-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Declares Nation Is in a ‘Constitutional Crisis’
- Thread starter Viewt
- Start date
My experience is that people against impeachment (which most people understand as removing Trump from office) are hedging their bets that Trump is an easy incumbent to beat in 2020. This is something I can understand. It is much easier to run against the Trump administration when Trump is actually president. Trump being president and having the choice between this and literally anything else is theoretically an easy ticket to win.
There are a lot of people who think Trump is obviously an extremely dangerous and lethal fascist, but they also think he is pitifully inept and incompetent. Rather than replace him with somebody like Pence who would be just as morally bankrupt and detestable, but under the tacky veneer of normalcy, they prefer to keep Trump in position because he is easier to defeat.
I get that. That makes sense to me.
But, also, "wait it out" is a horrifically unsatisfying political mantra to me. I also know what impeachment means and there is literally zero reason I can think of why any sane person would oppose it beyond a rational, but obviously flawed, understanding of what it means.
As always, most Americans don't know how their own government works. Perhaps this is by design.
Last edited:
SCOTUS will ultimately have to determine if Executive Privilege overrides a Congressional Subpoena for an unredacted version of an already publicly released redacted report, plus redacted evidence, that just so happens to detail the criminal activities of the Executive in question.
Even IF the court wasn't lopsided in Trump's favor, it's all very much fuzzy and subjective.
However, SCOTUS could set a dangerous new precedent, if they rule in Trump's favor - they could allow an acting president to legally cover up any investigation into his own crimes, so long as he's the currently acting president.
I'm not sure if SCOTUS, divided or not, wants to enable that kind of power for a future president. But I take nothing for granted anymore.
They may allow Trump to legally break his oath of office, so long as he's in office, which makes ZERO fucking sense.
Even IF the court wasn't lopsided in Trump's favor, it's all very much fuzzy and subjective.
However, SCOTUS could set a dangerous new precedent, if they rule in Trump's favor - they could allow an acting president to legally cover up any investigation into his own crimes, so long as he's the currently acting president.
I'm not sure if SCOTUS, divided or not, wants to enable that kind of power for a future president. But I take nothing for granted anymore.
They may allow Trump to legally break his oath of office, so long as he's in office, which makes ZERO fucking sense.
Yeah, this feels less like congressional oversight and more like the department of homestar security
When a Democrat wins, it's right back to "reach across the aisle".
Pelosi's been a big talker my entire adult life. Stick to articles about her accomplishments and we'd hear a lot less about her.
The fear of having to pay any sort of political cost for doing the right thing is what makes would-be democratic voters completely apathetic when it comes to showing up to the polls. Mitch McConnell and his band of pillaging cunts clearly don't give a fuck and are playing to win regardless of what a poll says. Democrats fearing the almighty poll and "perceptions" is what makes them fucking useless when it comes to standing up to the GOP.
Great way to make sure this or something even worse (imagine that) happens all over again.
Y'all being played, only way to win is to fight back as citizens. Politics don't work in this country.
If you don't think there are intelligent versions of Trump biding their time for their chance at becoming President and committing crimes uninhibited, I got a bridge to sell you.
You don't think things could get worse? Really? I don't believe that, unfortunately.
Actually, please don't respond to my post with anything. You seem unpleasant and needlessly aggressive.
No, you probably would still hear about how she passed public healthcare through the House (which then died in the Senate) and is one of the most respected progressive politicians in Washington.
Unless at least one Gopper breaks with party we are hosed. Two new SC guys will protect Trump absolutely for sure.
Of course there are.
Its why democrats need to grow a fucking spine once they're in position to get one before its even more too late. Trump showed just how easily manipulated and broken "checks" and "balances" really are if you have enough bottom feeders in the right spots and he's a fucking moron.
And YOU don't think things could possibly get worse by letting a wannabe dictator and fascist continue to operate unchecked? Got it, makes sense. Let's worry about the people who've already shown that they don't care what he does and will turn out and droves to vote against democrats, no matter what, and not the most powerful man in the world that continues to shit all over our established norms. That sounds like a GREAT solution.
Well then send Sergeant At Arms and drag Barr's ass before the Congress.
Paul Ryan always wanted to put into place an economic squeeze plan, for decades since he was in college. He was not able to.
McConnell has Russian money coming into Kentucky now after the lifting of the sanctions, this has been reported a bunch of times since late April.
They were not ever going to investigate.
But House Democrats are investigating. And when you bring your case before court, you need a timeline of events and statements to show that you approached the investigation and requests for information in a non-political and reasonably accommodating way. You lay out both a path to compliance AND the consequences of not complying. All of this has been laid out in a deliberate, step-by-step, and very public way by the House Judicial, Oversight, and Intelligence committees.
Even though we have so much information available to us about the process and who has said what when, people are spending more time complaining about "doing nothing" and comparing this to Clinton impeachment, rather than actually studying Watergate where the sequence of events tracks very very closely. We are right on track of a Watergate speedrun. And courts can and do expedite these matters in some cases, as was done during Watergate.
