This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Molly3028
If Trump was a Dem president, Articles of Impeachment would already be
presented by the GOP!!!
presented by the GOP!!!
2MegEynons
>1 Molly3028: I was thinking the same thing. However, it seems to me that a careful path toward that is being taken. And rather than hastily removing Trump, the investigation is going deeper than that. It appears that a thorough investigation is underway and it may affect Pence as well....Food for thought....
4margd
Laurence Tribe Verified account
@tribelaw 8h8 hours ago
Of course nobody can FORCE Congress to do its duty under the Impeachment Clause, but it does say SHALL, not MAY. Just read Article II, Sec.4
____________________________________
@tribelaw 9h9 hours ago
Trump had a RIGHT to fire Comey. But it was an impeachable WRONG -- a BRIBE -- to offer NOT to fire him IF he'd lay off the "Russia thing."
@tribelaw 8h8 hours ago
Of course nobody can FORCE Congress to do its duty under the Impeachment Clause, but it does say SHALL, not MAY. Just read Article II, Sec.4
____________________________________
@tribelaw 9h9 hours ago
Trump had a RIGHT to fire Comey. But it was an impeachable WRONG -- a BRIBE -- to offer NOT to fire him IF he'd lay off the "Russia thing."
5RickHarsch
>3 barney67: Damn. Good one, Barn.
6barney67
Go ahead and impeach him. I look forward to President Pence. He would be the most conservative president we've ever had.
Change your mind? Or should the witch hunt continue?
Change your mind? Or should the witch hunt continue?
7barney67
You can impeach a president for almost any reason because the grounds for impeachment are not well-defined in the Constitution.
Probably intentionally. That's how lawyers think and write, in broad, abstract generalities which allow a lot of room for interpretion (which they are paid to provide, natch.)
Probably intentionally. That's how lawyers think and write, in broad, abstract generalities which allow a lot of room for interpretion (which they are paid to provide, natch.)
8lriley
I agree with Barney that impeaching Trump--if you were able to---would only put into the presidency a guy who might be the most conservative politician ever to hold that office (and I'm not forgetting Nixon or Reagan) and IMO the republicans in the House and the Senate would very much prefer to work with Pence instead of Trump....and Pence is not the off the wall wild card that Trump is. He's a professional politician who's been respected by his republican peers for a long time.
9theoria
>7 barney67: Trump's release of classified intel to the Russian Foreign Minister which compromises an allied source might get the ball rolling. But the 25th Amendment might be easier than impeachment.
10proximity1
>4 margd:
Only if there were actual evidence of there having been, to Trump's own knowledge, any collusion between Trump's campaign and official Russian powers to undermine a free and fair U.S. election and leave its outcome properly up to the U.S. electorate.
There is, in fact, absolutely no clear or reasonable evidence for that view.
But the MSM is free to have a delusional partisan fit. That's legal, too.
(no reason for the hyper-link "blue" in the above. And I didn't edit it that way.)
Only if there were actual evidence of there having been, to Trump's own knowledge, any collusion between Trump's campaign and official Russian powers to undermine a free and fair U.S. election and leave its outcome properly up to the U.S. electorate.
There is, in fact, absolutely no clear or reasonable evidence for that view.
But the MSM is free to have a delusional partisan fit. That's legal, too.
(no reason for the hyper-link "blue" in the above. And I didn't edit it that way.)
11proximity1
No wonder Democrats lost the election, the White House, etc. They can't think straight.
there's nothing impeachable here except for partisan lunatics already on a war-path.
In other words, you-know-who shared some espionage-intelligence with U.S. agents/agencies and, down-stream, Trump, in discussions with Lavrov and Kilsyac, referred to a plot disclosed in that information, boasting about the plot's discovery--apparently without having first checked with you-know-who's intelligence chiefs, leaving these latter livid.
So, now it's an impeachable offense to have seriously pissed off some of "you-know-who" 's espionage agencies' directors? I did not know this.
No doubt, Hillary would have first checked with the high muckety-mucks in the intel agencies of you-know-who--sending them a query over her unsecured private home-based e-mail server--before blabbling and bragging about some of the details to Rooskie diplomats in a closed-door meeting.
Here's the real rub:
" But sharing the information without the express permission of the ally who provided it was a major breach of espionage etiquette, and could jeopardize a crucial intelligence-sharing relationship."
True: So, we may now expect that "You-know-who", hopping mad, is going to keep the intel cards it holds much closer to the chest, no longer informing Uncle Sam about matters deemed too sensitive to risk disclosing to Trump. In that case, the intel process itself is going to be circumscribed and, by that fact, become less rather than more likely to operate effectively--that is, when it can even do that at all. "Happy" "Dems"?
there's nothing impeachable here except for partisan lunatics already on a war-path.
The White House on Monday evening pushed back sharply on reports that President Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian officials during a meeting last week.
Speaking to the press outside the White House Monday evening, national security advisor H.R. McMaster said: "The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false."
"The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time -- at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so.
"Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. I was in the room, it didn’t happen,” he said.
In statements, McMaster two other senior Trump officials sought to characterize the disclosures as benign and pertaining only to “common threats.”
“The nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods or military operations,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in a statement.
Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy Dina Powell, who also attended the meeting, called The Washington Post report “false” in a statement of her own.
According to The Post, Trump provided “code-word information” to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kilsyac, using a government term that refers to the highest level of classification. The intelligence had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement.
But the White House denial — that Trump did not explicitly discuss the sources and methods behind the intelligence — did not directly address or nullify the Post’s reporting.
According to The Post, the information Trump revealed included details that Russia could use to reverse-engineer the sources or methods used to gather the intelligence, officials told the paper.
Among those details was the name of the city in Islamic State territory where the U.S. partner detected the threat, seen as a particularly sensitive disclosure that could allow Russia to identify the intelligence capability involved.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333520-white-house-defends-trump-on-c...
