Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Big difference between lying about a blowjob and, well, the bribery, self-dealing and lying.


I never supported Clinton's impeachment but the guy lied under oath. Should he have been impeached for it? Not in my opinion but Republicans, who were interested in it for political reasons, went for it knowing full well that he would not be removed. Now Democrats are doing the same thing knowing full well that Trump will not be removed.



Trump is a real and present danger to the USA and global stability. He encourages corruption and bribery, has a fascination for dictatorships, and openly criticizes perceived domestic opponents and international allies. That is SO MUCH WORSE than what Clinton did that you discredit yourself by even comparing the two.

I agree with this. However, and I say this as a Democrat who voted for Clinton twice---the Dems support of Clinton regardless of the fact he lied under oath is what has now brought us down the slippery slope to the bottom feeding, utterly amoral sh^^bird who is our current president. With the benefit of hindsight, I now think that the Dems would have been better off to have forced Clinton to resign and had Al Gore become president. Yes, Clinton's lying about his sexual peccadilloes with willing participants is nothing compared to Trump's determination to steer us into fascist corrupt autocracy. And Trump's acceptance of Russian election interference and active extortion of Ukraine to smear his domestic political rival is EXACTLY the type of behavior to which Alexander Hamilton intended the impeachment clause apply. But now the Republicans ---many of whom are either scared of their base or outright compromised by dirty NRA/Russian $$--are going to use the Democrats blind loyalty to Clinton despite his perjury as an excuse to acquit Trump---who in any sane universe should be removed immediately.

That is the dumbest, most blinkered take I’ve ever heard, bar none. No, the only reason Clinton was impeached in the 90s was because the GOP had already become the brain dead party we would all hate in the 2000s. The disgusting pigs (Gingrich, most notably) were already out of the bag.

Seriously, that’s a brain dead take that absolves th GOP of all responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big difference between lying about a blowjob and, well, the bribery, self-dealing and lying.

I never supported Clinton's impeachment but the guy lied under oath. Should he have been impeached for it? Not in my opinion but Republicans, who were interested in it for political reasons, went for it knowing full well that he would not be removed. Now Democrats are doing the same thing knowing full well that Trump will not be removed.

Are you trying to equate the two situations? Really?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Read what I said ...... he should not have been impeached.

[Anonymous]

Sadly, the Democrats are on this self-destructive mode: impeachment with all of its potential ramifications, opting for candidates whose harebrained agenda will never fly in middle America, etc.

And when we lose in 2020, there will not be a moment of self-reflection that we did not give the voters a palatable choice. No, we will have whining about how it was vote rigging, the popular vote, racism, uneducated local yokels, and on an on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big difference between lying about a blowjob and, well, the bribery, self-dealing and lying.

I never supported Clinton's impeachment but the guy lied under oath. Should he have been impeached for it? Not in my opinion but Republicans, who were interested in it for political reasons, went for it knowing full well that he would not be removed. Now Democrats are doing the same thing knowing full well that Trump will not be removed.

Are you trying to equate the two situations? Really?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Read what I said ...... he should not have been impeached.

Seems like you have a communication problem...read what you wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Big difference between lying about a blowjob and, well, the bribery, self-dealing and lying.


I never supported Clinton's impeachment but the guy lied under oath. Should he have been impeached for it? Not in my opinion but Republicans, who were interested in it for political reasons, went for it knowing full well that he would not be removed. Now Democrats are doing the same thing knowing full well that Trump will not be removed.



Trump is a real and present danger to the USA and global stability. He encourages corruption and bribery, has a fascination for dictatorships, and openly criticizes perceived domestic opponents and international allies. That is SO MUCH WORSE than what Clinton did that you discredit yourself by even comparing the two.

I agree with this. However, and I say this as a Democrat who voted for Clinton twice---the Dems support of Clinton regardless of the fact he lied under oath is what has now brought us down the slippery slope to the bottom feeding, utterly amoral sh^^bird who is our current president. With the benefit of hindsight, I now think that the Dems would have been better off to have forced Clinton to resign and had Al Gore become president. Yes, Clinton's lying about his sexual peccadilloes with willing participants is nothing compared to Trump's determination to steer us into fascist corrupt autocracy. And Trump's acceptance of Russian election interference and active extortion of Ukraine to smear his domestic political rival is EXACTLY the type of behavior to which Alexander Hamilton intended the impeachment clause apply. But now the Republicans ---many of whom are either scared of their base or outright compromised by dirty NRA/Russian $$--are going to use the Democrats blind loyalty to Clinton despite his perjury as an excuse to acquit Trump---who in any sane universe should be removed immediately.

That is the dumbest, most blinkered take I’ve ever heard, bar none. No, the only reason Clinton was impeached in the 90s was because the GOP had already become the brain dead party we would all hate in the 2000s. The disgusting pigs (Gingrich, most notably) were already out of the bag.

Seriously, that’s a brain dead take that absolves th GOP of all responsibility.

