I don't even think it would play well there. I mean impeachment only kinda did despite how loud the left were yelling for it and trump still got a boost from it. Same situation here if she actually does try and do it.
They did impeachment quite stupidly, weirdly narrowing the issue to the only part that had anything to do with Joe Biden-- and didn't make him look good.
Because it didn't matter. Republicans were never going to vote to impeach, just getting them to even hear witnesses was a huge issue. The turtle wanted to just do a vote straight up when it got to them.
They should have charged him with everything relevant, not just the shit that can easily be framed as Nancy Pelosi getting angry about Donald Trump threatening the nepotism and corruption of families of Democratic Party officials.
No, they couldn't practically have gone after him for most of those things.
100% all of this.
Racism is immoral but not illegal.
As an in-shape 29 year old it pisses me off to no end I got Covid for 2 months and was refused all treatment because this was January and Covid hadn't been officially recognized in the US so they refused to test me. I didn't find out later(I suspected) until I was tested for the antibodies and they found them.
I'm not really sure what Pelosi's game is here. I don't like Pelosi, I think she's one of those dead-eyed cynics who has spent so long playing politics she doesn't even really know what she's playing for any more. But she's very effective, in her way - parties need some people like her to get things done. What they don't need is people like her setting the agenda, because that agenda will be political points-scoring delivering little to the voters she's supposed to represent.
At the same time, this panel might not be Pelosi's wish. One of the last things Democrats need this close to an election is party infighting; it could simply be she's throwing one faction a bone to get their agreement for something else. Like you said, she's a career politician with all the benefits and drawbacks that brings.
Impeachment has not historically required a specific statutory crime. Did you read the link I posted about that very subject at all?
It's literally in the constitution.
en.wikipedia.org
This is admittedly a less strong case than the foreign emoluments clause, but it's arguable.
He has literally been settling numerous cases accusing him of fraud.
Torture violates international law and treaty obligations, and treaty obligations are (supposedly) to be treated along with the Constitution as "the Supreme Law of the Land"
It was a violation of the war powers act.
en.wikipedia.org
No. I'm of the opinion that they would have done the opposite of that. The Democrats also need to make a case to the public that the Republicans would be wrong to do that. They picked something which they could not make that case about.
Shows can be politically useful. Putting opponents on the record supporting a guilty president is useful if you're also making the case strongly and acting like you actually believe what you say. The Democrats, as I noted above, have generally done the opposite of that. Trump is a fascist and yet we need to expand his military budgets and so forth. It's absurd.
Which ones and why?
Good!
In the case of suitability for high public office, this logic should fly out the window.
It's hardly even a left-wing wank fantasy so much as the #Resistance living up to some semblance of that word. The very least they could do is stop funding his military and Allgemeine SS-- sorry, I mean ICE.
Trump's Emoluments Clause violations involve BOTH foreign and domestic issues. We also have numerous abuse of power, ordering numerous officials to break the law.. the list just goes on and on here:Impeachment has not historically required a specific statutory crime. Did you read the link I posted about that very subject at all?
It's literally in the constitution.
Foreign Emoluments Clause - Wikipedia
and the domestic emoluments clause is Article 2 Section 1 Clause 7:
This is admittedly a less strong case than the foreign emoluments clause, but it's arguable.
He has literally been settling numerous cases accusing him of fraud.
Torture violates international law and treaty obligations, and treaty obligations are (supposedly) to be treated along with the Constitution as "the Supreme Law of the Land"
Here, let me bring that up:
It was a violation of the war powers act.
War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia
No. I'm of the opinion that they would have done the opposite of that. The Democrats also need to make a case to the public that the Republicans would be wrong to do that. They picked something which they could not make that case about.
Shows can be politically useful. Putting opponents on the record supporting a guilty president is useful if you're also making the case strongly and acting like you actually believe what you say. The Democrats, as I noted above, have generally done the opposite of that. Trump is a fascist and yet we need to expand his military budgets and so forth. It's absurd.
Which ones and why?
Good!
In the case of suitability for high public office, this logic should fly out the window.
It's hardly even a left-wing wank fantasy so much as the #Resistance living up to some semblance of that word. The very least they could do is stop funding his military and Allgemeine SS-- sorry, I mean ICE.
washingtonmonthly.com
www.needtoimpeach.com
theintercept.com
But he only has two of them, or does he have more hiding that we don't know about?
www.cnn.com
Beware what you wish for, because if you one day get power, you might find all those well-intentioned plans get killed stone dead because you destroyed all the means you had to cause change yourself.
USA
