Trump would take foreign help in election and not tell FBI: "They have information. I think I'd take it"

[Starbuck1975]

Absolutely not. He almost certainly perjured himself in his testimony and she didn’t even bother to investigate before giving him a lifetime appointment.

She will lose her seat for this and it will be richly deserved. She betrayed her oath of office.

I find it ironic that Collins draws such ire, and yet Joe Manchin and the other GOP Senators who voted for Kavanaugh receive no political pressure. What distinguishes Collins from the others I wonder.

This is a very strange rationalization on your part. I don’t get it. The idea that because people don’t think it’s worth removing a president for lying in a civil deposition they can’t think it’s worth removing the president for interfering in an attack on America by a hostile foreign power is bonkers.

Not strange at all. We either hold all Presidents accountable or we don’t. Clinton perjured himself and obstructed justice.

I hope someday you lay the blame where it truly resides, the people who support him.

I blame the people who voted for him and the people who enabled him. One day perhaps you will hold the enablers accountable.

By letting republicans off the hook for trump and #bothsides-ing this you’re just enabling them to do it again.

I support impeachment. That is not letting anyone off the hook.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

cheating Democrats the American people

FTFY. He cheated everyone.

 

[Maxima1]

Impeach or don't impeach, I don't really care at this point. The republic will survive even if Trump serves a full 8 years. If the Senate can use its discretion to not convict Clinton for lying under oath then I'm perfectly fine if the Senate uses its discretion to not convict Trump for cheating Democrats to win the Presidency. It's pretty much a precise application of the "tit for tat, escalate on defection" game strategy that @fskimospy advocates.

You're really stupid if you think Bill Clinton mattered here. You also have a ridiculous point in trying to compare the Bill Clinton nonsense with the dictator-wannabe. The Constitution allows discretion on what to impeach on or not. It seems like Bill Clinton's situation would fit there.

 

[Jaskalas]

Mitch McConnell was able to withhold a SC pick from Obama for almost 1 year so why not??

Under the McConnell standard, the Senate need not vote on anyone the President nominates. Unless the Senate and the Presidency align, the President does not get a say on the SCOTUS. And our dysfunction teeters closer to unbridled madness.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I guess instead of subpoenas, Congressional Democrats should just request that foreign governments hack into our system and provide all the requested documents to them.

Can you imagine the Republicans heads exploding if Pelosi went on national television and said "Iran, if your listening, I hope you find Trump's tax returns, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

 

[hal2kilo]

Seems there's no limit to how many countries the Trump admin will colude with. No mention that this money probably went to the Trump Inuagural Slush Fund in the article.
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...nal-charges-and-an-ex-trump-aide-is-involved/

 

[HomerJS]

Impeach or don't impeach, I don't really care at this point. The republic will survive even if Trump serves a full 8 years. If the Senate can use its discretion to not convict Clinton for lying under oath then I'm perfectly fine if the Senate uses its discretion to not convict Trump for cheating Democrats to win the Presidency. It's pretty much a precise application of the "tit for tat, escalate on defection" game strategy that @fskimospy advocates.

I will jump to the end. The objective is to get rid of this guy. He is a danger to Democracy. Look how much damage has been done in just 2.5 years. If starting impeachment trials will only make him stronger then why do it? Since Americans are too busy or lazy to read then entire Mueller report she has to kill him by 1K cuts. That means the visuals of airing the report on TV. Once his poll numbers fall enough where those rich white Republicans get off their fat asses and do the right thing formal hearings won't happen.

 

[Jaskalas]

Per the topic, the President very clearly and very publicly solicited crimes against the American people.

His recent statement, alone, is impeachment material.

I suppose the question is, if Republicans stand by these crimes, what comes next? Revolution? An end to civil discourse?

 

[glenn1]

Per the topic, the President very clearly and very publicly solicited crimes against the American people.

His recent statement, alone, is impeachment material.

I suppose the question is, if Republicans stand by these crimes, what comes next? Revolution? An end to civil discourse?

An election comes next. The GOP is right to not hold Trump accountable when Dems didn't hold Clinton accountable. As @fskimospy said it's simple game theory. You reap what you sow, Dems protected a lying womanizer and are powerless as today's lying womanizer is protected in the same manner.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

An election comes next. The GOP is right to not hold Trump accountable when Dems didn't hold Clinton accountable. As @fskimospy said it's simple game theory. You reap what you sow, Dems protected a lying womanizer and are powerless as today's lying womanizer is protected in the same manner.

Yup its game theory, so be prepared in 2024 for me to back a Candidate that accepts intel info from a European country to dig dirt up on the next R.
Think twice about what you said.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If you honestly believe that the Clinton fiasco provides cover for Trump, then you're the problem. This is what your brain has done to you.

Conservatives really do pick the strangest hills.

I seem to recall Trump parading Bill Clinton’s victims at one of the debates, essentially nullifying any attacks against Trump over the Access Hollywood tape. I like to picnic on the hill Clinton died on.

 

[Maxima1]

An election comes next. The GOP is right to not hold Trump accountable when Dems didn't hold Clinton accountable. As @fskimospy said it's simple game theory. You reap what you sow, Dems protected a lying womanizer and are powerless as today's lying womanizer is protected in the same manner.

What an asinine comparison. Republicans abused the process to try to oust Clinton over something they didn't even want to prosecute him for. Yet it's the Democrats who are at fault? Sheesh. it's not always tit-for-tat if one party holds steadfast. The Constitution gives that discretion, yet you're trying to make it an absolute for which a tit-for-tat should always ensue.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yup its game theory, so be prepared in 2024 for me to back a Candidate that accepts intel info from a European country to dig dirt up on the next R.
Think twice about what you said.

