|
Post by TKennedy on Oct 1, 2019 8:56:42 GMT -5
He keeps digging the hole deeper by publicly saying stuff like executing the whistleblower and arresting Schiff for Treason. I am guessing that although the public face of the Republican power brokers is still support, private conversations are centered around of how to get rid of him. (An inability to carry out his duties for health reasons would be honorable. Perhaps a flare up of his bone spur.)
I am not sure he will dodge this one. It certainly promises to be quite a spectacle. A heavenly barrage of covert prayer chains for a Pencian divine intervention won’t help.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2019 8:58:10 GMT -5
Just more Democrat BS.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 1, 2019 9:06:38 GMT -5
What I hear from some of you is that things are so awful we should smash the status quo and start over. You have a lot more confidence that the rebuild would be an improvement than I do. I think we're amazingly lucky to live with the best system there's ever been, for all its flaws. Don, it has been a great system, but like someone famous once said, "it's a great system if you can keep it". And cracks have developed that threaten the whole system and they need to be fixed. My time in DC was in one of the Administrative State's unconstitutional operations. Doing the relatively simple job of setting fuel economy standards, the authorizing legislation of which dates back to the mid-70's. As part of the rule making process our agency hired a beltway consulting company to do the health effects research (which we were not capable of doing ourselves ironically) for a mere $1.7 million. Ultimately they concluded that raising FE requirements would "save" 300 lives and $7 billion in 2030 (this was in 2010). Now any rational human with 3 live brain cells could look at that and say, "how the F**K do you figure that?" Go ahead, tell me how that's done in the real world. We also proposed that the new standards would save "X" amount of refueling stops which would obviously mean that instead of spending 7 or 8 minutes a week refueling, the average citizen could spend those precious minutes making bank. That ended up being some kind of ridiculous proposition of increased potential GDP. No. Seriously. I shit you not. And why was it so important to get numbers like that? Simple. In order to pass muster with the Congressional overlords and keep your jobs, you had to show that every move you made would save the American people money. And the more the merrier. Never mind that regulation by definition is restrictive and costs money compared to letting folks do what is naturally beneficial to them. And this Administrative State is generally well paid and impervious to being fired. They also are completely insulated from recession or any of the other things that you and I have to deal with outside the Beltway. This is where we've gotten to. A Federal government devoid of any incentive to demonstrate self control (the Administrative State also turned Congress into overseers rather than true legislators. MUCH safer that way). Meanwhile we suffer at the hands of millions of capricious actions. And now, as I've mentioned enough to make myself puke, they've managed to propose restrictions on CO2 under the guise of it being a dangerous pollutant. Classic illogical rock and a hard place that simply can't happen. This progressive drift has gone as far as it can go. Trump recognized this before he was elected. I thought it was the usual politician horseshit but, no, he really meant it and has maneuvered his way into finally shattering the Administrative State paradigm. That die is pretty much set so impeachment matters little. But it would be a shame to railroad a guy for finally doing exactly what he said he would do.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 1, 2019 9:16:47 GMT -5
He keeps digging the hole deeper by publicly saying stuff like executing the whistleblower and arresting Schiff for Treason. I am guessing that although the public face of the Republican power brokers is still support, private conversations are centered around of how to get rid of him. (An inability to carry out his duties for health reasons would be honorable. Perhaps a flare up of his bone spur.) I am not sure he will dodge this one. It certainly promises to be quite a spectacle. A heavenly barrage of covert prayer chains for a Pencian divine intervention won’t help. No "Pencian divine intervention" needed. Pence is next in line. Any way Trump goes and Pence gets the job. And if he stays loyal to Trump, he inherits Trump's base and fund raising machine along with a major part of a pissed off electorate who would like nothing more than to shove this shit up Democrats asses. And 8 years to do it. Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 1, 2019 10:03:29 GMT -5
He keeps digging the hole deeper by publicly saying stuff like executing the whistleblower and arresting Schiff for Treason. I am guessing that although the public face of the Republican power brokers is still support, private conversations are centered around of how to get rid of him. (An inability to carry out his duties for health reasons would be honorable. Perhaps a flare up of his bone spur.) I am not sure he will dodge this one. It certainly promises to be quite a spectacle. A heavenly barrage of covert prayer chains for a Pencian divine intervention won’t help. It's not difficult to imagine that Trump has now gone into self-preservation mode. When we're threatened we all have our own way of responding. I think that the way Trump has chosen to expresses himself makes him look irrational. But it's his call. Calling for Schiff be arrested for treason would suggest that Trump doesn't know what constitutes treason. On the other side, I'm having a difficult time completely condemning Trump's angry response considering some of the things that are being said about him. I wonder how we all would respond to the gross misrepresentations being expressed by the Democrats. I know that there are many times when something someone says or writes can be subject to differing interpretations by honest people. That happens. However, in this particular case I don't think that's what's going on. After reading the Trump transcript my conclusion is that the people who have a big problem with the conversation have never attended a business meeting or they are unwilling to admit what happens in business meetings. Many such meetings are scheduled because someone wants something from someone else. The meeting starts with one side buttering up the other side. Then one side points out how good they have been to the other side. Finally, it concludes with a request for something. Is there a quid pro quo, either expressed or implied? Of course. In 50 years of being involved in business meetings I've seen this scene played out countless times. And I've never seen anyone's reputation impugned as the result. Now Schiff says that not only was the conversation improper, but that Trump was attempting to interfere with the 2016 election by asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on his chief opponent. That's not what happened. Trump asked Ukraine to "look into" Biden's involvement. He did not ask for Ukraine to dig up dirt. Such an inquiry might or might not have resulted in negative information about Biden. Assuming for the moment that the information was negative, is there a suggestion that the information should have been kept secret until after the election so as not to hurt Biden's campaign? Is there a suggestion that if Trump had reason to believe that some impropriety existed it should have been ignored? I'm not saying that there was nothing political about the conversation. I doubt that any conversation between leaders of two countries isn't political and it's reasonable to believe that each leader is hoping to get some kind of personal political gain as the result. Particularly disturbing is the Democrats claim of an improper quid pro quo because Trump was withholding funds to Ukraine. That claim is a distortion of the facts. From what I've read there is agreement that while Trump may have withheld the funds, the Ukrainian president was unaware of that fact. The facts show the Democrats claim to be false. Can the case be made that the Ukrainian president may have thought that Trump was threatening to withhold funds? It's hard to make that argument stand up as long as the Ukrainian president continues to assert that he didn't feel pressured or threatened. In my opinion Schiff's attacks on Trump have taken on the appearance of being personal as opposed to political. Regardless, if I were Trump I'd feel threatened. I'd tend to fight back. I've always had some difficulty with any disinterested third party claiming the right to judge whether someone's response to an attack was justified or not. As far as I'm concerned, if you attack someone you and no one else has the right to say whether the response to the attack was appropriate. It seems to me that ought to be a personal decision and the attacker ought to be responsible for not making the attack in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 1, 2019 10:13:48 GMT -5
For purposes of brevity this is somewhat simplistic. Nonetheless, I believe it to be true. In parts of this country there still exists a certain number of people who value fair play and detest mob mentality. They have a tendency to root for the underdog. That thinking is something I don't believe is understood on the coasts, in large urban areas, and D.C. Underdog? The rich guy whose most outrageous remark or outright lie gets shrugged off by defenders? There were calls for Trump's impeachment before he was even sworn in as president. The Democrats are still insisting that Trump somehow "stole" the 2016 election. I lost count of the number of people who said to me, "Trump is not my president" during the first few months of his term. Well, if he's everything you dislike and you didn't vote for him, then he's not. Trump was never given much of an opportunity to even get his administration started before he was beset on all sides by the Democrats who were determined not to let him accomplish anything. How do you think that plays with the people who voted for him? I'd guess, roughly the way McConnell's blocking of every Obama initiative, including refusing to even hold hearings on Supreme Court nominees played with Obama supporters.