DP: you don't make a persuasive argument for your viewpoint by flinging insults just because you don't agree with what someone states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big difference between lying about a blowjob and, well, the bribery, self-dealing and lying.

I never supported Clinton's impeachment but the guy lied under oath. Should he have been impeached for it? Not in my opinion but Republicans, who were interested in it for political reasons, went for it knowing full well that he would not be removed. Now Democrats are doing the same thing knowing full well that Trump will not be removed.

Are you trying to equate the two situations? Really?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Read what I said ...... he should not have been impeached.

Seems like you have a communication problem...read what you wrote.

I said, the Democrats said in 1998 that one should not embark on a divisive course like impeachment with the full knowledge that Clinton will not be removed from office. Now they are seeking to impeach Trump with the full knowledge that Trump will not be removed from office. Yes, the Democrats are doing what they decried when the Republicans did it.

Impeachment is an extreme move and going through with it with the full knowledge that it will not succeed is precisely what the Republicans sought to do in 1998. What makes it worse in this instance is that we will have an election in a year when we can make the argument that Trump is not deserving of the office. But let's be honest: the reason the Democrats are doing this is in part because they know full well that given the economy and a lackluster field of candidates, Trump stands an excellent chance of winning reelection. So the impeachment is a sort of hail Mary pass hoping that it damages him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big difference between lying about a blowjob and, well, the bribery, self-dealing and lying.

I never supported Clinton's impeachment but the guy lied under oath. Should he have been impeached for it? Not in my opinion but Republicans, who were interested in it for political reasons, went for it knowing full well that he would not be removed. Now Democrats are doing the same thing knowing full well that Trump will not be removed.

Are you trying to equate the two situations? Really?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Read what I said ...... he should not have been impeached.

Seems like you have a communication problem...read what you wrote.

I said, the Democrats said in 1998 that one should not embark on a divisive course like impeachment with the full knowledge that Clinton will not be removed from office. Now they are seeking to impeach Trump with the full knowledge that Trump will not be removed from office. Yes, the Democrats are doing what they decried when the Republicans did it.

Impeachment is an extreme move and going through with it with the full knowledge that it will not succeed is precisely what the Republicans sought to do in 1998. What makes it worse in this instance is that we will have an election in a year when we can make the argument that Trump is not deserving of the office. But let's be honest: the reason the Democrats are doing this is in part because they know full well that given the economy and a lackluster field of candidates, Trump stands an excellent chance of winning reelection. So the impeachment is a sort of hail Mary pass hoping that it damages him.

Nope, it’s their constitutional duty. And, If Dem do nothing Trump will keep criming. Did he slow down when the Mueller report came out and Mueller testified that were is not for the OLC memo, trump would be in jail.

What’s your idea? Leave trump and his corruption going until our government has been completely destroyed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I said, the Democrats said in 1998 that one should not embark on a divisive course like impeachment with the full knowledge that Clinton will not be removed from office. Now they are seeking to impeach Trump with the full knowledge that Trump will not be removed from office. Yes, the Democrats are doing what they decried when the Republicans did it.

Impeachment is an extreme move and going through with it with the full knowledge that it will not succeed is precisely what the Republicans sought to do in 1998. What makes it worse in this instance is that we will have an election in a year when we can make the argument that Trump is not deserving of the office. But let's be honest: the reason the Democrats are doing this is in part because they know full well that given the economy and a lackluster field of candidates, Trump stands an excellent chance of winning reelection. So the impeachment is a sort of hail Mary pass hoping that it damages him.

Nope, it’s their constitutional duty. And, If Dem do nothing Trump will keep criming. Did he slow down when the Mueller report came out and Mueller testified that were is not for the OLC memo, trump would be in jail.

What’s your idea? Leave trump and his corruption going until our government has been completely destroyed?

So after he is impeached and acquitted, what will we have gained?

If the impeachment backfires and if it gets him additional support so that he wins reelection, what have we gained?

What is the goal here? Clearly not to remove him from office because that will not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I said, the Democrats said in 1998 that one should not embark on a divisive course like impeachment with the full knowledge that Clinton will not be removed from office. Now they are seeking to impeach Trump with the full knowledge that Trump will not be removed from office. Yes, the Democrats are doing what they decried when the Republicans did it.

Impeachment is an extreme move and going through with it with the full knowledge that it will not succeed is precisely what the Republicans sought to do in 1998. What makes it worse in this instance is that we will have an election in a year when we can make the argument that Trump is not deserving of the office. But let's be honest: the reason the Democrats are doing this is in part because they know full well that given the economy and a lackluster field of candidates, Trump stands an excellent chance of winning reelection. So the impeachment is a sort of hail Mary pass hoping that it damages him.

Nope, it’s their constitutional duty. And, If Dem do nothing Trump will keep criming. Did he slow down when the Mueller report came out and Mueller testified that were is not for the OLC memo, trump would be in jail.

What’s your idea? Leave trump and his corruption going until our government has been completely destroyed?

So after he is impeached and acquitted, what will we have gained?

If the impeachment backfires and if it gets him additional support so that he wins reelection, what have we gained?

