NY Times Kavanaugh Story

[RiverDog]

I'm surprised that this isn't getting more national attention. The NY Times posted an extremely defamatory article on SCOTUS justice Bret Kavanaugh, subsequently admitted that they omitted major pieces of very significant information in their article and revealed extremely unethical journalistic practices by doing things like not even talking with the accuser and not corroborating their information. There's been widespread, bipartisan criticism of the piece, yet Dem pols like Kamala Harris are continuing their attacks as if the new information doesn't exist:

The wide-ranging story included a seemingly new allegation — that a Kavanaugh classmate at Yale, nonprofit CEO Max Stier, “saw Kavanaugh with his pants down at a drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

Late Sunday, the Times updated the Kavanaugh story with an “editor’s note” acknowledging that the alleged victim of the incident had declined to be interviewed and several friends had said she did not recall the alleged misconduct.

But that wasn’t the only hole in the story. The piece also omitted relevant information about Stier’s work during the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal as a member of Bill Clinton’s defense team at the law firm Williams & Connolly.

And it included a strangely constructed attribution that wouldn’t pass most major newsrooms’ standards when reporting on a sexual assault allegation against a major public figure. In the piece, the reporters wrote: “We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.” But they did not indicate what type of “officials,” government or otherwise, those sources are.

Despite the widespread criticism of the piece, Harris and other 2020 Democrats who spent the weekend calling for Kavanaugh’s impeachment based on the new report, aren’t dialing back their demands or even acknowledging the Times’ correction of the very story that sparked those demands.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... urce=polls

We've debated how much or if Trump has damaged our political process, but I find it very disturbing that the major Dem POTUS candidates like Harris are embracing stories like this as if it's the gospel truth. Their conduct is every bit as egregious as some of the stuff Trump has pulled.

[Aseahawkfan]

You should know by now the hypocritical Democrats and Trump haters will never admit they are straight up trying to destroy, attack, and do whatever to take out Trump. They pretend to care about morality and the country, but they don't. They just hate Trump and support anything that will support their hate and ignore anything that might show the Democrats/Trump haters are equally corrupt liars and abusers of power.

I'm even seeing the stupid articles about Trump asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Hunter Biden as some kind of crime, while the Dems relentlessly use every bit of government power and connections they have to investigate Trump and his family. The hypocrisy, pettiness, and corruption in government is more apparent than at any time I can recall. It is absolutely obvious that neither group cares about following laws, just use of government power and tax dollars, or any kind of decorum. There has been no period with this much obvious abuse of power and money than this Trump period.

There has been no better proof of the hypocrisy of Americans as a whole with their willingness to overlook the behavior based on their political bias. It's been a real lesson about politics for anyone willing to pay attention to the abuse of power, corruption, and downright vileness on both sides. Whether the Metoo# movement with both parties and their associated supporters with the Democrats coming out looking worse given Democratic supporters like Weinstein and Epstein were the faces of the most vile behavior to the utter abuse of power to endlessly investigating Trump and manipulating the law to their advantage with the Dems investigating where Trump goes to the bathroom and Trump putting sycophants in place to defend his position. Neither of them caring about following the law, responsible use of taxpayer dollars, or ensuring our judicial resources are used responsibly.

It's also been funny to see the Democrats become supporters of States Rights when it is convenient for them. The Democrats have been destroying States Rights for ages and now that Federal Power is being used by a Republican, they are suing and exerting States Rights like libertarians. Total hypocrisy.

I wish this was a call to arms for the American people to nuke these two parties, but it doesn't seem to be doing much to make anyone wake up too much other than to hate Trump or support Trump. It would be nice to see a real movement to punish these clowns in a very substantive and effective way. I guess the mob is media manipulated and politically biased to the point where they can't even see the hypocrisy and cognitive bias inherent in their beliefs.

[RiverDog]

You should know by now the hypocritical Democrats and Trump haters will never admit they are straight up trying to destroy, attack, and do whatever to take out Trump. They pretend to care about morality and the country, but they don't. They just hate Trump and support anything that will support their hate and ignore anything that might show the Democrats/Trump haters are equally corrupt liars and abusers of power.

This isn't just about Trump hating. It's about the #Metoo movement, which was around long before Trump took office, run amok. Evidence means nothing to them so long as a story...any story...fits their narrative and is opposite their political ideology. These are decades old, completely unsubstantiated rumors. Personally, I thought that Kamala Harris was a little more dignified and fair minded. Boy, was I wrong.

It's also been funny to see the Democrats become supporters of States Rights when it is convenient for them. The Democrats have been destroying States Rights for ages and now that Federal Power is being used by a Republican, they are suing and exerting States Rights like libertarians. Total hypocrisy.

True. Democrats have used the threat of withholding federal gas tax revenue from states that don't lower their speed limits to 55 and their DUI threshold to .08. The federal government is so much smarter and responsible than state or local governments.

I wish this was a call to arms for the American people to nuke these two parties, but it doesn't seem to be doing much to make anyone wake up too much other than to hate Trump or support Trump. It would be nice to see a real movement to punish these clowns in a very substantive and effective way. I guess the mob is media manipulated and politically biased to the point where they can't even see the hypocrisy and cognitive bias inherent in their beliefs.