Mr. Trump’s disclosure does not appear to have been illegal — the president has the power to declassify almost anything. But sharing the information without the express permission of the ally who provided it was a major breach of espionage etiquette, and could jeopardize a crucial intelligence-sharing relationship.
ny times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-classified-informati...
In other words, you-know-who shared some espionage-intelligence with U.S. agents/agencies and, down-stream, Trump, in discussions with Lavrov and Kilsyac, referred to a plot disclosed in that information, boasting about the plot's discovery--apparently without having first checked with you-know-who's intelligence chiefs, leaving these latter livid.
So, now it's an impeachable offense to have seriously pissed off some of "you-know-who" 's espionage agencies' directors? I did not know this.
No doubt, Hillary would have first checked with the high muckety-mucks in the intel agencies of you-know-who--sending them a query over her unsecured private home-based e-mail server--before blabbling and bragging about some of the details to Rooskie diplomats in a closed-door meeting.
Here's the real rub:
" But sharing the information without the express permission of the ally who provided it was a major breach of espionage etiquette, and could jeopardize a crucial intelligence-sharing relationship."
True: So, we may now expect that "You-know-who", hopping mad, is going to keep the intel cards it holds much closer to the chest, no longer informing Uncle Sam about matters deemed too sensitive to risk disclosing to Trump. In that case, the intel process itself is going to be circumscribed and, by that fact, become less rather than more likely to operate effectively--that is, when it can even do that at all. "Happy" "Dems"?
12proximity1
David Brooks of the New York Times writes,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.html
I recall that, as the world beyond intruded upon them and the real prospect of a Trump victory over Clinton pierced the protective bubble of high-powered Washington politicos such as Obama and Clinton, Obama was heard to lecture the electorate, telling them--warning them, really-- that he would regard a Trump victory as a personal insult to him and a repudiation of his legacy. It seems not to have occurred to him that such a comment, especially in the late stage of a presidential campaign, is rather tone-deaf and, in itself, insulting to those who were preparing to take on the responsibility of choosing a candidate in an election which, in the face of strong and clear popular expressions of disapproval of the two main candidates before their nominations were made final, offered them a dismal, a dreadful "choice": Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Thus, both Clinton and Obama were openly, pompously--though, not, of course, as they saw it -- looking for confirmation of their personal value as individual people and as public-office-holders; and they were looking for it from the general public which, as a matter of fact, owed neither of them any such things since they, the public officials, were supposedly elected to serve the public, not the other way around.
Clinton found it inexplicable that despite her meticulously detailing Trump's glaring and long-standing failures to live up to the standard-issue properly Politically-correct expectations (as she and her supporters never tired of explaining), people failed to recoil from Trump in sufficiently large numbers and in sufficiently grand shock and disgust.
About Obama's and Clinton's false-modesty, the fake aspect is so glaring as to be truly and amazingly disgusting. Hillary's most-used trope was that she was the victim of a misogyny which ran wide and deep through the American population and that if people "hated" her, it could only be because they were misogynists and other "deplorable" things. It seems never to have really impressed her that she exuded some of the most galling and openly obvious false-modesty of modern political times. Obama, for his part, was practically her only rival and peer in that respect. Here is a man who actually saw fit to accept a Nobel Peace Prize before he even had his track running-shoes on. According to the inside-account of the Clinton presidential campaign, Shattered explains, the Clinton campaign never really successfully surmounted one of the central hurdles: a clear and credible statement of purpose. Even some of the campaign's loyal staff recognized that Clinton had simply failed to formulate one and, instead, offered as her primary motivations patently flimsy rationales which strained belief.
I don't know any politician who's favorite question is, "What has been your biggest (or your most terrible) mistake?" nor any whose strong-suit is in answering that question--not in the U.S. and not in Europe and certainly not in the rest of the world. When she lost, Clinton reacted with open shock and disbelief. She quickly listed others' mistakes and faults as being largely responsible for her loss. Only after months could she appear to grasp that, not just in words but in actual fact, the major responsibility for her campaign's failure rested with her, was due to what she thought, said and chose to do, not what others said, did or thought.
"Trump seems to have not yet developed a theory of mind."
Yes, he may not have one--a theory of mind, that is. Still, I'm confident that he has a mind. I don't know that I could tell you Ulysses Grant's theory of mind, or Harry Truman's or Dwight Eisenhower's or even Franklin Roosevelt's. But I don't think these men lacked a moral foundation, something in their core. As for Obama's and Clinton's moral foundation, a theory of mind, if they have one, is a poor substitute. Trump's morals, such as he has them in the view of many people, apparently shock them.
"most people of drinking age have achieved some accurate sense of themselves, some internal criteria to measure their own merits and demerits. But Trump seems to need perpetual outside approval to stabilize his sense of self, so he is perpetually desperate for approval, telling heroic fabulist tales about himself."
Right.
""There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --Hillary Clinton, the Obaman heir-apparent, speaking in March, 2008, recalling a 1996 trip she made to Bosnia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.html
"At base, Trump is an infantalist. There are three tasks that most mature adults have sort of figured out by the time they hit 25. Trump has mastered none of them. Immaturity is becoming the dominant note of his presidency, lack of self-control his leitmotif.
First, most adults have learned to sit still. But mentally, Trump is still a 7-year-old boy who is bouncing around the classroom. ...
Second, most people of drinking age have achieved some accurate sense of themselves, some internal criteria to measure their own merits and demerits. But Trump seems to need perpetual outside approval to stabilize his sense of self, so he is perpetually desperate for approval, telling heroic fabulist tales about himself.
Third, by adulthood most people can perceive how others are thinking. For example, they learn subtle arts such as false modesty so they won’t be perceived as obnoxious.
But Trump seems to have not yet developed a theory of mind. Other people are black boxes that supply either affirmation or disapproval. As a result, he is weirdly transparent. He wants people to love him, so he is constantly telling interviewers that he is widely loved.
