I shuddered when Nancy retained the Speakership…the Democrats working hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once more. Not like she didn’t deserve it, but now is not the time to be handing out participation awards. Democracy is at stake.
13 Likes
Yeah, but you know how it goes. It’s easier to imagine that “somebody’s got this” and therefore the rest of us could just go about our business in the reassuring knowledge that some übermüeller would take care of it all himself.
7 Likes
What? Did you listen to or read what he actually said?
Question two: Are you Donald Trump?
5 Likes
Cops do that though. It’s not an outlandish comparison.
5 Likes
Yes, but not principled cops.
We could use some principled cops.
15 Likes
Contact your Reps people. Let them know it’s time to impeach the mthr’fkr.
To leave a voicemail for @ SpeakerPelosi : 202 225 4965 option 1
8 Likes
“Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
Much ado about nothing"
They can’t CHARGE him because of a IDIOT TRADITION that makes as much sense in the 21st Century as a horse-and-buggy. They can find that he committed a crime – and they did – and they can recommend impeachment. This isn’t much ado about nothing, sir, it’s nothing about much ado – and anyone who tells me that Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors don’t warrant impeachment should stop spending time trying to convince me that they don’t and instead invest that time do some light reading of the news over the past two years.
21 Likes
Nancy Pelosi, I have found, is a strong, fearless advocate for and defender of her own career.
14 Likes
So, okay…
20 Likes
We hook up a copper coil to the right-wing spin machine and hope to generate enough electricity to power the nation AND shock the Democratic leadership into action?
17 Likes
Hook up copper coils to the founding fathers spinning in their graves.
22 Likes
I may be just being pedantic here, but this seems to deserve clarity. The House can impeach the president on its own. Impeach is often misunderstood to mean remove from office. Impeach means bring him to trial, essentially equivalent to indictment in the judicial system. The House is the equivalent of a grand jury. Once he is impeached by the House, a trial proceeds in the Senate, where they may find him guilty or not, and may remove him from office or not. For example, Clinton was impeached. However, he was acquitted of the charges in the Senate.
35 Likes
At this point, even if the house impeached him, I don’t think McConnel would even have a trial in the senate.
9 Likes
It does seem like Mueller keeps coughing and nodding his head theatrically toward a flashing neon sign in the background that reads I’M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY IT BUT THIS GUY NEEDS TO BE PROSECUTED, while Republicans keep saying “oh, so you’re not saying he should be prosecuted, so that’s a total exoneration, right?”, and Democrats don’t say anything.
That’s insufferable, but it wouldn’t help any for Democrats to base their strategy on emotive hot takes. If they’re sure impeachment would backfire, then infuriating Republican gloating is just one of the costs of that decision.
Ultimately I think it would be wrong to not impeach him, whether there’s a chance of success or not. I am still hoping that they are planning to, and are waiting for (a) a pretext to base it more on his financial crimes or (b) a specific date calculated to cause maximum damage in 2020.
27 Likes
That’s occurred to me, and I have wondered how it would play out. The Constitution doesn’t seem to give the Senate a choice over whether to hold a trial, but I assume McConnell can try to delay it, as he did with Merrick Garland’s confirmation.
9 Likes
You may be right, but that would be a clear violation of the constitution. The Senate is obligated to have a trial if the House impeaches. [After a little research I found that it is a matter of interpretation whether the Senate is obligated to hold a trial. It has been custom to assume that is the case.] More likely it would be a sham trial. It would probably serve them better to have a trial, and acquit him, so they could point to that as proof. (But that being said, these republicans are so boldly violating laws and rules, that I wouldn’t be surprised if they could get away with not even holding a trial.)
5 Likes
7 Likes
He’s a horrible person, but he’s their horrible person. As long as he’s useful to the people in power, they will keep him there. That’s why we – the people – need to do everything we can to clear Congress of those willing to sell out our country to line their pockets.
13 Likes
tl;dr version: get off your arse, Nancy.
15 Likes
The Senate also has an explicit Constitutional obligation to provide “advice and consent” when the President nominates a candidate for the Supreme Court, but McConnell didn’t do that either when Obama put Merrick Garland’s name forward when he still had a year left in office. Clearly he’s hunky-dory with blatantly violating the word and intent of the Constitution.
20 Likes
