleblower could turn out to be an idiot. Like, what if it’s Kato Kaelin? 
If the WH is now releasing the whistleblower complaint, it means he and the Republicans have agreed to go the “there’s not enough evidence” route. Trump will be up 5pts next month.
The WB is supposed to give a statement to congress this week. I think I’ll take their word over some piece of paper. (Unless it’s actually Kato, like I joked.)
Is there an update that I’m missing? Last I heard, he was just releasing the call transcript, still keeping the complaint secret. WaPo says that’s not enough:
38.5% is over twice the percentage that were in favor of impeaching Nixon a year before he left office.
And what would stop the subjects of court rulings—even Supreme Court rulings—from simply ignoring the provisions of those rulings?
You’re picturing William Barr using the resources of the Justice Department to force reluctant Trumpite witnesses to cooperate with the House impeachment-investigation?
Doesn’t it just mean Trump has decided to go the “there’s not enough evidence” route? I mean, there’s likely multiple taped conversations and “the Republicans” probably haven’t heard them all. All they can be working with is “Trump doesn’t think he did anything wrong and Rudy agrees!”