Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Hairy Lime]

There is a statute that defines whether or not a complaint goes to Congress, and the requirements of that statute are met here.

The statute covers members of the Intelligence Committee, not the President.
The statute has no bearing on the real issue, did Trump abuse his presidential powers?
He tweets(again) it is all a hoax pushed by the fake news and the democrats!
Adam Schiff cries (again) Impeachable! 
Point is the matter is in the hands of Congress and another political kerfuffle is on.
One additional addition to the “soup” this time is the presence of Joe Biden in the mix.

The statute only requires that the whistleblower be a member of the intelligence community. There is no restriction on the subject of the urgent concern in 50 USC 3033 (k)(5)(A).  None.

Once the IG found the complaint credible, turning it over to the congressional intelligence committees is mandatory. There are no exceptions to 50 USC 3033 (k)(5)(C).

Except, of course, The DNI has the final say, according to the statute.
But keep beating a dead horse if it pleases you.

No he does not. Allowing for my crappy thumb typing 50 USC 3033 (k) (5) (C) states:

"Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General under subparagraph (B) the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees, together with any comments the Director considers appropriate."

The DNI does not have final say. He has no say at all on the transmittal, he can only make.additional comments. Shall... forward the transmittal. Shall.

I eagerly await your lol and refusal to admit that the statute says what it plainly says.

LOL
To repeat, the statute applies to intelligence activities by government officials acting under the authority of the DNI. The President is not one of them.

To repeat: only the whistleblower has to be under the DNI. Want me to type out subsection (A) too?

Here it is:

"An employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employeeassigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employeeof a contractor to the intelligence community who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report such complaint or information to the Inspector General."

LOL
Section 3033 does not refer to the president. It only applies to intelligence-community officials. For good reason  since if doing so it would hinder the president’s great latitude of  authority to conduct foreign policy. Why this confuses you is beyond me since the matter is now before Congress.
The issue is whether Trump abused foreign-affairs powers.

Tbe language is there. All can see it and recogize your intellectual dishonesty.

” Intellectual dishonesty”?
I can read a statute.
Why you insist on a moot point, though, is beyond me.

Everyone here can read it. Which is why your brazen lying about what it says is so ridiculous. Everyone can see what a dishonest joke you are.

LOL
Really?
Certainly you can do better than cheap insults.

That was descriptive, not pejorative.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Seems clear that having gotten away with collusion (at least) once, our "president" feels he has the green light to do it again. 

Democrats bear responsibility for this.  Since Democrats have taken the House I have watched them again and again abdicate their responsibility to hold Trump accountable for his law breaking and disloyalty to the country he pledged to serve.  They can't agree on even the terms of an impeachment inquiry,  and when the have made stabs at hearings they have been (by and large) clumsy and poorly communicated to the public.

So now Trump is just daring them to do something about his brazen political corruption, probably figuring that even if they start to rev up a response, its too late to do anything before the 2020 election.  Trump knows that the media will falsely treat this as a scandal for Biden too, so he has the "But her emails!" he needs to whatabout his way through legitimate questions about his wrongdoing.

And having gotten away with all that, what is to prevent an even more brazen theft of the election in 2020?  Do we think he will stop at bribing the Ukraine while his buddy Putin waits in the wings?  Is Pelosi ready to deal with the possibility of direct interference from Russia in the form of messing with voting systems? 

She hasn't shown that she is up to that task.  And that isn't good news for our democracy.

[Hairy Lime]

I have no real problem with Pelosi tapping the brakes on impeachment.  Why put the Country through the process if there is no hope for success at the end? Ukraine has put me.over the edge. We need the process to get to the botto.
M of what happened and to make the point that this type of conduct is wrong.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I have no real problem with Pelosi tapping the brakes on impeachment.  Why put the Country through the process if there is no hope for success at the end?

This is why.  What we are seeing right now.  And the fact that it could get much worse in 2020.

Democrats can't effectively allow Republicans to block holding the "president" accountable through the means they have in the House.  Were we really waiting for the Republicans to give us the thumbs up?  Did we think that might happen?

Pure stupidity.  Again and again, Democrats bring a butter knife to a gun fight. 

[barton]

I felt more reluctant about impeachment a while back, thinking Trump might perversely get political mileage out of an unsuccessful trial and paint Democrats as obsessed and vindictive.  (no one does psychological projection better than he)  And downstream races would feature Rethugs crafting a narrative of Dems as less concerned about policy (again, masters of projection) and more about the fight.   But now, I think the potential for GOP mileage is much less, and the need for a public spotlight on corruption more compelling.   So, yeah, Ukraine has tipped the balance for me, too.   

Ukrainium is possibly more radioactive than uranium. 

