Schmidt Wrote: In my opinion, the Atlantic has made a convincing argument for impeaching Trump starting the process NOW. If we are to have intelligent discussions of the case to impeach Trump and the impeachment process that must follow, then I would use this article as a reference point and to stimulate thought.
My days of predicting outcomes are gone forever, but I can envision more than a dozen scenarios where Democrats will have no other choice than to open impeachment proceedings against Donald. Maybe Mueller finds something damning directly implicating Donald in a felony or maybe one of a dozen House Committees conducting their oversight duties unearth something entirely different. The possibilities are endless.
I'm not concerned about House Democrats finding an impeachable offense, but I am concerned that everyday Americans clamoring for Donald's removal from office are woefully misinformed about how difficult it is. Impeachment is the easy part.
Conviction in the Senate will require all Democrats and twenty Republicans to vote for removal. That is a monumental task, even if Donald literally shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue.
Dutch Wrote: Schmidt, the impeachment process is to cumbersome to even contemplate it. Also don't forget it does not make sense if the Senate is still in the hands of the GOP. The "freedom caucus" is the biggest obstacle.
The impeachment process isn't cumbersome at all. It's actually quite simple. The House of Representatives would vote on a resolution to give the House Judiciary Committee the authority to investigate whether there's grounds to impeach a President and determine if a President committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If a majority of the committee determine that he has then they will vote on whether to recommend impeachment to the full House. If 218 Representatives vote in the affirmative then a President is impeached.
The tricky part is the trial in the Senate where two-thirds of members must vote to convict, but that's an entirely separate process than impeachment.
Is it the best way to hold a tyrant accountable? Absolutely not. But it's the only system we have and it's the only system we will continue to have for the foreseeable future.
A 2006 science fiction comedy film called Idiocracy depicted life 500 years from now when over the coarse of five centuries, the most intelligent humans fail to have children, while the least intelligent reproduce prolifically; and thus through the process of natural selection, generations of people collectively became increasingly dumber and more virile with each passing century. Hence after 500 years we have a "dystopian society where anti-intellectualism and commercialism run rampant, and which is devoid of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights."
The bird box challenge happened in Utah. Maybe that tells us something.
It's funny you brought this movie up.
My wife and I re-watched it a few days after the 2016 election and have also shown it to some friends who never heard of it before. It's amazing how remarkably prescient that movie is.
I'm not really sure what to think about this anymore.
On one hand - it just makes sense that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress. It would be odd for Cohen to knowingly commit a felony without direction from his dear leader.
On the other - if BuzzFeed got duped then it plays right into Donald's "the fake news is out to get me" hands.
BuzzFeed is standing by their reporting, but it does concern me that no other major outlet has confirmed it. It's entirely possible they are the only ones who somehow found an "in" to Mueller's investigation, but it's also entirely possible they are the victims of deliberate sabotage from pro-Trump factions in the DOJ or FBI who want to protect their dear leader.
Nothing surprises me anymore.
Donald Trump instructed his then personal lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about his long sought after Trump Tower Moscow project when he testified before both House and Senate committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. If true, the sitting President of the United States knowingly committed a felony in an attempt to obstruct justice.
It's impossible to overstate how, as Joe Biden would say, big of a fucking deal this is. It directly implicates Donald in felonious acts and lays bare for all to see that he knowingly committed a crime. Donald and his lackeys can attack Cohen as much as they want, but if Mueller has proof that Donald committed a felony then they may eventually have no other choice than to abandon ship.
Times like these remind me why political history is one of my favorite subjects to study. Many people look back at the Nixon episode as a time when both Republicans and Democrats banded together for the greater good of the country, but that's not remotely close to what happened. Republicans protected Nixon with all of their might until it became politically impossible for them to keep doing so. Then and only then was Nixon cast aside.
I don't know if that's what will happen this time around, but it's going to be harder and harder for Donald's lackeys to protect him if the walls keep closing in.
Schmidt Wrote: But this thread is about Nancy Pelosi, so getting back on topic her latest move is to ask Trump to postpone his state of the union message to the American people until after the shutdown. Her reasoning -- security concerns with understaffed Homeland Security and Secret Service because of the shutdown. Ouch - that must hurt Trump. Of course, she also realizes she is not going to want to sit in the Speaker's chair behind that pompous ass while he pontificates for a full hour or more in the House chamber, and she has to endure the cameras focused on her every expression.
Donald is probably having a hard time understanding that he must be asked to give a speech in the House Chamber. He can't just say he's going to give a State of the Union Address and expect the House to accede to his every demand. I'd hate to be the staffer who informed him of that this morning.
Speaker Pelosi (man, I love writing that again) is simply teaching Donald the lessons of divided government. His days of ruling by strong-arming Republicans into submission are gone, if they were ever around to begin with.
Donald had two years of single-party rule and never got his wall. Hell - he never really even fought much at all for his wall. Now he's simply realized that it's a good way to gin up his base and get the press to stop talking about Mueller 24/7. It's an exercise in smoke and mirrors with hundreds of thousands of Federal employees being used as pawns in his game.
He knows he's never going to get his wall, but that's not the point. The point is that he can never, ever, ever admit that he "lost" something. And no matter which way this plays out, Donald is going to lose this fight.
Rosenstein was the author of the now infamous memo Trump used as his justification to fire James Comey. He's no knight in shining armor.
My guess is that he now feels safe in knowing that it's damn near impossible to stop the train that is Robert Mueller, especially now that Democrats control the House and can subpoena the DOJ if Donald refuses to release the report, and if that doesn't work then they can simply subpoena Robert Mueller himself and have him testify publicly.
I'm not shedding any tears over Rosenstein's departure. Sure, he was an adult in the room full of preschoolers, but he's no liberal hero that needs to be worshiped.
You're just now realizing that Donald is a delusional sociopath?
He's been the exact same racist, xenophobic, sociopath since the day he anointed himself the de facto leader of the birther movement in the early years of the Obama Administration.
Nothing has changed since then other than the fact that he now has the sole authority to declare nuclear war.
The jobs report is truly fantastic...if someone having any type of job at all is the only parameter we're focusing on.
What the jobs report doesn't take into account is something I'm far more worried about: the working poor becoming an ever greater share of the US workforce. The cost of living in many parts of the country is skyrocketing and wages are woefully behind in making up for the extra costs. That's why people with full time jobs are still finding themselves at food pantries and second-hand clothing stores.
I genuinely don't know how a coffee shop employee in Portland is able to afford rent or pay for her groceries. We have one of the highest minimum wages in the country, but good luck even getting a studio apartment on that salary.
I would love to see us begin shifting the conversation away from a "jobs guarantee" and towards a "basic standard of living guarantee."