Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Deepak]

What the fuck is the alternative?

Is there some statutory requirement that Pelosi hand over the articles of impeachment by some date?
If not, she should hold onto them until after the election. If so - she should hold onto them until after the election. Let Moscow Mitch go to court to try to force her to release them. Refuse, delay, appeal, delay again as necessary. Ten months is nothing in the land of courts.

That's the alternative.

So Trump gets to finish his term, the Dems look like punk asses who couldn't even show up to the game? If they wait a year they'll be parading a dead carcass - and Trump's base won't have tired of winning. It's a short term maneuver and the Senate has enough Republicans to force the issue. Murkowski isn't going to say shit.

I much rather have Duffey testify.

So would I, but how does Bolton's offer negatively impact the chances of that? Going from zero to one witness is tougher than going from one to more than one. He's offered up testimony that he can't fight in court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Trump gets to finish his term, the Dems look like punk asses who couldn't even show up to the game? If they wait a year they'll be parading a dead carcass - and Trump's base won't have tired of winning. It's a short term maneuver and the Senate has enough Republicans to force the issue. Murkowski isn't going to say shit.

I much rather have Duffey testify.

So would I, but how does Bolton's offer negatively impact the chances of that? Going from zero to one witness is tougher than going from one to more than one. He's offered up testimony that he can't fight in court.

I'd love for an honest Bolton to testify.

 

[Deepak]

What you want to buy can affect future supply, but if you're buying now you're limited to what's on offer at the market. The only thing in stock is a Schrödinger's Bolton. You want it, or nah?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A lawyer never asks a witness a question they don't know the person's answer will be.

 

[Patooka]

A good lawyer never asks a witness a question they don't know the person's answer will be.

FIFY. Because this particular lawyer always looks as though he has done exactly that:

 

[Deepak]

No one in this thread is a lawyer in the operational sense of the phrase in regards to Bolton. The question here is whether he will or won't answer questions, not which specific questions a lawyer would ask. That's putting the cart before the horse. I could imagine some question that could be asked of any given witness that a lawyer couldn't answer, but that certainly can't disqualify all witnesses as a class - no?

The information available to everyone is that his resignation was acrimonious (or if you want believe Trump his firing), he called Giuliani's actions a drug deal, and he's offered testimony that makes him a pariah on the right. So what's the expectation, that he's going to stonewall after his offer if called? You think he's out to take a bullet for Trump?

By all accounts, Pelosi and Schiff both want his testimony, and they're closer to DC back channels than anyone here by my estimation.

This seems like the same sort of prognostication during 2016 where everyone was convinced that the Evangelicals would reject Trump, but anyone listening to them could clearly see the opposite.

Honestly, I'm not jumping at the chance to hire anybody here as my publicist

 

[Arctish]

So Trump gets to finish his term, the Dems look like punk asses who couldn't even show up to the game? If they wait a year they'll be parading a dead carcass - and Trump's base won't have tired of winning. It's a short term maneuver and the Senate has enough Republicans to force the issue. Murkowski isn't going to say shit.

I much rather have Duffey testify.

So would I, but how does Bolton's offer negatively impact the chances of that? Going from zero to one witness is tougher than going from one to more than one. He's offered up testimony that he can't fight in court.

I think Pelosi is waiting for the Appeals court to either uphold or overturn the lower court ruling that the House can compel Donald McGahn to testify. If the court finds that Congress has the authority to compel testimony despite the Trump Administration trying to block it, then a lot more pertinent information might come to light before the Articles of Impeachment are sent over to the Senate. That might not make a difference wrt McConnell allowing an actual examination of the evidence, but it will affect public opinion.

The GOP might win the battle and lose the war.

 

[marc]

Heard one theory that Pelosi is waiting for the State of the Union. If she sends the articles now, Mitch will just say 'nothing to see here', and the SotU would be 2 hours of Trump saying total exoneration. If she waits, what are the chances of Trump keeping calm and civil with Pelosi right behind him on live national television, with all the senators having a front row seat for the meltdown? They will have a slightly harder time trying to ignore his antics with it happening right in front of them, might be enough to get a couple to admit to reality.

 

[angelo]

Meanwhile, all these shenanigans will assure the Trump will win another term even more convincingly than in 2016.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-has-already-recovered-its-impeachment-slump/

Tensions with Iran have rightly dominated the news in the past week, but one important item has escaped attention: President Trump’s job approval rating has regained all the ground lost after his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came to light and now stands close to a three-year high. This should worry Democrats.

Trump’s approval rating as of Monday afternoon is 45.2 percent in the RealClearPolitics average. That is nearly equal to the level he was at on Sept. 24, the day House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared her support for impeachment. Before that, Trump’s approval hasn’t been this high since Feb. 20, 2017, a mere month after he was inaugurated.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Nope.



As for Real Clear's average, also wrong. His overall job approval:



But when you specify "Foreign Policy" it drops even further:

 

[angelo]

Well if your polls are correct, you will soon be well on the way to becoming a full socialist state, and may your god have mercy on America!

 

[jonatha]

Well if your polls are correct, you will soon be well on the way to becoming a full socialist state, and may your god have mercy on America!

Didn't realize Mary Jane grew in the Australian bush...

 

[Worldtraveller]

Well if your polls are correct, you will soon be well on the way to becoming a full socialist state!

Promise?

 

[Gun Nut]

Well if your polls are correct, you will soon be well on the way to becoming a full socialist state, and may your god have mercy on America!

Maybe just put out all those forest fires you have going on over there that are polluting South America's air at the moment... k?
fucking shitholes pouring smoke across the ocean.

