Don't know how this turned into a debate about whether they have a right to support a certain candidate. It's about where and in what circumstance. It is not a free speech issue that I can't plaster Kamala Harris signs around my desk. Not would it have been one in 2004 when I was working valet and if I had tried to come to work with a John Kerry insignia on the armband of my casino uniform.
As for why we can't have military servicemen doing this uniform, I would think it would be self-explanatory, but apparently that explains why we are where we are. Any slide into authoritarianism with necessarily require making praise or dissent of the leader equate to praise or dissent of the country itself. Just another of the dozens if not hundreds of shattered norms people are shrugging their shoulders at, and when the day comes when the entire thing hits them like a ton of bricks, don't say no one warned you, as if it came out of nowhere. It's been happening day by day and piece by piece for years.
Patches like this aren't new.
And as I said, the chain of command in the military will prevent any slide into authoritarianism from low level servicemen rising up to support a King Trump.
I'm sure the commander in chief of the military is mighty interested in stopping people from supporting a king trump. Yeah right.
If the Navy were to say court martial these sailors and sentence them to prison, King Trump would pardon them wouldn't he?
Mitch McConnell has now said that he would fill a vacant Supreme Court seat if one opened in 2020 during the upcoming presidential election.
While I suspect *NO ONE* is at all surprised to see this, it absolutely cuts to the core of his institutional norm breaking hypocritical nature. He suggested that there was precedent for not filling a seat during a presidential election in the past because it was an election issue. It was obvious then, and confirmed now that it was only a political ploy putting the GOP ahead of both the country and the constitution.
I really do think that when all is said and done, McConnell's decision to abnegate his responsibility to the constitution will be of extreme significance, historically speaking. I dont even mean as it relates to how the court will rule over the next 35 years (It will have significance there, too - obviously).
It's a slow burn, but this is worse than the attempted court packing during FDR. I think It might be on the scale of the nullification crisis during Jackson's administration.
It WAS court packing. Denying Obama a pick (ANY pick) was simply packing it by subtraction rather than addition, until such a time it became advantageous to UNPACK it in their favor by filling the 9th seat once Trump was sworn in. If Hillary had won, it would have sat "packed" at 8 for her entire term, which we already know from prominent Senator's own statements. This was also nullification. It was nullification of every Presidential vote for Obama in 2012. He was simply robbed of his (arguably) most important and meaningful constitutional authority because (for the 1000th time) one side realized there are NO consequences for breaking the rules like a black belt breaks a board in karate. And that there are no mechanisms in place to stop it. If you have people like McConnell and Trump willing to take these steps that basically render every governmental and constitutional parameter as meaningless, nothing can stop them.
Don't know how this turned into a debate about whether they have a right to support a certain candidate. It's about where and in what circumstance. It is not a free speech issue that I can't plaster Kamala Harris signs around my desk. Not would it have been one in 2004 when I was working valet and if I had tried to come to work with a John Kerry insignia on the armband of my casino uniform.
As for why we can't have military servicemen doing this uniform, I would think it would be self-explanatory, but apparently that explains why we are where we are. Any slide into authoritarianism with necessarily require making praise or dissent of the leader equate to praise or dissent of the country itself. Just another of the dozens if not hundreds of shattered norms people are shrugging their shoulders at, and when the day comes when the entire thing hits them like a ton of bricks, don't say no one warned you, as if it came out of nowhere. It's been happening day by day and piece by piece for years.
Patches like this aren't new.
And as I said, the chain of command in the military will prevent any slide into authoritarianism from low level servicemen rising up to support a King Trump.
The chain of command can be a potential problem. In the US, as in most Western countries, the chain of command goes past the head of the military to a civilian - in this case the president (who is named in the constitution as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces). There are good reasons for ultimate civilian control of the military, but the intention behind this is to support democratic control of the military. The president should thus be acting on behalf of the country and its democratic institutions when giving orders.
If servicemen give personal loyalty to a president, and that president asks them to act in an anti-democratic way, you've got a problem. As @jjstraka34 says the checks and balances intended to prevent that situation from happening are being eroded over time. That doesn't mean there's a crisis right now, but it seems hard to me to argue that there's nothing at all to worry about.
Don't know how this turned into a debate about whether they have a right to support a certain candidate. It's about where and in what circumstance. It is not a free speech issue that I can't plaster Kamala Harris signs around my desk. Not would it have been one in 2004 when I was working valet and if I had tried to come to work with a John Kerry insignia on the armband of my casino uniform.
