-
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.
WaPo publishes op-ed from Hillary Clinton with her viewpoint of how Congress should respond to the Mueller Report
- Thread starter Deleted member 3812
- Start date
The Russians interfered with us under his watch.
From a CNN piece "Mueller's report looks bad for Obama"
By Scott Jennings Updated 12:15 AM ET, Tue April 23, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html
I dunno. He was president for 8 years, then mostly has gone away while our country has gone to shit under this successor. Other presidents have had a role in politics after their terms, and with Obama as well-like as he is, I think he has a duty to be someone that the Democrats can rally around and take back the country.
I guess he doesn't "owe" us, but it sure would be nice if he'd do more to help out.
ehh, Scott Jennings? No offense, but I won't listen to a word that guy says. He's generally full of shit.
You are posting an article written by a former aid to the man who threatened to claim to the public and the media in front of the White House that the President was trying steal the election if he moved on Russian interference in the election. You realize that, right?
Lol Let Obama have his freedom. He doesn't have to do anything more for the crap Party.
Terrible imo.
All this talk about more investigations says that what we already know is not enough. We can and should overlook it.
Terrible.
And then if new investigations and inquiries reveal no crime, then what? You can't say, then, "oh let's go back and start caring about the obstruction etc in the Mueller report". No, it will be yet more vindication for the right, more proof for them that Dems are desperately looking for something but not finding it. And at that point it will be too late to return to what we already know and say let's do something about this, because not doing anything about it NOW says that the Dems, too, don't see it as anything impeachable, don't see it as anything bad enough to do more than bitch about.
All this talk about more investigations says that what we already know is not enough. We can and should overlook it.
Terrible.
And then if new investigations and inquiries reveal no crime, then what? You can't say, then, "oh let's go back and start caring about the obstruction etc in the Mueller report". No, it will be yet more vindication for the right, more proof for them that Dems are desperately looking for something but not finding it. And at that point it will be too late to return to what we already know and say let's do something about this, because not doing anything about it NOW says that the Dems, too, don't see it as anything impeachable, don't see it as anything bad enough to do more than bitch about.
Question: You are aware that Nixon was never impeached, right? That what eventually brought him down was Congress doing investigation upon investigation whittling down the public's resistance to the truth, right?
"But let's not do what's effective. It doesn't make me feel catharsis and therefore must be morally reprehensible!"
Not a jab against her, but its still irritating that almost anyone sounds more presidential than the President.
The shit that has been normalized the last few years is astounding.
The shit that has been normalized the last few years is astounding.
He's been more politically active during the term of the President following him than any modern President has been.
Why should she feel the need to not voice her opinions just because people dislike her? Is she suppose to just go into a ditch and quietly die? You guys MASSIVELY overstate the effect anything she says/does has, as if she's some kryptonite who poisons anything that she's near. Like I said, people need to get the fuck over it and act like they have some sense. If you don't like her, just ignore her
I can do that just fine but she is still radioactive to the Fox news base which matters because she can potentially drive up extremism from that wing.
I don't want those guys to have any more encouragement than they need. The exact same message coming from Obama would:
1) Influence D politicians more
2) Convince D voters to care about this more (which feeds back into 1)
3) Inflame R voters less (they'd still be inflamed either way but less so)
I can control how I react to things but I cannot control how other people react to things.
The House should indeed continue to pass good legislation. Clinton can be right about the topics she convers in her op-ed and still be wrong as a leader for America (disclaimer: I voted for her in 2016).
Well, yes, but apart from all those things (and a few more besides), Hillary Clinton has done nothing wrong. /s
Well, yes, but apart from all those things (and a few more besides), Hillary Clinton has done nothing wrong. /s
Question: do you see the public's "resistance to the truth" being whittled down? Because every poll I see says more and more people think enough is enough, they "didn't find anything" and Congress should "get back to work on healthcare and infrastructure".
Every single outspoken and/or effective Democratic politician is radioactive to that base.
Which is it?
I guess he really hasn't been out front about any issues that I've seen. Where has he been politically active? I remember about 8 speeches from the 2018 election season, but nothing else really that's been very prominent.
These statements are not mutually exclusive. Obama doesn't owe you anything. He did his time. He saved the economy. He aged rapidly. And he's out. He's a private citizen now and doesn't owe the rest of his life to saving this nations from its own fucking stupidity. But: He's also been active with public speeches against Trump's policy and working with Eric Holder on election reform efforts. You never heard about W being politically active during Obama's term, or Clinton during W's, or HW during Clinton's. It's not something that's done. And yet he has.
LMAO Obama saved the economy? What the hell are you talking about? Black communities are being wiped away by gentrification and cost of living, poverty has grown to nearly a third of Americans, more Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck than at any time in the postwar era, health care and education costs are still sky high, etc.
She's the President that we needed, unfortunately not the President our idiotic electorate deserved.
We may never have a more distinguished, intelligent, experienced candidate for the highest position of office in our lifetimes.
We may never have a more distinguished, intelligent, experienced candidate for the highest position of office in our lifetimes.
This is an odd reason to despise someone, Democrats do lose elections - that's part of politics. Shouldn't you be more angry at Trump for winning or Comey, anyway?
