No, that’s something your kind made up so you can pretend criticism of Trump isn’t valid. You don’t have to defend Trump’s use of concentration camps if you just declare the person criticizing Trump’s camps to be deranged.
Is *that *really the hill you’re determined to hold?
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. There was nothing immediately damning, but the report did NOT exonerate him despite his claims to the contrary. There is a lack of evidence of guilt, not proof of innocence. Those two things are not the same thing.
Yes. And obstructing justice is, in my opinion, a perfectly valid reason to remove a person from public office. Justice should not be obstructed.
Having lived four years with Pence as governor I can’t declare he’s worse than Trump, but he’s certainly no better. It will be a slightly different flavor of shit-storm, but still a shit-storm that’s all.
As someone in one of the groups Pence has and would target were he in a position of power and influence I don’t want him in charge any more than Trump, I want them both gone. But removing Trump might be sufficiently disruptive and enough of a warning to keep Pence under control. We managed to get some of Pence’s bullshit (like legalized discrimination based on religion) rolled back in Indiana, so there’s some hope of reigning in his worst behavior.
It’s not normal that Pence feels a need to be chaperoned around women. WTF? He needs a babysitter? He has no self-control? How ridiculous.
Yes, it does. Some of us here in fly-over country feel that stripping children of their parents and keeping them unwashed and underfed in cages is unfair. As just one example.
This may shock you but “fly-over country” is not a monolithic block of mindless drones all thinking the same thoughts.
So… you’re saying we shouldn’t talk about anything bad the Trump administration does? WTF?
^ This.
If the report is such a “dud”, why are the President, the AG, FoxNews, and supporters such as yourself putting so much effort into misrepresenting what it says?
The shortage of evidence of conspiracy was directly the result of Individual-1’s obstruction of justice, which is itself a crime.
Really, Mueller did lay all that out. Horse, water.
Philosophical question for you: in order to deter crime, do you think it is sometimes wise to take official action to react to a violation of the law, even thought the ultimate appropriate punishment may not be handed down?
For example, cop sees someone speeding. They pull them over, but let them off with a warning as opposed to a ticket. Or, teenagers are making a nuisance in a quiet neighborhood. Cop puts them in the back seat of the cruiser but doesn’t really intend to arrest and prosecute them. These are the sort of things where police can put the perpetrator on notice, so that both the criminal and others who may follow in their footsteps know that they are being watched.
Are you against giving warnings for speeding, or letting teenagers go free after hopefully scaring them straight a bit? If you aren’t, you should explain why the House shouldn’t put this President on the same type of notice for his corrupt actions.
…with his hair sent to some petting zoo…
^This.
I expect that impeachment proceedings will happen during next summer. This is part of the political strategy.
We may not know how to fix the country, but we’re better than this guy!
Actually, no.
The highlighted is the major factor: The US has gotten to the point where support for carrying out the normal, Constitutionally-defined practices of Congress is now somehow considered to be a “fringe” position deserving of scorn and ridicule.
It’s beyond obvious that any previous President would have been impeached under these circumstances. And there’s a good chance that the Senate would actually have convicted them following impeachment. But the GOP has gone so far overboard on supporting Trump in spite of all his blatantly obvious flaws that they’ll never convict him, and likely would never even vote to impeach.
And that complete abdication of their responsibilities as members of Congress needs to be highlighted in the most unambiguous fashion possible: put them on record as having publicly voted for Trump rather than against him. Let none of them try to slink out from under the judgment of the voters, or history, by trying to weasel out of having supported him in his worst behaviours.
Impeachment without conviction-and the Senate will not convict-will be viewed by Trump and his voters as victory, and strengthen the beliefs of those voters.
Why did Republicans challenge Obama so often about his birth and all? You always want to see the other Party’s candidate driven out of the highest office in the land.
That and he deserves it.
Because the constitution says that that is what we are supposed to do in situations like this.
You are mistaking who held the hearings to try to get Mueller to say something the report didn’t.
I posted the link to the exchange between Chris Wallace and Stephen Colbert in another thread. It is, I think, an accurate assessment of what the somewhat more sensible Democrats recognize - there is no “there” there. The report doesn’t give any more reason to impeach than the Dems had two years ago. All the lipstick in the world ain’t gonna make that pig into Miss America.
Not that they won’t try. We are going to have hearings for the next two years. Or, possibly, six.
Regards,
Shodan
Moderator Note
We have had some post reports about this, so let me clarify a couple of things.
First of all, if an accusation is made that someone is a criminal, D’Anconia is free to ask what the basis of that is, so there’s no problem with this post.
Second, this is IMHO. While other forums (like GQ) might require a cite and an actual criminal conviction, just the opinion that the individual has criminal-like characteristics is more than enough for this forum. It’s just a poster’s opinion, and this is the forum for opinions, so “the court of The Hall of Gatopescado’s Bar, Grill, Micro-brew and Foreign Car service” is a perfectly acceptable cite for this forum, as is someone just calling someone a criminal just because they think they act like one.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your “Look it up, Bitch!” wasn’t meant as an insult, but since it could be taken that way, please refrain from comments like that in this forum.
Nobody did that. The hearings were to break through the wall of denial about what it *did *say by creating the necessary soundbites for those who obtain their only information that way.
And there was plenty of reason two years ago.
Some of us do still believe in democracy and the principles of the Constitution. For others, those are inconvenient.
?
So?
Bill Clinton, under hyper-partisan investigation, lied under oath about cheating on his wife. Republicans began impeachment hearings as a result. He shouldn’t have cheated on his wife. He shouldn’t have lied under oath.
Trump refused to appear and be placed under oath. Had he done so, and had he lied, Republicans would be covering for him and claiming that he should not be impeached.
(He did supply some written responses to questions that Mueller said were untruthful.)
Republicans don’t give a shit about that. They are, as can be observed, covering for him.
They’ll vote for him, as they would anyway, but use extra force on the pen when they fill in the circle?
That’s one way to see it.
Another way to see it is that folks in Trump country are disconnected from the rest of America.
Still another way to see it is that stupid, racist and scared is no way to live.