Better start by situating myself, as we have to say in UniversityLand: I'm a country boy my own self--didn't grow up on a farm but was surrounded by them--who has lived in the conservative parts of the midwest for more than a half-century (and in Republican-dominated rural New York before that). Blue-collar Democrat family (except the part that included an upstate GOP bagman). So I'm not unfamiliar with the range of people on my political and cultural right: ordinary Republicans, National Review conservatives, conservative Christians of various stripes (Papist and Protestant), right out to Fox-News-fixated disgruntled old-white-guys (e.g., our oldest university friend). Remember, I live in Michele Bachmann's old district and in a town with an active anti-immigrant claque. I have no trouble understanding who continues to support Trump, and it's not a uniform group, so there's a range of reasons. It's interesting that Lar's catalogue of Trump opponents assigns to them attitudes that are no more universal across that broad group than are those of the supporters. There's more to be noted in the list of things that "seem to defy common sense," but I have an ailing Outback to see to. Short version: this old rural-raised white guy is more afraid of Trumpism than the conversion of urinals to stalls.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2019 10:21:59 GMT -5
For purposes of brevity this is somewhat simplistic. Nonetheless, I believe it to be true. In parts of this country there still exists a certain number of people who value fair play and detest mob mentality. They have a tendency to root for the underdog. That thinking is something I don't believe is understood on the coasts, in large urban areas, and D.C. Underdog? The rich guy whose most outrageous remark or outright lie gets shrugged off by defenders? There were calls for Trump's impeachment before he was even sworn in as president. The Democrats are still insisting that Trump somehow "stole" the 2016 election. I lost count of the number of people who said to me, "Trump is not my president" during the first few months of his term. Well, if he's everything you dislike and you didn't vote for him, then he's not. Trump was never given much of an opportunity to even get his administration started before he was beset on all sides by the Democrats who were determined not to let him accomplish anything. How do you think that plays with the people who voted for him? I'd guess, roughly the way McConnell's blocking of every Obama initiative, including refusing to even hold hearings on Supreme Court nominees played with Obama supporters.
Better start by situating myself, as we have to say in UniversityLand: I'm a country boy my own self--didn't grow up on a farm but was surrounded by them--who has lived in the conservative parts of the midwest for more than a half-century (and in Republican-dominated rural New York before that). Blue-collar Democrat family (except the part that included an upstate GOP bagman). So I'm not unfamiliar with the range of people on my political and cultural right: ordinary Republicans, National Review conservatives, conservative Christians of various stripes (Papist and Protestant), right out to Fox-News-fixated disgruntled old-white-guys (e.g., our oldest university friend). Remember, I live in Michele Bachmann's old district and in a town with an active anti-immigrant claque. I have no trouble understanding who continues to support Trump, and it's not a uniform group, so there's a range of reasons. It's interesting that Lar's catalogue of Trump opponents assigns to them attitudes that are no more universal across that broad group than are those of the supporters. There's more to be noted in the list of things that "seem to defy common sense," but I have an ailing Outback to see to. Short version: this old rural-raised white guy is more afraid of Trumpism than the conversion of urinals to stalls. Well, Russell, it isn't paranoia when they are out to get you.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 1, 2019 10:28:09 GMT -5
I took Lar as speaking specifically of the Washington Democrats and their press who are attacking as he described. I didn't assume Lar was talking about the Democrat-on-the-street.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2019 10:42:24 GMT -5
... (An inability to carry out his duties for health reasons would be honorable. Perhaps a flare up of his bone spur.) ... That's a dandy! 5 stars!
