WrestlingClassics.com Message Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» WrestlingClassics.com Message Board » Political Discussion » Today is the day, Mueller is on the Hill (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Today is the day, Mueller is on the Hill
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by K. Fabian McClinch:
For that matter, the ACA ("socialized medicine") and, perhaps, even the specter of a guaranteed national income, which has been floated by some progressives (and which I believe might in fact be a proposal buried somewhere in the Green New Deal template) will take the place of Nixon's "welfare" rhetoric.

The Democrats are probably praying to God that Trump runs against the ACA, because his efforts to kill it in 2017 is the biggest reason the GOP got their asses handed to them in the midterms. Given the choice between keeping the ACA (and more specifically, all of the protections the ACA guarantees) and going back to what we had before, a solid majority of Americans would prefer to keep the ACA. Republicans aren't going to win on the healthcare fight, because they're fighting to take away coverage from millions of people and to allow health insurers to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions. Not a popular position.
IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
As much as I respect Trav's political observations, and the growing resect for Dragonstone's, here's what neither of you are taking into consideration: The Republicans willingness and desire to cheat to remain in power. And the Democrat's total weakeness and willingness to roll over to them.

But here's the other thing that you fail to take into account WRT Pelosi pushing impeachment: The American people are not in favour of it.

A recent (although now "stale") poll from CNN showed only 41% of Americans in favour of impeaching Trump.

A newer NBC News/WSJ Poll taken July 7-9 had 21 % saying to begin hearings, 27% to continue investigating and 50% saying there should be no hearings.

An ABC News/WaPo Poll conducted June 28-July 1, had it put pretty bluntly: 37% said proceedings should begin, and 59% said they should not.

With numbers like that, there is no way Pelosi will allow any impeachment proceedings to begin. Not a chance. Nada. Zip. Fugeddabodit. Not gonna happen.

And let us also keep in mind that, according to Pew Research Center (in their 10-15July survey), they found that 57% of their respondents said they had heard or read "a lot" about Mueller's investigation.

Now, let us also realize that Mueller's testimony yesterday was viewed by about 13,000,000 people. That is less than those who tuned in to watch Michael Cohen, and far less for Comey's testimony or for Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. That suggests that minds are being made up, and that it isn't exactly a "low information" decision being made here: The news is getting out.

Yesterday’s hearings -- as damning as they were at times -- weren't very effective at changing many minds. Consider: just one additional Dem lawmaker said they'd now back impeachment proceedings afterward. One. That's not the way to push any impeachment effort.


The only way Trump is leaving is for the voters to boot his ass out the door. And that's very doable, so long as they don't step on their collective dicks again. But impeachment just isn't going to happen.....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now, having said all that, I really wanna see some new polls in the coming week/10 days and see if there's been any real movement in public opinion.

I doubt I'm going to see much (if any) but weirder things have happened.....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by K. Fabian McClinch:
As for the polls -- I think the last election showed us that in the Tweeter/Twitter/Twatter era, polls that gather information systematically don't have much predictive value. And as much as I hate to admit it, I think that a lot of the more activist-minded progressives (more or less the analogues to the anti-war "youth vote" of '72) may well decide to stay home if Harris or some other less-than-ideologically-pure Democrat gets the nomination.

It's a common meme, but the polls at the national level were very close to the final outcome in 2016, and did very well in the 2018 midterms. Some of the State polls in 2016 were lousy as all Hell (witness Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), but others were quite good (Virginia, for example).

Even some of the ones people point at to say that "the polls were WRONG!" were still within the Margin(s) of Error of the polls (aggregate or singleton). And remember that the MoE has to be applied to each candidate. So (just pulling numbers out of thin air here), if Clinton in Michigan was polling at 44% and Trump at 42%, and the MoE listed was +/-3.5%, then Clinton's figure could have been anywhere from 40.5% to 47.5%, and Trump's was 38.5% to 45.5%.

Thus, the polls suggested that you could have had an outcome of Clinton 47.5% and Trump 38.5%, but you could also have had an outcome of Trump 45.5%, Clinton 40.5%. The numbers reported were the most likely within the MoE specified, but there was still 7-points of wiggle-room for both candidates.


Now, "predictive value" of early polls like what we're seeing right now is a hotly debated topic within the industry (and obviously, but PoliWatchers such as ourselves). Doesn't mean they're right, but it doesn't mean they're wrong, either. You gotta phrase your question carefully.

Even FiveThirtyEight stradles the line about "predictive quality of early polls". Last June, they put up an article entitled Should We Take These Early General Election Polls Seriously? $#!% No!. But just two months previous, they put up an article saying We Analyzed 40 Years Of Primary Polls. Even Early On, They’re Fairly Predictive.

Note, however, that the one article is about the General Election, and the other about Primaries. Two very different animals (albeit of the same sub-species). Both articles get into the weeds of the biz, so can be a bit daunting to the debutante, but both say important things about how seriously we should be taking some of the info flooding into our feeds right now.

I'm an avowed Poll-Watcher, but right now, all I'm looking at/for is trends. Is Bernie going up, or down? How steady is Trump's approval rating this last month? Two months? 6 months? Are we seeing a change in views about how Candidate X is doing against Trump in the public? Candidate Y?

