Uh, OH?
Does Donald Trump and his Republican lackies have troubles brewing below the surface?
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) received a standing ovation Tuesday evening at his first public event since becoming the first Republican to call for President Trump‘s impeachment.
At a town hall in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Amash criticized House Republican leadership, including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whom he called the “so-called leader.”
“I read the Mueller report. I’m sure he didn’t read it,” Amash said of McCarthy. “He resorted to ad hominem attacks; that’s the kind of ‘leadership’ we now have in Congress.”
McCarthy has accused Amash of seeking attention with his remarks and told reporters Amash was “out of step with this conference” and “out of step with America.”
Amash reaffirmed his position that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report outlines impeachable conduct by Trump.
“I’m confident that if you read volume two, you will be appalled at much of the conduct. And I was appalled by it. And that’s why I stated what I stated. That’s why I came to that conclusion,” he said. “We can’t let conduct like that go unchecked.”…
In Grand Rapids, Mich., Amash was confronted by a Trump supporter sporting the iconic “Make America Great Again” hat.
image…PalmerReport.com
Good for Amash
Meanwhile Mitch McConnell –who refused to even let Merrick Garland get a hearing in 2016–was asked at a GOP luncheon what would happen if a Supreme Court justice were to die in 2020.
McConnell’s answer–without a hint of irony was
“We’ll fill it”. And Republicans cheered.
That party is rotten to the core. It goes beyond Trump.
Here’s hoping Amash can help make it a respectable institution again but the odds are against him.
I’m waiting for Trump’s reponse in the morning….
The story was GOPer’s where on Amash’s case to cease and desist….
Ain’t working!
The question would be….
Is this just noise?
Or a developing problem that could fester and attract other #NeverTrump support?
Hope does hard .
James still desperately wants to believe that Republicans are going to turn on Trump.
They’re not..Hell, they can’t.
Trump is now in firm institutional control of the Republican Party.
Amash is an aberration who,despite his denial, is quite obviously setting himself up as a third party candidate.CG mentioned this last week.Amash will likely be the Libertarian Party candidate..
However, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that Amash,who by the way, represents a district that only narrowly supported Trump last time,represents any significant revolt among GOPers against Trump.
I do NOT think that GOP lawmakers on the whole will turn on Trump….
At least not until November 4th when the race is called for Biden….
As I point out in this piece…
The problem for Trump and his lawmaker supporters WOULD be if #Not Trump GOPer’s start coming out and announcing that they do NOT like or support their party leader…
Like with CG?
That even might split the 2020 vote or have some GOPer’s stay home…
Every little bit helps to get rid of this guy…..
It is great news that someone, anyone who was elected from the GOP would be willing to speak out against Trump on anything. Of course Trump should likely be impeached. If what we have reason to believe Trump did is not impeachable if proven, then what is? It is purely for purposes of political expediency that Trump would not be impeached.
And of course McConnell would fill a senate seat if it opens up in 2020. and it wasn’t the least bit surprising to me that he didn’t give Garland a hearing. The GOP has been blatantly doing things to undermine democracy for years. But like the frog in what is now boiling water, Republicans have been silent for so long, that saying the obvious is now nearly politically impossible. Amash deserved the standing ovation.
Sure it’s for “political expediency.”
But,as I mentioned earlier,Impeachment is both a legal And a political process.
Impeachment, just for the sake of making a statement, knowing that the votes aren’t there for conviction, is folly in my view.
Impeachment is just formal charges….
Most people do NOT understand that Bill Clinton was impeached but NOT convicted….
Simply impeaching Trump, as I have explained numerous times does NOTHING like Jack points out…
Trump would walk away able to say he was NOT convicted if the Senate couldn’t sustain the impeachment charges…
This is the REALITY…
Well if hearings aren’t even held, then what message does that send to the next president who may also try to obstruct justice, conspire with a foreign country, etc.
If you have an employee who is doing something extremely offensive, but whom you cannot fire for whatever reason, does that mean you don’t even bring it up? Or better yet, if you were a lawyer in South Carolina the 1920s and the evidence was clear that A well-liked white person killed a despised black person, would you refuse to prosecute because you can’t win?
And just to remind you, when the Nixon hearings started, very few people thought it would result in impeachment. At some point, politicians are required to do the right thing. impeachment is not politically popular, but That is not the issue.