I recall that, as the world beyond intruded upon them and the real prospect of a Trump victory over Clinton pierced the protective bubble of high-powered Washington politicos such as Obama and Clinton, Obama was heard to lecture the electorate, telling them--warning them, really-- that he would regard a Trump victory as a personal insult to him and a repudiation of his legacy. It seems not to have occurred to him that such a comment, especially in the late stage of a presidential campaign, is rather tone-deaf and, in itself, insulting to those who were preparing to take on the responsibility of choosing a candidate in an election which, in the face of strong and clear popular expressions of disapproval of the two main candidates before their nominations were made final, offered them a dismal, a dreadful "choice": Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Thus, both Clinton and Obama were openly, pompously--though, not, of course, as they saw it -- looking for confirmation of their personal value as individual people and as public-office-holders; and they were looking for it from the general public which, as a matter of fact, owed neither of them any such things since they, the public officials, were supposedly elected to serve the public, not the other way around.
Clinton found it inexplicable that despite her meticulously detailing Trump's glaring and long-standing failures to live up to the standard-issue properly Politically-correct expectations (as she and her supporters never tired of explaining), people failed to recoil from Trump in sufficiently large numbers and in sufficiently grand shock and disgust.
About Obama's and Clinton's false-modesty, the fake aspect is so glaring as to be truly and amazingly disgusting. Hillary's most-used trope was that she was the victim of a misogyny which ran wide and deep through the American population and that if people "hated" her, it could only be because they were misogynists and other "deplorable" things. It seems never to have really impressed her that she exuded some of the most galling and openly obvious false-modesty of modern political times. Obama, for his part, was practically her only rival and peer in that respect. Here is a man who actually saw fit to accept a Nobel Peace Prize before he even had his track running-shoes on. According to the inside-account of the Clinton presidential campaign, Shattered explains, the Clinton campaign never really successfully surmounted one of the central hurdles: a clear and credible statement of purpose. Even some of the campaign's loyal staff recognized that Clinton had simply failed to formulate one and, instead, offered as her primary motivations patently flimsy rationales which strained belief.
I don't know any politician who's favorite question is, "What has been your biggest (or your most terrible) mistake?" nor any whose strong-suit is in answering that question--not in the U.S. and not in Europe and certainly not in the rest of the world. When she lost, Clinton reacted with open shock and disbelief. She quickly listed others' mistakes and faults as being largely responsible for her loss. Only after months could she appear to grasp that, not just in words but in actual fact, the major responsibility for her campaign's failure rested with her, was due to what she thought, said and chose to do, not what others said, did or thought.
"Trump seems to have not yet developed a theory of mind."
Yes, he may not have one--a theory of mind, that is. Still, I'm confident that he has a mind. I don't know that I could tell you Ulysses Grant's theory of mind, or Harry Truman's or Dwight Eisenhower's or even Franklin Roosevelt's. But I don't think these men lacked a moral foundation, something in their core. As for Obama's and Clinton's moral foundation, a theory of mind, if they have one, is a poor substitute. Trump's morals, such as he has them in the view of many people, apparently shock them.
"most people of drinking age have achieved some accurate sense of themselves, some internal criteria to measure their own merits and demerits. But Trump seems to need perpetual outside approval to stabilize his sense of self, so he is perpetually desperate for approval, telling heroic fabulist tales about himself."
Right.
""There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --Hillary Clinton, the Obaman heir-apparent, speaking in March, 2008, recalling a 1996 trip she made to Bosnia.
13barney67
>8 lriley: What are you talking about? Nixon wasn't a conservative. He wasn't evil, but he was a fairly liberal president. Sorry.
14barney67
That leads to the question of how liberals will demonize Pence if he were to become president. Racist, sexist, crazy? My guess is "right-wing religious fundamentalist".
The guy doesn't even drink. Neither does Trump. What weirdos, right?
The guy doesn't even drink. Neither does Trump. What weirdos, right?
15lriley
#14--all US presidents in my lifetime have been conservative Barney (I was born in 1957)--even the democratic ones. It's just a matter of the degree.
16theoria
>14 barney67: Your thoughts on the following?
Published 1.14.17
Israeli intelligence officials are concerned that the exposure of classified information to their American counterparts in the Trump administration could lead to their being leaked to Russia and onward to Iran, investigative journalist Ronen Bergman reported in Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot on Thursday...
According to Bergman, the American intelligence officials implied that Israel should “be careful” when transferring intelligence information to the White House and the National Security Council (NSC) following Trump's inauguration – at least until it is clear that Trump does not have inappropriate connections with Russia.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.764711
5.16.17
The source of the classified intelligence that U.S. President Donald Trump shared last week with Russian officials during a meeting at the White House is Israel, the New York Times reported Tuesday. The report cited a current U.S. official and a former one.
The intelligence was shared at the meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The report said that Israeli officials refused to confirm that they were the source of the information. The unnamed officials confirmed Israel had previously urged the U.S. to be cautious with the said intelligence. http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.789647
Published 1.14.17
Israeli intelligence officials are concerned that the exposure of classified information to their American counterparts in the Trump administration could lead to their being leaked to Russia and onward to Iran, investigative journalist Ronen Bergman reported in Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot on Thursday...
According to Bergman, the American intelligence officials implied that Israel should “be careful” when transferring intelligence information to the White House and the National Security Council (NSC) following Trump's inauguration – at least until it is clear that Trump does not have inappropriate connections with Russia.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.764711
5.16.17
The source of the classified intelligence that U.S. President Donald Trump shared last week with Russian officials during a meeting at the White House is Israel, the New York Times reported Tuesday. The report cited a current U.S. official and a former one.
The intelligence was shared at the meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The report said that Israeli officials refused to confirm that they were the source of the information. The unnamed officials confirmed Israel had previously urged the U.S. to be cautious with the said intelligence. http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.789647
17RickHarsch
I think a lot of Cambodians and Vietnamese and Chileans and USAmericans think Nixon was indeed evil. Not conservative? No more than Bebe Rebozo.