Bush left the country in a recession which was heading into a depression, which affected the entire world. TARP was Obama's successor to Bush's bandaid on the economy, which is why we still had a positive economy during his terms in office. This included investing in building projects to inflate the economy.
Obama's tried to help where he could on those issues, except he was against record breaking obstructing from the GOP in congress. This is why he couldn't close Guantamo Bay etc.
He is a flawed president, and he did fail but don't blame him for things he had no control over or was undermined by congress.
Last edited:
It's pretty amazing to me that you haven't been permanently banned yet.
Didn't take long for the, "Go away and be silent" posts. For all those who keep saying it, get used to it, because she's not going to.
She's right, and I hope the Democrats do as she says they should and keep focused on more than just these issues. I would be worried that they won't but there's a lot of newer, younger people in office now like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez who will keep up the pressure on multiple topics.
She's right, and I hope the Democrats do as she says they should and keep focused on more than just these issues. I would be worried that they won't but there's a lot of newer, younger people in office now like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez who will keep up the pressure on multiple topics.
I think this is a rather constructive and impressive piece.
A few things that needed to be said:
In other words, get past this debate over whether or not we should impeach the president and begin an impeachment inquiry. With this, Hillary Clinton has effectively put her weight behind the idea that Congress should begin the process of impeachment. This is helpful.
Responding to the Mueller report also means taking seriously the picture it painted of our vulnerability to foreign election interference, it's both pathetic and straight up scary that our president doesn't seem to especially care about that issue, and Congress should take substantial action on its own.
No one should think that refusing to start the process of impeachment is somehow "safer," or without significant risk. In that situation, Congress would be abdicating one of its most important responsibilities: holding the president accountable. And that wouldn't be without consequences.
Finally, an important point...
...look at this tweet through that lens:
No, right now most of the public doesn't seem to support impeachment. But not only has that not been a prerequisite to beginning the process in the past, informing the public has specifically been a significant function of that process.
Overall, I still feel conflicted on this question, but I've increasingly been leaning toward thinking we should walk a path that very much resembles the one Hillary outlined in this piece.
A few things that needed to be said:
In other words, get past this debate over whether or not we should impeach the president and begin an impeachment inquiry. With this, Hillary Clinton has effectively put her weight behind the idea that Congress should begin the process of impeachment. This is helpful.
Responding to the Mueller report also means taking seriously the picture it painted of our vulnerability to foreign election interference, it's both pathetic and straight up scary that our president doesn't seem to especially care about that issue, and Congress should take substantial action on its own.
No one should think that refusing to start the process of impeachment is somehow "safer," or without significant risk. In that situation, Congress would be abdicating one of its most important responsibilities: holding the president accountable. And that wouldn't be without consequences.
Finally, an important point...
...look at this tweet through that lens:
No, right now most of the public doesn't seem to support impeachment. But not only has that not been a prerequisite to beginning the process in the past, informing the public has specifically been a significant function of that process.
Overall, I still feel conflicted on this question, but I've increasingly been leaning toward thinking we should walk a path that very much resembles the one Hillary outlined in this piece.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the comparisons between the Nixon era and today on this matter. Most of the stuff Nixon did happened behind the scenes and when the hearings were held, they were covered by a mainstream press that mostly consisted of 3 TV channels and a handful of national newspapers that had a large amount of public trust, so when they said "Look these hearings are revealing some shady shit that's really not okay" that actually mattered. (the country was also a lot less polarized) Heck, it was the media's role in conveying the results of the hearings that made a certain Nixon aide think to himself: "What this country needs is an alternative media system to make sure no Republican president is ever impeached for corruption again".
A lot of shady shit Trump's pulled has been out in the open and public opinion on Trump has been largely set in stone. I find it hard to believe anything any hearings bring to light is gonna make a large difference on that since Republicans will stick with Trump no matter what and everyone else already knows he's a crook.
I think because she has been gone and out of the public eye and service (She no longer has a position in Washington correct?) She can afford to take this approach.
Like she doesn't have to worry about voters, people's opinions or reactions because she is no longer there.
It's amazing how rationale people can be when they step away
This is what I've been saying. Impeachment seems impossible until it doesn't.
Hillary is 100% on point
Only thing I know he's doing is trying to fix gerrymandering with Holder. I don't mind if he just sits out, America stressed a Black President to the point where melanin couldn't even help him. He owes his focus to his family.
He avoided a depression. Last time that happened, a po' White lady sold her kids for food and someone took a black n white photo of it.
But doesn't most of what she say fall apart if republicans refuse to join in the investigation? I mean she should be well aware that they are trying to bury this and move to investigate her instead...again. They are already blocking the subpoenas and investigations she states they should be doing first.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/in-push-for-2020-election-security-nielsen-was-warned-don't-tell-trump-nyt.113337/
No, because you get months of televised hearings. This is not the "right to trial" GOP fuckery from Clinton, this is the slow deliberate Watergate stuff.
That he should have endorsed yang..and passed the torch, he may have been too old optically.
This sounds great but you'd need people that didn't care about only keeping power for themselves.
I'm not saying they shouldn't investigate and find every crime this creep has ever committed.
I'm saying they have enough now for impeachment and shouldn't send the message that the Republicans are right, the investigations so far HAVEN'T uncovered anything worth doing anything about.