The average American is a stooge. When I read things like 29% of 18-24 year old Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map, it makes me question the "one person, one vote" motto of modern day democracy. We're being led by the will, or lack thereof, of the ignorant masses.

[Aseahawkfan]

This isn't just about Trump hating. It's about the #Metoo movement, which was around long before Trump took office, run amok. Evidence means nothing to them so long as a story...any story...fits their narrative and is opposite their political ideology. These are decades old, completely unsubstantiated rumors. Personally, I thought that Kamala Harris was a little more dignified and fair minded. Boy, was I wrong.

I see the attacks on Kavanaugh in particular as driven by Trump hate. The metoo# movement got off the ground because of Weinstein, a strongly Democratic supporter. But Trump helped fueled it with his stupid, vile comments with Billy Bush. I laughed when it went off the rails and nuked the Democratic left harder than the right. Now the left media is trying to dredge up this garbage to set up an attack on Kavanaugh if they win the presidency and the Congress back to start removing judges. If the Dems start that trash, be sure the Republicans will set up to do the same next time around. Then even justices won't be safe, which may be good. Who knows.

I just know the Dems will be very dumb if they get some of the crap they want like removing justices and the ability to indict the president. There are so many laws and media diggers no one will be safe if they get those laws in place. I haven't seen a president where some laws were not broken during the administration or some very questionable use of power.

[RiverDog]

I see the attacks on Kavanaugh in particular as driven by Trump hate. The metoo# movement got off the ground because of Weinstein, a strongly Democratic supporter. But Trump helped fueled it with his stupid, vile comments with Billy Bush. I laughed when it went off the rails and nuked the Democratic left harder than the right. Now the left media is trying to dredge up this garbage to set up an attack on Kavanaugh if they win the presidency and the Congress back to start removing judges. If the Dems start that trash, be sure the Republicans will set up to do the same next time around. Then even justices won't be safe, which may be good. Who knows.

I'll concede to your rendition of the beginnings of the #metoo movement. But I'm not sure if the attacks on Kavanaugh are fueled exclusively by Trump hate. IMO it wouldn't have been that much different had one of the Bush's made the appointment. It was the tear jerking testimony of a traumatized female contrasted to an angry, somewhat partisan denial and an impassioned self defense that riled up the left.

I just know the Dems will be very dumb if they get some of the crap they want like removing justices and the ability to indict the president. There are so many laws and media diggers no one will be safe if they get those laws in place. I haven't seen a president where some laws were not broken during the administration or some very questionable use of power.

What the Democrats and liberals taught me be back in the 90's is that lying under oath in a court of law does not rise to the "high crimes" standard set in the constitution. That means that the bar for an impeachable offense has to be set damn high, and I don't see it being met in the case of DJT.

As far as invoking the 25th goes, I am troubled with the means of obtaining a diagnosis of mentally unfit. The reason the 25th exists dates back to Woodrow Wilson, who had a near fatal stroke while he was in office and literally could not function. There was no Constitutional means to address such a situation. It was not put there to remove a POTUS because his behavior is eccentric or that his basic intelligence is near that of a moron or imbecile. The public should have taken that into account when they elected him.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'll concede to your rendition of the beginnings of the #metoo movement. But I'm not sure if the attacks on Kavanaugh are fueled exclusively by Trump hate. IMO it wouldn't have been that much different had one of the Bush's made the appointment. It was the tear jerking testimony of a traumatized female contrasted to an angry, somewhat partisan denial and an impassioned self defense that riled up the left.

I see it more as the left found a way to attack Trump in some fashion when he appointed a new judge during a period when the metoo# movement got rolling. They attack anything he does, even when he removes warhawks from his cabinet to avoid starting a war.

What the Democrats and liberals taught me be back in the 90's is that lying under oath in a court of law does not rise to the "high crimes" standard set in the constitution. That means that the bar for an impeachable offense has to be set damn high, and I don't see it being met in the case of DJT.

You ain't kidding.

As far as invoking the 25th goes, I am troubled with the means of obtaining a diagnosis of mentally unfit. The reason the 25th exists dates back to Woodrow Wilson, who had a near fatal stroke while he was in office and literally could not function. There was no Constitutional means to address such a situation. It was not put there to remove a POTUS because his behavior is eccentric or that his basic intelligence is near that of a moron or imbecile. The public should have taken that into account when they elected him.

I always hear jokes about Gerald Ford's low IQ. I have no idea it was true as I was too young when he was in office.

Did you see the latest moron Trump move? The Idiot in Office asked the president of Ukraine to look into Biden's son. He's so ignorant that he asked a nation that had a major part of their country taken by Russia, a nation Trump has publically spoken of well and shown he is friendly with Vladimir Putin, their enemy.

I want to hear Idhawkmen justify this total ignorant and completely idiotic move that shows a total lack of awareness of recent, highly publicized history that even Idhawkman must have known. I would bet even Idhawkman if were in the office would be looking at Trump saying, "Are you an idiot? You are on record as speaking well of Vladimir Putin and Russian and they took a major portion of Ukraine back. That's why we have sanctions on them. How dumb can you be?"

I want to hear the excuse by Idhawkman on that total moron move just for kicks. Even I can't think of a way to justify that level of stupidity and ignorance. It was mind bogglingly stupid.