18lriley
It would be a tall order to impeach and then remove Trump. I know, I know he's a bumbling and evil fool but even so:
If I've gotten this right his impeachment would have to begin with the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives--currently chaired by Bob Goodlatte (Rep. Va) the minority led by John Conyers Dem-Mich). Currently that committee has 24 republicans including some of their most notoriously right wing zealots such as Trey Gowdy, Darrell Issa, Steve King and Louie Gohmert. The Democrats have 17 members. They'd have to get at least 4 republicans to cross over. That's a major hurdle right there. If however that happened it would go on the full house for a simple majority vote--current numbers 238 republicans 193 democrats. That would mean at least 23 republicans would have to cross over. Another huge reach but if that happened as well it would go to the Senate where a trial would be held with the current Supreme Court Justice Roberts presiding and the 100 Senators as the jury--currently 52 republicans, 46 democrats and 2 Independents and a two thirds majority needed for conviction--meaning something like 19 of the the 52 Senate republicans would have to cross over.......and then if convicted the Senate decides whether to remove him from office or prohibit him from holding any public office in the future.
All that will take time and maybe even the midterms will change the numbers around a bit before the entire process is brought to a conclusion.
And if Trump is removed you get a real honest to goodness (careful what you wish for) right winger in Michael Pence to be your new POTUS (unless of course you can impeach him too). Pence is very comfortable with the religious right and is anti-gay and anti-abortion. Those are just two major areas of concern with him. He's not going to care about the environment and he's not going to bring the troops home and the republican congress and Senate will be more than comfortable working with him to get the ACHA passed. So if Trump is removed the battle is not going to be over....there's a good chance it will get worse.
Which is not to say not to impeach if you can but at least people on the left should have their eyes open.
If I've gotten this right his impeachment would have to begin with the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives--currently chaired by Bob Goodlatte (Rep. Va) the minority led by John Conyers Dem-Mich). Currently that committee has 24 republicans including some of their most notoriously right wing zealots such as Trey Gowdy, Darrell Issa, Steve King and Louie Gohmert. The Democrats have 17 members. They'd have to get at least 4 republicans to cross over. That's a major hurdle right there. If however that happened it would go on the full house for a simple majority vote--current numbers 238 republicans 193 democrats. That would mean at least 23 republicans would have to cross over. Another huge reach but if that happened as well it would go to the Senate where a trial would be held with the current Supreme Court Justice Roberts presiding and the 100 Senators as the jury--currently 52 republicans, 46 democrats and 2 Independents and a two thirds majority needed for conviction--meaning something like 19 of the the 52 Senate republicans would have to cross over.......and then if convicted the Senate decides whether to remove him from office or prohibit him from holding any public office in the future.
All that will take time and maybe even the midterms will change the numbers around a bit before the entire process is brought to a conclusion.
And if Trump is removed you get a real honest to goodness (careful what you wish for) right winger in Michael Pence to be your new POTUS (unless of course you can impeach him too). Pence is very comfortable with the religious right and is anti-gay and anti-abortion. Those are just two major areas of concern with him. He's not going to care about the environment and he's not going to bring the troops home and the republican congress and Senate will be more than comfortable working with him to get the ACHA passed. So if Trump is removed the battle is not going to be over....there's a good chance it will get worse.
Which is not to say not to impeach if you can but at least people on the left should have their eyes open.
19proximity1
redirected here from a different thread (where I've since deleted the following) :
Here's a VERY important distinction between the political scandal that goes by the name of the Watergate affair and the current matters which have pitted as adversaries President Trump and his administration on one hand and, on the other, basically almost everyone else: many key people in both main political parties (which constitute a "duopoly"), that is, important members of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, the MSM (writ large), the corporate elite which aligns itself with the Repub-Demo party duopoly, etc.:
the Watergate affair (which originated with the discovery and arrest of a group of White-House-sponsored burglers caught in the act of having broken into an office at the Watergate complex,) concerned a national U.S. press-corps and its editorial direction's involvement as observers and reporters of the news and opinion of the day, NOT partisan instigators of a "soft" (and illegal) coup d'état--mainly at the Washington Post of Katherine Graham and Benjamin Bradley and the New York Times of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Sr. -- both papers very different as institutions in their managements and very different in the caliber of the people who headed them during the Watergate affair than what we see today from these newspapers and their managements-- in that these institutions allowed established government institutions to proceed with the official enquiries into what part, if any, President Nixon may have had as the instigator and direct beneficiary of the events of the scandal. These newspapers' editors and managers did not take upon themselves the execution of their own vendetta organized against Nixon. Rather, they limited their role to finding and reporting news and editorial-opinion about the scandal--not fomenting and directing it for their own partisan interests. It's this latter which the Times and The Post and many other entities in the MSM are now doing.
Today, the national press-corps and key members of the MSM are not merely reporting on a supposedly-scandalous but, so far, entirely-unsubstantiated-affair, they're taking an active part in scandal-mongering with, for apparent objective, president Trump's removal from office by the easiest and earliest means, foul not excepted.
Here's a VERY important distinction between the political scandal that goes by the name of the Watergate affair and the current matters which have pitted as adversaries President Trump and his administration on one hand and, on the other, basically almost everyone else: many key people in both main political parties (which constitute a "duopoly"), that is, important members of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, the MSM (writ large), the corporate elite which aligns itself with the Repub-Demo party duopoly, etc.:
the Watergate affair (which originated with the discovery and arrest of a group of White-House-sponsored burglers caught in the act of having broken into an office at the Watergate complex,) concerned a national U.S. press-corps and its editorial direction's involvement as observers and reporters of the news and opinion of the day, NOT partisan instigators of a "soft" (and illegal) coup d'état--mainly at the Washington Post of Katherine Graham and Benjamin Bradley and the New York Times of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Sr. -- both papers very different as institutions in their managements and very different in the caliber of the people who headed them during the Watergate affair than what we see today from these newspapers and their managements-- in that these institutions allowed established government institutions to proceed with the official enquiries into what part, if any, President Nixon may have had as the instigator and direct beneficiary of the events of the scandal. These newspapers' editors and managers did not take upon themselves the execution of their own vendetta organized against Nixon. Rather, they limited their role to finding and reporting news and editorial-opinion about the scandal--not fomenting and directing it for their own partisan interests. It's this latter which the Times and The Post and many other entities in the MSM are now doing.
