256

 

 

 

Congress Already Has Evidence Trump Lied Under Oath to Robert Mueller

 

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/22/robert-muellers-testimony-seems-destined-disappoint-democrats-could-make-it-worthwhile/?utm_term=.4af217031f9a

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken

 

 

 

 

Democrats Are Setting Themselves Up to Fail on Mueller Hearings

 

 

 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/lawrence-odonnell-reports-on-the-growing-movement-for-the-impeachment-of-president-donald-trump/?utm_source=push_notifications

 

 

Notably, more than a dozen lawmakers who already favor an impeachment inquiry voted to sideline Green’s articles of impeachment. Several argued that Green’s focus on Trump’s racism excluded other evidence of potentially impeachable offenses like obstruction of justice.

“We’re not going to take someone and say, ‘Well let’s charge him with manslaughter when he committed mass murder,’’” said Rep. Val Demings of Florida.

See I look at it this way: if someone commmitted mass murder I’d rather get him for manslaughter than nothing-the choice wasn’t between charging him with manslaughter and mass murder but charging him with manslaughter and charging him with nothing. In taht sense I disagree with those Like Congresswoman Demings who voted for nothing.

Remember this wasn’t a vote to impeach but simply a vote not to table it. The best choice no doubt was Nadler’s preference-to send it to the Judiciary-effectively opening an inquiry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For once I have to disagree with Greg Sargent:

Some of the positions House moderates adopt are understandable. I personally favor an impeachment inquiry, but recognize that moderates might have legitimate political hesitations, and also recognize that the arguments against launching one are not wildly absurd. On immigration, the Senate border supplemental that moderates ultimately supported was far worse than the House version in terms of protections for migrants, but the Senate version was far better than nothing, and backing it was not unreasonable.

The reasons for opposing an inquiry are wildly absurd IMO. Certainly they are morally and ethically. If Trump isn’t impeachable who is? Is it time to simply rip this part of the constitution out? I had a debate with Bill Scher who said just because Trump isn’t impeached doesn’t mean a future President can’t be. Really? Who a Democrat for using an email server, Whitewater, or chewing gum?

Sorry I don’t agree that the arguments of Pelosi and Friends deserve such respect-and by treating them respectfully they have all the cover they need-how can you twist their arm if their arguments are respectable?

Morally their arguments are perverse-that you will reward the GOP for being so partisan-ok we know you’ll never convict so we won’t impeach. That is morally obscene-obviously it incentivizes the GOP’s sociopathic partisanship.

Sargent probably means their political arguments are respectable-as those are the only arguments they really make. Of course, impeachment shouldn’t be a matter of political calculus. But even the calculus is dubious.

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/03/here-are-seven-reasons-trump-should-be-impeached/?utm_term=.aa424db356fb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/ScallionOh/status/1151609201552179201

 

 

https://twitter.com/JustSchmeltzer/status/1151551045618683905

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/1150932432616660992

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/dear-nevertrumpers-either-help-or-stfu/?utm_source=push_notifications

 

https://twitter.com/tombellin/status/1150438938835861505

 

 

 

 

 

This brings me some hope for Steyer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As much as I’ve had my hair on fire over what the Speaker is up to this one looks pretty good for her in retrospect. Will that apply more generally? Time will tell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/07/11/steyer_from_impeachment_agitator_to_2020_candidate__140752.html

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/10/pelosi-progressives-twitter-1405763

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jimmy Carter gets it

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1144466268663083008

 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/democratic-debate-results-1386169

 

https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/democrats-are-completely-mishandling-the-new-rape-allegation-against-trump-heres-what-they-should-do-instead/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Ms. Perez is probably right on tactics-there was a desire for it to be a  Kumbaya debate which it largely was.

that might make Tom Perez and Nancy Pelosi happy but was it the best choice for struggling 2nd tier candidates?

https://twitter.com/amyannperez121/status/1144206341130588161

 

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book