As for why we can't have military servicemen doing this uniform, I would think it would be self-explanatory, but apparently that explains why we are where we are. Any slide into authoritarianism with necessarily require making praise or dissent of the leader equate to praise or dissent of the country itself. Just another of the dozens if not hundreds of shattered norms people are shrugging their shoulders at, and when the day comes when the entire thing hits them like a ton of bricks, don't say no one warned you, as if it came out of nowhere. It's been happening day by day and piece by piece for years.
Patches like this aren't new.
And as I said, the chain of command in the military will prevent any slide into authoritarianism from low level servicemen rising up to support a King Trump.
The chain of command can be a potential problem. In the US, as in most Western countries, the chain of command goes past the head of the military to a civilian - in this case the president (who is named in the constitution as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces). There are good reasons for ultimate civilian control of the military, but the intention behind this is to support democratic control of the military. The president should thus be acting on behalf of the country and its democratic institutions when giving orders.
If servicemen give personal loyalty to a president, and that president asks them to act in an anti-democratic way, you've got a problem. As @jjstraka34 says the checks and balances intended to prevent that situation from happening are being eroded over time. That doesn't mean there's a crisis right now, but it seems hard to me to argue that there's nothing at all to worry about.
It's one ship that a sitting president visited. It's not like every military personnel is wearing Trump's picture on their sleeve. Good God, this is exactly the same kind of shit my family preaches about constantly from the other side of the spectrum.
Everybody who doesn't agree with you has some nefarious purpose in life to not only shut down discourse, but to throw everybody who doesn't agree with them in irons. It's total bullshit!
@Balrog99 I'm just trying to reflect a balanced position, not take things to an extreme. I suspect you would agree with the idea that armed forces should not pledge loyalty to individuals (as opposed to, say, a country or a flag). If that's the case then I presume you would not support a situation where large numbers of military personnel were constantly wearing Trump's picture.
I would interpret your position as saying that this particular instance reflects a special situation (visit by a president), is temporary & isolated and therefore carries no implication at all for the wider situation. I would agree that this instance is very minor in itself, but I don't think it should be totally disregarded. Even if it is of little importance in itself, it's part of a pattern of chipping away at norms and rules that are there for good reasons.
If this instance is seen as entirely acceptable, then the precedent will make it more difficult to take action next time and the time after. That would raise the possibility that wearing such identifiers becomes seen as an individual rights type issue (like wearing certain religious symbols) and trying to enforce a ban on them at that stage then becomes a significant problem.
I do agree with you there are many issues of much more concern than this, so perhaps me posting on it in the first place reflects poor judgment - or perhaps just that I'm on holiday this week and have too much time on my hands .
Mueller has spoken for the first time as he resigns from the justice department: Short version?? Though we had insufficent evidence to charge a broad conspiracy, lies and obstruction materially affected the attempt to get at the heart of the matter (which was an attack on American democracy) and the only reason the President wasn't charged with obstruction is because we COULDN'T charge him. And to basically encourage people to read the damn report. It was not the evidence that prevented a charge against Trump. It was DOJ policy. Which is another lie Bill Barr told.
Yeah. I just listened to it too. I'm anti--impeachment to the core, but I think Mueller just said "We aren't saying he didn't obstruct, and we can't say he did obstruct due to DOJ guidelines". There was no hand wringing about deciding if this was obstruction or not. I think the subtext of his statement was that the president commited a crime, and that the only ones allowed to move the ball from here is Congress.
Damn. I really do think we need to impeach now. The guy who just led the investigation suggested we do so.
I REALLY hope this doesn't get him reelected The institutional damage will be catastrophic.
If Democrats in the House *wanted* to impeach Trump they would do so. They have the votes for it, so why are they waiting?
Congress can put together its own investigation but they don't have the power to *compel* people to cooperate with their investigation, which is why they haven't already opened one of their own.
Congress has the little-known power to set the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. Of course, they won't increase that number right now, but they could do so if someone else occupies the Oval Office in 2021.
Mueller chooses his words carefully. Listen to what he said:
When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrong-doers accountable.
He did not say "if" a subject of an investigation, he said "when". Which, taken in totality with everything else he said today means only one thing. When Trump (and those like Manafort especially) obstructed the investigation, it had the EXACT effect obstruction is meant to have, which is to block the investigation off at the pass. He 100% believes Trump is guilty of obstruction, but could not charge him. This was (in his own maddening always-above-the-fray way) Mueller practically begging Congress to act as he exits the stage.