 

[Treedbear]

Well if your polls are correct, you will soon be well on the way to becoming a full socialist state, and may your god have mercy on America!

Those polls reflect the desire to take back capitalism for the common man. It's not capitalism unless everyone has the chance to have enough capital to invest in their future. Much of the public hasn't had that hope for generations, and most of the rest are walking on a tightrope. But if you insist on calling it socialism to simply take the small steps needed to make sure every family has the basic financial security and means to succeed, then yes, you'll get (god have mercy) actual socialism. And you're right in thinking socialism (real socialism) won't work. We'd much rather save capitalism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the idea that someone is suggesting Nancy Pelosi or 98% of the Democrats elected in Congress are socialists is quite funny... actually hilarious.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think the idea that someone is suggesting Nancy Pelosi or 98% of the Democrats elected in Congress are socialists is quite funny... actually hilarious.

I notice the usual suspects are not correcting Angelo on his use of the term socialist.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well if your polls are correct, you will soon be well on the way to becoming a full socialist state, and may your god have mercy on America!

Those polls reflect the desire to take back capitalism for the common man. It's not capitalism unless everyone has the chance to have enough capital to invest in their future. Much of the public hasn't had that hope for generations, and most of the rest are walking on a tightrope. But if you insist on calling it socialism to simply take the small steps needed to make sure every family has the basic financial security and means to succeed, then yes, you'll get (god have mercy) actual socialism. And you're right in thinking socialism (real socialism) won't work. We'd much rather save capitalism.

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money off of their intelligence, strategy, genius, hard work; whatever you want to call it--and I have reservations about how to best value someone else's contribution to that overrall effort, such as an assistant or junior analyst, etc--but reasonableness should be something we can all agree on and it seems to me that $500M per month is way beyond merely reasonable, so what could his objection possibly be?

It goes beyond good citizenship--a deliberately forgotten/obscured concept (primarily by Republicans) so that only the first two acts of Wall Street are emulated, never the third--and into (arguably) criminally unethical behavior.

But, how to regulate it, as always, becomes the issue since greedy cocksuckers like Bezos evidently won't do it voluntarily.

 

[Treedbear]

Well if your polls are correct, you will soon be well on the way to becoming a full socialist state, and may your god have mercy on America!

Those polls reflect the desire to take back capitalism for the common man. It's not capitalism unless everyone has the chance to have enough capital to invest in their future. Much of the public hasn't had that hope for generations, and most of the rest are walking on a tightrope. But if you insist on calling it socialism to simply take the small steps needed to make sure every family has the basic financial security and means to succeed, then yes, you'll get (god have mercy) actual socialism. And you're right in thinking socialism (real socialism) won't work. We'd much rather save capitalism.

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money off of their intelligence, strategy, genius, hard work; whatever you want to call it--and I have reservations about how to best value someone else's contribution to that overrall effort, such as an assistant or junior analyst, etc--but reasonableness should be something we can all agree on and it seems to me that $500M per month is way beyond merely reasonable, so what could his objection possibly be?

It goes beyond good citizenship--a deliberately forgotten/obscured concept (primarily by Republicans) so that only the first two acts of Wall Street are emulated, never the third--and into (arguably) criminally unethical behavior.

But, how to regulate it, as always, becomes the issue since greedy cocksuckers like Bezos evidently won't do it voluntarily.

I tend to think the simplest and easiest way is a more progressive income tax. It's already been done so there's no constitutional barriers to negotiate. But yeah, it's ludicrous to rely on the good will of a charitible heart. I don't go that far in trusting any economic class, let alone the titans of business. Fortunately that's what we have governments for. Doing what's good for the country despite the basic instinct to look out for number one.

 

[crazyfingers]

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money off of their intelligence, strategy, genius, hard work; whatever you want to call it--and I have reservations about how to best value someone else's contribution to that overrall effort, such as an assistant or junior analyst, etc--but reasonableness should be something we can all agree on and it seems to me that $500M per month is way beyond merely reasonable, so what could his objection possibly be?

It goes beyond good citizenship--a deliberately forgotten/obscured concept (primarily by Republicans) so that only the first two acts of Wall Street are emulated, never the third--and into (arguably) criminally unethical behavior.

But, how to regulate it, as always, becomes the issue since greedy cocksuckers like Bezos evidently won't do it voluntarily.

I tend to think the simplest and easiest way is a more progressive income tax. It's already been done so there's no constitutional barriers to negotiate. But yeah, it's ludicrous to rely on the good will of a charitible heart. I don't go that far in trusting any economic class, let alone the titans of business. Fortunately that's what we have governments for. Doing what's good for the country despite the basic instinct to look out for number one.

I had seen some data many years ago that compared income disparity in the US vs other industrialized countries and I think that I recall that it was Japan where the income of the CEO of a company like Toyota or Canon was no were near the orders of magnitude difference in the US. I don't know if it's laws or culture or both.

I suspect what's needed is both. But it's not just progressive income taxes that are needed. If it was only that then CEOs would just find ways to compensate themselves by other means.

An then as in the example of Bezos. Not to pick on him but he was used as an example, I don't know how to deal with the massive wealth disparity that goes way beyond just an annual salary.

I strongly believe that capitalism is the only system that can work but I also think that there must be a better way to spread the wealth around a bit more.

Certainly universal health care would be a step in the right direction. The US is the only standout in this regard. And I've seen how businesses in other countries actually prefer universal health care funded by various taxes. Most businesses, I think, if they really thought about it, would rather not have that be one of their responsibilities but the Government through taxes.

And so why are we talking about income disparity in the Impeachment topic again? Did someone make come claim that all Democrats want to make the US a Socialist country or something?