AllGunsBlazing wrote: » Fair enough. Simply stating Pelosi's position. Maybe she prefers checkers to chess?? Anyhow, she will slowly chip away at Trump for the next year with this and avoid the 3 ring circus of an actual impeachment.
noel1980 wrote: » They're all going to get voted out in 2020 and replaced with republicans because their constituents are living in squalor. .
Boggles wrote: » I'm not getting anything, I'm not an American Citizen. So your concern about division into the future was faux? Good lad. As you were.
AllGunsBlazing wrote: » You're not getting an impeachment. Live with it.
Boggles wrote: » Not bringing formal charges against Trump is the cost for the future. If he is allowed go unchecked precedent is established going forward, which will logically only conclude in larger division. It's chess not checkers.
AllGunsBlazing wrote: » And the more senior Democrats know this. But it might provide useful ammunition as America approaches an election year. Privately, Nancy Pelosi has never favoured impeachment of Trump - not even over Russia. She knows it will drive both parties even further apart and that the Republicans will return the favour by making any future Democratic administration a living hell. She wants rid of Trump - but not at any cost.
ebbsy wrote: » It all doesn't matter because the numbers ain't there for impeachment.
Overheal wrote: » Off the railhttps://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-attacks-scum-reporters-at-private-event-suggests-whistleblower-is-a-spy-and-should-be-punished-for-treason/ Blatant witness tampering too. These are not the remarks of an innocent man.
Overheal wrote: » This is the next step because the WH has for months stonewalled, with the legal argument that there is no “impeachment inquiry” to compel them to comply with congressional subpoenas (ie. They have been obstructing justice). As for Americans I wouldn’t be surprised to find a large shift in polling data after the events of the last 48 hours, which none of the polling reported on recently, captures. Quinnipiac had 57% against impeachment last week, not out of bounds to see a flip this week on all that’s happened. Most Americans didn’t support impeachment of Nixon either but he still pulled his cord and got put while he could still be pardoned for his crimes; once the House passes articles of impeachment it will be too late for that.
notobtuse wrote: » The whistleblower law protects whistleblowers, not leakers. The whistleblower’s lawyers work for group that offers to pay officials who leak against Trump. The complainant is essentially a gossipmonger. The anonymous person had no direct knowledge of the call and their so-called concerns come from information that was not obtained during the course of their work. Therefore this person doesn’t fit the title of a whistleblower and could be subject to jail time.
drunkmonkey wrote: » That American chap on newstalk predicted this about the whistleblower (mole) in the Whitehouse and said Trump would probably let out a story to expose them. If it was my Whitehouse I'd probably do the same. It would be niave to think Trump doesn't know who it is.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » The only way forward is for us as a species getting accustomed to digesting information without it being forced upon us. It will take time, as we are currently stuck with Vladimir Sukov's legacy, for the time being, until we start to wake up. The internet age has largely contributed to this. Changing our(your) laws regarding freedom of speech is not the way forward. The US is lucky to have the best rights to freedom of expression.
ebbsy wrote: » This is exactly what Trump wants. Is anybody talking about the Democrat contest ? Nope.
notobtuse wrote: » Can you see any other way of getting the media to report honestly and fairly? If not then drastic measures need to be taken to correct injustices.
In contemporary Russia, unlike the old USSR or present-day North Korea, the stage is constantly changing: the country is a dictatorship in the morning, a democracy at lunch, an oligarchy by suppertime, while, backstage, oil companies are expropriated, journalists killed, billions siphoned away. Surkov is at the centre of the show, sponsoring nationalist skinheads one moment, backing human rights groups the next. It's a strategy of power based on keeping any opposition there may be constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it's indefinable.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » The standard is higher for public figures and members of the press because they risk offending people all the time, that's why you must prove what they said was done with malice. You are advocating to remove this need to prove malice when dealing with these groups.(at least the judge you referenced was) This is far too slippery a slope to go down. I agree that clearly the likes of CNN MSNBC et al are doing these dirty tricks, and it obfuscating public discourse. But this is not the way to fix it... It will all come down to who has the biggest wallet and who can handle the most lawsuits.
notobtuse wrote: » The standard for libel shouldn't be lowered, just applied equally to everyone. The problem is the mainstream media and press won't stop their agenda driven lies and deception against Trump and republicans unless they're hit in the pocketbook, as things stand. The press knows they don't need to adhere to journalistic standards, as long as some old stupid Supreme Court ruling (that should be revisited) gives them free license to commit malice, libel and slander.
Danzy wrote: » No, while that was disgraceful I did not mean it. I was talking about the Dems and the Trump obsession.
Boggles wrote: » Remember lad, it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up. Welcome to boards by the way.
Overheal wrote: » Not really though. Remember you’re trying to contrast them to a party that proudly made its mission undermining a president for 8 years, up to and including violating their oaths of office which stipulated they advise and consent on judicial nominees; they instead shut down the process just to spite partisan issues.