Mueller chooses his words carefully. Listen to what he said:
When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrong-doers accountable.
He did not say "if" a subject of an investigation, he said "when".
Allow me to split hairs for a second. "When a planet-killer meteor strikes the Earth, it will likely cause the extinction of the human race." In many sentences, "when" and "if" are somewhat interchangeable, depending upon the likely probability of the event in question--some things are more certain than others. I am not suggesting that such a meteor impact is imminent but the probability of such an event is greater than zero.
Congress can investigate based on Mueller's statements but they cannot really *do* anything about it except impeach. Once again, I must ask: they could impeach if they wanted to, so why haven't they?
For fear of the backlash, @Mathsorcerer. If impeachment fails and little or no new information, or less than absolutely damning information, comes to light, then it might feed the idea that Trump is being attacked for no reason, and that could help his chances in 2020. Since the GOP-controlled Senate is all but guaranteed not to remove him from office regardless of the circumstances, there's not a rush to get it done quickly, and that gives the Democratic party a reason to sit on the matter while they're considering their options.
Impeachment is not going to remove him from office, so what then is the purpose of impeachment proceedings? To expose him? To damage Trump's 2020 chances? To damage GOP senators by forcing them to declare Trump either innocent or above the law? To look strong in the eyes of voters who expect representatives to oppose Trump? To simply follow precedent? To establish a new precedent? A Democratic politician has numerous possible reasons to support impeachment, but all of these motives could potentially backfire depending on how things play out.
I see value in several of those motives, but there's no guarantee that voting for impeachment in the House, knowing it will fail in the Senate, will accomplish any of those objectives.
We know why they haven't done it yet. The old guard fears possible political ramifications. There are multiple people in this thread who fear that. I think they are wrong on that front, but this is also a basic question of what is RIGHT for sustaining constitutional democracy. Every member of the House and Senate should be put on record. Moreover, we all know the VAST majority of the country is not going to read the report, or even a portion of it (I myself am now about 25% of the way through a full read). They won't read the book, but they will watch the movie, so to speak. The intellectual and political laziness of the public must also be factored in.
Congress can investigate based on Mueller's statements but they cannot really *do* anything about it except impeach. Once again, I must ask: they could impeach if they wanted to, so why haven't they?
You've asked this question a number of times. I cant tell if you're asking rhetorically or not. The answer is nuanced, but broadly comes down to: Is it politically expedient to do so? The answer is: "It's unclear". Anyone (literally, anyone) who says otherwise is making assumptions.
The reason why Pelosi doesnt want to do it, is because Democrats have an above average chance to win the White House. So they're being small c conservative.
In other news - it looks like there will be new elections in Israel. Netanyahu had until midnight to create a coalition for running Israel, and couldnt get it done. Instead of giving another politician a chance to create a coalition, they pushed through legislation calling for a new election.
If impeachment fails and little or no new information, or less than absolutely damning information, comes to light, then it might feed the idea that Trump is being attacked for no reason,
It's worth emphasizing this. Because we know that Trump is being attacked for very good reasons. He has done some very bad things, and proposed more bad things, which have invited reprimand (sometimes literally invited it). Insofar as impeachment could support a narrative that Trump is innocent and blameless, by implication it would support a deception against the American people. There are people working hard to establish that deception as the dominant narrative, at least for a serious segment of the country.
If I was in Congress I would definitely think twice before doing anything that might contribute to such a deception, even if I thought it was clear as day that Trump deserved to be impeached.
It is NOT being helped by the fact that the White House, by stonewalling Congressional subpoenas, is murking up the waters. Which is why i's being done.
If impeachment fails and little or no new information, or less than absolutely damning information, comes to light, then it might feed the idea that Trump is being attacked for no reason,
It's worth emphasizing this. Because we know that Trump is being attacked for very good reasons. He has done some very bad things, and proposed more bad things, which have invited reprimand (sometimes literally invited it). Insofar as impeachment could support a narrative that Trump is innocent and blameless, by implication it would support a deception against the American people. There are people working hard to establish that deception as the dominant narrative, at least for a serious segment of the country.
If I was in Congress I would definitely think twice before doing anything that might contribute to such a deception, even if I thought it was clear as day that Trump deserved to be impeached.
It is NOT being helped by the fact that the White House, by stonewalling Congressional subpoenas, is murking up the waters. Which is why i's being done.
