Impeachment Collection

[tomarin]

To echo your point, I felt that people projected attributes onto Obama that were not actually proven, if they were there at all. I remember once my mother who is no longer with us telling me on the telephone in an awed voice ‘he’s so intelligent’ as if he were Einstein or something, which I didn’t know how to react to. My mother herself was an intelligent and cultured person, but she fell hard for his charisma or whatever it was.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think Joe Biden said it best, though he said it in a racist way. Obama, to many, was not a man. He was an icon. Obama was like a salve to the nation’s conscience, or was perceived to be. Americans have self-flagellated for decades about racism and injustice to blacks, he was like a “liberator of conscience” to the well-meaning shallow, and voting for him and ignoring any flaws he might have was like an influx of secular “sanctifying grace”. He could even smoke cigarettes (the secular “mortal sin” of today’s America) and receive no criticism for it.

And, to many, even many who never agreed with anything he did, he’ll remain as the “patron saint” of American non-racism.

 

[Economist]

Witness his winning the Nobel Peace Prize before he did anything at all.

I am pretty sure that this is what hurts Trump real bad. That Obama won a peace prize and he did not. That is why he fell in love with one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants (someone who used dogs to tear his relative to pieces), hoping that together they can earn the Nobel Prize for bringing a resolution to the Korean peninsula. It would have been a wonderful achievement, that is for sure.

Trump not only has to perform, he has to do it in face of the toughest media and political headwinds any president has ever faced in modern times.

You gotta be kidding.

How do you measure the gusts of that head-wind? When it came to Obama’s re-election, McConnell explicitly declared that the number one priority is to deny a second term to Obama. So you have no leg to stand on with your pious resentment about getting the taste of your own medicine.

As for the difficulty, Trump started with a Republican House and Senate to “serve” him. And all he could do is sow discord and hostility… the "best deal maker… with his “very stable genius brain”, who knew the “best words” and who constantly needs face-to-face praises from his own selected people. Did you watch his demand to be praised (by his cabinet) for how self-constrained he was after he threw a tamper-tantrum and walked out from the infrastructure meeting. Pathetic, really.

He could produce no value in the business world. His father had to bail him out time after time, after he ran his businesses into the ground. To run a casino into bankruptcy? That really requires a “genius” of a special kind… And he borrowed money from the banks, did not repay them, and now the only bank that is still willing to deal with him is the Russian money-laundering Deutsche Bank. So much for his business acumen, which was his major “trump-card” at the election.

And we swallowed it, hook, line and sinker. I believed it, too. But it did not take a long time to realize that he is just another con-man. All hat and no cattle as the Texan saying goes. His core supporters may never realize it. He does not care about the country, only about himself.

And, to many, even many who never agreed with anything he did, he’ll remain as the “patron saint” of American non-racism.

Apart from the religiously tainted tone you are right. He tried to heal the wounds of the racial divide. The opposite of Trump, he really is a smart person. Not a “genius”, of course. Only a narcissistic “Niemand” would loudly proclaim what a “very stable genius” he is. Real geniuses are declared by their peers, not by their own mouth.

Of course, all that could be forgiven, if he did not try to destroy our Constitutional Republic and turn it into his personal fiefdom. That is the basic, fundamental problem. And you (in general) have no other argument than: “But, Mommy! Johnny is (was) doing it, too!”. That (even if true) does not exonerate Trump.

 

[tomarin]

I think you’re overreaching in your last paragraph.

 

[EricF]

This. All of this!

 

[ProVobis]

progressives have set out to destroy the constitution.

That’s interesting because it seems the conservatives at the time opposed signing of the Declaration of Independence and sailed back to England.

 

[ProVobis]

He could produce no value in the business world.

Only his name brand which is slowly fading. Even his tweets are losing interest. Best thing to do is to ignore him but the press keeps taking the bait.

 

[ProVobis]

So Obama was wrong, then?

