horncyclist

Those second choice numbers look really good for Warren.

It's just absolutely shocking how clueless these statements are. Sure, in a two party system, it may be natural to have a conservative party and a liberal parties, or two parties split on other policy or ideological grounds. So long as the members of each party have the country and its people's interests at heart, then sure, we need two parties. We do not need the GOP as it exists today, and I think it's beyond repair. We need a candidate that will crush it and the treason it stand for. And I still think Biden, given his history and weaknesses, loses to Trump. God help us.

It'll just give them something to spin and distract from the impeachment. How about the timing of this? And Barr once again intervening to help spin what was supposed to be a non-partisan review. Just remember this shit.

Yes. And the status quo have us President Donald J. Trump. This is why Biden or Buttigieg cannot be the nominee and would be a disaster if elected. You have an opportunity to save our government and society and build a future. There's only two candidates willing to do that.

This is interesting discussion. I'd add on national defense that it's important to distinguish a strong national defense from high defense spending. I'd imagine if you got rid of all the bloat and corruption between the Pentagon and military-industrial complex, you'd have a much stronger national defense. It's yet another example of the hypocrisy of the republican party. They've manipulated all these proclaimed values and principles that are central and dear to our nation and used them to enrich themselves. Look at Fed Soc, privatization policies, regressive tax cuts. The list goes on and on. I don't know how anyone who believes in anything--other than selfish greed--could support the republican party today.

I think the best approach is probably to move forward with articles but continue the lower key investigations in hopes that it keeps him check. The founders never envisioned a Senate majority favoring party over the Constitution.

I think we're generally in agreement. The timing sucks but Trump has left democrats no choice. And, despite the obstruction, I think the evidence is compelling enough to move forward. Only big thing I see missing are the full details behind withholding of the aid but even with that most of the key ones are there. Democrats met their burden and Republicans (so far) have put forward no defense.

Yep, and once the traitors in the Senate clear him, Trump will be emboldened. I fully expect more soliciting of foreign interference in our election. He'll do anything to win and knows there are no consequences. He will be King.

Trump is making baseless arguments. Democrats should not have to go to court to prove that when time is of the essence. It's not that hard. Here's a hypothetical to help. As things stand, Trump got caught and so they stopped what they were doing. What if he hadn't gotten caught? What if the pressure is ongoing and Zelensky is moving towards an announcement. Democrats suspect it but they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because the key witnesses, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry and Pompeo are being blocked from testifying. Should democrats have to wait for the courts, as more damage is done in that case? No. And there's no reason they should have to wait now. It's entirely up to Congress--not the courts-- to decide what is impeachable and they shouldn't have to wait for the courts to say the obstruction is based on baseless claims. That's ridiculous, against the plain language of the Constitution, and impracticable.

As soon as the Senate clear him, why shouldn't he just call up Zelensky and say "oh yeah, you remember that favor...and oh we do a for you...well, we're holding up the aide again, please announce the investigation." Let's all be clear what's at stake here. If the republicans prevail, we're saying that Trump or any president, can do this--and worse--without consequence."

It's a legal question, not a fact question. And scholars disagree. I don't know enough about this area or Turley's views to weigh in, but it strikes me as odd to suggest that the courts must weigh in to determine if Congress can pursue a given basis of impeachment. That is counter to the Consitution giving Congress the sole power of impeachment, and with similar questions, the Courts have typically stayed out it, citing a prudential doctrine of avoiding what they refer to as "political questions." Beyond that, I can't really critique Turley's views, though I'm sure the other scholars disagreed yesterday and explained why. As others have said, the democrats not calling a conserative legal scholar that would have sided with them was a mistake. The media seems to be reporting this as another partisan divide, and it's not that. Turley's views would be a small minority among legal scholars.

Turley's biggest disagreement wasn't about the standard for impeachment. He admitted that it did not have to be a crime and that a quid-pro-quo withholding foreign aid or an official act to compel an investigation of a political opponent would be impeachable. He disagreed that democrats had sufficiently met their burden of proving that, and that they should wait on the courts to compel the witnesses to testify and the Whitehouse hand over documents. He also said that Congress not letting the courts decide it was an abuse of power. The problem with both of those lines of thinking is that it ignores the baselessness of Trump's arguments for withholding EVERYTHING. And that, even though the arguments are baseless, Trump could use the courts to run out the clock. Considering part of the offense is inviting foreign interference in the 2020 election, it seems reasonable that democrats would want to move before that election, even if there is evidence still out there that they could eventually get. Democrats have also put together a really strong case, despite the obstruction.

What a child. Bring on President Warren, please.

Don't care if already posted. Sure there's a lotnof this goes on. Hope Trump gets word of it.

Link?

Pivotal time for Warren. She needs to rebound and take some momentum into Iowa and NH. Just put my yard sign back out (had moved it to let contractor back his truck up) and will be donating again.

I am 100% certain that our current president disagrees with that second paragraph. And that says everything you need to know about him and the direction of America.

Here's an explanation on the SCOTUS taxes case. TL;dr: (1) they still may not hear it letting the D.C. Circuit decision stand (and would decide whether to by early January) and (2) if they do hear it, would be decided by the end of this Term, so looking at summer 2020.

To be fair to democrats, when you're as corrupt as the fucking GOP and most of your members lack critical thinking skills, it's a lot easier to keep people in line.

You're referring to republicans right? Or the media? I'm shocked democrats don't have $100 million in dark money ads putting Trump's corruption on blast. Wtf?

Also, I'd have to think well drawn up articles of impeachment paired with a ton of attack ads would cause permanent political damage to Trump and the GOP. Schiff has proven their case. Give it to the american people in the plainest terms in articles of impeachment--let McConnel do whatever traitorous shit he wants-- and then move on to 2020.

TThere would be zero republican votes for censure too. Don't kid yourself. But still might be the way to go to avoid dragging this out and fatigue pushing people away from removal. The problem is that this conduct--jeopardizing national security and disobeying the law to compel a foreign leader to damage your political opponent--is abosolutely deserving of removal. I

Seems like they can impeach on the Ukraine stuff while continuing to pursue evidence of other crimes. The corruption of this President--and the degree to which he has made people just accept it--is absolutely staggering. i think the frog in a water slowly coming to a boil here is accurate. If you were to go back to everyone's state of mind in 2015 and dump everything Trump is proven to have done on them all at once, their head would explode. But there's this pattern of (1) something shocking coming out, (2) denial, denial, denial, (3) obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate, (4) deflect/distract, (5) suppress criticism and (6) move on with the behavior normalized. On step 5, you can see it this go around with the attacks against Mitt Romney following some public criticism. Two months later, he's having lunch with Trump to make sure he's in line. It's all insane and I don't know how to respond anymore, other than support politicians willing and able to attack it, and vote.

I think it was circumstantial evidence actually. If anything gives me hope, it seems like for every EMAW, there's someone who has been paying attention and the experience of Trump has reawakened them to our values.