It all goes back to Barr's lies about the report. The further we get away from that Sunday, the more we learn about how nakedly and brazenly he misrepresented it to allow them a MONTH to form the narrative. He explicitly said the decision to not indict Trump on obstruction had NOTHING to do with the DOJ policy. We now know from Mueller's own mouth that is a complete lie, and it was the ONLY reason.
Look at it this way, because of the DOJ policy, no report no matter how damning would have resulted in criminal charges against Trump no matter what they were. The report COULD exonerate him, but literally had no way to find him guilty from a law enforcement perspective on it's own because of this policy. So when Mueller says they can't clear the President based on the report, he is going as far as DOJ guidelines will let him. It's not code. There is no way to read Part 2 of the report coupled with Mueller's statement today and come to any other conclusion other than he is only being saved from criminal charges by virtue of his office, and that Congress must act to hold him accountable where the Justice system has decided (for reasons beyond understanding) they cannot.
We seem to have, at some point, decided that Presidents are indeed above the law. They just aren't above Congress, though you wouldn't imagine that can be seen as remotely realistic either when they have decided they will not under any circumstances recognize the investigative authority of that branch.
We seem to have, at some point, decided that Presidents Republicans are indeed above the law.
FTFY
Republican party ride or die voters are entirely convinced of this. Republican politicians use wedge issues like identity politics or abortion and brainwash their team players on Fox News to ensure you'll vote for them no matter what even if they in some cases criminals or pedophiles.
The answer to your question is there is no bottom to the barrel. Imagine what else runs through this guy's mind on a daily basis. I mean, seriously. Let's use valuable naval manpower making sure this 70-year old toddler doesn't have to look at a ship because it bears the namesake of someone he didn't like. Imagine anyone thinking of carrying out these plans for any reason.
The answer to your question is there is no bottom to the barrel. Imagine what else runs through this guy's mind on a daily basis. I mean, seriously. Let's use valuable naval manpower making sure this 70-year old toddler doesn't have to look at a ship because it bears the namesake of someone he didn't like. Imagine anyone thinking of carrying out these plans for any reason.
I am wondering how long it is going to take him to tweet the question of why there isn't a ship named after him.
Congress can investigate based on Mueller's statements but they cannot really *do* anything about it except impeach. Once again, I must ask: they could impeach if they wanted to, so why haven't they?
You've asked this question a number of times. I cant tell if you're asking rhetorically or not. The answer is nuanced, but broadly comes down to: Is it politically expedient to do so? The answer is: "It's unclear". Anyone (literally, anyone) who says otherwise is making assumptions.
Mostly rhetorically, yes. Still, if the goal is to try and discredit Trump enough so that he loses a reelection bid then there is no person more able--and willing--to derail Trump than Trump himself. Impeachment means that he *must* appear before Congress and in the process of the hearings they ask him questions; the answers to those questions become a matter of public record--the Congressional Record, in fact--and thus the longer Trump speaks the more likely he is to contradict himself or become annoyed to the point where he says something he probably shouldn't say out loud in public. At that point, it doesn't matter whether the Senate decided to let him keep his political office or not. I probably should not give them ideas but I cannot be the only person to think of that.
At this moment in time, "impeachment" is the only card the Democrats have left to play. There is no point in them trying to keep it held closely to their chest because everyone knows what that card is.
@Mathsorcerer If norms are followed, yes. I can just as easily Trump and his cronies deciding that these questions won't be made public, or even if he shows up. I'm convinced at this point that the law and norms don't mean anything anymore as far as he is concerned.
@ThacoBell Anything said on the floor of the House while Congress is in session becomes a matter of record. Committee meetings may be closed to the public and the things said there are not a matter of record, but impeachment takes place in the open House. That kind of hearing cannot be closed.
@ThacoBell Anything said on the floor of the House while Congress is in session becomes a matter of record. Committee meetings may be closed to the public and the things said there are not a matter of record, but impeachment takes place in the open House. That kind of hearing cannot be closed.
Yes, but I wouldn't put it past Trump to interfere with that in some way. And as long as people shrug their shoulders and go "oh well." He'll get away with it too.
He's shown on multiple occasions he has no respect for the law. I imagine that there's a very good chance he would simply say the impeachment process is illegal and politically motivated and not turn up for any questioning. I don't see any real downside for him in doing that since his preferred communications with voters have nothing to do with Congress anyway and few voters who would be willing to vote for him would be likely to be put off by such action. I doubt that the Supreme Court would get around to ruling on the issue prior to the next election (and even if they did and ruled against him, Trump could just ignore that ruling anyway in the short term).
