Y'all notice that Sondland has moved to cover his ass? A day before he was told his testimony would become public? Hmmm... Read Gordon Sondland’s revised testimony in the impeachment probe about Trump’s pressure on Ukraine
That is big though, as he is a Trump appointee. Once republicans start trying to cover their own ass, the house of cards should fall. DD
Sorry for posting this twice but I meant to post it here... It's GQ, and though not generally known as a bastion of investigative journalism, this is a decent piece. Consider it as much as you would other "informative" articles routinely posted by other "moderate Democrats" from national review, legalinsurrection, and other news outlets that moderate Democrats frequent. How Trump Corrupted the American Presidency in Every Imaginable Way In the final stretch of his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption in our nation's capital. "I will Make Our Government Honest Again—believe me," he tweeted three weeks before Election Day. "But first, I'm going to have to #DrainTheSwamp in DC." To hear him and his circle tell the story, his approach to the presidency was purely virtuous. "From a business standpoint, is the presidency beneficial?" Trump’s son Eric asked, rhetorically, in a 2017 Forbes interview. "If you're talking about existing assets, they're doing amazing. If you're talking about as a whole, we've made sacrifices in order to allow him—and he's made sacrifices in order to allow him—to take the biggest office in the world." In mid-October of this year, Trump told reporters that leaving the business world for politics has cost him somewhere between $2 billion and $5 billion. There is no evidence that this math is accurate, and Bloomberg’s most recent estimate of his net worth, $3 billion, is actually up slightly from its 2015 estimate of $2.9 billion. Nevertheless, Trump says, it’s a price he is (hypothetically) happy to pay. “I don’t care,” he continued. “I’m doing this for the country. I’m doing it for the people.” As it turns out, the same guy who stiffed curtain vendors and cabinet makers, scammed students with the now-defunct Trump University, and engaged in fraudulent tax schemes took a similar tack with the presidency. Throughout his tenure in the White House, Trump has leveraged the powers of his office—and the trappings associated with occupying it—to enrich himself at every opportunity. His properties are now the destinations of choice for anyone seeking to curry his favor, and the American taxpayer is among his businesses’ most dependable sources of income. At the same time, he has learned to abuse those powers to shield himself from accountability for his wrongdoing and attacked, bullied, and fired enemies both real and imagined with the imprimatur of the United States government. During the Trump presidency, corruption has flourished in previously unthinkable ways, and at such a remarkable rate, that it's almost impossible to keep it all straight—here's what we know so far. ... Click the headline link for the rest of the article. This could also go in the "what has he accomplished" thread.
I know the true believers are going to want to ad hominem the hell out of THIS source, but the question he asks is a legitimate one. "Will Democrats impeach their way to a 2020 loss?" https://theweek.com/articles/876728/democrats-impeach-way-2020-loss
Will the Republicans "not convict" their way to a 2020 loss? It is a serious question that had to be asked.
So now we can't abide by constitutional law because of fears of losing an election? I wonder how fascism forms?
I think a lot of people are asking the question and have been. It's not controversial necessarily, and I think it's why Pelosi tried to avoid this. I'm very comfortable with the inquiry and probable vote for impeachment because I think it's necessary constitutionally given the evidence so far. Taylor's credentials and testimony together are enough for me. We have to honor checks and balances unless we're ready to give up our system of government. But yes, it could make the far right voters more determined than ever to re-elect their savior. It's possible. They have always seemed to take attacks on him very personally.
That is a question. The answer doesn't matter. It is pointless to not do the right things out of fear of maybe, possibly, losing. Nobody, including me, you, the author, or anyone else knows the total political effect of impeachment. Trump is guilty. There is enough evidence to prove it. Impeachment is the duty of Congress. Let them do their duty. If it scares you, oh well. The only people saying the Democrats will impeach their to a loss seem to be Republicans/Trump Supporters/and you if you weren't included in the previous two categories. It's playing not to lose instead of playing to win. They should play to win and do so definitively and firmly. There is no need to run around acting afraid of doing the right thing. I have no idea how anyone could live with themselves living life like that.
The Trumpanzees will always be there, regardless. Then there are those who will simply vote Republican out of party loyalty. I just hope whomever the Democrats put up against Scump will win it. I like any of the frontrunners just fine, although I prefer a moderate. If Trump gets a second term you can write off what is left of American democracy. Hell, I don't think if he lost he'd accept the results, anyway. You'd need the Secret Service to physically remove him and the douchers who serve him that wouldn't vacate.
That question has been asked since the beginning of the Summer it's nothing new. But hey anything that helps you make it through the night.
I'll agree in part with you here but disagree also in part. Yes, Trump committed a crime. No, that does not absolutely require and/or entail that Congress follows up with impeachment as a way of dealing with that crime. In ethics and in law, there is a distinction between justice and mercy, rules and discretion. Sometimes people commit crimes and are not charged with those crimes. Sometimes judges will throw the book at a guilty party (Justice! capital J) and sometimes a judge will demonstrate mercy and let someone off with probation or a warning (Mercy! capital M). One is a rigid and somewhat inflexible following of rules, which has the benefit of avoiding ambiguity but at the cost of moral rigidity. The other (Discretion! capital D) involves the flexible exercise of judgment, and the taking into account both the particulars of a case and the broader context of a case as well. So yes, while "Trump is guilty," it is a separate matter altogether to decide what to do about that fact. impeachment doesn't scare me; in fact, I find politics generally and impeachment more narrowly to be kind of comical. good points, and fair enough. But there is a difference (as Aristotle said) between the two extremes surrounding courage: at one extreme is cowardice and fear, but on the other extreme there is reckless foolhardiness. At the Golden Mean in the middle lies actual, genuine, true courage.
You may think I'm being false or crazy here, but I have wondered: if Republicans hadn't tried the protect-and-deny-at-all-costs strategy... if they had been capable or willing to truly criticize the president's behavior, Congress could have gone to a bipartisan censure of the president or some such and moved on. At least I think some moderate Dems would have signed on for something like that. But when one side keeps denying plain facts and moving goalposts, I feel it goads the other side into an endless loop of "okay, I'll prove it this way, and now this other way, and see here, this guy confirms it, and now..."
actually I think censure would have been cleaner, politically more effective, and more damaging to Trump than this current round of impeachment theater.
I do think a lot of Dems and of course beltway pundits overestimate the average voter’s interest in the unseemly details. I admit I like knowing the mafiosi like blow by blow, but random Michigan voter may be getting sick of it soon or already.
I just don't think a whole bunch of people care or are following it in any real sense of the term. Political junkies, yes; "normal" people (whatever that means), not so much.
