Jump to content

horncyclist

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1966
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by horncyclist

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. What a child. Bring on President Warren, please.
  4. Don't care if already posted. Sure there's a lotnof this goes on. Hope Trump gets word of it.
  5. Link?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. When and where?
  16. It's definitely different. I don't know. I kind of like it. As a business strategy, it seems like they could have been edgy while still appealing to the mass market for trucks. Don't see many guys driving f-150s going for it.
  17. Schiff's closing today. Probably posted up thread but reposting because this should be a rallying cry through 2020. Just don't forget that Trump is not the disease, just a symptom. You need to get rid of whatever rot allowed such corruption to come to power. We are better than that.
  18. But it wasn't out there for all to see and the country said "okay, cool." This is much different.
  19. After Trump is acquitted, we have a president above the law. That's dead to me. Maybe it comes back to life but I'm not hopeful with Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg leading the charge.
  20. Bad but not crime. Didn't go through with it. He didn't have corrupt intent. Republicans will run with those three lines...ramp up the propaganda machine and he's acquitted. Democracy does indeed die in darkness. And these are dark times.
  21. Thanks. So slight downtick but it doesn't account for the last week, including Sondland. The facts are damning and show a clear abuse of power. If this is not impeachable, then nothing is. They can manipulate 50% of the population to allow him to get away with anything. Trump won't be around forever--he's proably more likely than not to be voted out in 2020----- but whoever comes next will have the same playbook possibly without the baggage. The combination of Fox News, social media and decline of traditional media means objective, collectively accepted truth is no longer possible. These are very scary times. Everyone should be terrified.
  22. What's being said?
  23. Probably. There is a strategy available to just move forward and roll everything up into the obstruction. My main point was that if this was the democrats entire case, they would be fine moving forward. Bolton will have a lot to say and probably has a lot memorialized. I just don't know how long it's going to take for that to resolve itself. There's benefit to not dragging it on too much. In any case, Schiff and Goldman have done a masterful job prosecuting this.
  24. Are there any witnesses scheduled for next week? If they wanted to go straight to articles of impeachment after this, these would be nice closing witnesses. Highlight the national security implications. There's a treasonous aspect underlying the bribe, for sure.
  25. Yes. His emphasis on the announcement and not the actual investigation also shows he didn't care about the alleged corruption or expected I to go anywhere. An investigation without the politically valuable announcement would not have been enough.
×
×
  • Create New...