The only predictive poll is generally the Generic Congressional Ballot; even a year out, the numbers tend to show advantage, although how strong an advantage is still debatable. And, of course, polls are snap-shots in time, telling us how people are feeling (mostly) now. What they may be thinking 12 months from now, well.....anyone who could do that wouldn't be working for any polling company, now, would they?




P.S. WRT the "if Harris or some other less-than-ideologically-pure Democrat gets the nomination" nonsense....

If they stay home because their ideological hero didn't get the nom and Trump gets back in, they have no-one to blame but themselves. And make damned sure to tell them it "looks good on them."

The ONLY wasted vote is the one not cast. Even spoiling your ballot sends a message, because it HAS to be counted. And reported.

[ 07-25-2019, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Travlr ]

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
As much as I respect Trav's political observations, and the growing resect for Dragonstone's, here's what neither of you are taking into consideration: The Republicans willingness and desire to cheat to remain in power. And the Democrat's total weakeness and willingness to roll over to them.

But here's the other thing that you fail to take into account WRT Pelosi pushing impeachment: The American people are not in favour of it.

A recent (although now "stale") poll from CNN showed only 41% of Americans in favour of impeaching Trump.

A newer NBC News/WSJ Poll taken July 7-9 had 21 % saying to begin hearings, 27% to continue investigating and 50% saying there should be no hearings.

An ABC News/WaPo Poll conducted June 28-July 1, had it put pretty bluntly: 37% said proceedings should begin, and 59% said they should not.

With numbers like that, there is no way Pelosi will allow any impeachment proceedings to begin. Not a chance. Nada. Zip. Fugeddabodit. Not gonna happen.

And let us also keep in mind that, according to Pew Research Center (in their 10-15July survey), they found that 57% of their respondents said they had heard or read "a lot" about Mueller's investigation.

Now, let us also realize that Mueller's testimony yesterday was viewed by about 13,000,000 people. That is less than those who tuned in to watch Michael Cohen, and far less for Comey's testimony or for Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. That suggests that minds are being made up, and that it isn't exactly a "low information" decision being made here: The news is getting out.

Yesterday’s hearings -- as damning as they were at times -- weren't very effective at changing many minds. Consider: just one additional Dem lawmaker said they'd now back impeachment proceedings afterward. One. That's not the way to push any impeachment effort.


The only way Trump is leaving is for the voters to boot his ass out the door. And that's very doable, so long as they don't step on their collective dicks again. But impeachment just isn't going to happen.....

I don't think the American public supporting an impeachment inquiry should be a factor at all.

If it had been a critical factor when the Democrats were deciding whether or not to move forward with an impeachment inquiry in 1973, Richard Nixon would have remained president until January 20, 1976.

The public didn't support Nixon's impeachment until the impeachment process was well underway and they were about to refer articles to the full House.

As a matter of fact, support for Trump's impeachment today is stronger than it was for Nixon's impeachment in February 1974.

Public support for Nixon's removal didn't cross the 50% threshold until early August 1974 - literally days before he resigned from office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/03/will-support-grow-impeaching-trump-data-nixon-offers-clue/?utm_term=.23eb87836f44

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by K. Fabian McClinch:
As for the polls -- I think the last election showed us that in the Tweeter/Twitter/Twatter era, polls that gather information systematically don't have much predictive value. And as much as I hate to admit it, I think that a lot of the more activist-minded progressives (more or less the analogues to the anti-war "youth vote" of '72) may well decide to stay home if Harris or some other less-than-ideologically-pure Democrat gets the nomination.

It's a common meme, but the polls at the national level were very close to the final outcome in 2016, and did very well in the 2018 midterms. Some of the State polls in 2016 were lousy as all Hell (witness Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), but others were quite good (Virginia, for example).

Even some of the ones people point at to say that "the polls were WRONG!" were still within the Margin(s) of Error of the polls (aggregate or singleton). And remember that the MoE has to be applied to each candidate. So (just pulling numbers out of thin air here), if Clinton in Michigan was polling at 44% and Trump at 42%, and the MoE listed was +/-3.5%, then Clinton's figure could have been anywhere from 40.5% to 47.5%, and Trump's was 38.5% to 45.5%.

Thus, the polls suggested that you could have had an outcome of Clinton 47.5% and Trump 38.5%, but you could also have had an outcome of Trump 45.5%, Clinton 40.5%. The numbers reported were the most likely within the MoE specified, but there was still 7-points of wiggle-room for both candidates.

The polling in 2016 wasn't really that far off - the aggregate national polling was actually closer to the final result in 2016 than it was in 2012. The problem was the poll analysis, as well as public understanding of what poll analysis means. FiveThirtyEight wound up being the most cautious in their predictions, and even they were giving Clinton something like a 71.4% chance of winning. People interpreted that to mean that they were saying Clinton was a shoe-in to win the presidency. What they were saying is that based on their analysis of the data, it seemed like a Clinton victory was a more likely outcome than a Trump victory, by just shy of a 3:1 margin. If you went into a surgery knowing there was a 28.6% chance you would die, you would probably be feeling extremely anxious about that surgery, even though the odds of your survival were pretty solidly in your favor. You would obviously rather have 71.4% chance of winning than a 28.6% chance, but if you're the guy with the 28.6% chance, you would still feel like you've at least got a shot at pulling it off. If you knew you had a 28.6% chance of winning $500 million in Powerball as long as you were willing to spend at least $200 on Powerball tickets, most people would take that bet - even though they are more likely to lose than to win.