Make sure you also fill your cabinet with 'interim/temporary staff', including inventing new positions to gain eligibility to insert temporary staff you'd prefer to have, that way none of them has to be confirmed by anyone.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yup its game theory, so be prepared in 2024 for me to back a Candidate that accepts intel info from a European country to dig dirt up on the next R.
Think twice about what you said.

Is it cool to accept intel from private consultants who were once part of the same intel apparatus?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Per the topic, the President very clearly and very publicly solicited crimes against the American people.

His recent statement, alone, is impeachment material.

I suppose the question is, if Republicans stand by these crimes, what comes next? Revolution? An end to civil discourse?

Our discourse has not been civil for several years now. It started to erode around the start of Obama's second term and has fallen completely apart in the last 2 years. Trump is breaking customs, and one of them he has completely ended is that our discourse should be civil.
And before you say it yes, I know the meaning of 'civil discourse' you are talking about, but the core of that concept is that the discourse requires respect of the other participants, which no longer happens.

 

[SMOGZINN]

An election comes next. The GOP is right to not hold Trump accountable when Dems didn't hold Clinton accountable. As @fskimospy said it's simple game theory. You reap what you sow, Dems protected a lying womanizer and are powerless as today's lying womanizer is protected in the same manner.

Then we will never have accountability again. Your method dooms us to war.
Because we are not in the tit-for-tat game. Tit-for-tat require equal measures in recompense. If you take one dollar, I take one dollar. We are in the escalation game; you take one dollar, I take two. This ultimately always leads to violence. The only way to stop it is to hammer it down. As long as one side refuses to end the game it will every single time end in violence. There is no steady state for that game.

 

[glenn1]

Then we will never have accountability again. Your method dooms us to war.
Because we are not in the tit-for-tat game. Tit-for-tat require equal measures in recompense. If you take one dollar, I take one dollar. We are in the escalation game; you take one dollar, I take two. This ultimately always leads to violence. The only way to stop it is to hammer it down. As long as one side refuses to end the game it will every single time end in violence. There is no steady state for that game.

The steady state is one side forces unconditional surrender on the other. The Dems just want to half-ass doing exactly that with packing the SCOTUS, etc. It's foolish to allow the opposition a first strike opportunity so if norms are being disregarded anyway then why should I enable your side to be the one to gain the advantage? When one side's argument boils down to "we were right not to hold him accountable since he was a higher quality cheater and liar than your low quality cheater and liar" then there is no "refusing to end the game." It's just a matter of what side loses the game and how quickly that happens.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Is it cool to accept intel from private consultants who were once part of the same intel apparatus?

God you are so looking for an argument. The point is fuck me once its your fault, Fuck me a second time its my fault, Fuck me a third time I deserve it.
I won't be fucked a third time.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The steady state is one side forces unconditional surrender on the other. The Dems just want to half-ass doing exactly that with packing the SCOTUS, etc. It's foolish to allow the opposition a first strike opportunity so if norms are being disregarded anyway then why should I enable your side to be the one to gain the advantage? When one side's argument boils down to "we were right not to hold him accountable since he was a higher quality cheater and liar than your low quality cheater and liar" then there is no "refusing to end the game." It's just a matter of what side loses the game and how quickly that happens.

Why are you insisting this is some zero-sum war between two factions or something? This is supposed to be about two parties of elected representatives negotiating over the future of a union.

How about the 'opposition' performing 'first strikes' get their fucking shit together and start acting like adults, rather than insisting that a fabricated opponent instigate one-upmanship?

 

[ivwshane]

Is it cool to accept intel from private consultants who were once part of the same intel apparatus?

You mean pay for that Intel? Yes you dumb ass.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The steady state is one side forces unconditional surrender on the other. The Dems just want to half-ass doing exactly that with packing the SCOTUS, etc. It's foolish to allow the opposition a first strike opportunity so if norms are being disregarded anyway then why should I enable your side to be the one to gain the advantage? When one side's argument boils down to "we were right not to hold him accountable since he was a higher quality cheater and liar than your low quality cheater and liar" then there is no "refusing to end the game." It's just a matter of what side loses the game and how quickly that happens.

So, war it is. I had really hoped we were better than this. I guess I should have expected it. When was the last time a Republican didn't start a war?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You mean pay for that Intel? Yes you dumb ass.

He's trying to bait you into some sort of Steel dossier argument now. These two can only distract now because their boy is far too embarrassing.

 

[ivwshane]

Why are you insisting this is some zero-sum war between two factions or something? This is supposed to be about two parties of elected representatives negotiating over the future of a union.

How about the 'opposition' performing 'first strikes' get their fucking shit together and start acting like adults, rather than insisting that a fabricated opponent instigate one-upmanship?

Because he views it as a zero sum. The guy is an America hating piece of shit. He puts his party before the country

 

[glenn1]

Why are you insisting this is some zero-sum war between two factions or something? This is supposed to be about two parties of elected representatives negotiating over the future of a union.

How about the 'opposition' performing 'first strikes' get their fucking shit together and start acting like adults, rather than insisting that a fabricated opponent instigate one-upmanship?

I've already pointed out numerous instances from Borking, to eliminating the filibuster (in part), to sitting on judicial nominations, to not convicting someone who was shown to have lied under oath. In each case the Dems took the first strike and then acted surprised when retaliation occurred later. "But you replied to an insult with punches." There is no good faith "negotiating over the future of a union" anymore. It's war and not one the GOP started.

 

[kage69]

Notice for Team Treason and those that vote for them: