It is currently 03/28/24 8:14 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next   Page 1 of 9   [ 204 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
 Post subject: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 6:16 am • # 1 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 06/18/16
Posts: 2164
I was not in favor of impeachment as it accomplished nothing but stirring up his base and giving fodder for republicans to get all stirred up and real issues lost in the fray. Plus, impeachment would never get past the senate. I am wavering now. The reason being I am so fed up and so frustrated with trump and his cronies getting away with everything by spinning it away - leaving the democrats and every decent person seemingly impotent and helpless to stop it no matter how dastardly the deeds. It may be time with this latest revelation about the Ukraine call etc, to impeach. It may be the time to take a stand to oppose and go on the record how corrupt this administration and trump are at undermining democracy and the integrity of the presidency, and our country.

It may not accomplish getting him out of office and might enrage him, the republican base, and force republicans who will back him to face the fact they have no integrity whatsoever left. Even if it only shows there are people who stand-up for this country's principles and democracy enough to act with the only means available, and have it on record for history to review. It might also just be enough to appease some of the frustration and feeling of impotency for many democrats. I also think at this point there is not as much to lose and more to gain.

What say you - Yea or Nay?


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 9:00 am • # 2 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
I agree.
he is like a spoiled child.
having got away with murder, he has no compunction about committing murder again.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 9:04 am • # 3 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
KB, sometimes I'm convinced you and I share identical thought processes! ~ this is one of those times ~

I need to organize/clarify my own thoughts and concerns, but what I'm currently most concerned with are timing and numbers ~ but first I need coffee!

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 12:13 pm • # 4 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
I think the sane people should put maximum pressure on Trump, up to and including impeachment, but in a slow and painful way that might force him to completely crack. How about holding some of his yes men in contempt, including fines and detention? Maybe indicting the DNI for breaking the law that he share the whistleblower's complaint with Congress. This may help turn some of those lackeys into informants and whistleblowers. There seem to be plenty of "White House sources"- more information trickles out each day. I see something very Nixonian developing here.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 1:23 pm • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I think it would be the height of foolishness to impeach him now. Even if Moscow Mitch agreed - which he might do pretty soon - to hold a trial all it would do is put Pence in the big chair, looking all Presidential, reasonable and in the middle of a honeymoon period at voting time. Meanwhile Putin's Bitch would be able to say "look what we patriotic Americans did. We cleaned up our own nest when we discovered his collusion with a foreign country (not Russia, heaven forbid, but the Ukraine). Don't forget the tax cut. That was all us. And the booming economy? Us too." (Of course if there's a recession at the time, that will be because of the potential for the tax and spend Dems to get in so vote Republican to make the good times roll again.)

The Dems are much better off to let Grabem and Moscow Mitch to continue to dig the hole deeper, smacking themselves in the face with every shovel full.

(P.S.: I don't disagree that he should be impeached. He's very deserving of it. But the timing is bad.)


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 2:08 pm • # 6 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
jim: impeachment does not mean removal. at all.

he will NOT be removed. we all know that.

this is about evidence, not about removal.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 3:37 pm • # 7 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Even if convicted he would never be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to jail, so what's the point? To use the right's argument, criminals need to be punished severely...if they aren't white.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 3:41 pm • # 8 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
there are several reasons, actually.

one is to compel evidence.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 4:49 pm • # 9 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
That makes sense Macro.

It also puts the Republicans in a very difficult position as more and more dirt is dug and displayed.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 6:54 pm • # 10 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
macroscopic wrote:
jim: impeachment does not mean removal. at all.

he will NOT be removed. we all know that.

this is about evidence, not about removal.


It does if, as I note in my post, Moscow Mitch turns on Trump and convicts him in a Senate trial. That would be a much more worrisome prospect for the Dems than anything else.

Just a worrisome should be going ahead with an impeachment that has no chance of making through the Seanate. That is going to be viewed as a waste of time and money many, many people and not just Republicans.

I know Pelosi has said the Dems are going ahead with an impeachment inquiry. It just seems to me that between it and the weak slate of candidates vying for the top job the Dems are doing their absolute best to repeat the 2016 debacle.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 7:02 pm • # 11 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Weak candidates?

Who would you regard as a "strong" candidate?