[ 07-25-2019, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
I don't think the American public supporting an impeachment inquiry should be a factor at all.

And yet, I think it may have been at least partially designed that way.

I quote Taegan Goddard of Political Wire from behind his members-only service (being a bit of a bad boy there, but I think it's for a good cause):
quote:
However, impeachment is not just a legal remedy. Violating a statute isn’t enough to remove a president. That’s probably why the Founders never actually defined "high crimes and misdemeanors." Impeachment is also a political tool designed to carry out the will of the public.

It’s a way for citizens to change their mind without waiting for the next election.

He goes further and notes, "But it’s not easy to execute and that’s entirely by design."

It falls into line with Prof. Greg Weiner's point in his "Laws and Sausages" PoliBlog, where he says, "Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process." He also notes that at one point, impeachment would have used "maladministration" as a jump-off point, which has no criminal or legal association at all (it's from Great Britain's parliamentary practice in which Officers of the King could be impeached for screwing things over or abusing their power.

At any rate, I also consider impeachment as a political process, and as such, public opinion is going to play a part in its preparation and execution, whether anyone wants it to be or not. In fact, I don't think you could go ahead with it now without a large enough level of support by the public. Not any more. It's as removed from Watergate's era today as political debate breaking down into someone nearly beating his opponent to death with his walking stick was allowed in the Senate during the 1850s.

Practically -- and pragmatically, I think -- we won't see it happen here unless we see that support reach 50%+1.

Rightly or wrongly, that's the way of things.

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
As much as I respect Trav's political observations, and the growing resect for Dragonstone's, here's what neither of you are taking into consideration: The Republicans willingness and desire to cheat to remain in power. And the Democrat's total weakeness and willingness to roll over to them.

But here's the other thing that you fail to take into account WRT Pelosi pushing impeachment: The American people are not in favour of it.

A recent (although now "stale") poll from CNN showed only 41% of Americans in favour of impeaching Trump.

A newer NBC News/WSJ Poll taken July 7-9 had 21 % saying to begin hearings, 27% to continue investigating and 50% saying there should be no hearings.

An ABC News/WaPo Poll conducted June 28-July 1, had it put pretty bluntly: 37% said proceedings should begin, and 59% said they should not.

With numbers like that, there is no way Pelosi will allow any impeachment proceedings to begin. Not a chance. Nada. Zip. Fugeddabodit. Not gonna happen.

And let us also keep in mind that, according to Pew Research Center (in their 10-15July survey), they found that 57% of their respondents said they had heard or read "a lot" about Mueller's investigation.

Now, let us also realize that Mueller's testimony yesterday was viewed by about 13,000,000 people. That is less than those who tuned in to watch Michael Cohen, and far less for Comey's testimony or for Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. That suggests that minds are being made up, and that it isn't exactly a "low information" decision being made here: The news is getting out.

Yesterday’s hearings -- as damning as they were at times -- weren't very effective at changing many minds. Consider: just one additional Dem lawmaker said they'd now back impeachment proceedings afterward. One. That's not the way to push any impeachment effort.


The only way Trump is leaving is for the voters to boot his ass out the door. And that's very doable, so long as they don't step on their collective dicks again. But impeachment just isn't going to happen.....

I don't think the American public supporting an impeachment inquiry should be a factor at all.

If it had been a critical factor when the Democrats were deciding whether or not to move forward with an impeachment inquiry in 1973, Richard Nixon would have remained president until January 20, 1976.

The public didn't support Nixon's impeachment until the impeachment process was well underway and they were about to refer articles to the full House.

As a matter of fact, support for Trump's impeachment today is stronger than it was for Nixon's impeachment in February 1974.

Public support for Nixon's removal didn't cross the 50% threshold until early August 1974 - literally days before he resigned from office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/03/will-support-grow-impeaching-trump-data-nixon-offers-clue/?utm_term=.23eb87836f44

There is a gigantic inconsistency with Democrats who have spent the past three years complaining that the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the election, yet trying to make a case that the will of the people "shouldn't be a factor at all" when the hard left wants to impeach a Republican President.

I don't even think that Trunp deserves to be re-elected, but the stance that the will of the American people shouldn't matter at all when it is convenient is wrong also, IMO.

[ 07-25-2019, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: 1000 Masks But No Jobs ]

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by K. Fabian McClinch:
As for the polls -- I think the last election showed us that in the Tweeter/Twitter/Twatter era, polls that gather information systematically don't have much predictive value. And as much as I hate to admit it, I think that a lot of the more activist-minded progressives (more or less the analogues to the anti-war "youth vote" of '72) may well decide to stay home if Harris or some other less-than-ideologically-pure Democrat gets the nomination.