Isn’t that what you’ve been claiming for the last three years if not longer?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

progressives have set out to destroy the constitution.

That’s interesting because it seems the conservatives at the time opposed signing of the Declaration of Independence and sailed back to England.

The constitution conservatives are the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights.

 

[Economist]

The constitution conservatives are the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights.

The word “conservative” meant something totally different from its usage today. The word “liberal” also. To think that the word that describes freedom (liberty) and the concept of valuing freedom (liberal) is something “despicable” (bleeding heart liberal) shows that our value system is skewed and distorted beyond recognition.

Here is something for you to consider:

Q: Who is a conservative?
A: A conservative is a liberal who just has been mugged.
Q: Who is a liberal?
A: A liberal is a conservative who has been unjustly accused of this mugging.

 

[JonNC]

The word “conservative” meant something totally different from its usage today. The word “liberal” also. To think that the word that describes freedom (liberty) and the concept of valuing freedom (liberal) is something “despicable” (bleeding heart liberal) shows that our value system is skewed and distorted beyond recognition.

Today’s progressive movement is anything but liberal. As you said, liberals believe in liberty, individual rights. Progressives believe in government power.

Here is something for you to consider:

Q: Who is a conservative?
A: A conservative is a liberal who just has been mugged.
Q: Who is a liberal?
A: A liberal is a conservative who has been unjustly accused of this mugging.

And a progressive says the accused mugger is guilty without due process, depending on his intersectionality level.

 

[Economist]

Today’s progressive movement is anything but liberal. As you said, liberals believe in liberty, individual rights. Progressives believe in government power.

You mean that the conservatives in some “red” states (Alabama, Georgia, etc…) want to use the power of the government to restrict / eliminate the women’s control of their bodies, making them into “breeding sacks” against their wishes? Is that what the “progressives” demand? I think you are mistaken. It is the “regressives” (another new word is suggested here) who want to extend the power of the government into our bedrooms.

In a sense this all-out attack on women and their reproductive freedom is a “good” thing. The minuscule minority of the people pushing for such legislation do not realize that vast majority of the people do NOT want any messing with Roe v. Wade. They want some reasonable restrictions on abortion, but not an overall repeal of the law. Even Kavanaugh said that Roe is the established law of the land. Now whether he is honest, that remains to be seen.

This all-out attack on women will produce a backlash. I don’t like AOC and her economic programs - she does not seem to well educated in economics (of course that is true for Trump, too) but hopefully she can whip up the fervor and the elections will show that you cannot change the US into Gilead (this reference to the Handmaid’s Tale is warranted).

 

[ProVobis]

From the play 1776,

Dickinson:
Oh say do you see what I see?
Congress sitting here in sweet serenity
I could cheer; the reason’s clear
For the first time in a year Adams isn’t here
And look, the sun is in the sky
A breeze is blowing by, and there’s not a single fly

I sing hosanna, hosanna
Hosanna, hosanna
And it’s cool

Come ye cool cool conservative men
The likes of which may never be seen again
We have land, cash in hand
Self-command, future planned
Fortune flies, society survives
In neatly ordered lives with well-endowered wives

We sing hosanna, hosanna
To our breeding and our banner
We are cool

Come ye cool cool considerate set
We’ll dance together to the same minuet
To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right
May our creed be never to exceed
Regulated speed, no matter what the need

We sing hosanna, hosanna
Enblazoned on our banner
Is keep cool

What we do we do rationally
We never ever go off half-cocked, not we
Why begin till we know that we can win
And if we cannot win why bother to begin?

Rutledge:
We say this game’s not of our choosing
Why should we risk losing?

All:
We are cool

To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right
We have gold, a market that will hold
Tradition that is old, a reluctance to be bold.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Patrick Buchanan stated it very well.