Today, the national press-corps and key members of the MSM are not merely reporting on a supposedly-scandalous but, so far, entirely-unsubstantiated-affair, they're taking an active part in scandal-mongering with, for apparent objective, president Trump's removal from office by the easiest and earliest means, foul not excepted.
20proximity1
>18 lriley:
As I understand it, once convicted, the president's removal is tantamount to a given. A vote in favor of "guilty" ("yea" to convict, "nay" to acquit) conviction is really the same as a vote for removal.
Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." (emphasis added)
RE:
"And if Trump is removed you get a real honest to goodness (careful what you wish for) right winger in Michael Pence to be your new POTUS (unless of course you can impeach him too)."
Hmm. Think about that: calculating the advisability of impeaching a sitting president of the United States according to the supposed character of the man (in this case, the vice-president) who'd become his successor if impeached, tried and convicted. Interesting!
And, in my opinion, an extremely serious indictment of the folly of this initiative. Look, if the president's contemplated impeachment and removal from office gives some people pause on such flimsy grounds as "Yeah, but look who'd then become president!", then, I submit to you that the contemplation of such an impeachment is itself "impeached" as a patent disgrace --since it would appear on its face by the facts to be a purely partisan motivated affair.
This is truly disgusting.
Either Trump has committed extremely serious acts which should require his facing a vote on a motion of impeachment--with ALL the prerequisite formalities that implies: a debate in the House with a full hearing of the arguments pro and con--and, if impeached, a full trial in the Senate, or he has not committed such acts, in which case, his impeachment amounts to a witch-hunt, a partisan harrassment and is the operation of a vile bunch of people with the stupendous nerve to pretend that they are acting out of a desire to "protect the nation"! "Protect", Hell!
Bring out the goddamned evidence if you can, if there be any--clear and compelling evidence-- that Trump has done ANY of the things he's alleged to have done which ought to warrant his impeachment, trial and removal, according to the Constitution's provisions or, failing that, people should STFU about this.
The American people have already proven that they deserve Trump. Now, they seem determined to prove that they deserve--and are determined to arrange to get--even much, much worse: and, by that "Much, much worse" I do not meant to refer to Vice President Pence's installation as president; I mean that the American people are toying with the sacrifice--if it isn't already too late--of a regularly ordered, long-established electorally based "transfer of power" for what amounts to a disgruntled elite's organized post-facto coup d'etat. That invites the sort of raucous instability which is common in so many parts of the world and about which Americans have little idea in actual practice. There's still a slim chance they could stop this impeachment madness and allow an elected result to have its turn in office, dealing with problems and complications as they arise, without also, in the process, destroying what remains of a citizens' participation in the selection of the head of state.
God damn this shit!
As I understand it, once convicted, the president's removal is tantamount to a given. A vote in favor of "guilty" ("yea" to convict, "nay" to acquit) conviction is really the same as a vote for removal.
Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." (emphasis added)
RE:
"And if Trump is removed you get a real honest to goodness (careful what you wish for) right winger in Michael Pence to be your new POTUS (unless of course you can impeach him too)."
Hmm. Think about that: calculating the advisability of impeaching a sitting president of the United States according to the supposed character of the man (in this case, the vice-president) who'd become his successor if impeached, tried and convicted. Interesting!
And, in my opinion, an extremely serious indictment of the folly of this initiative. Look, if the president's contemplated impeachment and removal from office gives some people pause on such flimsy grounds as "Yeah, but look who'd then become president!", then, I submit to you that the contemplation of such an impeachment is itself "impeached" as a patent disgrace --since it would appear on its face by the facts to be a purely partisan motivated affair.
This is truly disgusting.
Either Trump has committed extremely serious acts which should require his facing a vote on a motion of impeachment--with ALL the prerequisite formalities that implies: a debate in the House with a full hearing of the arguments pro and con--and, if impeached, a full trial in the Senate, or he has not committed such acts, in which case, his impeachment amounts to a witch-hunt, a partisan harrassment and is the operation of a vile bunch of people with the stupendous nerve to pretend that they are acting out of a desire to "protect the nation"! "Protect", Hell!
Bring out the goddamned evidence if you can, if there be any--clear and compelling evidence-- that Trump has done ANY of the things he's alleged to have done which ought to warrant his impeachment, trial and removal, according to the Constitution's provisions or, failing that, people should STFU about this.
The American people have already proven that they deserve Trump. Now, they seem determined to prove that they deserve--and are determined to arrange to get--even much, much worse: and, by that "Much, much worse" I do not meant to refer to Vice President Pence's installation as president; I mean that the American people are toying with the sacrifice--if it isn't already too late--of a regularly ordered, long-established electorally based "transfer of power" for what amounts to a disgruntled elite's organized post-facto coup d'etat. That invites the sort of raucous instability which is common in so many parts of the world and about which Americans have little idea in actual practice. There's still a slim chance they could stop this impeachment madness and allow an elected result to have its turn in office, dealing with problems and complications as they arise, without also, in the process, destroying what remains of a citizens' participation in the selection of the head of state.
God damn this shit!
21Crypto-Willobie
Instead of impeachment:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/opinion/25th-amendment-trump.html?emc=edit_th...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/opinion/25th-amendment-trump.html?emc=edit_th...