I think there are many good points there but I cannot help myself from remembering that there was a President not long ago, who got away with obstructing justice and perjury, with significant public support, despite formal impeachment proceedings.
Donald Trump supported him in those regards at the time (while later calling on Congress to impeach George W. Bush but I digress..) in getting away with the offenses and somehow became President himself and felt emboldened to lie, obstruct, and use the same political playbook.
It’s hard to see how we will ever do worse than Donald Trump one day in terms of Presidential character, but it’s always possible. The concept of “outrage”, once written about by William Bennett, but now ignored by him, continues to die.
There are thousands of cases never brought to trial by Prosecutors because they believe the chances of conviction are slim.
That’s common in the criminal justice system.
Bringing am impeachment case against Trump before this Republican Senate is the equivalent of bringing a case in a criminal court where over half the Jury has publicly announced that no matter what evidence is presented they will never vote to convict.
I think it is a waste of time and will play straight into Trumps hands.
Let’s be clear, many Democrats are afraid to do it because they fear the backlash. The party has major weaknesses that they are trying to navigate around.
If Trump’s reelect numbers were worse, or the Democrats had a likely candidate of great national appeal, despite the near certainty of a non-conviction, the impeachment would happen in a heartbeat.
Of course, if he gets reelected, and Democrats keep the House, he will wind up getting impeached in a second term for his hairdo or for whatever. If Trump wins another term though, despite the “play it safe” strategy by Democrats and/or nominating Biden, we can only envision the calls for revolution within that party.
And let’s also “ be clear” the Republican Senate, the Jury in the case, will solidly support Trump.
The only “ revolution “ in your party is a few inane mildly critical comments here and there.
Otherwise, full support of Donald Trump and his “conservative values.”
If the economy sucked and Trump was polling in the 20’s, there would be plenty of votes for conviction among Republicans. If he gets a second term, maybe that happens. Second terms are usually pretty bad for whomever wins them.
Self-survivalists and hypocrites abound in both parties. The Democrats would not turn on one of their own under similar circumstances either.
So your “point” seems to be that the Democrats have a “duty” to impeach Trump,while you readily concede that the Republican Senate won’t “turn on one of their own.”
I See.
All for our great Grandchildren of course.
It could be that everyone in Congress, regardless of party has a “duty” to impeach Trump. Democrats just happen to control the House though.
I would hope that they would actually read the entire Mueller Report in its entirety first though, as Amash has, and reach a legitimate conclusion.
What ‘duty’???
Them Republicans sticking together ….
Party FIRST’
If the facts show that someone in the highest office in the land committed high crimes or misdemeanors, future generations should know that there were people who took that seriously enough to act. We have Presidents, not Kings.
This is the second time in my lifetime where I believe such evidence exists in the White House.
If we as a society just shrug or do nothing, someone one day will come down the line even more corrupt and brazen than we can imagine.
This has certainly been seen in Illinois government where a corrupt Republican (from before he was Governor) was succeeded by an even more corrupt Democrat who had pledged reform but felt empowered to go even further to abuse his office for personal gain. (oh and Trump thinks he was a great guy who got railroaded.)
Republican politicians know Trump is corrupt just as much as Dem politicians know it. despite that, it is only the Republicans who are defending him. So who is Corey criticizing? The Democrats!
I second Jack’s view .,..
The jury is cooked
Sure it is…
The Republicans are never going to convict Trump of anything .It would destroy their Party.
That’s why we need no lecture as to our “ duty.”
If something is just, it is just, regardless of the consequences.
Look at what our Founding Fathers sacrificed when the outcome was very much in doubt.
But let’s not pretend that if the roles were reversed that Democrats would be primed to convict a President of their own party as he or she ran for reelection.
Politicians read polls before anything else. It cannot be denied that there is strong opposition in the public to removing Trump from office via impeachment. So, it’s not like Republican Senators are ignoring the will of their constituents. They are echoing it.
Maybe one day that will change. Until then, you are going to have to find a way to beat him the old-fashioned way.
Sigh!
I have to actually echo Jack…
The GOPer’s for the most part are simply scared of their own party voters …
Trump has co-opted them
This has NOTHING to do with ‘justice’
The guy is a crook…
We ALL KNOW IT…
GOPer’s have advantage in keeping him in office now
So Now you’ve gone from wanting the Democrats to do their “duty”
To saying ,ah what the Hell ,you gonna have to beat him in an election.