It's a common meme, but the polls at the national level were very close to the final outcome in 2016, and did very well in the 2018 midterms. Some of the State polls in 2016 were lousy as all Hell (witness Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), but others were quite good (Virginia, for example).

Even some of the ones people point at to say that "the polls were WRONG!" were still within the Margin(s) of Error of the polls (aggregate or singleton). And remember that the MoE has to be applied to each candidate. So (just pulling numbers out of thin air here), if Clinton in Michigan was polling at 44% and Trump at 42%, and the MoE listed was +/-3.5%, then Clinton's figure could have been anywhere from 40.5% to 47.5%, and Trump's was 38.5% to 45.5%.

Thus, the polls suggested that you could have had an outcome of Clinton 47.5% and Trump 38.5%, but you could also have had an outcome of Trump 45.5%, Clinton 40.5%. The numbers reported were the most likely within the MoE specified, but there was still 7-points of wiggle-room for both candidates.

The polling in 2016 wasn't really that far off - the aggregate national polling was actually closer to the final result in 2016 than it was in 2012. The problem was the poll analysis, as well as public understanding of what poll analysis means. FiveThirtyEight wound up being the most cautious in their predictions, and even they were giving Clinton something like a 71.4% chance of winning. People interpreted that to mean that they were saying Clinton was a shoe-in to win the presidency. What they were saying is that based on their analysis of the data, it seemed like a Clinton victory was a more likely outcome than a Trump victory, by just shy of a 3:1 margin. If you went into a surgery knowing there was a 28.6% chance you would die, you would probably be feeling extremely anxious about that surgery, even though the odds of your survival were pretty solidly in your favor. You would obviously rather have 71.4% chance of winning than a 28.6% chance, but if you're the guy with the 28.6% chance, you would still feel like you've at least got a shot at pulling it off. If you knew you had a 28.6% chance of winning $500 million in Powerball as long as you were willing to spend at least $200 on Powerball tickets, most people would take that bet - even though they are more likely to lose than to win.
I love 538 because Nate Silver started off as a nerdy poker guy, but it is still very wonkish and a site for hardcore political followers. Many mainstream media outlets had Hillary at 90 percent + to win on election day.

No one cares if the polls are spot on or off by a couple points here and there. Getting the winner wrong is kind of a big deal.

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
PsychoSem
Member
Member # 119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PsychoSem     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 1000 Masks But No Jobs:
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
As much as I respect Trav's political observations, and the growing resect for Dragonstone's, here's what neither of you are taking into consideration: The Republicans willingness and desire to cheat to remain in power. And the Democrat's total weakeness and willingness to roll over to them.

But here's the other thing that you fail to take into account WRT Pelosi pushing impeachment: The American people are not in favour of it.

A recent (although now "stale") poll from CNN showed only 41% of Americans in favour of impeaching Trump.

A newer NBC News/WSJ Poll taken July 7-9 had 21 % saying to begin hearings, 27% to continue investigating and 50% saying there should be no hearings.

An ABC News/WaPo Poll conducted June 28-July 1, had it put pretty bluntly: 37% said proceedings should begin, and 59% said they should not.

With numbers like that, there is no way Pelosi will allow any impeachment proceedings to begin. Not a chance. Nada. Zip. Fugeddabodit. Not gonna happen.

And let us also keep in mind that, according to Pew Research Center (in their 10-15July survey), they found that 57% of their respondents said they had heard or read "a lot" about Mueller's investigation.

Now, let us also realize that Mueller's testimony yesterday was viewed by about 13,000,000 people. That is less than those who tuned in to watch Michael Cohen, and far less for Comey's testimony or for Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. That suggests that minds are being made up, and that it isn't exactly a "low information" decision being made here: The news is getting out.

Yesterday’s hearings -- as damning as they were at times -- weren't very effective at changing many minds. Consider: just one additional Dem lawmaker said they'd now back impeachment proceedings afterward. One. That's not the way to push any impeachment effort.


The only way Trump is leaving is for the voters to boot his ass out the door. And that's very doable, so long as they don't step on their collective dicks again. But impeachment just isn't going to happen.....

I don't think the American public supporting an impeachment inquiry should be a factor at all.

If it had been a critical factor when the Democrats were deciding whether or not to move forward with an impeachment inquiry in 1973, Richard Nixon would have remained president until January 20, 1976.

The public didn't support Nixon's impeachment until the impeachment process was well underway and they were about to refer articles to the full House.

As a matter of fact, support for Trump's impeachment today is stronger than it was for Nixon's impeachment in February 1974.

Public support for Nixon's removal didn't cross the 50% threshold until early August 1974 - literally days before he resigned from office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/03/will-support-grow-impeaching-trump-data-nixon-offers-clue/?utm_term=.23eb87836f44

There is a gigantic inconsistency with Democrats who have spent the past three years complaining that the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the election, yet trying to make a case that the will of the people "shouldn't be a factor at all" when the hard left wants to impeach a Republican President.

I don't even think that Trunp deserves to be re-elected, but the stance that the will of the American people shouldn't matter at all when it is convenient is wrong also, IMO.