[RiverDog]

I always hear jokes about Gerald Ford's low IQ. I have no idea it was true as I was too young when he was in office.

Gerald Ford wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed by any stretch of the imagination. He made a major gaffe in his debate with Jimmy Carter regarding Poland not being under Soviet domination (they were part of the Soviet bloc at the time) but other than that, had a reasonable command of the facts. The "dumb clutz" impression was reinforced when he was shown slipping down the stairs of Air Force One, falling on the ski slopes, and hitting a spectator with a shanked golf shot. Chevy Chase gave a hilarious rendition of Ford on SNL that reinforced this impression even though Ford was arguably one of the better athletes to have held the office.

Did you see the latest moron Trump move? The Idiot in Office asked the president of Ukraine to look into Biden's son. He's so ignorant that he asked a nation that had a major part of their country taken by Russia, a nation Trump has publically spoken of well and shown he is friendly with Vladimir Putin, their enemy.

I want to hear Idhawkmen justify this total ignorant and completely idiotic move that shows a total lack of awareness of recent, highly publicized history that even Idhawkman must have known. I would bet even Idhawkman if were in the office would be looking at Trump saying, "Are you an idiot? You are on record as speaking well of Vladimir Putin and Russian and they took a major portion of Ukraine back. That's why we have sanctions on them. How dumb can you be?"

I want to hear the excuse by Idhawkman on that total moron move just for kicks. Even I can't think of a way to justify that level of stupidity and ignorance. It was mind bogglingly stupid.

Idahawkman has bailed. I have no idea why, other than he got tired of being the sole defender of Trump once burrton bailed. Even though his blind and irrational defense of Trump can be infuriating, I actually miss him.

Trump's reaching out to foreign government to dig up dirt on an opponent's family does not surprise me in the least. Trump feels totally unencumbered by any limitations on his power, and it won't make any difference to his supporters. So long as he represents their ideology, they'll continue to support him no matter what. Trump could pull out an AK-47 and mow down the press corps and people like Idahawkman would find a way to justify it.

[Aseahawkfan]

I heard the idiot in chief was attempting to withhold military aid to Ukraine if the new president didn't help him. If that is the case, the may be able to impeach him and even the Senate might go along. We will see. That would definitely reach the bar of high crimes threatening a foreign ally with withholding support as a way to attack a political opponent. We'll see if it goes anywhere or is just another Trump hot air talk with no real proof.

[I-5]

If there’s nothing wrong with what this president is doing with the president of Ukraine, should Nixon have been impeacheed at all? The crime is just misdemeanor trespassing, and it wasnt even Nixon himself.

[RiverDog]

If there’s nothing wrong with what this president is doing with the president of Ukraine, should Nixon have been impeacheed at all? The crime is just misdemeanor trespassing, and it wasnt even Nixon himself.

Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned before the full House could vote on articles of impeachment.

The "crime" in Nixon's case wasn't trespassing. It was obstruction of justice, and because of the taped conversations, they had the goods on him. There's no similar "smoking gun" in any of the Trump issues, at least none large enough for 20 R Senators to hang their hats on.

[I-5]

None that we know of yet. Also, certain people from Nixon’s party broke ranks in favor of the country, and I don’t see that happening this time.

[RiverDog]

None that we know of yet. Also, certain people from Nixon’s party broke ranks in favor of the country, and I don’t see that happening this time.

Nixon's popularity during Watergate plummeted and hovered around 25-30% for months before he resigned, which is what allowed many of the R's to break ranks. Even before Watergate, Nixon had alienated many Republicans by not campaigning for R candidates during the '72 election, so it didn't take much of a push to get R's to turn on him. Plus the Dems had solid majorities in both Houses, meaning that they would not have had to flip as many R Senators had an impeachment trial occurred.

Trump still enjoys 80%+ support amongst R's and his ratings with all voters has remained remarkably consistent, in the high 30's/40's during his entire presidency no matter what kind of news breaks. Additionally, he's effectively run out the clock on impeachment as the Dems won't risk it during an election year.

[Aseahawkfan]

If there’s nothing wrong with what this president is doing with the president of Ukraine, should Nixon have been impeacheed at all? The crime is just misdemeanor trespassing, and it wasnt even Nixon himself.

If he threatened another foreign leader to get info on a political opponent, I would support impeachment. It has to be something more than hearsay. We will see.

Like I told you, he still hasn't done anything as bad as Bush/Cheney, Reagan/Bush Sr., or Slick Willy/Bilary. So I can't support impeachment if he doesn't rise above them. Talking like an asshat and lying out of his behind isn't enough to impeach imo as past presidents have proven.'

I5, seriously research those folks. They literally did much worse Trump. things that literally lead to to the deaths of tens of thousands. That is way worse than being a total jackass like Trump. Until he starts a war, I won't see him nearly as bad as the others who did start wars and engaged in questionable crap all the time. Talking nice shouldn't get you a pass, just like talking like a jackass shouldn't make people forget there are worse things that presidents do.

