Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

The Trump Card...

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Online
Because the way it was with Garland was unfair. Denying Obama's nominee a vote in the Senate was an unfair act of malfeasance on McConnell's part. It is an act that merits McConnell's removal from office in my opinion.
It may very well have been unfair, but there's nothing that can be done about at this point. Personally I think Garland should have at least gotten a vote. But again, what McConnell did was in direct response to what Harry Reid did. Reid set the table for Garland to happen, and he was warned by people in his own party that precisely that very thing was likely to happen. Reid dismissed that warning saying Republicans do not have the resolve to follow through on such a threat.
Your complaint about Pelosi and Republican House member rights in the impeachment inquiry is not without merit. But if you're OK with McConnell's actions under the Senate rules, it logically follows that you must be OK with Pelosi's actions under the House rules, does it not?
It does not. Not at all. McConnell's actions didn't deprive anyone of their due process rights, whereas Nancy's actions did so quite intentionally. The Constitution is pretty clear on who has the sole authority to launch an impeachment, and it ain't the Speaker and a handful of committee chairpeoples. The Constitution states "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." The House of Representatives is not the Speaker of said House, nor a collection of committee chairman, it's the House itself.

The House has begun impeachment proceedings 62 times,and nineteen federal officials have been formally impeached as a result, But in all 62 cases, save one (coincidentally, the most recent one), a full vote of the House of Representatives is what initiated the impeachment proceedings.

It's most definitely not fair, but politics isn't designed to be fair, so "not fair" is arguably the weakest argument against what Nancy did. What is a strong argument, however, is that by initiating impeachment proceedings by decree of the Speaker, it deprives not only the subject of the impeachment of Constitutional due process rights, but it deprives The People of the ability of holding accountable their elected representatives. It's the People's House, and the will of The People isn't even being consulted, they have no say in this matter. And that's outrageous, no matter who is the subject of the impeachment proceedings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Online
You can laugh, but it's true. Trump is the most transparent president we've ever had. Even Jim Acosta admits that.
Whats funny is, that anybody thinks there is transparency at all. Every last one of office holders hide and lie about things they do. All of them, including the current Potus. How anybody thinks otherwise is beyond me. Imho, of course.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Online
Whats funny is, that anybody thinks there is transparency at all. Every last one of office holders hide and lie about things they do. All of them, including the current Potus. How anybody thinks otherwise is beyond me. Imho, of course.
Trump says exactly what he's thinking (often to his detriment), he has no filter. He's the most accessible and talks with the Press more than any president in history. He declassifies stuff that no one thinks should be declassified. The House Dems absolutely did not count on him just up and releasing the transcript of the phone call Boy, oh, boy, did they not count on that one. Even though he could have cited Executive Privilege on about half of Mueller's requests, including private, privileged communications, he did not invoke the privilege even once. It's hard to get more transparent than that.

The consensus of journalists who cover presidents, including those from CNN, NYT and WaPo, is that Trump is the most transparent president in memory, and that Obama was the least transparent. (PolitiFact disagrees, wholeheartedly, saying that Trump is the least transparent president in the history of presidents, including Putin and Xi, and that Obama was the most transparent politician they've ever even heard of).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moot and muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
While the Dems are conducting this sham inquiry in some dark back room, Trump released the transcript for everyone to see and read. It was an extremely rare act to do so. Probably had to jump thru some hoops to have it released. Had to also get permission from the Ukraine President. I can only imagine how that conversation went. Trump: "President Zelensky, we have some Democrat members that act like 8 year old spoiled brats. Everything I do , these petulant, snot nose, whiny kids, cry and say, without evidence, that I'm creating a constitutional crisis and that I'm a threat to our democracy. I know that releasing this transcript won't mollify these juvenile crybabies because even if they do read it, they will say that it says something completely different. I'm about three years into my Presidency and these children STILL can't accept that I won the election. Mr Zelensky, if you can ok the release of the transcript, it will at least give these kids a sugar rush before their blood sugar undoubtedly drops again. Thank you"
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Whats funny is, that anybody thinks there is transparency at all. Every last one of office holders hide and lie about things they do. All of them, including the current Potus. How anybody thinks otherwise is beyond me. Imho, of course.
Trump released thousand of documents to the Mueller probe. He also gave permission to his lawyer McGann who gave reportedly 30 hours of interview time. It doesn't matter how transparent he is because the Dems will always accuse him of covering something else up. Can you name a interview with a foreign leader from past presidents that was released to the public? It undermines diplomacy to do so, but Trump did it anyway because he has still has deep state leakers(Democrat whistleblowers) close to him that distort his actions because they don't like him and have an agenda.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Online
The phone call transcript is like a political Rorschach Test. It's literally black ink splotched on paper, and some people see a perfectly normal conversation between world leaders and other people see Orange Hitler plotting and scheming. It's really quite remarkable. If no one knew the people on the call, they'd think nothing of it. It reminds me of the Campus Reform videos.