Republicans simply 'took off the gloves'. Dems got in bed with Bill Clinton and excused his questionable past with women in order to gain power. The Republicans morally objected at the time and 'W' was elected on running a platform of basically being everything Clinton wasn't.

But it didn't end there.

McCain, in spite of the recent revisionist history after his death by liberals, was painted as a racist when he ran and the same for Mitt Romney. Neither of these characterizations were particularly fair or accurate and the GOP got sick of it and decided with Trump that if 'excusing the bad' was okay for the Democratic Party then it was okay for them.

That's how we got where we are today. It's not 'whataboutism' either before someone buts in with that. I don't think either's behavior is particularly good.

It also probably didn't help matters that Hillary was the opposition in this last election and even she continued to stump for her husband's behavior right in the middle of the 'me too' movement.

Now the Dems have looped back around claiming to want to bring things back to some sort of 'moral normalcy' as we had before, but it's near impossible for the GOP to trust them when they say these things as these things seem to be selective.

The result is the level of division we have right now.

--------------------
The future's uncertain and the end is always near...

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
I don't think the American public supporting an impeachment inquiry should be a factor at all.

And yet, I think it may have been at least partially designed that way.

I quote Taegan Goddard of Political Wire from behind his members-only service (being a bit of a bad boy there, but I think it's for a good cause):
quote:
However, impeachment is not just a legal remedy. Violating a statute isn’t enough to remove a president. That’s probably why the Founders never actually defined "high crimes and misdemeanors." Impeachment is also a political tool designed to carry out the will of the public.

It’s a way for citizens to change their mind without waiting for the next election.

He goes further and notes, "But it’s not easy to execute and that’s entirely by design."

It falls into line with Prof. Greg Weiner's point in his "Laws and Sausages" PoliBlog, where he says, "Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process." He also notes that at one point, impeachment would have used "maladministration" as a jump-off point, which has no criminal or legal association at all (it's from Great Britain's parliamentary practice in which Officers of the King could be impeached for screwing things over or abusing their power.

At any rate, I also consider impeachment as a political process, and as such, public opinion is going to play a part in its preparation and execution, whether anyone wants it to be or not. In fact, I don't think you could go ahead with it now without a large enough level of support by the public. Not any more. It's as removed from Watergate's era today as political debate breaking down into someone nearly beating his opponent to death with his walking stick was allowed in the Senate during the 1850s.

Practically -- and pragmatically, I think -- we won't see it happen here unless we see that support reach 50%+1.

Rightly or wrongly, that's the way of things.

And I go back to 1973 and early 1974 again. America had absolutely no interest in seeing Richard Nixon impeached at that time.

Nonetheless, the Democrats rightly saw there was some serious wrongdoing there and plowed forward with the process anyway, even though they didn't have the American public with them.

And it's a damn good thing they didn't let public sentiment dictate how they approached impeachment, or Nixon never would have paid any meaningful price for his wrongdoing.

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 1000 Masks But No Jobs:
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
As much as I respect Trav's political observations, and the growing resect for Dragonstone's, here's what neither of you are taking into consideration: The Republicans willingness and desire to cheat to remain in power. And the Democrat's total weakeness and willingness to roll over to them.

But here's the other thing that you fail to take into account WRT Pelosi pushing impeachment: The American people are not in favour of it.

A recent (although now "stale") poll from CNN showed only 41% of Americans in favour of impeaching Trump.

A newer NBC News/WSJ Poll taken July 7-9 had 21 % saying to begin hearings, 27% to continue investigating and 50% saying there should be no hearings.

An ABC News/WaPo Poll conducted June 28-July 1, had it put pretty bluntly: 37% said proceedings should begin, and 59% said they should not.

With numbers like that, there is no way Pelosi will allow any impeachment proceedings to begin. Not a chance. Nada. Zip. Fugeddabodit. Not gonna happen.

And let us also keep in mind that, according to Pew Research Center (in their 10-15July survey), they found that 57% of their respondents said they had heard or read "a lot" about Mueller's investigation.

Now, let us also realize that Mueller's testimony yesterday was viewed by about 13,000,000 people. That is less than those who tuned in to watch Michael Cohen, and far less for Comey's testimony or for Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. That suggests that minds are being made up, and that it isn't exactly a "low information" decision being made here: The news is getting out.

Yesterday’s hearings -- as damning as they were at times -- weren't very effective at changing many minds. Consider: just one additional Dem lawmaker said they'd now back impeachment proceedings afterward. One. That's not the way to push any impeachment effort.


The only way Trump is leaving is for the voters to boot his ass out the door. And that's very doable, so long as they don't step on their collective dicks again. But impeachment just isn't going to happen.....

I don't think the American public supporting an impeachment inquiry should be a factor at all.

If it had been a critical factor when the Democrats were deciding whether or not to move forward with an impeachment inquiry in 1973, Richard Nixon would have remained president until January 20, 1976.

The public didn't support Nixon's impeachment until the impeachment process was well underway and they were about to refer articles to the full House.

As a matter of fact, support for Trump's impeachment today is stronger than it was for Nixon's impeachment in February 1974.