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 7:11 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
there was an interesting vote against Trump in the Senate today.
it was unanimous.

the impossible is impossible until it is possible.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/24/19 11:35 pm • # 13 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Cattleman wrote:
Weak candidates?

Who would you regard as a "strong" candidate?


One that's not them.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 4:10 am • # 14 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
jimwilliam wrote:
... the Dems are doing their absolute best to repeat the 2016 debacle.

Who better to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 6:16 am • # 15 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
So there's 19 candidates and not one of them lives up to your standards Jim?

Just what are your standards?


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 9:28 am • # 16 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
This solidifies my belief that opening an "impeachment inquiry" was/is the correct thing to do ~ Sooz

Bruce Lindner wrote:
Bruce Lindner
3 hrs ·

So what’s changed since this time yesterday morning? This: The Democrats, possibly for the first time, have the administration’s attention. Until yesterday, this White House has utterly IGNORED the protestations of the Democrats. The acting DNI, Joe Maguire (who’s already shown himself to be about as independent as the Attorney General), refused to abide by his legal obligation to turn the whistleblower report over to Congress. But presto-changeo, Speaker Pelosi announces an official impeachment inquiry, and the rusty gears begin to turn. Even McConnell’s Senate voted unanimously to release the whistleblower report. That squeaky wheel got WD-40’ed.
.
It’s almost irrelevant if Trump held up Ukraine’s military package as collateral for dirt on Hunter Biden. It would be the frosting on the cake, but what we already know is damning enough, because Trump himself admitted it. Yes, using the power of the Presidency, I asked a foreign government to dig up dirt on my main rival. So what? It’s not like I colluded or anything.
.
Whether or not that was the premise for a quid-pro-quo has yet to be established. But again, that’s almost irrelevant. He got away with colluding with a foreign power once, so being the petulant toddler that he is, he felt invulnerable, he tried it again... and got busted.
.
As for the much ballyhooed “transcript,” call me skeptical. Unless they produce an original recording or verbatim documentation, it won’t sway me. I’m old enough to remember when Richard Nixon was finally forced to turn over his unredacted tapes. “Unredacted,” except for 18 minutes, which were mysteriously erased.
.
The Democrats now have the White House’s attention. And if they keep up the pressure, they’ll soon have them on the run. Whether or not history proves it was the expedient political move is as yet unknown. But it is the CORRECT thing to do for the preservation of the Rule of Law. It is the NECESSARY thing to do with an administration that considers “truth” an annoyance... an inconvenience.
.
As we’re often told, “No one is above the law, not even the President.” But we’re also told the OLC opinion says a sitting President cannot be indicted, because it would interfere with his ability to carry out his tasks. Those two statements cannot coexist simultaneously. Clearly, Trump HAS BEEN elevated above the law by his party. The only check on his power comes from Congress, themselves empowered by the Constitution with the ultimate tool of oversight: impeachment.
.
To those who worry about Republican talking points that impeachment will somehow enhance Trump’s chances of getting re-elected, I suggest you relax. There’s no evidence of that whatsoever. Their bluster is a poor cover for fear. If in fact the inquiry uncovers further lawlessness, then so much the better. Let the electorate view the scene of the crime.
.
There’s only one way to stop a lawless President, and that’s with a bigger, badder law. The Constitution provides such a remedy, and Nancy Pelosi just blew the dust off of it. And as if by magic, within hours of doing so, the Republican dominated Senate gets religion and the Republican President suddenly wants to “work something out.”
.
In a nutshell, that’s what’s changed.

Quote:
Image


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 9:50 am • # 17 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I agree with the writer of the attached article that, for the reasons he points out plus a few more, Pelosi has made one of the most colossal political blunders of all time. She's run face first into a triple strength wall of a very unpopular set of hearings which will turn many independents against the Dems, a futile endeavour that can't see the kind of fruition the Dem supporters want and, very likely, the trashing of their lead candidate.