Trump went on another deranged rant against Mueller this morning. First, he said Mueller was pissed at him for not making him FBI Director (he is pulling this straight out of his ass, Mueller had already served a full term as director PLUS two more years when Obama asked him to stay on early in his Presidency, there is less than zero indication Mueller had any interest in his old job, or the Special Counsel position). Secondly, he referred again to this amorphous "business dispute" that apparently led Mueller on a vendetta against him.
I can't state strongly enough how straight-laced, above board and FAIR to Trump Mueller was. Trump should be thanking his lucky stars he had Mueller at the head of this rather than a partisan bloodhound like Ken Starr. Yet no matter how many times Mueller goes above and beyond to prove his neutrality in his findings, Trump is still framing him as the leader of a coup attempt.
Comments
I'm sure the commander in chief of the military is mighty interested in stopping people from supporting a king trump. Yeah right.
If the Navy were to say court martial these sailors and sentence them to prison, King Trump would pardon them wouldn't he?
It WAS court packing. Denying Obama a pick (ANY pick) was simply packing it by subtraction rather than addition, until such a time it became advantageous to UNPACK it in their favor by filling the 9th seat once Trump was sworn in. If Hillary had won, it would have sat "packed" at 8 for her entire term, which we already know from prominent Senator's own statements. This was also nullification. It was nullification of every Presidential vote for Obama in 2012. He was simply robbed of his (arguably) most important and meaningful constitutional authority because (for the 1000th time) one side realized there are NO consequences for breaking the rules like a black belt breaks a board in karate. And that there are no mechanisms in place to stop it. If you have people like McConnell and Trump willing to take these steps that basically render every governmental and constitutional parameter as meaningless, nothing can stop them.
The chain of command can be a potential problem. In the US, as in most Western countries, the chain of command goes past the head of the military to a civilian - in this case the president (who is named in the constitution as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces). There are good reasons for ultimate civilian control of the military, but the intention behind this is to support democratic control of the military. The president should thus be acting on behalf of the country and its democratic institutions when giving orders.
If servicemen give personal loyalty to a president, and that president asks them to act in an anti-democratic way, you've got a problem. As @jjstraka34 says the checks and balances intended to prevent that situation from happening are being eroded over time. That doesn't mean there's a crisis right now, but it seems hard to me to argue that there's nothing at all to worry about.
It's one ship that a sitting president visited. It's not like every military personnel is wearing Trump's picture on their sleeve. Good God, this is exactly the same kind of shit my family preaches about constantly from the other side of the spectrum.
Everybody who doesn't agree with you has some nefarious purpose in life to not only shut down discourse, but to throw everybody who doesn't agree with them in irons. It's total bullshit!
I would interpret your position as saying that this particular instance reflects a special situation (visit by a president), is temporary & isolated and therefore carries no implication at all for the wider situation. I would agree that this instance is very minor in itself, but I don't think it should be totally disregarded. Even if it is of little importance in itself, it's part of a pattern of chipping away at norms and rules that are there for good reasons.
If this instance is seen as entirely acceptable, then the precedent will make it more difficult to take action next time and the time after. That would raise the possibility that wearing such identifiers becomes seen as an individual rights type issue (like wearing certain religious symbols) and trying to enforce a ban on them at that stage then becomes a significant problem.
I do agree with you there are many issues of much more concern than this, so perhaps me posting on it in the first place reflects poor judgment - or perhaps just that I'm on holiday this week and have too much time on my hands
Damn. I really do think we need to impeach now. The guy who just led the investigation suggested we do so.
I REALLY hope this doesn't get him reelected The institutional damage will be catastrophic.
Congress can put together its own investigation but they don't have the power to *compel* people to cooperate with their investigation, which is why they haven't already opened one of their own.
Congress has the little-known power to set the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. Of course, they won't increase that number right now, but they could do so if someone else occupies the Oval Office in 2021.
When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrong-doers accountable.
He did not say "if" a subject of an investigation, he said "when". Which, taken in totality with everything else he said today means only one thing. When Trump (and those like Manafort especially) obstructed the investigation, it had the EXACT effect obstruction is meant to have, which is to block the investigation off at the pass. He 100% believes Trump is guilty of obstruction, but could not charge him. This was (in his own maddening always-above-the-fray way) Mueller practically begging Congress to act as he exits the stage.