Public support for Nixon's removal didn't cross the 50% threshold until early August 1974 - literally days before he resigned from office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/03/will-support-grow-impeaching-trump-data-nixon-offers-clue/?utm_term=.23eb87836f44

There is a gigantic inconsistency with Democrats who have spent the past three years complaining that the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the election, yet trying to make a case that the will of the people "shouldn't be a factor at all" when the hard left wants to impeach a Republican President.

I don't even think that Trunp deserves to be re-elected, but the stance that the will of the American people shouldn't matter at all when it is convenient is wrong also, IMO.

If you can cite any instance of me ever complaining about Trump not winning the popular vote, I'd love to see it.
IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here are a few facts that ought to be mentioned again, since it seems we've gotten off track and committed the Chuck Toddist obsession with caring more about how things look than how things actually are...

1) One of America's chief adversaries in the world indisputably interfered in our election 3 years ago. FACT.

2) That adversary wasn't meddling indiscriminately without concern for who won the election - they very much wanted the man who would become president to win the election. FACT.

Here's where we get into "why this **** is impeachable" territory...

3) The candidate who was the beneficiary of that foreign adversary's interference was fully aware of that interference and openly encouraged that interference ("Russia, if you're listening..."). FACT.

4) The candidate who was the beneficiary of that interference has taken exceptional measures to try to conceal the fact that he was aware of that adversary's interference, even going as far as trying to have the special counsel who was investigating that meddling fired. FACT.

5) The candidate who was the beneficiary of that interference has said on the record that he would gladly accept and use information from a foreign power against a political opponent in the future if it is offered. FACT.

6) The candidate who was the beneficiary of that interference has actually claimed in the past week that Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives him unlimited power to do literally anything he wants with no constraints whatsoever. FACT.

If all of that isn't grounds for impeachment, then we may as well just get rid of impeachment altogether, because nothing will really qualify as an impeachable offense ever again. This president and all future presidents get to be omnipotent kings and queens who can do whatever they want without any meaningful consequence, regardless of how malevolent their actions might be.

[ 07-26-2019, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
I don't think the American public supporting an impeachment inquiry should be a factor at all.

And yet, I think it may have been at least partially designed that way.

I quote Taegan Goddard of Political Wire from behind his members-only service (being a bit of a bad boy there, but I think it's for a good cause):
quote:
However, impeachment is not just a legal remedy. Violating a statute isn’t enough to remove a president. That’s probably why the Founders never actually defined "high crimes and misdemeanors." Impeachment is also a political tool designed to carry out the will of the public.

It’s a way for citizens to change their mind without waiting for the next election.

He goes further and notes, "But it’s not easy to execute and that’s entirely by design."

It falls into line with Prof. Greg Weiner's point in his "Laws and Sausages" PoliBlog, where he says, "Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process." He also notes that at one point, impeachment would have used "maladministration" as a jump-off point, which has no criminal or legal association at all (it's from Great Britain's parliamentary practice in which Officers of the King could be impeached for screwing things over or abusing their power.

At any rate, I also consider impeachment as a political process, and as such, public opinion is going to play a part in its preparation and execution, whether anyone wants it to be or not. In fact, I don't think you could go ahead with it now without a large enough level of support by the public. Not any more. It's as removed from Watergate's era today as political debate breaking down into someone nearly beating his opponent to death with his walking stick was allowed in the Senate during the 1850s.

Practically -- and pragmatically, I think -- we won't see it happen here unless we see that support reach 50%+1.

Rightly or wrongly, that's the way of things.

And I go back to 1973 and early 1974 again. America had absolutely no interest in seeing Richard Nixon impeached at that time.

Nonetheless, the Democrats rightly saw there was some serious wrongdoing there and plowed forward with the process anyway, even though they didn't have the American public with them.

And it's a damn good thing they didn't let public sentiment dictate how they approached impeachment, or Nixon never would have paid any meaningful price for his wrongdoing.

The difference is for me.. there is no Barry Goldwater in the Repub party who can and will stand up and say the jig is up and you have to got to go or we will vote you out.

As Cadet has said, he could shoot someone and they would still support him. The Repubs prove that every day.

Why I agree with not trying to impeach him now, as much as I want him outa office.

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting new twist - according to House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler, a House impeachment inquiry is already effectively underway...

https://www.theweek.com/speedreads/855237/nadler-says-house-judiciary-effect-already-conducting-impeachment-inquiry

quote:
The House Judiciary Committee is filing an application for the Mueller report's underlying grand jury material as Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) says Democrats are "in effect" already conducting an impeachment inquiry.

Nadler in a press conference on Friday said that the information that Democrats are now seeking is "critically important for our ability to examine witnesses, including former White House counsel Don McGahn, and to investigate the president's misconduct." Nader also said that Democrats expect to file a suit to enforce a subpoena for McGahn's testimony.

Democrats in this petition to receive the grand jury material, Nadler said, specifically mention that they're considering "whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional duty, power of the utmost gravity, a recommendation of articles of impeachment," CNN reports. It also says "articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the Committee's investigation, although no final determination has been made."

Nadler on Friday argued that "too much has been made of the phrase impeachment inquiry," but when asked if what Democrats are currently doing is essentially the same as an impeachment inquiry, he said that "in effect" it is, although with the "one difference" being that their investigation is not just "limited" to the possible outcome of impeachment.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) also said that Democrats are conducting an "impeachment investigation," calling this the "first time" the committee will "telegraph to the court that one of the remedies that we have is impeachment." Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) concluded the press conference by saying Democrats are now "crossing a threshold ... and we are now officially entering into an examination of whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment."


IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That deserves it's own thread.
IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
Yesterday’s hearings -- as damning as they were at times -- weren't very effective at changing many minds. Consider: just one additional Dem lawmaker said they'd now back impeachment proceedings afterward. One. That's not the way to push any impeachment effort.

I think you might have spoken too soon on this one...

According to the Washington Post, there are now 109 House Democrats who support launching an impeachment inquiry (including 15 of the 24 Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee). The Hill has the number at 106.

Two weeks ago that number was 86. Regardless of whether the current number is 106 or 109 (or something in between), that's a substantial jump in a pretty short period of time. And apparently there are another 20-30 members or so who are seriously considering hopping on the bandwagon as they head into the recess.

Still a long way from the 218 needed to actually successfully impeach the MFer, but the pro-impeachment momentum is undeniable. Before Labor Day, it's likely that more than half the Democratic caucus will support beginning impeachment inquiries.

That's not nothing.

IP: Logged
diamondmd
Member
Member # 1292

Icon 1 posted      Profile for diamondmd     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guarantee you that if they all hold town halls with their constituents the polls will be proven incorrect.

Willing to bet also that Nancy Pelosi will avoid her constituents.

IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The number is 115 now who are in favor with more supposedly coming.
IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cory:
The number is 115 now who are in favor with more supposedly coming.

Where is your number from? The only figures I've seen are 106 from The Hill and 109 from WaPo. Plus Justin Amash (former GOP, now independent).

[ 07-30-2019, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I just see Washington Post has now updated their figure to 113.

Just to clarify... this isn't the number of Democrats who say they will vote to impeach Trump (I don't think anyone has actually researched that number at this point), just the number who believe it is now appropriate to commence an impeachment inquiry.

In other words, it doesn't mean that if an impeachment vote were cast today that 113 would vote to impeach him, just that 113 would vote to support a resolution formally authorizing the launch of an impeachment inquiry.

[ 07-30-2019, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Incidentally, here is a link to Washington Post's continuously updating impeachment tracker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/impeachment-support-house-democrats/?utm_term=.f7d4671955c8

IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WAPO is now at 114. I could have gotten that 115 wrong and it was 114.
IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
Yesterday’s hearings -- as damning as they were at times -- weren't very effective at changing many minds. Consider: just one additional Dem lawmaker said they'd now back impeachment proceedings afterward. One. That's not the way to push any impeachment effort.

I think you might have spoken too soon on this one...

According to the Washington Post, there are now 109 House Democrats who support launching an impeachment inquiry (including 15 of the 24 Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee). The Hill has the number at 106.

Two weeks ago that number was 86. Regardless of whether the current number is 106 or 109 (or something in between), that's a substantial jump in a pretty short period of time. And apparently there are another 20-30 members or so who are seriously considering hopping on the bandwagon as they head into the recess.

Still a long way from the 218 needed to actually successfully impeach the MFer, but the pro-impeachment momentum is undeniable. Before Labor Day, it's likely that more than half the Democratic caucus will support beginning impeachment inquiries.

That's not nothing.

No, it's not nothing. In fact, this is pretty good. I'm kinda wondering at the speed on this, given Pols are not exactly known to shy away from a particularly partisan position in these times. But even a delayed reaction is better than no reaction at all.

And I don't mind being proven wrong in this case in the slightest (I was actually pretty annoyed at the House Dems for being so tepid about after Mueller pretty much laid out the bread crumbs for them to follow).

And as of this afternoon (early-ish), I had heard that the number had broken 100, which I thought was impressive. To have it around 115 or so is fantastic.

No if the public will just get behind it, something just might happen with the Dem Leadership to actually push it. But if they can get over 150 to support, maybe Pelosi will do something after all (since she and Nadler are currently butting heads over it behind closed doors).

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joy Reid just announced it is 117 including Amash
IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So...with 116 Dems right now, they need 3 more to be the majority of Dems that are for this, right? I wonder who they will be?
IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
I guarantee you that if they all hold town halls with their constituents the polls will be proven incorrect.

Willing to bet also that Nancy Pelosi will avoid her constituents.

She just might.

But the polls are being pretty consistent on the point. In fact, Quinnipiac just released their latest poll on the subject today. And they are showing a solid majority of Americans feel that Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings against Trump, 60% to 32%. That falls nicely in line with other polls I've posted about.

And here's the kicker on this one: Support for starting impeachment proceedings is 61% to 29% among Democrats, and 66% to 23% among black voters. But those are the only two population demographics in favour; every other listed party, gender, education, age and racial group is opposed.