I'm looking more at his actions than his words. So far he hasn't been the worst president I"ve seen for policies or actions. Iran/Contra was worse. Bill lying on the witness stand, launching missiles into Iraq to distract from his trial, his questionable associations with China, Whitewater Scandal, his women, the Somalia Blackhawk Down situation,and how former Yugoslavia was handled all pretty awful. Bush/Cheney launching two wars into Afghanistan and Iraq while their corporate associates cleaned up as well as the use of Blackwater and similar mercenary companies are pretty dirty and the Patriot Act and Cheney Doctrine awful. Even Obama's drone killings, continuing of Patriot Act, questionable Iran deal, and Obamacare shove it down our throats mandate I thought was legally questionable.

Trump's a prick. Talks like a huge prick. Does lots of stupid things. But is he really doing anything worse than past administrations? Not from what I know of what past administrations have done.

[Hawktawk]

A I believe the Kavanaugh allegations , always have and always will. If this is the democrats playbook why no such allegations against gorsuch. B trump and Giuliani have admitted Biden was discussed with the Ukrainian leader. No man has been more worthy of impeachment .

[RiverDog]

If he threatened another foreign leader to get info on a political opponent, I would support impeachment. It has to be something more than hearsay. We will see.

I would, too, and it wouldn't have to involve him threatening a leader. Any type of coercion IMO would be an abuse of power.

But it doesn't matter what you and me think. Trump has a core that will never budge no matter what the crime or what kind of proof exists. They'll find some way to rationalize it. That's the main difference between Trump and Nixon. Tricky Dick's base had been eroded. Trump's hasn't.

I'm looking more at his actions than his words. So far he hasn't been the worst president I"ve seen for policies or actions.

I don't like a lot of things Trump has done and I do think he's the worst POTUS's of our time based on his lack of leadership, his moral decay, his dishonesty, and his aggravation of the split we're experiencing that has us at each other's throats. But I do agree that the country hasn't going to hell in a handbasket as some tend to believe.

Trump's a prick. Talks like a huge prick. Does lots of stupid things. But is he really doing anything worse than past administrations? Not from what I know of what past administrations have done.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't judge Trump on his predecessors. I judge him on his own merits. The guy is an abortion.

[I-5]

Is it legal for an elected official to extort, bribe, or accept anything of value from a foreign entity? Is it legal for the DOJ to withhold evidence against a whistleblower complaint? I can understand ID persisiting with his defense, but I don't understand the mental gymnastics to think this president is acting just like any other president. Even republican friends of mine can see that.

[I-5]

Didn't Trump himself admit that he discussed Biden with the Ukraine president, and that he should be investigated BEFORE the aid was approved? I think the timing shows that the aid was finally approved AFTER the whistleblower complaint. If they can connect the dots, this is coercion, extortion, bribery. Trump himself is doing his best to normalize this behavior, but I'll never see it that way.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't like a lot of things Trump has done and I do think he's the worst POTUS's of our time based on his lack of leadership, his moral decay, his dishonesty, and his aggravation of the split we're experiencing that has us at each other's throats. But I do agree that the country hasn't going to hell in a handbasket as some tend to believe.

I'm not going to agree on it. I"m not setting myself up for no Hitler. Hitler was an amazing speaker and well-liked in Germany prior to his atrocities. He was even well-respected by other nations. His actions were awful. When you allow yourself to be manipulated by an extraordinary speaker, you can do evil while thinking you are doing the right thing. I hate those kind of people worse.

Trump's a salesman that managed to win. At least he's anti-war for the most part and most of his trash behavior is awful talk and personal behavior. I'll take that over wars, Patriot Acts, Cheney Doctrines, Iran-Contra, awful deals with Serbia overlooking their extermination of Bosnians, and so many other vile things other administrations have done sold to me by a guy like Reagan, Bush Jr., or Clinton selling me evil behavior with a smiling face and false honesty.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't judge Trump on his predecessors. I judge him on his own merits. The guy is an abortion.

No, but the degree of wrong is something we should measure in a fashion other than personal dislike or hatred. And wars under questionable circumstances that murder tens of thousands of people or deals that lead to the deaths of thousands is worse than lying, saying lots of inflammatory rhetoric, and tweeting stupid things.

So far for all the talk Trump's SCOTUS candidates are fine. His immigration policy isn't much different from previous administrations. Even the pictures of kids in cages was proven to be from Obama's time in office as well as the facilities they were held in. Most of the hyped up stuff was enforcement of our existing laws. I could go on as far as the nonsense ideas that Trump's policies are unique or new, but I won't.

His biggest problem is being a major jackass and treating The White House like his personal business. His lack of awareness of foreign affairs is disturbing as well. Sometimes his pig-headedness is helpful with this refusal to be pushed into war. It is one trait I hope Trump maintains through his presidency. It is a good trait. We don't need to be involved in any stupid wars.

Sorry, I don't see him as the worst. I see him as the biggest narcissistic prick with the biggest mouth to ever hold office. That rubs a ton of people the wrong way and humans being emotionally driven more than intellectually driven will create the experience in their mind that this is worse absent the empirical evidence that it is so due their personal dislike and hatred of the man. Even you think of him as a punk rich kid and I don't recall you saying the same of Bush Jr., when he was also a punk rich kid winning the presidency because of his family lineage.

Trump's a new experience for America. He's polarized people. He's done so in that mostly talk way you see in America divided by Fox News and CNBC. Most of what he's doing is fairly by the book and his avoidance of war so far is to be admired. I hope he avoids war unless we are truly given no choice.