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 1, 2019 10:51:31 GMT -5
Slide-whistleblower complaint reveals Trump’s pants around ankles
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 1, 2019 11:34:30 GMT -5
For purposes of brevity this is somewhat simplistic. Nonetheless, I believe it to be true. In parts of this country there still exists a certain number of people who value fair play and detest mob mentality. They have a tendency to root for the underdog. That thinking is something I don't believe is understood on the coasts, in large urban areas, and D.C. Underdog? The rich guy whose most outrageous remark or outright lie gets shrugged off by defenders? As I said, this was brief. My recounting of what I believe are some shared traits are generalizations and they do not necessarily apply in every circumstance or to everyone. Trump is often called out for his inaccuracies. That's as it should be. That's not to say that everything he says is a lie. There were calls for Trump's impeachment before he was even sworn in as president. The Democrats are still insisting that Trump somehow "stole" the 2016 election. I lost count of the number of people who said to me, "Trump is not my president" during the first few months of his term. Well, if he's everything you dislike and you didn't vote for him, then he's not. I disagree. Our duly elected president is everyone's president. Electing the president is something that we do as a country. You don't have to agree with everything the president says or does. He's still your president. Trump was never given much of an opportunity to even get his administration started before he was beset on all sides by the Democrats who were determined not to let him accomplish anything. How do you think that plays with the people who voted for him? I'd guess, roughly the way McConnell's blocking of every Obama initiative, including refusing to even hold hearings on Supreme Court nominees played with Obama supporters. Sorry. I was writing about Trump. I don't know how McConnell became part of the discussion. For the record I think McConnell's methods are reprehensible and childish. I find it disappointing that the senate Republicans haven't figured out that McConnell's tactics could well come back to bite them on the backside one of these days. At any rate, that has nothing to do with Trump. Better start by situating myself, as we have to say in UniversityLand: I'm a country boy my own self--didn't grow up on a farm but was surrounded by them--who has lived in the conservative parts of the midwest for more than a half-century (and in Republican-dominated rural New York before that). Blue-collar Democrat family (except the part that included an upstate GOP bagman). So I'm not unfamiliar with the range of people on my political and cultural right: ordinary Republicans, National Review conservatives, conservative Christians of various stripes (Papist and Protestant), right out to Fox-News-fixated disgruntled old-white-guys (e.g., our oldest university friend). Remember, I live in Michele Bachmann's old district and in a town with an active anti-immigrant claque. I have no trouble understanding who continues to support Trump, and it's not a uniform group, so there's a range of reasons. I agree. It's interesting that Lar's catalogue of Trump opponents assigns to them attitudes that are no more universal across that broad group than are those of the supporters. There's more to be noted in the list of things that "seem to defy common sense," but I have an ailing Outback to see to. Short version: this old rural-raised white guy is more afraid of Trumpism than the conversion of urinals to stalls. I am no more a fan of Trump than you are. I detest what I believe are the conditions that allowed him to become president. I am equally concerned about some of the trends I see happening in this country. And that includes actions taken by both Democrat and Republican administrations locally, in various states, and nationally. I'm less concerned with comparing bad against bad and more concerned with reversing some of these trends.
It didn't seem necessary to point out that my examples, including banning urinals, were what was at hand at the moment and symptoms rather than the disease itself.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2019 11:35:05 GMT -5
When a whistle blower delivered information concerning the president to the proper intelligence and security channels, information that said intelligence and security channels found to be both credible and disturbing, an investigation was called for... and was the right, proper, and necessary thing to do.
This impeachment process was begun because Trump blocked the investigation and refused to provide the requested evidence to appropriate investigators. It was only due to the rolling wheels of the impeachment process that Trump began to comply, in partial part, with a congress that was following due process (doing its job- holding up its wobbly end of the three-legged stool).
Once Trump's specific deed that prompted this investigation is figured out to whatever extent it is figurable, my guess is the deed itself will prove to be dumb, inappropriate, clumsy, wrong, illegal, stupid, petty, disturbing, wrong, stupid, petty, dumb, chintzy, petty, wrong, not right, stupid, petty, and 100% Trumpian. But the deed itself will not rise to the high crimes and treason level required for impeachment. [ or more accurately, removal from office as the end result of this impeachment process]
But, and it is a big BUT, as with Nixon's Watergate, Trump's actions, past and present, to hide, block, and impede the investigation justifies this impeachment. And it is very possible his future actions to block and impede this investigation will justify removal from office. Presidential authority/privilege/constitutional arrogance has gotten out of hand. It was troublesome and veering out of control before Trump, and now Trump is taking it over the top, or more accurately, down to gutter bottom.
Our presidents have gotten out of control (along with the administrative state, (as delineated earlier by Aqua), and our courts, but it all is due to the following)... Congress has become an empty, abused, worthless entity. It needs to stand up to a president. It has to assert its right to investigate the actions of a president, it has to. And it can't allow a president to cover his ass and every action associated with it by invoking presidential privilege/power. Otherwise just be done with the damn thing [congress] and its showboating puffballs and instead every four years we will just have an election for dictator... until one of them decides elections are no longer needed.