So,we finally agree
Doing a duty and getting a specific outcome are not necessarily the same thing. You know that.
You guys do not seem to be denying that there is legitimate reason to impeach him. You just are afraid to do it because of the potential consequences.
As a political matter, I get that and see your points. It speaks to a weakness and a sense of fear in your party. I get that too.
While I do not want to see Trump reelected, I also feel no connection or affinity to the Democrats as a party, for various deeply held reasons, so my only consideration is to the Constitution and justice.
Let the chips fall where they may.
In theory, I can definitely see a scenario where the Democrat House impeaches Trump, and still somehow beats him. It’s not impossible.
I can also think of a far more foolproof scenario to beat him at the ballot box, but you guys want no part of it.
Let the chips fall thing ain’t the answer talking about letting a crooked President beat the rap….
The HHR people must be having a baby about Amash getting media attention?
Yes we all know you only want the “ best” for the Democratic Party by electing a Right Wing Republican because at least he isn’t Trump ( while governing issue wise pretty much the same as Trump).
So much for your uh,
“ foolproof scenario.”
Further, I honestly believe that between Any of the likely Democratic nominees and Trump ,despite your dislike of him, you would rather see Trump re-elected because on issues and judicial appointments you agree with him far more than any of the Democrats.
I want the best for the country.
And in my scenario, I would be talking about a moderate Republican or an Independent. Certainly not someone as conservative as I would prefer, but just in order to create a coalition to get rid of Trump.
I understand why partisan Democrats do not want to go that route, you guys really want Single Payer, etc, but if Trump winds up winning again, there will be remorse on the left.
I don’t agree with your assessment of me.
While I certainly do not expect to be able to vote for any of the 23 Democrats currently running (nor Trump of course), I would likely find myself “rooting” for them in the debate and probably even on Election Night. To my abject horror, I found myself trying to create scenarios on Election Night in which Hillary would survive.
However, I will readily admit the idea of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as POTUS from a policy standpoint scares me to death. I still would not vote for Trump against them though.
At the minimum, I hope you guys nominate someone as wisely as possible.
I’m sorry but I simply do not believe that you would “ root” for Sanders, Warren or likely even Biden to be elected President.
There may be some here who do.
On issue after issue you agree with Trump far more thanany of the potential Democratic candidates,
You are both anti abortion.You are generally supportive of his judicial nominees,certainly far more than any nominees of any of the Democrats, .You both favor tax cuts particularly for the wealthy.You both favor rolling back regulations that help consumers and the environment,finding them,unduly burdensome.You both favor some vague,undefined “ market based “ solution to the health care situation.Your major issue disagreement is on trade.
However, on all the issues above your stands are diametrically opposed to any of the prospective Democratic candidates.
As to your “vote?”Thats not important.I suspect you will cast a ballot for some third party anti Trump Republican .like Amash .
Actually I’m not being critical of you…
My point is that,despite your personal loathing of him which I don’t doubt, You would havelock rather have him as President than any of the present Democratic frontrunner,
Your denials notwithstanding
So jack, now you are a mind-reader too.
All I said was that in a debate, I will be rooting for anyone up against Trump. That was the case when he debated Hillary, whether you believe it or not.
If I cannot vote for either of the major party candidates, I am largely agnostic (and disappointed) about the ultimate result. That doesn’t mean that I do not want to see Trump lose above all else. (I won’t bet $1000 on it though this time)
I am fully capable of “rooting” for a candidate or a team I dislike if I dislike the opponent more.
And I have a lot of doubt I could actually vote for Amash. I have a lot of ideological problems with him too.
Furthermore jack, I would rather see the hysterical meltdown on HHR and be able to say, “see I told you so” if Trump loses, then watch how the four people here would react if Trump won (especially since Keith is hopefully gone for good)
if you think he is crooked (and it seems to me that everyone who posts here thinks he is), then use the Constitutional process to address that without fear of political implications.
Country First.
After today, I am about 75 % convinced that impeachment is happening this year.
When it does the people here who are expressing political angst will be in favor of the effort on the merits.
So, just give in and embrace it. It’s probably already inevitable.
Nobody who thinks Trump is guilty now is going to change their mind towards innocent.
Yes, you will probably be in the minority and probably lose the “battle” but the war for honest government should continue regardless of which party is in the White House, which party controls Congress, or whatever populist whim prevails in the country.