[Aseahawkfan]

Didn't Trump himself admit that he discussed Biden with the Ukraine president, and that he should be investigated BEFORE the aid was approved? I think the timing shows that the aid was finally approved AFTER the whistleblower complaint. If they can connect the dots, this is coercion, extortion, bribery. Trump himself is doing his best to normalize this behavior, but I'll never see it that way.

No. He's saying he discussed corruption. The media is saying he meant Biden. We'll see what a deeper investigation comes up with. Right now it's still in the hearsay stage with lots of word dancing. I'm sure the Dems will be on it since this is the most real and actionable scandal I've seen yet. The women payoffs, the financial records, and the BS Russia Collusion investigation obstruction charge are things I don't think as many will buy into since the Dems are trying to obtain obstruction charges for collusion charges they manufactured. I don't like Trump, but even I don't buy that garbage.

But threatening a leader of an ally nation with witheld aid because they won't investigate a political opponent, that is something that needs to be investigated. If done, he needs to be pushed out. That is something I don't recall any of the aforementioned administrations doing. They weren't dumb enough to do something like that that we know of. That's one of the dumbest acts I've seen given Trump's public stance on Russia and the Ukraine's very public dispute with Russia over parts of Ukraine that is the literally the reason our relationship with Russia is what it is right now. Par for the course that Trump wouldn't be clearly aware that the Ukraine and Russia are enemies and he's viewed as friendly with Russia.

[RiverDog]

So far for all the talk Trump's SCOTUS candidates are fine.

Agreed.

His immigration policy isn't much different from previous administrations.

His position on the border wall is different. It's an obscene waste of money and resources. I'm all for strengthening our border security, but not a $25B wall across 1,000 miles of treeless desert. Additionally, his rhetoric and behavior is Demonizing not just -illegal immigrants, of whom the vast majority are not looking to do us harm, but all immigrants. I'm f-ing tired of trying to reassure my friends that immigrated here that the country doesn't hate them because of something that ass clown Trump says.

His biggest problem is being a major jackass and treating The White House like his personal business. His lack of awareness of foreign affairs is disturbing as well. Sometimes his pig-headedness is helpful with this refusal to be pushed into war. It is one trait I hope Trump maintains through his presidency. It is a good trait. We don't need to be involved in any stupid wars.

Sorry, I don't see him as the worst. I see him as the biggest narcissistic prick with the biggest mouth to ever hold office. That rubs a ton of people the wrong way and humans being emotionally driven more than intellectually driven will create the experience in their mind that this is worse absent the empirical evidence that it is so due their personal dislike and hatred of the man. Even you think of him as a punk rich kid and I don't recall you saying the same of Bush Jr., when he was also a punk rich kid winning the presidency because of his family lineage.

I agree with you on Trump's restraint to engage us in a military conflict.

There's a difference between being a rich kid and being a spoiled rich kid. George W. Bush was born rich like Trump was, but unlike him, he did not act like a spoiled rich kid, banging pornstars then paying them 6 digit hush money, rubbing elbows with high roller scumbags like Epstein, hosting reality TV shows, refer to his daughter as a "piece of ass". Bush's inherited money and fame didn't make him anywhere near as lazy as it made Trump and as such, he actually prepared for speeches and didn't make buffoonish comments about airports in the Revolutionary War, mistake Toledo for Dayton, or botch a hurricane warning then try to modify it with a Sharpie. It's true that neither Trump or Bush never had to earn a paycheck, but only one of them let it go to their head.

Trump's a new experience for America. He's polarized people. He's done so in that mostly talk way you see in America divided by Fox News and CNBC. Most of what he's doing is fairly by the book and his avoidance of war so far is to be admired. I hope he avoids war unless we are truly given no choice.

I don't think Trump's done anything "by the book". He's tried everything he can to get around "the book".

[I-5]

Right now it's still in the hearsay stage with lots of word dancing.

Yes, hearsay to you and me. But I believe people were able to hear the call, hence the whistleblower. Innocent until proven guilty, fine. Let's see where it goes. That goes for both Biden and Trump (the Biden story has already been vetted at least once, with no evidence of wrongdoing). What Trump is being accused of may or may not be legal from a law standpoint, but it does satisfy the grounds for impeachment, something I have so far argued against.

[RiverDog]

The problem with the "Ukraine-gate" scandal is that it's beginning to look like Trump's opponents are operating under the theory that if you throw enough sh!t on the wall, some of it is bound to stick.

I don't like the SOB anymore than anyone else and I do think that he's brought all of it on himself, but it's getting tiresome. We're close enough to the election that the American people can decide for themselves if this stuff rises to the level of impeachment.

[Hawktawk]

Then do away with impeachment . Remove it from the constitution and declare Trump King.

Impeach him,put his bullshit on the evening news night after night, then let the American people decide. That’s what happened to Nixon a couple of years after having been re-elected in a landslide. 4 in ten Americans support impeachment right now. That is way higher than when the proceeding began against Nixon .

Russia will be all in on re-electing Trump anyway and why wouldn’t they be. There’s no guarantee the will of the people will be done . Pence 2019. Impeach now

[RiverDog]

Impeach him,put his bullshit on the evening news night after night, then let the American people decide. That’s what happened to Nixon a couple of years after having been re-elected in a landslide. 4 in ten Americans support impeachment right now. That is way higher than when the proceeding began against Nixon.