22lriley
#20--yeah well everything is a calculation. And in the end of #18 I suggest that to go ahead and do it but it's not necessarily going to be party time afterwards. Democrats shouldn't have screwed with Sanders.
23proximity1
>21 Crypto-Willobie:
LOL! Have you even read the 25th amendment?
Now, consider the scene. Under the amendment's terms, which read, in part,
..."Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."
the first act of the Vice-president, upon assuming the presidential powers must then, of course, be to see to the fulfillment of Section Two's requirement to fill the now-vacant office of Vice-president by an appointment; this means, for example, that, should V.P. Pence temporarily assume the office of the president, he'd be obliged to appoint his successor, the new Vice-president-designate, pending "confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." (emphasis added)
It then appears that the following scenario is possible:
The former-and-removed (i.e. elected) president "transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists"; at that point, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.; however, it could happen that the acting-president (the former elected vice-president ) opposes the replaced president's initiative and intends to exercise this option objecting that the former president is unfit. It could then occur that the temporary president's vice-president attampts to assemble a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, and, by letter, "transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,"
in which case, again, the Vice President (having been apointed by the acting president and confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress,) shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
LOL! Have you even read the 25th amendment?
Twenty-Fifth Amendment - U.S. Constitution
Twenty-Fifth Amendment - Presidential Vacancy, Disability, and Inability
Amendment Text | Annotations
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President (note: i.e. the elected president, who'd been replaced via notification via letter to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments--that president) transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment25.html
Now, consider the scene. Under the amendment's terms, which read, in part,
..."Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."
the first act of the Vice-president, upon assuming the presidential powers must then, of course, be to see to the fulfillment of Section Two's requirement to fill the now-vacant office of Vice-president by an appointment; this means, for example, that, should V.P. Pence temporarily assume the office of the president, he'd be obliged to appoint his successor, the new Vice-president-designate, pending "confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." (emphasis added)
It then appears that the following scenario is possible:
The former-and-removed (i.e. elected) president "transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists"; at that point, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.; however, it could happen that the acting-president (the former elected vice-president ) opposes the replaced president's initiative and intends to exercise this option objecting that the former president is unfit. It could then occur that the temporary president's vice-president attampts to assemble a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, and, by letter, "transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,"
in which case, again, the Vice President (having been apointed by the acting president and confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress,) shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
24proximity1
>22 lriley:
... " -yeah well everything is a calculation"...
A serving president's removal-- whether by impeachment or by a bad-faith resort to the 25th amendment-- should not be one of them.
" Democrats shouldn't have screwed with Sanders."
Absolutely right. They shouldn't have. But they did. And that's now done and cannot be undone. Not in theory and not in fact. Trump was, in my opinion, helped into office by that damned foolishness on the part of the DNC, Obama, Clinton and the DLC elite who, let us remember, whether they'll admit it now or not, positively relished the prospect of campaigning against Trump, who they saw as having absolutely no chance to defeat Clinton.
What's done is done. We have an elected president and we ought to defend that fact because only it guarantees our rightful participation--when exercised as a citizen's voting-right-- in the election of the head of state.
The resort to the 25th amendment in the present circumstances nullifies that and it amounts to an illegal coup under color of law since, it should be clear, the 25th amendment's terms were intended to provide for genuine presidential disability, not an elite's partisan disgruntlement with the manner in which the elected president administers his duties and prerogatives.
There are actually ways in which the present circumstances could be made worse; and Douthat and those encouraging what is surely a bad-faith resort to the 25th amendment are toying with those ways to worsen the circumstances.
This course would, ironically, be far beyond the Rooskie's dreams if their objective was to foment political instability in the U.S. political system and take advantage of the consequences. There are times when it's actually best to hope that the elected president, even if one did not vote for him, is a success and is allowed to conduct his duties without a daily assault from conspiracies which seek to undermine him in his official work.
________________
additional things that a hasty and bad idea for removing Trump from office ignores:
First, to remove Trump for, in effect, alarming too-great-a-number of people who, like Obama and the Clintons, and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe ( per "Twitter": "I know any use of either "I" word upsets many who see it as nullifying a valid election. I urge them to see it as an effort to save the U.S." )
are supremely sure of their infallible good-taste and judgment in social and political affairs would set an extremely bad precedent for it would make it not just a "concept," or a "view" already in the minds of too many but, rather, an actual established fact that instead of the decisions of an electoral college's vote of the states determining the nation's political head of state, it's the preferences of a select set of "movers-and-shakers", in fact, a sub-set of the imfamous "1%" --or, really, the 0.1%" --who are the real and proper judges and deciders of such a matter. That spells the true and effective end of anything that is meaningfully referred to as "participatory government." It means nothing less than that the United States has become openly the little oligarchic political entity which people have so long privately whispered that it is. This move would be all that's needed to definitively confirm that suspicion as true in fact.
at that point, every right and liberty is purely a creature of the oligarchy's readiness to tolerate it. At any moment this tolerance is depleted, the right, the liberty is done for and won't be recovered without blood spilled. That's where we are now tempting each other to go as a nation. A question: Are Americans really quite that politically stupid? I fear that the answer may be, "Yes, they are."
... " -yeah well everything is a calculation"...
A serving president's removal-- whether by impeachment or by a bad-faith resort to the 25th amendment-- should not be one of them.
" Democrats shouldn't have screwed with Sanders."
Absolutely right. They shouldn't have. But they did. And that's now done and cannot be undone. Not in theory and not in fact. Trump was, in my opinion, helped into office by that damned foolishness on the part of the DNC, Obama, Clinton and the DLC elite who, let us remember, whether they'll admit it now or not, positively relished the prospect of campaigning against Trump, who they saw as having absolutely no chance to defeat Clinton.
What's done is done. We have an elected president and we ought to defend that fact because only it guarantees our rightful participation--when exercised as a citizen's voting-right-- in the election of the head of state.