After the “battle” there will still be many months for a Democrat nominee to make their case why they are better than Donald Trump. At the time of the general election voting, swing voters will be focused on “issues.”
If they can’t make that case in the states where it matters most, they will deserve to lose.
I do NOT think Pelosi is dumb enough to help Trump Win a second term by making Republicans, the media and few safe district and state Democrats happy with a impeachment give in…
I guess the media and GOPer’s can go back to wishing for a Sanders nomination?
There are plenty of elections, in red areas or blue areas, where the results are “cooked” and the winner is assured.
If you are on the other side, why even vote then?
Sometimes, it should be about ensuring your voice was heard, even if it is in the minority.
Getting on the record isn’t worth giving Trump a second term…
It ain’t worth it….
Pelosi has already had a sharp change in her rhetoric today in regards to impeachment. She is saying it is on the table.
The quicker they got on with this, the better perhaps.
It can all be wrapped up by the time the primary voting starts.
In other news, apparently there will be a new election in Israel.
We know that black people are more likely to be convicted than white people. Therefore using Jack’s logic, the government should be more willing to charge black people of a crime. Jack may feel my idea is foolish, but I find his values on this issue to be immoral.
What “values” of mine?
I was just explaining how the criminal justice system works.
Where have you been?
Blacks have been objecting for years that they are more subject to prosecution than Whites particularly for drug related offenses.Theyre Right!
I’m just explaining to you the way things really work.It has nothing to do with my “values.”
Do I think Trump is a crook ?Hell Yeah.Indeed, “obstruction” is likely the least of the crimes he has committed over the years.
Just because I explained that prosecutorial discretion is a linchpin of the system and has been for years,you question my “values?”
Get real!
Obviously you believe that every Prosecutor in this country is “immoral.”
Every,let me repeat Every Prosecutor in this country at one time or another has declined to prosecute a case because they feel they won’t be able to get a conviction.
Why do you think that many cases are “settled” after a jury is selected ,but before a trial?Let Me clue you in.Its because the Prosecutor feels he has a bad Jury for a conviction and he bargains the case down to a lesser offense or sometimes just dismisses it.Goes on daily in courts all over this country.
Instead of the sanctimonious that is on full display over this issue,it’s time to face simple reality.
No Way No How are two Thirds of the United States Senate going to vote to convict and remove him from office no matter what any “Impeachment investigation “ reveals.
Politically, if the Democrats pursue this?It is not going to end well in my view.
As for CG,
If Trump is impeached and a trailoccurs in the Senate for a man he has defined as a “crook?”
It will be interesting to watch him somehow blame the Democrats as Republican Senator after Republican Senator .many whom he has expressed admiration for in the past stands solemnly at their desk and utters the word “nay” on conviction.
I’m gonna back up Jack again….
Pelosi isn’t stupid…
Better to let Trump bleed out politically then make the media and Republicans happy with a impeachment indictment that drops dead n the Senate and allows Trump to cast blame AWAY from himself in order to get a second term..
This impeachment bill shit right now is just that
Bull shit
Yes…
The Republicans have the high cards
They have had them since 2010…
The Dem’s split the deck last year
People gonna hold on for a year and a half…. During which Trump swings in the wind and screws himself,..
It sucks
But be patient…
No, if the evidence is clear, and a Republican Senator votes Not Guilty, I will be critical of that vote.
But as mentioned, we do not even know how all the Democrats would vote.
The bottom line as far as it relates to any impeachment trial is that Senators are likely to vote the way their constituents want them to on the matter, one way or another.
Yes, the entire process may prove to be nothing but symbolic, but sometimes symbolism matters.
Two Democratic senator’s I would image would NOT vote ‘Aye’….
Being critical of Republican senator’s voting ‘Nay’ would amount to NOTHING…
They get elected from their states…
THAT is what counts…
He, he, he….
I’ll throw in a question…
What does Trump and his posse do IF Biden WINS November 3rd?????
Why is there so little faith that Democrats cannot win a Presidential election if they impeach him?
There seems to be an impression that Trump is more popular than he is.
You guys should already know you aren’t going to win red states in 2020.
The feeling about a Trump walk would be a second term is what Jack said earlier….
He turns the trial around to be a ‘coup’ and ‘treason’ as he ALREADY DONE…
Second?
For the 50th time….
Clinton ‘not guilty’ sent his polling numbers straight up….
President Trump revealed he has no idea how impeachment actually works, insisting to reporters, “I can’t imagine the courts allowing it.”
Of course, the courts have nothing to do with impeachment, which is the domain of Congress….
Politcalwire…
He ought to be impeached for not knowing what impeachment is.
At some point, we have to insist on some basic standard of being able to at least understand the basis of the oath a President swears to uphold.
Trump is about Donald Trump
Not America
Or much of ANYTHING else…
Donald Trump is about Himself….
Not America or much of anything else
Well I do think there are some ethical lawyers. But part of the reason people don’t have faith in our judicial system is for reasons like this. If a person has the $ to get a good lawyer who will likely win, that doesn’t mean that the government should be less likely to prosecute than if the person is appointed a public defender. And yes, I find your position on this to be immoral. Instead of calling me sanctimonious and foolish, maybe consider the possibility that you and other lawyers might be wrong on this.
Maybe tomorrow we can talk about the curious decision related to Jussie Smollett recently in Illinois and what might have influenced the prosecutor’s decision there…
And yes, blacks are right that they are more likely to get prosecuted and it is unethical that prosecutors are more likely to charge them.
May?
Black’s ARE disproportionally rounded up and charged with crimes…
Black on Black crime IS. Real thing…
The idea that Black’s wouldn’t need strong criminal laws and protection is naive and disingenuous…
Examples of racism in the criminal justice system are well documented ….
If you want a twisted thrill that isn’t caused by the hundreds of horror films out there:
Just imagine, if you dare, how utterly insufferable Donald Trump will act, speak and tweet after conviction fails in the Senate (even he barely squeaks by, like Andrew Johnson, 40-60 or 35-65)L
“The Witch Hunt started by 17 Angry Democrats (in the Deep State) and British agent Christopher Steele is over !! No Collusion! No Obstruction ! ¡ ¡ I HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY, TOTALLY AND DECISIVELY EXONERATED !!. Case Over. Time to investigate Crooked Nancy and the TRAITORS who tried to undermine our Democracy and overturn One of the Greatest Electoral College Victories in History !!….”
etc., et seq., ad nauseam, for now and forever, world without end, Amen.
It’s truly worrisome how close my projected presidential tweet was to the Real Thing about 5 minutes ago tonight:
“How do you impeach a Republican President for a crime that was committed by the Democrats? WITCH-HUNT!”
DSD?…The guy DOES live in a Alternate Universe….
is appeasement the answer?
And anybody who would nod or buy into those Tweets are already not going to vote Democrat.
Good one DSD….
Already he’s sent Barr on a purge after the FBI and Intelligence Community….
Can you image a Non-Conviction?
The talk of an extra few years coming back!
I have to agree with AG Barr.
I really don’t understand why Mueller couldn’t have reached a conclusion as to whether Trump obstructed Justice.
I don’t get Muellers statement that since the President can’t be indicted that somehow precluded a simple statement in his report as th his conclusion on the subject.
It seems fairly obvious from the report and the statement yesterday that Mueller believed he had. He said yesterday that he felt it would be unfair to suggest it directly since there would be no formal legal means for Trump to clear his name, and of course the matter is the jurisdiction of Congress anyway.
Clearly, Barr allowed himself to immensely and intentionally misrepresent the gist of the entire report.
Maybe he feels he did but lots of people ,rightly in my view, feel he didn’t.
Leaving it sort of hanging by saying , well we didn’t exonerate him.
That’s a far cry from saying that he believed he obstructed Justice.
It just seems like he wants to play it completely by the DOJ book, that it doesn’t matter as much what he thinks but what he is allowed to do per statute.
He clearly did Trump no favors yesterday. I’m not about to feel sorry for Trump over this. In many ways, it was similar to Comey’s press statement about Hillary.
Personally CG?
I think Mueller ducked….
I said that in my first post after the report came out…
The US Attorney for the Southern District called Trump an un-indictyed co-conspiritor in the Cohen case…
Mueller copped out…
THEN hew give 10 or 11 possible obstruction situations?
The guy doesn’t want to be in the political; arena…
Mueller wasn’t investigating the Cohen case.