I guess now that the Dems have handed Grabem his second term on a platter- as well as likely giving the Repubs both the Senate and the House again - we should start talking about what the U.S. is going to look like five years from now when - if - he steps down. Why the heck do the Dems always pick Door "B" when they know the treasure is behind Door "A"?


https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspoli ... spartandhp


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 9:56 am • # 18 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 06/18/16
Posts: 2164
I agree with all Bruce said. . To respond to Jim - the threat of pence being worse and taking over, well this sends him a message too that he does not have free reign to do whatever he wants because his base says it is ok. For a while the thought of him taking over held me at bay on the impeachment issue - but at this point - you take care of trump first and maybe, just maybe, if somehow trump is removed it will give toady pence second thoughts how not to behave in the political arena today.

It is interesting to watch the spin doctors working over time and all over the place trying to put a lid on this- whether it works or not remains to be seen. One thing we know his base is solid no matter what - hopefully there are more people on the fence who have not totally forgotten how to reason and see the spin for what it is - desperation. If not, like Bruce said - I don't care at this point, it was the right thing to do period.

I did not see Jim's post above when I sent my reply - but FTR I do not agree and do not see it as being a disaster for the dems. It might well be, but sometimes you have to go out on a limb and do what is right, not give free reign to the republicans because of what might happen. If the dems did nothing then for sure the odds go up they will get by on corruption, spins, and outright lies.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 11:28 am • # 19 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
An analysis piece from The Washington Post politics staff- much more at link below

The Daily 202: The Ukraine transcript is full of fresh fodder for Democrats who want to impeach Trump

By James Hohmann
September 25 at 10:57 AM

THE BIG IDEA: If President Trump thought releasing the transcript of his call with Ukraine’s president would break impeachment fever on Capitol Hill, he miscalculated. The five-page summary released this morning will only intensify Democratic demands to see the entire whistleblower complaint.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), a member of Democratic leadership, said the president asking for Ukraine’s help to undermine his 2020 challenger is “a textbook abuse of power.” At a news conference, he said “the transcripts become exhibit A.”

According to the transcript, Trump told his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to work with Attorney General Bill Barr and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate the conduct of Joe Biden and offered to meet with the new president at the White House after he promised to conduct such an inquiry. “I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it,” Trump said, according to the transcript.

Trump seems to suggest that Hillary Clinton’s private email server is in Ukraine at one point. He asserts at another that Bob Mueller’s investigation started with that country.

-- “Senior Justice Department officials said the director of national intelligence referred the concerns about the call to the Justice Department, after the intelligence community inspector general found that it was a possible violation of campaign finance laws that ban people from soliciting contributions from foreign sources. The inspector general later also referred the matter to the FBI,” Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig report. “Career prosecutors and officials in the Justice Department’s criminal division then reviewed the transcript of the call, which they obtained voluntarily from the White House, and determined the facts ‘could not make out and cannot make out’ the appropriate basis for an investigation, a senior Justice Department official said. As part of their reasoning, Justice Department lawyers determined that help with a government investigation could not be considered ‘a thing of value’ under the law.”

-- What was released by the White House is a five-page summary of a 30-minute conversation. That means some of what was covered is likely not even in the memo. The document includes a disclaimer on the first page that it is “not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.”

The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place,” it says. “A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.”

Richard Nixon released a transcript, too. After the revelation that he recorded Oval Office meetings, the then-president refused to turn over the tapes, claiming executive privilege, and fought subpoenas in court. Eventually, trying to quell a political firestorm, he offered transcripts – which he personally edited – and insisted they exonerated him. “I want there to be no question remaining about the fact that the president has nothing to hide in this matter,” Nixon said in April 1974. Months later, when House investigators listened to some of the audio, it turned out there were significant discrepancies and key phrases missing. Ever since Nixon resigned, the White House has, perhaps understandably, generally avoided recording presidential phone calls. That tradition explains why there’s apparently no recording on the American side of Trump’s July conversation.

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill made clear even before the summary came out that the summary will not be enough to deter them from moving ahead with the impeachment inquiry. They argue that Trump does not need to have explicitly linked U.S. financial assistance to a Biden investigation for the call to represent a clear-cut abuse of power. “There is no requirement there be a quid pro quo in the conversation,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a live event for the Atlantic. “You don't ask foreign governments to help us in our election. … I don't think there's a grasp on the part of this administration that the quid pro quo is not essential to an impeachable offense.”

-- House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) says the whistleblower, whose identity remains unknown and is entitled to legal protections, wants to speak to members of his committee and has formally sought guidance from acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire about how he could do so. “We’re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week,” Schiff tweeted. Lawyers for the whistleblower confirmed this.