Ahh, the Anthony of the OT forum. Although it's true that Nixon's popularity was slightly higher than Trump's in the summer of 1973, in the high 40's, when impeachment proceedings began, Nixon started out at over 70% 5 months earlier following his 2nd term inauguration. Up until Watergate, Nixon was one of the most popular post war Presidents with job approval ratings way above Trump's high water mark. Nixon had a lot farther to fall in order to reach Trump's territory. From February to May of '73, Nixon lost nearly a third of his support by the time the impeachment hearings started, so clearly, public opinion had started to change.

As you yourself have pointed out on many occasions, Trump's job approval rating has never hit 50% since he took office 2.5 years ago and has remained remarkably flat, between the low to mid 40's. Trump's current RCP average is 44.9%. With sub 50% job approval ratings throughout his entire term, a 4-in-10 supporting impeachment is no big deal and does not represent any kind of swing in public opinion. The majority of those 4 out of 10 respondents that answered yes would likely have answered that way at any point in the last 2.5 years.

Come back and talk to me when support for impeachment reaches 6-10 or even 5-10. You're talking about overturning the results of an election, so there needs to be widespread, bipartisan support as there was with Nixon, not minority, one sided support as is currently the case with Trump.

[Hawktawk]

No
There doesn’t. There needs to be high crimes and misdemeanors and good lord that threshold was crossed long ago. It’s not about politics in the constitution . It’s not about the economy or the nation not”going to Hell in a handbasket” it is about a lawless president , a mentally ill president , a man wholly unfit for office in every way. I’m a lonely truth teller. That said calling me Anthony is an extraordinary cheap shot and well beneath your normal fair and cordial demeanor.

[RiverDog]

No
There doesn’t. There needs to be high crimes and misdemeanors and good lord that threshold was crossed long ago. It’s not about politics in the constitution . It’s not about the economy or the nation not”going to Hell in a handbasket” it is about a lawless president , a mentally ill president , a man wholly unfit for office in every way. I’m a lonely truth teller. That said calling me Anthony is an extraordinary cheap shot and well beneath your normal fair and cordial demeanor.

I disagree, completely. Impeachment IS a Constitutional process, not a legal one. 218 Representatives in the House, elected by and responsible to the voters in their districts, need to vote in favor of an article of impeachment in order to forward it to the Senate where at least 67 Senators, elected by and responsible to their respective states, must vote to remove him from office. It's a highly political process that involves politicians not only considering the merits of the charges, but taking into account the opinions of those voters that elected them. Impeachment is not subject to a judge declaring a mistrial, not subject to an appeal, not sequestering a jury so as to isolate them from the press, or many of the other features that exist in our legal system. It is a unique process with major differences to those found in typical American jurisprudence.

I graduated from high school in 1973, so I have very clear recollections about Watergate. There were a number of Republicans that said that one of the things that influenced their thinking was the overwhelming number of telephone calls and telegrams from their constituents to their offices encouraging them to support the impeachment of Richard Nixon. It is a highly political process and public opinion is a huge factor. Impeachment will go no where without a clear majority of Americans supporting it, and 40% is a long, long ways from that as it means convincing more than just the core Trump haters who'd vote for impeachment no matter what.

The reason I called you "Anthony" is because you cherry picked a stat comparing Trump with Nixon. As I demonstrated, the two situations are not analogous. I sincerely apologize if you took that as a cheap shot, but it's the exact type of thing Anthony will do to support his narrative. Besides, is calling you "Anthony" really a cheap shot? Is he that bad of a guy simply because he, like so many others, has an infatuation with a professional athlete very similar to your disdain for DJT? Come on, bro!

[Hawktawk]

His infatuation with Russ makes perfect sense to me. My utter loathing of Trump and everything he does and stands for makes even more sense . 6 in 10 Americans including 4 or 5 percent who give him decent job approval do not believe he deserves a second term. Basically 50% of democrats in the house favor impeaching him
Along with former republican turned independent Justin Amash. What you and all the sheep don’t understand is that it’s about constitutional duty. Even vulnerable Dems are coming around to that . If the republican senate wants to stand and defend this guy let them , including a few who impeached Clinton over a blow job.

[RiverDog]

6 in 10 Americans including 4 or 5 percent who give him decent job approval do not believe he deserves a second term. Basically 50% of democrats in the house favor impeaching him

Neither of those facts justifies overturning an election. Job approval and impeachment are two wholly different subjects. 50% of the Dems in the House represents just 30% of the full House. They're going to need near 100% of all Dems and a good number of R's if their case is strong enough to get 67 votes in the Senate.

Along with former republican turned independent Justin Amash. What you and all the sheep don’t understand is that it’s about constitutional duty. Even vulnerable Dems are coming around to that . If the republican senate wants to stand and defend this guy let them , including a few who impeached Clinton over a blow job.

You and me do not have a "Constitutional duty". I have never taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Have you? The folks with the sworn Constitutional duties are those that we elected to represent us. If you want to impeach Trump, fine. Call your Congressman and Senator. Start a peaceful demonstration. Put a bumper sticker on your car. I have no problem with any of those courses of action. In my opinion, the country has not come along sufficiently enough to get to where you've wanted to go ever since Trump was elected.