He played it by the book on the Russia investigation. I appreciate that. The fact that both tribes are mad at him means he probably did it exactly right. He shouldn’t want to be in the political arena. It’s not his job and it was not his charge.
People thought Comey “ducked” too as it related to Hillary and both sides were upset.
Ken Starr would have maybe said something different but you all were so mad at Ken Starr you demanded the law be changed.
Mueller did his job and laid out the facts. For Congress, now is a “time for choosing.”
No , I agree he shouldn’t be in the political arena …
BUT?
As soon as he accepted this job?
He WAS smack dab RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of it…
I understand how he feels…
But he was the FBI Director…
THAT job involved politics…
Ken Starr stepped up…
But he was a ‘Independent Prosecutor ” in believe…
As such ?
His boss was a judge NOT the AG of President he was investigating…
And the AG now is acting as the target of the investigations defense lawyer..
The FBI Director should never feel like they are a part of “politics” either.
Anybody who wants to see Trump embarrassed should be thankful that Mueller went before the cameras yesterday. He was not required to. We all can agree now ,(after some confusion earlier) that indeed a sitting President cannot be indicted and that was the operating principle he had to work with. There is nothing else he could have said or done to change that.
If one wants to read between the lines though, it is fairly clear to see that he is practically imploring Congress to impeach Trump. That is why his statement yesterday changed my own thinking on the matter.
Answer to the FBI Dir and politics?
ALL cabinet sec ARE involved in politics…
Even MNORE so in the Trump era….
Comey and others are not exempt….
I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE DOJ ‘OPINION’ THAT THE PRESIDENT CASNNOT BE CHARGED WITH CRIME….
THERE IS NOTHING IN CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS THAT!
Mueller talked about conviction…
That idea has NOT been tried one way or another…
The FBI Director is not part of the Cabinet. It is an independent agency. The Directors are supposed to interlap between Presidents.
An Attorney General is part of the Cabinet and might be expected to support a President’s crime fighting policies, etc, but should be independent in terms of a political relationship with the boss.
RFK should never have been AG. Eric Holder should never have been AG. Perhaps Ed Meese shouldn’t have been under Reagan either. For whatever fault Jeff Sessions had, he was right to recuse himself.
The FBI is not an “independent agency” like the FCC or the SEC: it is clearly part of the U,S. Department of Justice, as are the Bureau of Prisons, the DEA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF or BATFE).
Congress after Watergate did give the FBI certain powers and establish certain conventions such as the one (brazenly broken by Donald Trump, nominally via the Atty-Gen.) that Directors of the FBI should hold ten-year terms that straddle more than one presidency and that can only be foreshortened for very good cause.
The Director is certainly not part of the Cabinet.
What I was trying to say is that the Director of the FBI is not supposed to be purely a political appointment. I believe the Director is given a 10 year term, which is supposed to grant some independence from the White House.
You two gotta wake up…..
The FBI Director has to play politics….
Always has…
Has to go up to the Hill for money and support…
In the PAST ?
The politics where minimal…
But even on Comey’s Book?
He gives reasons for things in political terms, though Obama never really pressed him…
Sure the FBI Director’s boss is the AG….
So?
As ANY of us who have worked FOR anybody?
You play politics to keep your boss off your ass…
This 10 year thing, as Donald Trump showed is worthless….
You serve at the pleasure of the President….
You make sure you don’t piss him off….
THAT isn’t independence unless your boss wants u to….
Like Comey DSD?
Who (among those conscious in 1972-74) can forget FBI director L. Patrick Gray, who seemed only too eager to please Richard Nixon’s White House ?
He was the principal reason that Congress tried to give the FBI Director some independence and insulation from party politics. Robert Mueller (4 Sept 2001 – 4 Sept 2013) is a good example of FBI Directors were considered competent enough and independent enough to survive a change in the dominant political party.
Top officials in almost ANY organization HAVE TO be able to play politics….
The US Atty got the Cohen case FROM Mueller….
Play by the ‘book’…
Shit that would mean ABOVE politics a crime was commited by the President…
Pass up the Grand Jury indictments…
Mueller ducked….
Plain and simple…
You are talking apples and oranges.
Michael Cohen was not the President. He was charged and had the right to his day in court, as of course appropriate for anyone charged. He determined it was right to plead guilty and is now facing the consequences of his actions.
The situation is different with a President and the two cases are unrelated anyway. One day, when Trump is no longer President, he may find himself in legal trouble in the Southern District of New York.
