kentuck
kentuck's JournalIf impeachment vote was brought up today, how many votes would it get?
My guess would be about 120 votes, about half of the Democratic caucus.
Until there is public testimony from Mueller, McGahn, or maybe Anne Donaldson, we cannot expect much different.
How do they get Mueller or McGahn to testify?
We can talk about impeachment but until there is some change in the status quo, about all we can do is keep it in the conversation.
Are we closer to a dictatorship today than a year ago?
Perhaps I am just paranoid but our institutions appear to be weaker, in my opinion.
What else can Donald Trump do to abuse his power?
The Democrats look weak but the Republicans look invisible. Republicans do not want to be part of the debate about whether our democracy will survive or how much it is now threatened?
I am hearing Democrats talk about passing legislation to prevent future presidents from abusing his power and breaking the laws the present occupant is so busy doing. That sounds like surrender.
It is important that we keep the channels of communication open. It is important that we do not go silent. We must continue to speak up. Your voice is important and necessary.
Are Republicans receiving enough scrutiny...?
...about their role in this entire mess of what remains of the US Government? Vital Departments of government have been cut and many positions have been filled with the title of 'Acting'. Huge deficits and spending and they tell us to look at Wall Street.
Mitch McConnell is toxic for any government. He blocks every piece of legislation that comes over from the House. Nothing becomes a law unless it is passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the Executive.
The annual spending bill is coming up. No doubt there will be roadblocks there, also. The word 'compromise' is not in their dictionary. It's 'do or die', a fatalistic viewpoint of the idea of government.
They offer nothing positive. They keep their distance from much of the mass media and are seldom asked questions they can't dodge. They are complicit but they don't want to take ownership.
Their stance is whatever is the stance of Donald Trump and they will spin it 'til the paint flies off.
It appears that Trump's ABC interview was the kick-off to his re-election campaign.
In my opinion, that is what he wanted it to be. He wanted to clear up all the questions for his supporters. He is a confidence man and he had great confidence he could pull it off.
The reality-TV star knows how television works. He wanted to use it to his advantage by offering "Steffy" a weeks-worth of interviews. The Donald gave them an offer they couldn't refuse.
He disputed the poll results that "Steffy" quoted him. He called a time-out to call his campaign manager, Brad Parscale. The Narcissicist-in-Chief refused to believe that he was not ahead in all the polls.
But, did he answer all the questions for his supporters? Or did he just raise more questions for everyone else?
What are the odds that the Democrats will keep control of the House?
Some people believe that if we keep the status quo, more or less, then we will be able to keep a Democratic majority in the House.
But, if some raise too much of a stink, like inquiring about whether impeachable crimes have been committed or not, then that may threaten the present House majority?
Still others may believe that even if there is an impeachment inquiry, or impeachment proceeding, the Democrats will still maintain control of the House.
They do not believe that Republicans are going to be so pissed off that they are going to go to the polls to defeat the Democrats. The Democrats will maintain control of the House regardless.
That is why they believe the impeachment process should be started now. If it is not finished by Election Day, and Donald Trump wins the election, then the impeachment process will continue into the next election, if we are so unfortunate to be in such a situation?
"Strong and wrong defeats weak and right".
This was a message propounded durimg the Clinton Administration.
The Speaker says that Trump does not know right from wrong?
In other words, we should not attempt to remove the matches from a known arsonist. We should wait for the next election and let the voters decide. There is no preventative strategy in the interim.
The known arsonist is permitted to continue to play with matches. It is a constant threat that is not being addressed.
In the end, most historians will interpret it as a sign of weakness and political expediency, in my opinion.
Trump argued with Stephanopolous over whether the Mueller Report said "no collusion".
He insisted that it did. Stephanopolous asked him if he had read it? He said that he had read it and that Stepanopolous should read it, also. What person in America believes that?
Stephanopolous responded that the Mueller Report never said "no collusion". Trump continued to insist that it said "no collusion" and "no obstruction". Of course, it never said either one.
But, shouldn't this be a bigger story? When the leader of this country believes that an important document, such as the Mueller Report, says something that it does not say? And reports it as fact to his followers?
This could be a lead story on all the networks. "Trump Falsely Believes Mueller Report Said No Collusion".
It should not be permitted to stand.
What is the least the Democrats should do to defend our country..
....our Constitution, and the Democrstic Party?
Is it really too much to inquire about the facts aroind the 2016 election? Is it something we should not discuss?
Would it be preferable to keep investigating the Trump team and to keep handing out subpoenas and contempt charges without officially calling it an impeachment proceeding? Does it accomplish the same thing as an impeachment process?
That is a decision that Pelosi and the Democrats must eventually make.
Regardless of Mueller Report, Trump should be charged with incompetence & malfeasance in office.
His many temporary appointments to "acting" positions, without any Senate confirmation, is nothing short of dereliction of duties and fsilure to follow the oath to our Constitution. It gives him control of these appointees, he otherwise might not have?
The Mueller Report is only a small portion of the charges against Donald Trump. He, and his family, have been using the office of the Presidency to enrich themselves. The emoluments clause is not just an inconvenient law that one can obey when he wishes. It is a very important part of our Costitution,
Trump's attack on Don McGahn did not make any sense?
He more or less accused McGahn of lying under oath.
If McGahn had any integrity, he would stand up for himself.
Instead, he is following Trump's orders to not answer a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee.
He is not the hero many made him out to be, in my opinion.
But, why would Trump antagonize the one person that could get him impeached for obstruction of justice?
I suppose if McGahn doesn't respond, then many people will believe him to be a liar?
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 111,110