It doesn't matter how transparent he is because the Dems will always accuse him of covering something else up.
Nancy accused Trump of covering up the phone call, even after he released the transcript of the phone call. That was hilarious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
More movement toward impeachment and removal:

"Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday. (10/9/19)

"A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment.

"Since July, support for impeachment increased among voters of all stripes: up 11 points among Democrats, 5 points among Republicans and 3 among independents. Support also went up among some of Trump’s key constituencies, including white evangelical Christians (+5 points), white men without a college degree (+8), and rural whites (+10).

"Among voters in swing counties (where Hillary Clinton and Trump were within 10 points in 2016), support for impeachment increased to 52 percent, up from 42 percent in July.

"... Overall, by an 11-point margin, more voters believe Trump is “getting what he deserves” rather than that the impeachment inquiry is driven by “people out to get him.”


I don't see him losing support with his base and many independents. Most of those people believe he is doing a good job and that he is being unfairly attacked by the Dems and the corrupt news media.
Not any more, it seems. Notice the numbers for the white evangelical Christians, white men without a college degree and rural whites. The Trump base is eroding.

So he is very accessible to the press with these conferences as well as the helicopter gatherings. ... he will always have Twitter to get his message out.
That seems to be hurting him more than helping these days. As always, Trump is getting his message out. What's different now is an increasing number of people dislike the message.

It's important to note that the white evangelical Christians, white men without a college degree and rural whites don't go away when they fade from the pro-Trump side of the polling. They have Twitter accounts of their own and they continue to interact with their peers in their communities.

I once walked into a working class bar in our city and saw a half-dozen men sitting at the bar, all wearing MAGA hats, drinking their beer, watching Fox News. I thought to myself, there they sit, making America great again.

That scene is changing as the base erodes. The same men will likely meet after work but one or more of them might wonder aloud if Trump will be impeached, or argue aloud that he should be. The impeach-Trump message is also making its way into the base, offsetting or eroding the influence Trump's messages once had. He can and will broadcast unceasingly to his base but that does not seem to matter as much as it once did.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
That may be true but for the most part I am thinking the democrats fighting each other for the nomination will have put their money close since they will be battling each other and Trump won't have that cost.
That's true. Because the total Democratic money raised is spent for the benefit of the individual candidates, the purchasing power of those funds is diluted. That will change after a single candidate is nominated. At that point, we'll have a clearer view of the fundraising indicator. But again, it is not the case that the candidate with the most money wins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
It's most definitely not fair, but politics isn't designed to be fair, so "not fair" is arguably the weakest argument against what Nancy did. What is a strong argument, however, is that by initiating impeachment proceedings by decree of the Speaker, it deprives not only the subject of the impeachment of Constitutional due process rights, but it deprives The People of the ability of holding accountable their elected representatives. It's the People's House, and the will of The People isn't even being consulted, they have no say in this matter. And that's outrageous, no matter who is the subject of the impeachment proceedings.
I do not disagree. But even if a full House vote was taken to formally initiate impeachment proceedings, the rules do not require the Speaker to grant subpoena power or the power to call witnesses to the minority party. There is nothing magic about such a vote.