Trump needs to be tackled.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 1, 2019 12:22:04 GMT -5
When a whistle blower delivered information concerning the president to the proper intelligence and security channels, information that said intelligence and security channels found to be both credible and disturbing, an investigation was called for... and was the right, proper, and necessary thing to do. This impeachment process was begun because Trump blocked the investigation and refused to provide the requested evidence to appropriate investigators. It was only due to the rolling wheels of the impeachment process that Trump began to comply, in partial part, with a congress that was following due process (doing its job- holding up its wobbly end of the three-legged stool). Once Trump's specific deed that prompted this investigation is figured out to whatever extent it is figurable, my guess is the deed itself will prove to be dumb, inappropriate, clumsy, wrong, illegal, stupid, petty, disturbing, wrong, stupid, petty, dumb, chintzy, petty, wrong, not right, stupid, petty, and 100% Trumpian. But the deed itself will not rise to the high crimes and treason level required for impeachment .
But, and it is a big BUT, as with Nixon's Watergate, Trump's actions, past, present, and future, to hide, block, and impede the investigation will, in my mind, justify the impeachment. Presidential authority/privilege/constitutional arrogance has gotten out of hand. It was troublesome and veering out of control before Trump, and now Trump is taking it over the top, or more accurately, down to gutter bottom.
Our presidents have gotten out of control (along with the administrative state, as delineated earlier by Aqua, and our courts, but it all is due to the following)... Congress has become an empty, abused, worthless entity. It needs to stand up to a president. It has to assert its right to investigate the actions of a president, it has to. And it can't allow a president to cover his ass and every action associated with it by invoking presidential privilege/power. Otherwise just be done with the damn thing [congress] and its showboating puffballs and instead every four years we will just have an election for dictator... until one of them decides elections are no longer needed.
Trump needs to be tackled.What?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2019 13:11:10 GMT -5
[truncated version]
The whistle blower information justified an investigation by congress.
Trump defied the intelligence committee's requests for information needed for the investigation.
Congress started the move to impeach.
Trump began releasing stuff.
Without the hammer of impeachment, no transcript, nothing.
Still to come, the congressional investigation's request to interview the people that were involved in and have information regarding the event being investigated.
Will Trump comply or will he defy congress and use an ever expanding claim of executive privilege to thwart the investigation?
Does congress have the right to investigate the actions of a president?
If executive privilege is used to block this investigation, what is the consequence? Presidents that can't be investigated unless they wish to be and then only to the extent they wish to be.
This whistleblower's charge deserved to be investigated. It is a process thing. It took impeachment (the threat of, the attempt to avoid, and the impeachment process itself) to allow this investigation to proceed.
And my personal take, Trump's reactions to the whistleblower's charge may well prove to be more damning that the act he was charged with.
Congress needs to start doing its job. The checks and balance thing is at stake.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2019 13:31:38 GMT -5
[ok, so that wasn't much of a truncation]
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 1, 2019 13:45:35 GMT -5
Trump defied the intelligence committee's requests for information needed for the investigation. Congress started the move to impeach. Huh? I'm pretty sure the Democratic strategy was to assume that Trump would hold back information. When he didn't -- he gave the transcripts right away -- the Democratic whiplash screwed up their entire strategy. Schiff had his introduction already written in anticipation that Trump would NOT release the transcript. When he did and Schiff went along with his speech, it made Schiff look like a real asshole. Ditto the press like Woodruff and her interview. The approach was all predicated on the idea that Trump wouldn't give up the information. But he did.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2019 13:51:11 GMT -5
[truncated version] The whistle blower information justified an investigation by congress. Trump defied the intelligence committee's requests for information needed for the investigation. Congress started the move to impeach. Trump began releasing stuff. Without the hammer of impeachment, no transcript, nothing. Still to come, the congressional investigation's request to interview the people that were involved in and have information regarding the event being investigated. Will Trump comply or will he defy congress and use an ever expanding claim of executive privilege to thwart the investigation? Does congress have the right to investigate the actions of a president? If executive privilege is used to block this investigation, what is the consequence? Presidents that can't be investigated unless they wish to be and then only to the extent they wish to be. This whistleblower's charge deserved to be investigated. It is a process thing. It took impeachment (the threat of, the attempt to avoid, and the impeachment process itself) to allow this investigation to proceed. And my personal take, Trump's reactions to the whistleblower's charge may well prove to be more damning that the act he was charged with. Congress needs to start doing its job. The checks and balance thing is at stake. Got stuck on NBC or CNN did you?