-- The Senate passed a resolution last night, by unanimous consent and with no Republican objections, calling for the Trump administration to turn over the whistleblower complaint to the intelligence committees, as is required by law. The House plans to vote later today on a resolution condemning the administration’s refusal to provide the complaint. Meanwhile, Trump is scheduled to sit down with the Ukrainian president later today at the U.N. General Assembly. Maguire, the acting DNI, is scheduled to testify in open session tomorrow before the House Intelligence Committee and then in closed session before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

-- Pelosi personally informed Trump of her decision to move forward with an impeachment inquiry in a Tuesday morning phone call. “The president, in New York for the U.N. meeting, telephoned the speaker to discuss gun legislation, Pelosi told lawmakers in private meetings,” per Rachael Bade, Mike DeBonis and Karoun Demirjian. “The conversation, however, quickly turned to the president’s conversations with the Ukrainian leader. Trump insisted he had nothing to do with his administration’s refusal to share with Congress an intelligence community whistleblower complaint about his actions … Trump told Pelosi that he wasn’t the one blocking the complaint. … She responded that he had the power to fix it and challenged him to turn over the complaint.”

-- The New York Times reports that White House and intelligence officials are trying to hash out a plan to release a redacted version of the whistleblower report in a bid to quell calls for impeachment and sow Democratic divisions on the best path forward: “People familiar with the situation said the administration was putting the complaint through a declassification process and planned to release a redacted version within days,” Michael Schmidt, Julian Barnes and Maggie Haberman report. “The appearance that they were stonewalling Congress, in their view, could prove more damaging than the whistle-blower’s account. Mr. Trump also believes that the allegations about him are not nearly as damning as they have been portrayed and that disclosing them will undercut the impeachment drive, people close to the president said.”

-- A senior administration official told Politico that the White House is “preparing” to give Congress both the whistleblower complaint and the inspector general’s report by the end of this week. “The administration official stressed the decision and timing could change over the next few days,” Nancy Cook reports. “The format of presentation, or process of viewing the documents, wasn't decided. The president has agreed to the move, the official added.

Even though the whistleblower complaint focused on the Trump call with Zelensky, officials familiar with its contents say that it includes references to other developments tied to the president, including efforts by Giuliani to insert himself into U.S.-Ukrainian relations. “Rudy — he did all of this,” one U.S. official said. “This s---show that we’re in — it’s him injecting himself into the process.” That anonymous quote comes from a story that posted last night by Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, Paul Sonne and Ellen Nakashima.

“Trump’s attempt to pressure the leader of Ukraine followed a months-long fight inside the administration that sidelined national security officials and empowered political loyalists … to exploit the U.S. relationship with Kiev,” they report. “The sequence, which began early this year, involved the abrupt removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the circumvention of senior officials on the National Security Council, and the suspension of hundreds of millions of dollars of aid administered by the Defense and State departments — all as key officials from these agencies struggled to piece together Giuliani’s activities from news reports.

“Several officials described tense meetings on Ukraine among national security officials at the White House leading up to the president’s phone call on July 25, sessions that led some participants to fear that Trump and those close to him appeared prepared to use U.S. leverage with the new leader of Ukraine for Trump’s political gain. As those worries intensified, some senior officials worked behind the scenes to hold off a Trump meeting or call with [Zelensky] out of concern that Trump would use the conversation to press Kiev for damaging information on Trump’s potential rival in the 2020 race …

“U.S. officials described an atmosphere of intense pressure inside the NSC and other departments since the existence of the whistleblower complaint became known, with some officials facing suspicion that they had a hand either in the complaint or in relaying damaging information to the whistleblower … One official — speaking, like others, on the condition of anonymity — described the climate as verging on ‘bloodletting.’ … Trump has fanned this dynamic with his own denunciations of the whistleblower and thinly veiled suggestions that the person should be outed. … Trump’s closest advisers, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was ordered by Trump to suspend the aid to Ukraine, are also increasingly targets of internal finger-pointing. Mulvaney has agitated for foreign aid to be cut universally but has also stayed away from meetings with Giuliani and Trump …

Then-national security adviser John Bolton was outraged by the outsourcing of a relationship with a country struggling to survive Russian aggression … But by then his standing with Trump was strained, and neither he nor his senior aides could get straight answers about Giuliani’s agenda or authority … Giuliani told The Post that one of his calls with a top Ukrainian aide was partially arranged by Kurt Volker, a State Department official, and that he briefed the department afterward. ‘We had the same visibility as anybody else — watching Giuliani on television,’ a former senior official said. Officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev were similarly deprived of information, even as they faced questions from Ukrainians about whether Giuliani was a designated representative.”