The resort to the 25th amendment in the present circumstances nullifies that and it amounts to an illegal coup under color of law since, it should be clear, the 25th amendment's terms were intended to provide for genuine presidential disability, not an elite's partisan disgruntlement with the manner in which the elected president administers his duties and prerogatives.
There are actually ways in which the present circumstances could be made worse; and Douthat and those encouraging what is surely a bad-faith resort to the 25th amendment are toying with those ways to worsen the circumstances.
This course would, ironically, be far beyond the Rooskie's dreams if their objective was to foment political instability in the U.S. political system and take advantage of the consequences. There are times when it's actually best to hope that the elected president, even if one did not vote for him, is a success and is allowed to conduct his duties without a daily assault from conspiracies which seek to undermine him in his official work.
________________
additional things that a hasty and bad idea for removing Trump from office ignores:
First, to remove Trump for, in effect, alarming too-great-a-number of people who, like Obama and the Clintons, and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe ( per "Twitter": "I know any use of either "I" word upsets many who see it as nullifying a valid election. I urge them to see it as an effort to save the U.S." )
are supremely sure of their infallible good-taste and judgment in social and political affairs would set an extremely bad precedent for it would make it not just a "concept," or a "view" already in the minds of too many but, rather, an actual established fact that instead of the decisions of an electoral college's vote of the states determining the nation's political head of state, it's the preferences of a select set of "movers-and-shakers", in fact, a sub-set of the imfamous "1%" --or, really, the 0.1%" --who are the real and proper judges and deciders of such a matter. That spells the true and effective end of anything that is meaningfully referred to as "participatory government." It means nothing less than that the United States has become openly the little oligarchic political entity which people have so long privately whispered that it is. This move would be all that's needed to definitively confirm that suspicion as true in fact.
at that point, every right and liberty is purely a creature of the oligarchy's readiness to tolerate it. At any moment this tolerance is depleted, the right, the liberty is done for and won't be recovered without blood spilled. That's where we are now tempting each other to go as a nation. A question: Are Americans really quite that politically stupid? I fear that the answer may be, "Yes, they are."
27lriley
#24--all politicians ever do is calculate.
The thought that's been occurring to me on hearing that John Cornyn took himself out of the running for FBI director is that anyone who would take that job right now would almost have to be crazy--which honestly makes me laugh. I mean why put yourself in the middle of this clusterfuck?--and maybe get eaten too. We might find out we can live just as well without an FBI director.
The thought that's been occurring to me on hearing that John Cornyn took himself out of the running for FBI director is that anyone who would take that job right now would almost have to be crazy--which honestly makes me laugh. I mean why put yourself in the middle of this clusterfuck?--and maybe get eaten too. We might find out we can live just as well without an FBI director.
28proximity1
>26 Molly3028:
So, then, please tell us the theory by which these two events are joined in one and the same fellow's work--
by what theory of sense does Comey "help to take down" first Clinton, in 2016 and then, in 2017, Trump, who beat Clinton in the race for the White House?
I would be interested to learn how that is explained.
If you need help in the form of more specific questions, then, here, for your aid:
1) For whom (or what) does Comey work? Himself, alone? Others? If "others" are they "domestic", "foreign", neither or both?
2) Why is he doing these things?
3) Do you suppose there are others on a list of people he intends to "take down"? If not, why not? If so, do you have any idea who they are or do you just wait to see who is caught in the cross-hairs and reckon that they are in Comey's "sights"?
So, then, please tell us the theory by which these two events are joined in one and the same fellow's work--
by what theory of sense does Comey "help to take down" first Clinton, in 2016 and then, in 2017, Trump, who beat Clinton in the race for the White House?
I would be interested to learn how that is explained.
If you need help in the form of more specific questions, then, here, for your aid:
1) For whom (or what) does Comey work? Himself, alone? Others? If "others" are they "domestic", "foreign", neither or both?
2) Why is he doing these things?
3) Do you suppose there are others on a list of people he intends to "take down"? If not, why not? If so, do you have any idea who they are or do you just wait to see who is caught in the cross-hairs and reckon that they are in Comey's "sights"?
29Molly3028
proximity1
Fate used Comey to give both political parties a wake-up call ~ period ~ end of story.
Fate used Comey to give both political parties a wake-up call ~ period ~ end of story.
30proximity1
>29 Molly3028:
"Fate used Comey to give both political parties a wake-up call"
And you know this because...?
How about President Trump? Is "Fate" also using him to make wake-up calls? If not, why not?
Thus, according to your posts--on record here--Comey "helped to take down Clinton in 2016." Now we learn that, in doing so, he was bringing to fruition fate's designs--as in he was both an F.B.I. agent and an agent of Fate. Pretty powerful stuff, isn't it? Comey has since been fired from his post as director of the F.B.I. Would that also be according to the designs of Fate? And, though no longer an F.B.I. agent, is Comey still an agent of Fate? If so, does that mean he does or does not need a good lawyer?
31Molly3028
proximity1
I believe you are overthinking this whole episode. Fate's hand does it for me.
Trump may be part of fate's plan, too ~ he definitely needed a wake-up call.
I believe you are overthinking this whole episode. Fate's hand does it for me.
Trump may be part of fate's plan, too ~ he definitely needed a wake-up call.
32proximity1
>31 Molly3028:
Yes: while I'm busy "overthinking" it, your "answer" "saves" much "thinking," doesn't it? "Thanks" so very much for not "overthinking" it.
"Fate's hand" can "explain" everything and anything since, you see, it actually explains nothing--rather, it puts little children's (or reasoning adult's) questions to sleep, offering as "explanation" a farcical illusion.
That "Fate" did it, wanted it, explains nothing. It's a dodge instead of an explanation.