Congress can at least try to speed that up if they so choose.
Apples and Oranges?
Nope…
Donald J. Trump was part of a criminal action…
That WAS noted...
Barr NOW says Mueller could have given a call on Trump….
NOW?
Barr’s comment is straight out chicken…
Of course he knew that Mueller was a good solider that follows orders…
And now that he’s only said Trump is a crook in ‘nuanced ‘ language he feels free to say this…
Mueller doesn’t even want to deviate from his report…
Real ballsy of Barr….
There is no statute that prevented him from offering a statement concerning whether or not there was evidence of obstruction
He basically presented the evidence. If he had been completely explicit about it, while not being able to charge or know that a federal charge could be brought, he would of course been accused of overreaching.
Congress has the report. They should do what they think is right for the country. Article I is very clear.
Oh he’s already been accused of overreaching.
No,he could have been much more forthcoming.
He could have had a full page of the report say GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY and I don’t think it would have altered public opinion on the matter.
It just would make it harder for the Democrats in Congress to resist using their power to act. That resistance will keep getting hammered away on a daily basis. It will be interesting to see the first new batch of poll results among Democrat voters on the impeachment question. I am thinking it tops 80%.
On the contrary,particularly among non Trump supporting Republicans(few that there are) and real independents( not Trump supporters who simply call themselves that as they vote straight Republican) ,I think a much more forthright statement would have been devastating to Trump.
People tend to already have their minds made up on the matter.
It just seems like Mueller reached the determination to completely do things by the book. Others (ie Trump) have accused him of overreaching, but he knew he hadn’t. He has expressed though that he thought it would be unfair to make an “indictment” statement that could not be tested in a court of law.
Democrats (or whomever) should have no problem saying to the public that Mueller found evidence of collusion and obstruction that Congress has the responsibility to either let slide or punish.
“Punish”
Apparently,you feel the act of impeachment is “ punishment”
You don’t seriously believe that the Republicans in the Senate will vote to convict Trump.
Clinton wasn’t convicted either. That’s not the point.
It is punishment though. It sends a message (yes, down to the generations yet unborn too) about what our priorities and values are.
Voting to impeach a President may put a politician’s job in danger or candidate’s chances of victor in danger, but to quote Alexander Hamilton, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”
No conviction means the case REALLY is over…
Pelosi and the Democrats aren’t biting for things that easy…..
“no conviction” in the Senate still means that the American people get to have a say on it at the ballot box, both in terms of the Executive and the Congress.
You cannot force the American people to feel outraged, about immoral actions or the rule of law being violated, as I have known for about 25 years now, but that should be a case that can be made however.
The fact that Democrats are so afraid of impeaching Trump does not speak well of them. They shouldn’t be afraid but are. What is being unsaid is the realization that Democrats on policy matters have moved so far to the left and are considered so outside the mainstream in many parts of the country, that they are so constrained.
Impeach Trump, let the process play out, and then there still will be months before the next election. Find someone to nominate that the American people will not fear from a policy/ideological standpoint and you should have little to worry about.
Just from a historical perspective, while we have never had a President removed from office via impeachment, each of the three times impeachment proceedings were undertaken, the opposition party of that President won the next election.
Never been tested with an incumbent though who would seek reelection.
CG keeps saying that the party supporting impeachment pays a price at the the next election, but that’s only true for 1998; the opposite, in fact, was true in 1994 (a huge Blue Wave) and 1868 (a giant increase for the GOP).
40th Congress (1867-69)
Senate: 42 R – 11 D
House: 143 R – 49 D – (1 vacancy)
41st Congress (1869-71) – after large number of readmitted (ex-Confederate) and newly-admitted states
Senate: 61 R – 11 D – (2 vacancies)
House: 170 R – 73 D
***
93rd Congress (1973 – 75)
Senate: 56 D – 42 R – (1 Cons. – 1 Ind.) *
House: 242 D – 192 R – (1 vacancy)
94th Congress (1975-77)
Senate: 61 D – 37 D – (1 Cons. – 1 Ind.) *
* Senators James Buckley (Conservative Party of New York) and Harry F. Byrd, Jr (independent of Virginia)
House: 291 D – 144 R
Let me fix the above:
93rd Congress (1973 – 75)
Senate: 56 D – 42 R – (1 Cons. – 1 Ind.) *
House: 242 D – 192 R – (1 vacancy)
94th Congress (1975-77)
Senate: 61 D – 37 D – (1 Cons. – 1 Ind.) *
House: 291 D – 144 R
* Senators James Buckley (Conservative Party of New York) and Harry F. Byrd, Jr (independent of Virginia)
Thanks for the 411 DSD….