-- Giuliani had an outburst on Fox News last night when a fellow panelist was talking over him. “Shut up, moron,” Giuliani shouted on “The Ingraham Angle,” yelling at liberal radio host Christopher Hahn. “Shut up. You don’t know what you’re talking about.” (Allyson Chiu)

DEMOCRATIC DIVISIONS REMAIN OVER IMPEACHMENT:

-- Pelosi’s declaration left unsettled key questions about how that investigation will unfold. Mike DeBonis and Rachael Bade explore some of them: “How sweeping will the probe be? How long will it last? Who will conduct it? And will Pelosi’s unilateral pronouncement — which was delivered with no immediate plans to ratify it with a House vote — do anything to change the course of existing investigations that have hit a stone wall of White House resistance? … The lack of detail about the road ahead, according to interviews with more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers and aides, reflected both the speed with which once-wavering Democrats unified behind a formal impeachment probe — and the continuing divisions among them on how it should be conducted. …

“[T]he House Judiciary Committee will continue playing the lead role in the proceedings, despite the desire of some Democrats to involve a broader swath of lawmakers and to at least partly sideline Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the panel’s fervently pro-impeachment chairman. In the days leading up to Tuesday’s announcement, Pelosi explored potentially establishing a special ‘select’ committee, with members handpicked by House leaders, but backed away from that idea after the dispute generated protests from liberals and threatened to divide the caucus along ideological lines. … The past two presidential impeachment processes, involving [Nixon] and Bill Clinton, included votes of the full House authorizing the Judiciary Committee to formally investigate. There are no plans for such a vote now … That is a question likely to be litigated in the courts. …

“Meanwhile, an even more fundamental dispute lingered — one that may not be resolved any time soon. Many Democrats are urging that the inquiry focus solely on the present outcry … and not on other alleged abuses, such as the potential obstruction of justice detailed by [Mueller], episodes of congressional stonewalling and instances of bigotry. More than 30 Democratic lawmakers announced support for impeachment just this week, many of them Democratic ‘frontliners’ in vulnerable districts who said that the Ukraine allegations prompted them to speak out. … ‘This should be a very distinct procedure relative to this allegation, rather than the whole basket,’ said Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), a freshman who backed impeachment proceedings Monday after months of resisting pressure to take that step.

But Pelosi’s involvement of other committees besides the Judiciary, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence panels with direct jurisdiction over the Ukraine matter suggest the impeachment brief could go much wider. The Financial Services Committee, for instance, is probing Trump’s real estate dealings; the Ways and Means Committee is seeking Trump’s tax returns; and the Oversight and Reform Committee is investigating whether Trump is using the presidency for self-enrichment. ‘I see the most recent issue as one issue among many issues,’ said Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), who has pushed for Trump’s impeachment for two years, forcing multiple unsuccessful votes on removing Trump over alleged instances of bigotry.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... beb3da8cc/


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 3:18 pm • # 20 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Are the hearings "very unpopular"?


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 6:30 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
From what I've been reading they are:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspoli ... spartanntp

Mind you I see another article saying Sarah Huckabee Saunders claims the Dems have made a colossal mistake for the same reasons I proferred. In light of that, I may have to review my position.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 7:41 pm • # 22 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
But that poll seems to equate "impeachment" with "removal from office" and, as Macro pointed out that isn't really what its about.

Besides its not at all clear that its a vote changing opinion. Trumps' approval rating remained exactly the same.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/25/19 7:56 pm • # 23 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
when people figure out what this does, they are going to be for it.
that is what happened in 1973.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/26/19 8:13 am • # 24 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
1973 was a different world and a different republican party.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 09/26/19 10:41 am • # 25 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
I don't think people change that much, fundamentally.
that is what I am talking about.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next   Page 1 of 9   [ 204 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.