[I-5]

Riv, are you saying impeachment is strictly based on the will of the people, and not within congress' judgement as well? What if more people had supported Nixon even after it had been proven that he obstructed justice?

[RiverDog]

Riv, are you saying impeachment is strictly based on the will of the people, and not within congress' judgement as well? What if more people had supported Nixon even after it had been proven that he obstructed justice?

No, of course not. What I am saying is that there's a difference between a Constitutional impeachment and a judicial trial. Like all Congressional matters, at least on the high profile issues, legislators will take into account the opinions of their constituents when formulating a position. Some may already be aligned with their constituents, some may migrate to that position, and others may have and maintain an opposite view. Many will seek out opinions of their constituents by running surveys. Depending on the Congressman or Senator and the issue at hand, it's a mix of both public opinion and their individual will. It's a much different process than a judicial one, where jurors are specifically told and sometimes physically prevented from being influenced by the general population or the media and where judges issue gag orders.

To answer your question regarding Nixon, if he had more popular support (he was at 24% when he resigned), he consequently would have had more support in Congress and almost surely would not have resigned nor removed from office had he been impeached and tried.

[Hawktawk]

Well he’s officially in an impeachment inquiry. And RD I get it, it’s the politicians duty to uphold the constitution and by god they finally cast aside their political expediency knowing it’s damn new impossible to get a senate that has publicly defended every criminal act by the slimiest president ever to vote to remove him.


But it’s a chance they are willing to take even if it gets him re-elected ( highly unlikely) or costs them seats (possible) I don’t see how putting this presidents multitude of crimes on tv every night in front of the low information voters who a majority of already hate him is going to gain him support. As for the senate their unanimous vote calling for the whistleblower complaint to be released to congress well maybe a few of them are beginning g to develop a conscience and a set of balls again. Hoping his head explodes . The tweets ought to be fun.

[Aseahawkfan]

His infatuation with Russ makes perfect sense to me. My utter loathing of Trump and everything he does and stands for makes even more sense . 6 in 10 Americans including 4 or 5 percent who give him decent job approval do not believe he deserves a second term. Basically 50% of democrats in the house favor impeaching him
Along with former republican turned independent Justin Amash. What you and all the sheep don’t understand is that it’s about constitutional duty. Even vulnerable Dems are coming around to that . If the republican senate wants to stand and defend this guy let them , including a few who impeached Clinton over a blow job.

So you call Riverdog sheep because he disagrees with you? Way to be like Trump.

I think that is his biggest legacy. Making folks like you act like him.

[RiverDog]

But it’s a chance they are willing to take even if it gets him re-elected ( highly unlikely) or costs them seats (possible) I don’t see how putting this presidents multitude of crimes on tv every night in front of the low information voters who a majority of already hate him is going to gain him support. As for the senate their unanimous vote calling for the whistleblower complaint to be released to congress well maybe a few of them are beginning g to develop a conscience and a set of balls again. Hoping his head explodes . The tweets ought to be fun.

I don't agree that the chance of getting Trump re-elected if they fail is "highly unlikely." Impeachment is still not a popular option nation wide, especially in the key swing states of Michigan and Pennsylvania. This could very easily backfire as it may take down Biden with him, and if that happens, say hello to President Warren or President Sanders.

I'm gratified that all 100 US Senators have called for the full release of the whistle blower's complaint. So we'll see.

As Idahawkman would say...get out your popcorn!

[Hawktawk]

Most recent polls have somewhere between 50 to
High 50% opposed , 29% in favor , rest undecided. So it’s really a crapshoot depending on what facts emerge and how they are presented. I see no way to make the idiot in Chief a sympathetic figure. He will be lying , tweeting disjointed misspelled garble, calling people names etc, just the sort of behavior that along with his criminality and treason has made him the only modern president never to crack 50% at any point. The senate members are popping off again about quashing any trial without having even heard the evidence .

Oh and one more thing. The trump team will file a motion today stating a sitting president cannot only be indicted but can’t be INVESIGATED!!!!due to the distraction of his duties. The primary legal opinion cited is.......Justice Brett Kavanaugh. AKA the drunk rapist but this was why I opposed him before his sordid youth was revealed . And so it’s come full circle. I’m glad the democrats are doing their constitutional bidding. They are the only people in DC doing it, even if it’s only In this instance.

[RiverDog]

Most recent polls have somewhere between 50 to
High 50% opposed , 29% in favor , rest undecided. So it’s really a crapshoot depending on what facts emerge and how they are presented. I see no way to make the idiot in Chief a sympathetic figure. He will be lying , tweeting disjointed misspelled garble, calling people names etc, just the sort of behavior that along with his criminality and treason has made him the only modern president never to crack 50% at any point. The senate members are popping off again about quashing any trial without having even heard the evidence.

It's premature to see how the public reacts to Pelosi's announcement. We're going to need to see a significant movement off Trump's standard 45%ish job approval ratings in order for a sufficient number of R's to dump him.

I haven't heard any of the R's saying that they'll quash a trial before having heard the evidence. I think you're listening to a lot of speculative talk about what R's could do. Most seem pretty restrained in their comments, preferring to wait until they hear the evidence before they comment. Some have even said that if it's true, it's a very serious matter.