I KNOW he’s trying to sell impeachment…
Democrats ain’t buying
I said that the party supporting impeachment has always won the next Presidential election.
I don’t believe for a second that an impeachment will likely help the Democrats, but I also don’t see impeachment hearings as a death sentence to them either. You have to stand for what you believe in or people will see you for what you are. In fairness, Democrats can’t complain that only one Republican supports impeachment when they aren’t willing to go on the record either – and saying “I support impeachment, but only if we can succeed” is really an offensive message that mostly only moderate Democrats can’t see. And in truth, we really don’t know how the hearings will play out. Having people emotionally testify can have a powerful effect, and it is not as if these hearings would be the equivalent of Benghazi. There is a lot to investigate and for good reason. Leadership is doing the right thing when it is not popular to do.
It’s about the short and LONG game Z…..
Sure you get gratification from starting and having impeachment hearings….
Sure the House would hand up charges (indictment)…
BUT???
The Senate Republicans OWN their Jury….
There will be NO CONVICTION….
THAT will embolden Donald Trump to sell the narrative that the DEMOCRATS went after him and LOST!!!!!!!
Except for the Republicans and the media?
Pelosi’s point of view on this will prevail….
And Yes….
The Republicans with elections in 2010 and 2016 have out played the Democrats….
Bless Pelosi for NOT trying to let them win AGAIN….
Perhaps the Democrats would feel more inclined to impeach Trump if your fellow “tribesmen” in the Senate hadn’t already announced that they will not vote to convict no matter what..
Ah but we notice no mention of such in your new found “ lust” for impeachment.
Indeed Saint Mitt has specifically said he is opposed to impeachment.
I’m sure I missed your post in which you said his statement “does not speak well” of him.
Can you refer me to where I can find it?
It doesn’t speak”well” of the Republican Party that only One House Republican has stated he favors impeachment.
Once again ,since we all know you are no uh “tribalist” that you have posted something about this.
Or am I Mistaken?
And while you are so “concerned” about history,our grandchildren, etc
Shouldn’t you at least be “ concerned” that history and our progeny will learn that your political tribe announced that impeachment was moot because they will never vote to convict.
Oh well, maybe history won’t record that !
Well, if Democrats cower in fear over that supposed pledge, you have let the “bad guys” win.
Nobody from this era who did not speak up for what is right will come out of this looking good. America has survived many things before though and came out better for it. I will try to be a long-term optimist.
Corey can illustrate his couragewith pride in that he sat out the races in 2016 and 2020, and then try to argue that this is more than Democrats would have done .
I don’t intend to sit out any election. I simply will not vote for what I find to be morally or ideologically unacceptable. There are better ways I can use my right to vote. We all know that my Presidential vote in Illinois has no bearing on the outcome.
Ok- fair point
No, it doesn’t speak well of other Republicans for not having the courage to speak about the obvious. I believe many if not most of them say privately what Amash has said publicly but of course, they are about self-survival.
I’ve criticized the Republican capitulation to Trump every day since he became the presumptive nominee which I thought you would have been aware of by now.
I know exactly what Romney said two weeks ago and I agreed with it at the time. You apparently still agree with it, so not sure why you would criticize the position. Romney was savaged by Trump fans for saying that Amash’s position was “courageous.”
I have changed my mind on impeachment after Mueller’s statement.People have the right to change their mind. Cory Booker changed his mind at the same time.
A U.S. Senator has a higher standard not to pre-judge any evidence than anybody on a blog or for that matter the U.S. House. I think Romney, among all Republicans and all Senators, would vote fairly based on the impeachment evidence.
Jack?
WTF is this basic math of the Senate a open secret?
He, he, he…
Me Thicks you are trying sell a impeachment second term for Donald Trump?
He should be impeached this term.
We don’t know if he will get a second term or not but every day he is POTUS is one day too many as long as their are lawful, Constitutional methods to stop it.
CG?…
THIS term?
Sure….
Just in time to get him a SECOND term?…