Allow me to split hairs for a second. "When a planet-killer meteor strikes the Earth, it will likely cause the extinction of the human race." In many sentences, "when" and "if" are somewhat interchangeable, depending upon the likely probability of the event in question--some things are more certain than others. I am not suggesting that such a meteor impact is imminent but the probability of such an event is greater than zero.
Congress can investigate based on Mueller's statements but they cannot really *do* anything about it except impeach. Once again, I must ask: they could impeach if they wanted to, so why haven't they?
Impeachment is not going to remove him from office, so what then is the purpose of impeachment proceedings? To expose him? To damage Trump's 2020 chances? To damage GOP senators by forcing them to declare Trump either innocent or above the law? To look strong in the eyes of voters who expect representatives to oppose Trump? To simply follow precedent? To establish a new precedent? A Democratic politician has numerous possible reasons to support impeachment, but all of these motives could potentially backfire depending on how things play out.
I see value in several of those motives, but there's no guarantee that voting for impeachment in the House, knowing it will fail in the Senate, will accomplish any of those objectives.
You've asked this question a number of times. I cant tell if you're asking rhetorically or not. The answer is nuanced, but broadly comes down to: Is it politically expedient to do so? The answer is: "It's unclear". Anyone (literally, anyone) who says otherwise is making assumptions.
The reason why Pelosi doesnt want to do it, is because Democrats have an above average chance to win the White House. So they're being small c conservative.
In other news - it looks like there will be new elections in Israel. Netanyahu had until midnight to create a coalition for running Israel, and couldnt get it done. Instead of giving another politician a chance to create a coalition, they pushed through legislation calling for a new election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/world/middleeast/israel-election-benjamin-netanyahu.html
It is NOT being helped by the fact that the White House, by stonewalling Congressional subpoenas, is murking up the waters. Which is why i's being done.
It all goes back to Barr's lies about the report. The further we get away from that Sunday, the more we learn about how nakedly and brazenly he misrepresented it to allow them a MONTH to form the narrative. He explicitly said the decision to not indict Trump on obstruction had NOTHING to do with the DOJ policy. We now know from Mueller's own mouth that is a complete lie, and it was the ONLY reason.
Look at it this way, because of the DOJ policy, no report no matter how damning would have resulted in criminal charges against Trump no matter what they were. The report COULD exonerate him, but literally had no way to find him guilty from a law enforcement perspective on it's own because of this policy. So when Mueller says they can't clear the President based on the report, he is going as far as DOJ guidelines will let him. It's not code. There is no way to read Part 2 of the report coupled with Mueller's statement today and come to any other conclusion other than he is only being saved from criminal charges by virtue of his office, and that Congress must act to hold him accountable where the Justice system has decided (for reasons beyond understanding) they cannot.
We seem to have, at some point, decided that Presidents are indeed above the law. They just aren't above Congress, though you wouldn't imagine that can be seen as remotely realistic either when they have decided they will not under any circumstances recognize the investigative authority of that branch.
FTFY
Republican party ride or die voters are entirely convinced of this. Republican politicians use wedge issues like identity politics or abortion and brainwash their team players on Fox News to ensure you'll vote for them no matter what even if they in some cases criminals or pedophiles.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-wanted-uss-john-mccain-out-of-sight-during-trump-japan-visit-11559173470?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
I am wondering how long it is going to take him to tweet the question of why there isn't a ship named after him.
Mostly rhetorically, yes. Still, if the goal is to try and discredit Trump enough so that he loses a reelection bid then there is no person more able--and willing--to derail Trump than Trump himself. Impeachment means that he *must* appear before Congress and in the process of the hearings they ask him questions; the answers to those questions become a matter of public record--the Congressional Record, in fact--and thus the longer Trump speaks the more likely he is to contradict himself or become annoyed to the point where he says something he probably shouldn't say out loud in public. At that point, it doesn't matter whether the Senate decided to let him keep his political office or not. I probably should not give them ideas but I cannot be the only person to think of that.
At this moment in time, "impeachment" is the only card the Democrats have left to play. There is no point in them trying to keep it held closely to their chest because everyone knows what that card is.
Yes, but I wouldn't put it past Trump to interfere with that in some way. And as long as people shrug their shoulders and go "oh well." He'll get away with it too.
I can't state strongly enough how straight-laced, above board and FAIR to Trump Mueller was. Trump should be thanking his lucky stars he had Mueller at the head of this rather than a partisan bloodhound like Ken Starr. Yet no matter how many times Mueller goes above and beyond to prove his neutrality in his findings, Trump is still framing him as the leader of a coup attempt.