Now, if Nadler (NY-10) or Schiff (CA-28) or pretty much any Democrat were to hold a town hall on the subject, of course those showing up would probably be more in favour of it: Their (Democratic) constituents are already likely to be in favour of it. That's a given.

But what about the constituents in, say, Western/Upstate New York (NY-23) or South-Eastern California (CA-08)? Can pretty much guarantee that they'll be against it.

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cory:
So...with 116 Dems right now, they need 3 more to be the majority of Dems that are for this, right? I wonder who they will be?

Democrats hold 235 seats, so a majority of Democrats would be 118. But that's still 100 votes shy of a majority of the entire House, which is what they will need to be able to vote for a resolution to begin an inquiry.

[ 07-30-2019, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing is... starting the inquiry with a formal resolution (as was done in 1974) does not necessarily mean the inquiry will end with a vote for impeachment. Which is why I don't fully understand the hesitation on this. It isn't committing to impeaching the president, just committing to a thorough investigation into potential "high crimes and misdemeanors" whose findings MIGHT result in a vote to impeach the president.

Even if they started the inquiry right now, the earliest we would be looking at a vote on Articles of Impeachment by the full House is probably January or February 2020. And if the committee doing the inquiry knows at the end of their investigation that they aren't going to be able to lock down 218 votes to impeach, they can just table it indefinitely and let it vanish into the ether.

[ 07-30-2019, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Cory:
So...with 116 Dems right now, they need 3 more to be the majority of Dems that are for this, right? I wonder who they will be?

Democrats hold 235 seats, so a majority of Democrats would be 118. But that's still 100 votes shy of a majority of the entire House, which is what they will need to be able to vote for a resolution to begin an inquiry.
I thought that. The idea, I think, is if the majority of Dems in the House are calling for it, it will prompt Pelosi and the others to head that way.
IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cory:
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Cory:
So...with 116 Dems right now, they need 3 more to be the majority of Dems that are for this, right? I wonder who they will be?

Democrats hold 235 seats, so a majority of Democrats would be 118. But that's still 100 votes shy of a majority of the entire House, which is what they will need to be able to vote for a resolution to begin an inquiry.
I thought that. The idea, I think, is if the majority of Dems in the House are calling for it, it will prompt Pelosi and the others to head that way.
Sure, but she's still not going to actually call for a vote on a resolution to begin an inquiry unless she's nearly certain that it will pass. And that's the right call. If she called for a vote to authorize an inquiry today and it fell short, that would be the end of the whole impeachment thing. And a complete disaster.
IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They are already doing an inquiry. They just are not calling it that. Their court filing on Friday stated they needed the info to decide on an impeachment resolution.
IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cory:
They are already doing an inquiry. They just are not calling it that. Their court filing on Friday stated they needed the info to decide on an impeachment resolution.

Right, but a formal official impeachment inquiry - like the one they did in 1974 against Nixon - has to be authorized by a resolution voted on by the full House of Representatives.

This is the specific resolution I'm referring to:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-resolution/803/

quote:
H.Res.803 - Resolution providing appropriate power to the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct an investigation of whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.
93rd Congress (1973-1974)

Authorizes the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach President Richard M. Nixon.

States that the Committee may require, by subpoena, interrogatory, or otherwise, the furnishing of such information as it deems necessary to such an investigation. Provides that such authority may be exercised by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly or by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.

Stipulates that any funds made available to the Committee on the Judiciary may be expended for the purpose of carrying out the investigation.

That resolution passed the House of Representatives on February 6, 1974 by a vote of 410-3, and it is what gave the Judiciary Committee the full power - including financial support and legal standing - to begin the impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon in earnest.

We don't yet have that sort of resolution passed in this Congress, so it's unclear whether or not Nadler's committee has at this moment the full legal strength that a formal impeachment inquiry would give him.

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We're now officially over 50% of the entire House Democratic caucus supporting the launch of an impeachment inquiry... 118 Democrats are now on board.

But the bigger news is the fact that vulnerable freshmen Democrats in districts Trump won are now starting to hop on the I-train, including Katie Porter, Jennifer Wexton, and Harley Rouda.

IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
We're now officially over 50% of the entire House Democratic caucus supporting the launch of an impeachment inquiry... 118 Democrats are now on board.

But the bigger news is the fact that vulnerable freshmen Democrats in districts Trump won are now starting to hop on the I-train, including Katie Porter, Jennifer Wexton, and Harley Rouda.

I would think this is the biggest news so far about this....

Nancy Pelosi put out a statement today regarding the progress of House Investigations.

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/8219-2/?fbclid=IwAR1c00VgNDp-lSN2CvPr232926ArLrtb_3wMwOrbQ756K6L9WVaXFvmAIcQ

In there contained this nugget.

Last week, Jerry Nadler, Chair of Judiciary, took a significant step when he filed a petition to obtain the grand jury testimony underlying the Mueller report, for the House to ‘have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.’

She has "unofficially" announced the impeachment inquiry has in fact started and she supports it.

IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WrestlingClassics.com Home Page

Click here to see the WCMB Rules and Regulations

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3