Oh and one more thing. The trump team will file a motion today stating a sitting president cannot only be indicted but can’t be INVESIGATED!!!!due to the distraction of his duties. The primary legal opinion cited is.......Justice Brett Kavanaugh. AKA the drunk rapist but this was why I opposed him before his sordid youth was revealed . And so it’s come full circle. I’m glad the democrats are doing their constitutional bidding. They are the only people in DC doing it, even if it’s only In this instance.

What you are referring to is an argument being made by Trump's legal team regarding the release of his tax returns. It has nothing to do with the subject in the impeachment inquiry.

They are using a decade old opinion from Kavanaugh in the wake of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal regarding the possibility of a law passed by Congress that would delay civil and criminal proceedings against a sitting President as a reference. It was a subject thoroughly vetted during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing and has no relevance to the current situation. The Supreme Court, except for the Chief Justice presiding over a Senate trial, has no role whatsoever in impeachment proceedings.

[Hawktawk]

The motion the trump legal team is presenting this morning indeed cites Kavanaghs opinion on presidential immunity. You are incorrect sir. It’s the only reason trump went to bat for this unqualified unfit man to sit in judgement of us all for the next 3 decades or so, to save his own ass or pave the way for him to commit lawless acts with impunity. And yes high profile repub senators are popping off this morning about fast tracking and basically shutting down a senate trial without dem senators having adequate time to question witnesses. The real key is whether some of the vulnerable repub senators in states where trump is underwater (quite a few) will break ranks and allow a fair hearing. I believe 4 are needed to override McConnell and Pence. Time will tell. I’m still overjoyed this worst most corrupt president in history will likely become the 3rd and by far most deserving recipient of the I award, regardless of the ultimate political ramifications . It’s just about doing the right thing .

[RiverDog]

The motion the trump legal team is presenting this morning indeed cites Kavanaghs opinion on presidential immunity. You are incorrect sir. It’s the only reason trump went to bat for this unqualified unfit man to sit in judgement of us all for the next 3 decades or so, to save his own ass or pave the way for him to commit lawless acts with impunity. And yes high profile repub senators are popping off this morning about fast tracking and basically shutting down a senate trial without dem senators having adequate time to question witnesses. The real key is whether some of the vulnerable repub senators in states where trump is underwater (quite a few) will break ranks and allow a fair hearing. I believe 4 are needed to override McConnell and Pence. Time will tell. I’m still overjoyed this worst most corrupt president in history will likely become the 3rd and by far most deserving recipient of the I award, regardless of the ultimate political ramifications . It’s just about doing the right thing .

You have yet to explain what that has to do with the current impeachment inquiry. There are no courts of law, including the Supreme Court, that have any say in the matter of which we've been discussing. Impeachment is Congress's show, 100%.

You're going over old ground, my friend.

Edit: I should correct myself by saying that there is one circumstance in which SCOTUS might intervene, and that is if Trump were to refuse to turn over evidence that Congress requests, such as the whistleblower complaint. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh's opinion on the outside investigation of a sitting president is irrelevant in such a case.

[Aseahawkfan]

You have yet to explain what that has to do with the current impeachment inquiry. There are no courts of law, including the Supreme Court, that have any say in the matter of which we've been discussing. Impeachment is Congress's show, 100%.

You're going over old ground, my friend.

Edit: I should correct myself by saying that there is one circumstance in which SCOTUS might intervene, and that is if Trump were to refuse to turn over evidence that Congress requests, such as the whistleblower complaint. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh's opinion on the outside investigation of a sitting president is irrelevant in such a case.

Hawktawk is mad with Trump hate. He's like the anti-IDhawkman. You are kinder than I showing patience with the anti-Trump crowd which is just like him: You're with us or against us. You can't be an objective watcher of politics in America under Trump I guess. Either you're his sycophant or you're a sycophant to your Trump hate.

People like us that don't like Trump, but refuse to get caught up in his game are rare.

[RiverDog]

Hawktawk is mad with Trump hate. He's like the anti-IDhawkman. You are kinder than I showing patience with the anti-Trump crowd which is just like him: You're with us or against us. You can't be an objective watcher of politics in America under Trump I guess. Either you're his sycophant or you're a sycophant to your Trump hate.

I appreciate the compliment regarding my patience with others. It helps when you actually like a poster as I do with Hawktalk as well as all the other current participants in this forum.

People like us that don't like Trump, but refuse to get caught up in his game are rare.

I don't know if I'd call selective critics of Trump like us "rare", but there's no doubt that that the nation has become more polarized and more hateful. Gone are the days when political opposites Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey could be best friends.

[I-5]

Speaking of selective critics...

I'll go on record saying I WAS glad that Trump got ONE positive thing done...bipartisan support for criminal justice legislation. Unfortunately, I just read that he's now backing off since it's not giving him the bounce of black support that his son-in-law Kushner told him it would. Great.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/ ... shner.html

I'm also glad he has started addressing the opiod crisis (though I don't agree with some of the tactics). At least he wants to do something. Unfortunately, he's going after punishing low level figures instead of going after the drug companies. But of course, that's the Trump way. At least it's something.
https://www.centeronaddiction.org/the-b ... gIR1_D_BwE