What is the goal here? Clearly not to remove him from office because that will not happen.

It is to record the American people's rejection of their President's corrupt practices and debasement of his oath of office. Impeachment is a very serious symbol that a large portion of the electorate has no confidence in the President. It is historical.

And that is more important than any old election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Big difference between lying about a blowjob and, well, the bribery, self-dealing and lying.


I never supported Clinton's impeachment but the guy lied under oath. Should he have been impeached for it? Not in my opinion but Republicans, who were interested in it for political reasons, went for it knowing full well that he would not be removed. Now Democrats are doing the same thing knowing full well that Trump will not be removed.



Trump is a real and present danger to the USA and global stability. He encourages corruption and bribery, has a fascination for dictatorships, and openly criticizes perceived domestic opponents and international allies. That is SO MUCH WORSE than what Clinton did that you discredit yourself by even comparing the two.

I agree with this. However, and I say this as a Democrat who voted for Clinton twice---the Dems support of Clinton regardless of the fact he lied under oath is what has now brought us down the slippery slope to the bottom feeding, utterly amoral sh^^bird who is our current president. With the benefit of hindsight, I now think that the Dems would have been better off to have forced Clinton to resign and had Al Gore become president. Yes, Clinton's lying about his sexual peccadilloes with willing participants is nothing compared to Trump's determination to steer us into fascist corrupt autocracy. And Trump's acceptance of Russian election interference and active extortion of Ukraine to smear his domestic political rival is EXACTLY the type of behavior to which Alexander Hamilton intended the impeachment clause apply. But now the Republicans ---many of whom are either scared of their base or outright compromised by dirty NRA/Russian $$--are going to use the Democrats blind loyalty to Clinton despite his perjury as an excuse to acquit Trump---who in any sane universe should be removed immediately.

That is the dumbest, most blinkered take I’ve ever heard, bar none. No, the only reason Clinton was impeached in the 90s was because the GOP had already become the brain dead party we would all hate in the 2000s. The disgusting pigs (Gingrich, most notably) were already out of the bag.

Seriously, that’s a brain dead take that absolves th GOP of all responsibility.

DP: you don't make a persuasive argument for your viewpoint by flinging insults just because you don't agree with what someone states.

Nah. I explained it. PP’s argument absolves the GOP of any responsibility and that’s not even an argument.

[Anonymous]

What I am struck by is that this extortion racket was in full swing while the mueller probe was still in the news. I
It makes me worried about what might happen during a second term

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I said, the Democrats said in 1998 that one should not embark on a divisive course like impeachment with the full knowledge that Clinton will not be removed from office. Now they are seeking to impeach Trump with the full knowledge that Trump will not be removed from office. Yes, the Democrats are doing what they decried when the Republicans did it.

Impeachment is an extreme move and going through with it with the full knowledge that it will not succeed is precisely what the Republicans sought to do in 1998. What makes it worse in this instance is that we will have an election in a year when we can make the argument that Trump is not deserving of the office. But let's be honest: the reason the Democrats are doing this is in part because they know full well that given the economy and a lackluster field of candidates, Trump stands an excellent chance of winning reelection. So the impeachment is a sort of hail Mary pass hoping that it damages him.

Nope, it’s their constitutional duty. And, If Dem do nothing Trump will keep criming. Did he slow down when the Mueller report came out and Mueller testified that were is not for the OLC memo, trump would be in jail.

What’s your idea? Leave trump and his corruption going until our government has been completely destroyed?

So after he is impeached and acquitted, what will we have gained?

If the impeachment backfires and if it gets him additional support so that he wins reelection, what have we gained?

What is the goal here? Clearly not to remove him from office because that will not happen.

It is to record the American people's rejection of their President's corrupt practices and debasement of his oath of office. Impeachment is a very serious symbol that a large portion of the electorate has no confidence in the President. It is historical.

And that is more important than any old election.

It will be recorded as a partisan move to impeach. There will likely be no Republicans in support of impeachment in the House and likely no Republican senators in favor of removing him from office. What is more Trump will claim it as a victory that the vote for acquittal was 53-47 assuming no Republicans vote for removal and all Democrats vote to convict. If even one Democrat votes to acquit then Trump will insist that it was a bi-partisan move to acquit.

Sorry, I don't see any upside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I am struck by is that this extortion racket was in full swing while the mueller probe was still in the news. I
It makes me worried about what might happen during a second term

Of course there would be corruption during a second term.

Trump knows nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Given that we now have testimony from a Trump appointee that there was a quid pro quo and thus there was bribery, if the GOP doesn't vote to remove Trump from office despite an offense specifically listed in the Constitution as impeachable, then that is quite a tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that we now have testimony from a Trump appointee that there was a quid pro quo and thus there was bribery, if the GOP doesn't vote to remove Trump from office despite an offense specifically listed in the Constitution as impeachable, then that is quite a tell.

Are you still looking for a tell? They’ve told. They’re telling. They will yell again. They’re either criminals themselves or compromised by Russia. Probably both.