What a Hash Mueller Made of It

Republicans should not let Mueller skate on this. For the James Comey-Mueller investigation is itself in need of investigation. What is it about special counsel Robert Mueller that he cannot say cl…

buchanan.org

Money quote from the article (emphasis mine):

Mueller implied that his refusal to charge Trump publicly was based on a Justice Department ruling that presidents cannot be indicted.

But if the special counsel cannot indict a sitting president, and ought not charge him, as, said Mueller, it is “unfair to accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge,” then what was the point of naming a special counsel?

If Mueller actually believes Trump was guilty of obstruction, why did he not forthrightly declare: “While the Justice Department’s interpretation of the Constitution precludes my office from indicting President Trump, we believe his actions during the course of our investigation constituted an obstruction of justice.”

At least we would have clarity. Now we have Mueller walking out, without taking questions, and leaving us with this toxic mush.

I agree with Buchanan that Republicans shouldn’t let Mueller skate on this. The investigation into the beginnings of this investigation needs to happen. We’ve long known the dossier was false. When did Mueller know that and why did he continue the investigation anyway?

 

[7_Sorrows]

JonNC:

The constitution conservatives are the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights.

The word “conservative” meant something totally different from its usage today. The word “liberal” also. To think that the word that describes freedom (liberty) and the concept of valuing freedom (liberal) is something “despicable” (bleeding heart liberal) shows that our value system is skewed and distorted beyond recognition.

Here is something for you to consider:

Q: Who is a conservative?
A: A conservative is a liberal who just has been mugged.
Q: Who is a liberal?
A: A liberal is a conservative who has been unjustly accused of this mugging.

What is to consider? That makes no sense
whatsoever!

 

[ProVobis]

Insufficient evidence.

My understanding is that we are still waiting for Junior to testify before Senator Burr’s Committee?

So far we don’t know when Senior realized he was working with stolen material. My guess is that Barr knows.

No coverup? Sure.

 

[Economist]

But if the special counsel cannot indict a sitting president, and ought not charge him, as, said Mueller, it is “unfair to accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge,” then what was the point of naming a special counsel?

Simple. To investigate the facts, collect them, and provide them to Congress, whose job it is bring charges. If Congress decides that further investigation needs to be done, then it is their job to do it. Of course Trump will use all the legal and illegal methods to hinder those investigations.

In this case the scope of the investigation for the Special Counsel was very narrow, so it is now for the Congress to decide what other investigations need to be conducted.

If Mueller actually believes Trump was guilty of obstruction, why did he not forthrightly declare: “While the Justice Department’s interpretation of the Constitution precludes my office from indicting President Trump, we believe his actions during the course of our investigation constituted an obstruction of justice.”

He did, using slightly different words. “If we could have ascertained the innocence, we would have. Since we were not even allowed to conduct a full scale investigation, we need to give our facts to Congress”.

What is to consider? That makes no sense
whatsoever!

It is a JOKE! Showing the hypocrisy of the people. People change their tune when it suits them. JOKE!!

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

He did, using slightly different words. “If we could have ascertained the innocence, we would have. Since we were not even allowed to conduct a full scale investigation, we need to give our facts to Congress”.

That’s a mish mash wishy washy statement and you know it.

 

[Economist]

That’s a mish mash wishy washy statement and you know it.

You are not in the position to declare what I know. Please cease and desist.

 

[Theo520]

Simple. To investigate the facts, collect them, and provide them to Congress, whose job it is bring charges. If Congress decides that further investigation needs to be done, then it is their job to do it. Of course Trump will use all the legal and illegal methods to hinder those investigations.

In this case the scope of the investigation for the Special Counsel was very narrow, so it is now for the Congress to decide what other investigations need to be conducted.

No, the SC is expected to find conclusions since they are the ‘independent’ team of experts with both authority and money to do the investigation. Read the Star report for an example of how it can be handled, without relying on vague innuendo.

Congress has all they need on what Mueller investigated.

FYI, Mueller’s scope was not limited, that’s why indictments were handed out for completely unrelated crimes.