I know a number of Republicans want that vote because it will put Democrats in swing districts on record in favor of impeachment. I'm not sure they have thought that point through. The same vote will also put Republicans in swing districts on record against impeachment. And in a swing district, that may not be a good thing for them, especially in light of recent polls. The last time swing districts were up for grabs, the Democrats won the House. Nothing in the polling indicates their position is weaker today. If anything, the polls show swing-district sentiment moving further in the Democrats' favor. If a vote is taken and a swing-district Republican goes on record opposing impeachment, and the polls continue to move in their present direction, that Republican may very well regret that vote.

Regarding due process rights, you said it yourself, this is a political proceeding, not a criminal proceeding in which due process is guaranteed. If McConnell short-circuits the trial when the articles of impeachment reach the Senate, the charging entity (the House of Representatives) will likely voice the same due-process complaint. But again, this is a political proceeding and due process argument will carry no more weight in the Senate then than it's carrying in the House now.

Regarding the will of the people, ours is a democracy in which leaders are elected to represent us and act on our behalf. In our community there is an ongoing battle about beach driving. Should it be allowed to drive our cars on the beach or not? Present practice is to allow it in most areas where the sand makes it possible (which is many miles in this county). Some argue that it should be allowed everywhere and they fiercely object when a hotel or other entity is allowed to ban beach driving in front of its property. These people lose the battle because their elected officials make the opposite choice. These people scream loudly that the matter should have been put to a direct vote of the people.

They can scream all they want. Except for the occasional refurendum, we don't govern by direct democracy. The genius of the American system is there is always a way to overcome whatever the seemingly last word is. If sufficient popular support can be mustered and focused, laws, policies, court rulings and even elections can be reversed. Our beach driving friends have been unable to do this so while the beach remains public, certain hotels get to keep the cars away. So too with the House and Senate heads. Their actions are always found to be outrageous by some. The actions will stand until the people rise.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Of course Trump is the most transparent. I've never seen a Whitehouse with so many spies. :cool::droid:
It's going to get worse as staff concludes the walls are crumbling and they start leaking or cooperating in hopes of getting on the clean side of history.
Today's news includes three more developments that will loosen the bricks:

Trump's Push to Save Coal is Failing. Coal Demand to Plunge to 42-Year Low.

GOP Congressman 'heartbroken' over President's Syria moves and says he no longer supports Trump.

[16] Conservative lawyers destroy narrative that Trump-Ukraine is just a left-wing hit job.

Then there is the arrest of two Giuliani clients with Russia/Ukraine connections. That's a complex story that is not easily understood by a casual news-viewing public. People will get a sense that something is wrong and note that Trump is failing to cooperate. While the details are murkey, it looks bad, which is enough to sway the opinion polls even more in tie direction of impeachment and removal.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Online
Don't forget that the "whistleblower" used to actually work with Biden, specialized in the Ukraine, and, apparently, even flew with him on at least one trip to Ukraine. If that's not a sign that the walls are caving in around Trump, I don't know what is.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I was listening on the radio to Trump's rally tonight. He had me cackling. Crowd laughing and engaged. They're not going to impeach him. He fights back too much and is more transparent and accessible than any President we've had. So Dems, with that secretive impeachment thing, good luck with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moot and Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Online
The facts are coming out about this. Regardless how secretive the Dems want to be.
There's a reason they're trying to ram this impeachment through as fast as possible, amd are shutting the Republicans out of the process. It's because they keep trying over and over to manufacture an impeachable offense, and every time the facts come out and blows up in their face. They desperately need to control the facts.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Online
I was listening on the radio to Trump's rally tonight. He had me cackling.
Trump is easily the funniest president we've ever had. His dramatic reading of the Strzok and Page texts was just off-the-charts brilliant. "Oh I love you so much. I love you, Peter! I love you too Lisa! Lisa, I love you. Lisa, Lisa, Oh God! I love you, Lisa."
I nearly peed my pants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc and muttly
Top