People here are far more angry at the people attempting to investigate than they are at the people who are not complying, who are obstructing, or who are or have broken the law. The reactions in this thread are very very disappointing.
McConnell has Russian money coming into Kentucky now after the lifting of the sanctions, this has been reported a bunch of times since late April.
They were not ever going to investigate.
But House Democrats are investigating. And when you bring your case before court, you need a timeline of events and statements to show that you approached the investigation and requests for information in a non-political and reasonably accommodating way. You lay out both a path to compliance AND the consequences of not complying. All of this has been laid out in a deliberate, step-by-step, and very public way by the House Judicial, Oversight, and Intelligence committees.
Even though we have so much information available to us about the process and who has said what when, people are spending more time complaining about "doing nothing" and comparing this to Clinton impeachment, rather than actually studying Watergate where the sequence of events tracks very very closely. We are right on track of a Watergate speedrun. And courts can and do expedite these matters in some cases, as was done during Watergate.
People here are far more angry at the people attempting to investigate than they are at the people who are not complying, who are obstructing, or who are or have broken the law. The reactions in this thread are very very disappointing.
I have some faith in Roberts breaking ranks to protect his view of what the integrity of the court is and what it stands for...very little faith, but not none.
You're right. I am the bad guy here.
Learn how to disagree without being an asshole. It will help you in life. Goodbye.
What are you going to do about it? Here's a hint: it ain't fucking vote, as much as these sheep bleat it out
agreed. Pelosi is handling this so well, i doubt anyone else would have handled it as well as her.
Last edited:
Meaningless until they take action to do something. There's more than enough to impeach Barr and Trump for already
You're right, that was the House. Maybe the source I was reading was in regards to prosecution. I'll edit my post.
Edit: Here was my mistake. I was too broad in my statement.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19693051/ns/politics/t/what-contempt-congress/
Last edited:
That quote should say Americas not worth it, since impeaching Trump should not be about punishing him. It should be about protecting America and doing what is best for the people who put their trust in her when they voted for her.
I'm impressed with Dem leadership's measured, intentional movement towards impeachment. What irritates the fuck out of me though once again is the absurdity. Mueller essentially gave Congress a statement of recommendation to impeach. Almost literally said it in no uncertain terms. Yet the lawless Trump admin is able to spin even something that starkly clear, and the resistance has to stomach a slow, painful crawl towards executing the duty that the special counsel firmly laid at their feet.
From March 11, before the report was released. Nice dude. Be better.
Seriously. At the rate we're going, this statement might as well be 32 years old.
Pretty much, look how long Mueller took. These people can do whatever they want, fuck with the country, lie, cheat, steal, break the laws... and the check won't come due until the damage is already far from done. And even then, what will happen to them? Slap on the wrist, few years in a nice min security prison.
Based on the Eric Holder F&F document battle, the decision, which coincidentally came down yesterday...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/09/fast-and-furious-documents-holder-1313120
... [Judge] Jackson rejected the Justice Department's longstanding position that courts have no proper role in resolving battles between Congress and federal agencies over access to records.
Judge Amy stating the courts CAN resolve battles between Congress and the DoJ, means this battle between Congress and the DoJ will probably get appealed if it's not settled, whatever the district ruling is, and head to SCOTUS for the final decision.
FYI - that was in the courts for SEVEN YEARS.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/09/fast-and-furious-documents-holder-1313120
... [Judge] Jackson rejected the Justice Department's longstanding position that courts have no proper role in resolving battles between Congress and federal agencies over access to records.
Judge Amy stating the courts CAN resolve battles between Congress and the DoJ, means this battle between Congress and the DoJ will probably get appealed if it's not settled, whatever the district ruling is, and head to SCOTUS for the final decision.
FYI - that was in the courts for SEVEN YEARS.
Trump is just following the path the GOP took when McConnell fucked over Garland. Turtle never faced consequences when he pulled that shit.
Maybe we can trick the dems into fighting Trump? Maybe we can put some brown ink into his spray tan and fool him into saying something against Israel. Or switch his wig with a some loose cotton and refer to him as Bernie. Then the Dems would suddenly grow a backbone.
Last edited:
Do your fucking job Nancy.
If the tables were reversed you can bet your ass these pigs would've impeached Obama for less.
If the tables were reversed you can bet your ass these pigs would've impeached Obama for less.
this is probably why McConnell stacked the fucking shit out of the courts, including the SCOTUS. Lets see if Congressional Oversight means anything to the SCOTUS... if the SCOTUS rules against congress, this will be huge and will probably cause some kind of uprising...
Congress willingly declawed itself for decades in service of the executive branch. The entire branch needs to re-assert itself even if the president is part of their party.
Yeah, OK, right, so her landmark accomplishment was a bunch of legislation that never went anywhere.
You're probably right that she's "one of the most respected progressive politicians in Washington", though, since that's a hilariously low bar to clear.
Democratic leadership wants to campaign and fundraise off the idea of a constitutional crisis without the political burden of doing anything meaningful about it. At this point it's all posturing and cowardice until proven otherwise.