• 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.

Deleted member 3812

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,821
WaPo has published an op-ed from Hillary Clinton with her viewpoint of how Congress should respond to the Mueller Report: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...l_news__alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1

First, like any time our nation is threatened, we have to remember that this is bigger than politics. What our country needs now is clear-eyed patriotism, not reflexive partisanship. Whether they like it or not, Republicans in Congress share the constitutional responsibility to protect the country. Mueller's report leaves many unanswered questions — in part because of Attorney General William P. Barr's redactions and obfuscations. But it is a road map. It's up to members of both parties to see where that road map leads — to the eventual filing of articles of impeachment, or not. Either way, the nation's interests will be best served by putting party and political considerations aside and being deliberate, fair and fearless.

Second, Congress should hold substantive hearings that build on the Mueller report and fill in its gaps, not jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment. In 1998, the Republican-led House rushed to judgment. That was a mistake then and would be a mistake now.

Watergate offers a better precedent. Then, as now, there was an investigation that found evidence of corruption and a coverup. It was complemented by public hearings conducted by a Senate select committee, which insisted that executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct and compelled White House aides to testify. The televised hearings added to the factual record and, crucially, helped the public understand the facts in a way that no dense legal report could. Similar hearings with Mueller, former White House counsel Donald McGahn and other key witnesses could do the same today.

During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today's House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.

Third, Congress can't forget that the issue today is not just the president's possible obstruction of justice — it's our national security. After 9/11, Congress established an independent, bipartisan commission to recommend steps that would help guard against future attacks. We need a similar commission today to help protect our elections. This is necessary because the president of the United States has proved himself unwilling to defend our nation from a clear and present danger. It was just reported that Trump's recently departed secretary of homeland security tried to prioritize election security because of concerns about continued interference in 2020 and was told by the acting White House chief of staff not to bring it up in front of the president. This is the latest example of an administration that refuses to take even the most minimal, common-sense steps to prevent future attacks and counter ongoing threats to our nation.

Fourth, while House Democrats pursue these efforts, they also should stay focused on the sensible agenda that voters demanded in the midterms, from protecting health care to investing in infrastructure. During Watergate, Congress passed major legislation such as the War Powers Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. For today's Democrats, it's not only possible to move forward on multiple fronts at the same time, it's essential. The House has already passed sweeping reforms that would strengthen voting rights and crack down on corruption, and now is the time for Democrats to keep their foot on the gas and put pressure on the do-nothing Senate. It's critical to remind the American people that Democrats are in the solutions business and can walk and chew gum at the same time.

We have to get this right. The Mueller report isn't just a reckoning about our recent history; it's a warning about the future. Unless checked, the Russians will interfere again in 2020, and possibly other adversaries, such as China or North Korea, will as well. This is an urgent threat. Nobody but Americans should be able to decide America's future. And, unless he's held accountable, the president may show even more disregard for the laws of the land and the obligations of his office. He will likely redouble his efforts to advance Putin's agenda, including rolling back sanctions, weakening NATO and undermining the European Union.
 

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,182
She's right. And probably not very many people want to hear it. Republican's don't want to hear it at all, and a lot of Democrats probably don't want to hear it - from her (which she mentions).
 

Rendering...

Member
Oct 30, 2017
19,089
A sensible and well informed perspective. But you know, go away Hillary, blah blah, Trump is all your fault.
 

BluePigGanon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
892
Fair, measured and well-reasoned, which is why it will be an unpopular stance in online conversations.
 

Fallout-NL

Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,714
Sounds perfectly reasonable, though I will dock some points for failing to mention climate change in the first sentence of the sixth paragraph.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,084
Arkansas, USA
I would have preferred President Obama write this, but maybe some Republicans that don't swallow their own propaganda respect Hillary Clinton enough to read and consider her words.
 

Psamtik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,873
She's one of the most intelligent people to ever seek the office, and would have been so fucking good at the job.

Glad she hasn't tried to avoid confronting these issues head-on. Obama has dropped the ball in that regard.
 
Dec 6, 2018
574
While it shouldn't be the case, the more Hillary puts herself in the public eye, the more stuff like impeachment gets framed as a dem plot rather than common sense.

Also Mitch is quoted saying that he wouldn't have let any SC nominees be considered if Hillary won.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,885
Strong and concise. She's also got 'being correct about the risks our republic faces' going for her.

The fact that these fascists in the GOP were willing and eager to drop sanctions on Russian oligarchs as we learn that every states' voting infrastructure was probed by an aggressive foreign power should tell us all we need to know about the patriotism and respect for their oath of office.

/spit
 

mescalineeyes

Banned
May 12, 2018
4,444
Vienna
It's not like HIllary Clinton is massively more popular than Trump and this headline being out there will drive him fucking mad.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but: slay queen
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Maybe those voters need to get over their dislike of Hillary Clinton
Democratic politicians as well would respond better to Obama, who's kind of waffling at the moment from what I've seen of his public words. He's still well-liked and well-thought-of by the majority of the base.

Clinton has like negative social capital, some of it due to her own faults, some of it due to things she's blameless for. I really don't understand why she doesn't see this, or maybe she does and just ignores it.
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
Has orange shitgibbon tweeted about it yet?
 

ImTheresaMay

Banned
Jan 15, 2018
523
For what, exactly?

She didn't do anything wrong.

She didn't do anything wrong? How about destroying Libya and creating a failed state where ISIS and slave markets operate and then laughing about it? Or how about supporting literal al-Qaeda in Syria? Or how about turning a blind eye to states like Yemen using child soldiers?

That's just her time as Secretary of State, what about her racist rhetoric on crime in the 1990s? Her support for annihilating welfare and deregulating financial markets? Her vote for the Iraq War in 2002? Or her support of Bankruptcy Bill in 2005?
 

NihonTiger

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,517
Just a reminder that she served as a member of the House impeachment inquiry staff and helped advise the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Fourth, while House Democrats pursue these efforts, they also should stay focused on the sensible agenda that voters demanded in the midterms, from protecting health care to investing in infrastructure. During Watergate, Congress passed major legislation such as the War Powers Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. For today's Democrats, it's not only possible to move forward on multiple fronts at the same time, it's essential. The House has already passed sweeping reforms that would strengthen voting rights and crack down on corruption, and now is the time for Democrats to keep their foot on the gas and put pressure on the do-nothing Senate. It's critical to remind the American people that Democrats are in the solutions business and can walk and chew gum at the same time.
This part really is what needs to be emphasized.

Something she doesn't mention: She worked on Watergate for the House.