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 1, 2019 14:44:53 GMT -5
[truncated version] The whistle blower information justified an investigation by congress. From what I've been able to tell, that's the way the system is supposed to work. I'm bothered by the fact that it took so long for the whistle blower's complaint to reach congress. The reasons cited would seem to call into question the independence of the inspector general. As I understand it an inspector general is not responsible to the head of whatever department they are inspector general-ling. The intervention into how the inspector general's work was handled is troubling to me.Trump defied the intelligence committee's requests for information needed for the investigation. This is not new. The administration defied congress during the hearings about the Mueller report. Dummies like me assume that when congress calls your name you show up and answer questions. Dummies like me also assume that congress doesn't call your name unless you are truly needed to testify and that if you don't show up you are thrown in the clink until you change your tune. The fact that this congress seems unwilling to use it's powers of enforcement cause me to question the sincerity of their investigations. I've always had some trouble with the concept of executive privilege outside of a pretty narrow definition. Of course I'm old fashioned. I believe that because I voted the president, the congress, and everyone else getting a government paycheck works for me. Your actual experience with this may vary. Congress started the move to impeach. Trump began releasing stuff. Without the hammer of impeachment, no transcript, nothing. That's not hard to believe given Trump's methods up until now.Still to come, the congressional investigation's request to interview the people that were involved in and have information regarding the event being investigated. For starters, Pompeo says his people aren't going to show up. Before all is said and done I expect a fair amount of argument over whether this inquiry is being conduction in good faith or not. The naysayers will say that it's not required to testify in kangaroo court. The other side will claim the inquiry is legitimate. Since it seems to me that both sides are being disingenuous I say fire all of them and start over with people who take this whole process seriously. Will Trump comply or will he defy congress and use an ever expanding claim of executive privilege to thwart the investigation? My crystal ball says continued defiance and more threatening tweets. So far the president seems to be much better at making threats than carrying them out. I fear what might happen if he actually ordered Schiff to be arrested for treason.Does congress have the right to investigate the actions of a president? Yes. In addition, I would maintain that investigating the president, or anyone else, ought to be a solemn undertaking and should not be done for partisan political reasons. My view of the house hearings into the Mueller report was that little if anything new or of substance was uncovered and that it was mostly a political side-show. The outcome might have been different if the house had been not been impeded by the administration. We may never know.If executive privilege is used to block this investigation, what is the consequence? Presidents that can't be investigated unless they wish to be and then only to the extent they wish to be. I've always had some trouble with the concept of executive privilege outside of a pretty narrow definition. Of course I'm old fashioned. I believe that because I voted, the president, the congress, and everyone else getting a government paycheck works for me. Your actual experience with this may vary. This whistleblower's charge deserved to be investigated. It is a process thing. It took impeachment (the threat of, the attempt to avoid, and the impeachment process itself) to allow this investigation to proceed. Can't argue with that. I still wonder how what appears from the transcript to be a fairly ordinary business conversation is worthy of an impeachment inquiry.And my personal take, Trump's reactions to the whistleblower's charge may well prove to be more damning that the act he was charged with. Gotta wonder, is Trump's reaction out of concern for what actually happened or is it just a knee jerk reaction to yet another investigation of his actions?Congress needs to start doing its job. The checks and balance thing is at stake. Boy howdy!
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2019 15:27:04 GMT -5
Got stuck on NBC or CNN did you? Don't have cable. Outside of Netflex, Prime, sports, and Star Trek Re-runs, I don't watch TV. (not bragging or posing it as a virtue). Everything I have on this deal comes from the Star Tribune, you guys, or is just made up. The Whistleblower charge needed to be investigated per process because of and in defense of process. Trump's best course now is to be open and provide without comment whatever the investigation requires. Trump could have avoided impeachment by not acting Trumpian at the outset, but now that now is now, Trump's best move is to freely give the investigative committee all the rope it asks for and let the public decide who should be hung with it.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2019 15:34:17 GMT -5
An example of a truly rotten act involving an American election and a foreign power (if true):
Even if peace talks then and later were a sham, the Nixon's intent to sabotage peace talks to gain advantage in an upcoming election is an impeachable action (if he had been in office at the time). Nixon deserved what he got.
(and I wish we had someone with Nixon's vision, intelligence and pragmatism in office right now, a Nixon without Nixon's insecurity, meanness, and paranoia. A cross between Nixon and Obama. Obama's personality, Nixon's competence.
|
|