jimjam wrote:Obese Donald is unusually blatant and gaudily corrupt, but at a basic level he’s the culmination of where his party has been going for decades.
To the extent that Trump is more a centrist Democrat at heart, yeah, that's probably true. The problem is that Trump won by winning blue collar working class voters and evangelicals that the Republican and Democratic parties ignored, so Trump's re-election depends on doing their bidding. Clearly, he knows that. They seem to love him.
late wrote:It's worth remembering that the Clinton impeachment started over financial irregularities. That Newt knew Bill had nothing to do with it, Hillary did it. That, IOW, the impeachment was purely, and solely, political, a power grab.
I wouldn't say it was a power grab. I think it was political, and much more of a payback than anything else. Remember, Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel for Iran Contra, dropped a bomb a few days before the 1992 election (again, showing that these independent counsels were never apolitical to begin with). As I said before, Reagan was the first president since Eisenhower to finish two full terms. Even Bush got fucked over by his own deep state buddies. By that point, every Republican president except Ford had been investigated, and they had frankly had enough. So they hounded Clinton, who was reasonably dirty but used his wife as the bag man so that nothing traced back to him. That long history is why it's somewhat funny that she lost to Trump due to her dirty reputation, and Bill Clinton who was actually impeached and a rapist no less comes out cleaner than his wife. After what she did to Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton will be vilified throughout history.
late wrote:After that failed, Newt went on a fishing expedition, which is not something a judge would have allowed.
That would have been Ken Starr. Newt wasn't a prosecutor, but rather the Speaker of the House. The Republicans proceeded on the fruits of the Starr Report. It's no different than Mueller going after Manafort for taxes in 2012 that had nothing to do with the 2016 election. That's why independent/special counsels are a bad idea.
late wrote:Impeachment is supposed to be about actions taken by a president that violate the public trust. You know, like Trump.
Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors--basically criminal behavior with direct ties to the exercise of office. Trump hasn't violated any law in the exercise of his office.
late wrote:After the impeachment stopped, Newt was unceremoniously booted out of Congress. He went from Speaker of the House, to a bum, in a matter of days.
Newt won re-election. He said he would serve for 8 years, and then he retired from the House. So he stuck around for the next two years and then retired.
late wrote:Trump has violated a bunch of laws.
Why don't you provide us with a Bill of Particulars, since Nancy Pelosi has neglected to.
late wrote:But there is nothing in the Constitution limiting impeachment to existing case law.
The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers are pretty clear on what was intended for various constitutional clauses. For example, there is no limit on the president pardoning himself except for impeachment, because there were significant debates on that clause too.
late wrote:Try reading the Federalist Papers.
Done. Ages ago.
BigSteve wrote:Donald Trump is Michael Phelps compared to this tub of shit:
Actually, that's pretty svelte for Nadler. He could have been cast as Jabba the Hut back in the 1990s with minimal make up and special effects.
"Unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things. "
-- Joe Biden