Also, since, for you, "fate" is the explanation of these--and I suppose any other--events, then it's absurd to hail the appointment of what you refer to as "an adult", a special prosecutor, in the person of former Director of the F.B.I. Robert Mueller, to lead an investigation into "finding out what Trump and his cult followers have been up to for the last 2 years" (your words) since, obviously, whatever it was, it also had to have been "fate" at work. Thus, your "~ this is a win for America and Americans of all political stripes" is also a piece of nonsense since, if its fate's workings the appointment and the expenditure of the resources for the investigation is a great waste of a fortune.
Oh, yes, one more question: You were "With her," weren't you? Hillary, I mean, not the Fates.
I believe you are overthinking this whole episode. Fate's hand does it for me.
Yes: while I'm busy "overthinking" it, your "answer" "saves" much "thinking," doesn't it? "Thanks" so very much for not "overthinking" it.
"Fate's hand" can "explain" everything and anything since, you see, it actually explains nothing--rather, it puts little children's (or reasoning adult's) questions to sleep, offering as "explanation" a farcical illusion.
That "Fate" did it, wanted it, explains nothing. It's a dodge instead of an explanation.
Also, since, for you, "fate" is the explanation of these--and I suppose any other--events, then it's absurd to hail the appointment of what you refer to as "an adult", a special prosecutor, in the person of former Director of the F.B.I. Robert Mueller, to lead an investigation into "finding out what Trump and his cult followers have been up to for the last 2 years" (your words) since, obviously, whatever it was, it also had to have been "fate" at work. Thus, your "~ this is a win for America and Americans of all political stripes" is also a piece of nonsense since, if its fate's workings the appointment and the expenditure of the resources for the investigation is a great waste of a fortune.
Oh, yes, one more question: You were "With her," weren't you? Hillary, I mean, not the Fates.
33RickHarsch
"What a" ^ FASCINATIN"ING" ~ DE-'bait}' ..."GO" ing 0n? up there sic (sic)
34DugsBooks
>23 proximity1: & others
For the extra credit "Compare and contrast the Bill Clinton and Trump impeachments" discussion question, here is a cheat sheet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
For the extra credit "Compare and contrast the Bill Clinton and Trump impeachments" discussion question, here is a cheat sheet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
36DugsBooks
>35 proximity1: Luddite!! ;-)
40proximity1
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
Trump’s Statements Are Not an Obstruction of Justice
By ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY*
MAY 17, 2017
Link to text: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/opinion/trumps-fbi-comey-statements-are-not-a...
_________________________
* professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law, is the author of “Liberty for All: Reclaiming Individual Privacy in a New Era of Public Morality.”
41RickHarsch
Shit. That settles that.
42MegEynons
>3 barney67: Here you go, Barney. Other sources are reporting that Pence is likely to be under investigation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/vice-president-pence-h...
I understand that to some lying about what they knew and didn't know "doesn't count". But to others these are actions that mean they will be investigated to find out if crimes were committed.
The challenge, as always, is that as the public we don't have knowledge or access to what is taking place, we can only read the signs. And we all read them differently or get them from different sources.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/vice-president-pence-h...
I understand that to some lying about what they knew and didn't know "doesn't count". But to others these are actions that mean they will be investigated to find out if crimes were committed.
The challenge, as always, is that as the public we don't have knowledge or access to what is taking place, we can only read the signs. And we all read them differently or get them from different sources.
43rastaphrog
And it would seem that Comey may have set a "trap" for Trump. Specifically, he was fairly sure he was going to be fired, and he put "information" on his computer for the specific purpose of see if Trump took it and passed it on to the Russians. Supposedly the information has been passed on. If true, it'll be one more thing used against Trump.
I can't speak for the web sites track record myself, but I've seen them mentioned in several places as being pretty accurate in their reporting.
http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/computer-comey-russia/2905
I can't speak for the web sites track record myself, but I've seen them mentioned in several places as being pretty accurate in their reporting.
http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/computer-comey-russia/2905
44Crypto-Willobie
I've seen some dodgy things said about the Palmer Report.
45margd
Trump says Democratic donor airing impeachment ads on TV is ‘totally unhinged’
John Wagner | October 27, 2017
...Wacky & totally unhinged Tom Steyer, who has been fighting me and my Make America Great Again agenda from beginning, never wins elections! (Trump tweet).
...In his television ad, Steyer calls Trump mentally unstable and “a clear and present danger” and argues that he should be impeached because he leading the country in the direction of nuclear war, has obstructed justice and has threatened to shut down news organizations he doesn’t like.
“A Republican Congress once impeached a president for far less, and today people in Congress and his own administration know that this president is a clear and present danger,” Steyer says in the ad, which directs viewers to a NeedToImpeach website.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/27/trump-says-democ...
_____________________________________
Steyer video:
Join Us (1:02)
Tom Steyer Published on Oct 19, 2017
Donald Trump has taken money from foreign governments, obstructed justice at the FBI, and even brought us to the brink of nuclear war. We need to impeach this dangerous president.
Sign the Petition: http://action.needtoimpeach.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXl8vRmLeJk
John Wagner | October 27, 2017
...Wacky & totally unhinged Tom Steyer, who has been fighting me and my Make America Great Again agenda from beginning, never wins elections! (Trump tweet).
...In his television ad, Steyer calls Trump mentally unstable and “a clear and present danger” and argues that he should be impeached because he leading the country in the direction of nuclear war, has obstructed justice and has threatened to shut down news organizations he doesn’t like.
“A Republican Congress once impeached a president for far less, and today people in Congress and his own administration know that this president is a clear and present danger,” Steyer says in the ad, which directs viewers to a NeedToImpeach website.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/27/trump-says-democ...
_____________________________________
Steyer video:
Join Us (1:02)
Tom Steyer Published on Oct 19, 2017
Donald Trump has taken money from foreign governments, obstructed justice at the FBI, and even brought us to the brink of nuclear war. We need to impeach this dangerous president.
Sign the Petition: http://action.needtoimpeach.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXl8vRmLeJk
46btuckertx
>45 margd: Trump calling out Steyer... why do the words; pot, kettle, and black, spring to mind?