[barton]

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/how-to-talk-to-your-aging-parent-about-colluding-with-foreign-governments?fbclid=IwAR0XYDSsJcX0r0iLasCdheRYifD0Ga1fd4PAUYHMJJYIakZwv1hnhS0CXT0

Good stuff.  I liked the bit about coming home with a mysterious glowing orb picked up at a flea market.

[Yankguy1]

I felt more reluctant about impeachment a while back, thinking Trump might perversely get political mileage out of an unsuccessful trial and paint Democrats as obsessed and vindictive.

I still believe that.  My goal has always been that he's no longer President.  I think beating him in the election remains the best way to accomplish that. 

[barton]

I agree 45 losing the ejection election is paramount, but am leaning towards the theory that some sort of House hearing would help the Democrats and maybe show their fealty to the rule of law (assuming enough people still care about that, these days).

[NeedsAdjustments]

I felt more reluctant about impeachment a while back, thinking Trump might perversely get political mileage out of an unsuccessful trial and paint Democrats as obsessed and vindictive.

I still believe that.  My goal has always been that he's no longer President.  I think beating him in the election remains the best way to accomplish that.

I’m unconvinced that an impeachment investigation and vote in the House is a win for Trump.  He certainly doesn’t seem to think so.  I am certainly unconvinced that it would be such a political plus for him that it is worth giving up our position in the likely event that 2020 is another shit-show. 

Impeachment is the only means we have to make clear these actions are wrong.  Set the precedent that you will let them pass, then what do you say when it happens again next year? 

Just cross your fingers that the anti-Trump wave is so large that attempts to steal the election will fall short?  I’m afraid that I can’t give certain American voters that much credit.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I agree 45 losing the ejection election is paramount, but am leaning towards the theory that some sort of House hearing would help the Democrats and maybe show their fealty to the rule of law (assuming enough people still care about that, these days).

2018 was a wave election for the Democrats in part due to a promise that the people we were electing would conduct meaningful oversight over Trump's abuses.

Do the voters who turned out for that feel inspired to do it again next year?  I don't have the numbers, but I'd doubt it.

[bankshot1]

I think the Dems in the House have to pursue an airtight case(s) against a limited # of crimes committed by Trump, selected from but not necessarily limited to: Russian collusion, obstruction of Justice re RussiaGate, campaign finance, BidenGate.

Make the best possible cases, present a coherent case for the American people to easily understand, impeach in the House, and then make the same cases to the Senate.

if they lose in the Senate, America will watch Republican senators defend and acquit a traitor who sold out his country.

Then there will be a Blue electoral tidal wave in November 2020 to truly cleanse a filthy Trump and his Quislings from Washington.

And if there isn't, we as a country sadly deserve the Orange tinged fascist Russian puppet, with a strong taste for authoritarian dictators. 

And maybe after seconds, we'll get a 3rd helping of that piece of shit.

God save America!

But first impeach Trump.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Ukraine objectively makes a better case for impeachment than the Russia affair.  Collusion was concerned with his conduct as a candidate, and obstruction of justice harder to prove.  If Trump misused Congress-approved funding to bribe a foreign country to give him ammunition against a political rival, there really isn’t a borderline there.  And the whistleblower complaint could point to all the evidence that is really required. 

Already the pieces of a case are falling into place.  We now know Trump personally ordered the funds be withheld.  He claims he did it because he doesn’t think Europe is paying its fair share?  Is there anything on record that supports that?  Any G7 convos he can point to?  And why did he ultimately release them then?

[NeedsAdjustments]

I swear I posted in the forum this morning before reading this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/opinion/trump-whistle-blower-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[LarryBnDC]

Hell, the impeachment has been in process since the Mueller hearings. Ukraine May be what breaks the shit show wide open but impeachment has been an inevitability.

Notice the votes are climbing in the House? The way it’s happening is not the usual whipping of votes from leadership it’s the ‘moderate’ Democrats coming over because their constituents are pressuring them on the home front.


Speaker Pelosi is a boss.

[barton]

I swear I posted in the forum this morning before reading this:

Warren's succinct comment at the start (which is all I could read before the paywall blurred the rest of it - I'm out of articles for the month, I guess) does sum it up nicely. 

After the Mueller report, Congress had a duty to begin impeachment.  By failing to act, Congress is complicit in Trump’s latest attempt to solicit foreign interference to aid him in U.S. elections. Do your constitutional duty and impeach the president.


IOW, you don't have to win, you just have to remind Americans that we are a nation of laws, not what anthropologists call an "honor culture." 

I cringed this morning when an article referred to the DOJ as "Trump's DOJ."  The idea that it's ANYONE'S DOJ (except We the People's DOJ) should never be casually spoken, never used as a shorthand description.  It's that kind of sloppy wording that helps the forward creep of executive power.