RIP -- Elijah Cummings, Congressman, Baltimore Maryland

 

I hope this mention will be OK here as Cummings has been a very high profile figure in the impeachment process up till now, and I doubt his death will merit a news feed topic. Indeed he was the CHAIRMAN of the The House Oversight and Reform Committee.

 

A very distinguished democratic party congressman with an exceptional career. He will be missed by many and not only Baltimoreans. Aside from the personal loss I think its too bad he won't live to see the outcome of the impeachment process that he has been so involved in.

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elijah-cummings-esteemed-longtime-baltimore-congressman-died-68-today-2019-10-17/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Cummings

 

I'm leaning towards no impeachment.

 

He'll have to resign.

 

I have to say that the pace of his mental decline is startling.

 

Sad.

I'm leaning towards no impeachment.

You and Nancy both.

Mulvaney Confirms Ukraine Aid Held Up for Political Purposes

ACTING WHITE HOUSE chief of staff Mick Mulvaney acknowledged Thursday that the White House indeed had held up congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to get the nation to investigate alleged Democratic misdeeds in the 2016 campaign, undercutting President Donald Trump's angry and repeated insistence that there was "no quid pro quo."

"The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate," Mulvaney told reporters at the White House.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-10-17/mick-mulvaney-confirms-ukraine-aid-held-up-for-political-purposes

On 10/16/2019 at 8:01 PM, Sujo said:

Conviction in the senate will only have a chance if polls show around 60% of the public want it. If that doesnt happen trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still the senate would not convict.

 

But what it will do is show the public how bad trump is, and to win election they dont need that big a % to vote him out.

Actually, it depends on the % of GOP senators voters that want them to vote against Trump. No senator that faces re election is going to vote against their self interest, IMO. They are after all politicians. No statesmen around anymore, IMO.

 

To vote Trump out in the election requires a Dem candidate or independent candidate that people believe in, and so far that person hasn't appeared.

If any of the current lot stand, it's everyone else against the coasts, IMO, and Trump wins again.

However, if they find another Bernie or Jack Kennedy, Trump is history. Biden or Warren just are not the cheese, but who can say what will happen in the coming months. We live in interesting times. The Dems must be tearing out their hair they can't find a universally popular candidate. Which of course, IMO, is why they are going for broke on the impeachment. If they can convict Trump they only have to deal with Pence, though he would probably win anyway.

 

Surely no one believes that the voters didn't know he was a bad guy before the last election? They voted for him because he was a better bad choice than the opposing candidate, IMO.

 

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Mulvaney Confirms Ukraine Aid Held Up for Political Purposes

ACTING WHITE HOUSE chief of staff Mick Mulvaney acknowledged Thursday that the White House indeed had held up congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to get the nation to investigate alleged Democratic misdeeds in the 2016 campaign, undercutting President Donald Trump's angry and repeated insistence that there was "no quid pro quo."

"The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate," Mulvaney told reporters at the White House.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-10-17/mick-mulvaney-confirms-ukraine-aid-held-up-for-political-purposes

How about including the rest of what he said? You are only telling the part that benefits your side of the argument.

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I think its too bad he won't live to see the outcome of the impeachment process that he has been so involved in.

Well, he won't be disappointed when it fails and Trump is elected for another 4 years, IMO.

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How about including the rest of what he said? You are only telling the part that benefits your side of the argument.

That is all that he said. There was a quid pro quo. Reporters asked him several times to give him a chance to clarify or change and

 he kept on saying it. Then finally said thats the way its done, get over it.

 

He was very open about what was done.

 

only later after he was told the truth should not be told did he try to walk it back. But not successfully.

How about including the rest of what he said? You are only telling the part that benefits your side of the argument.

Shocking...

only later after he was told the truth should not be told did he try to walk it back. But not successfully.

Why was Adam Schiff advising him?

There will be no impeachment because Nancy doesn't have the votes.  This is just another part of the smear campaign against Trump.  They can't beat him on the issues so the smear campaign is all they have.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How about including the rest of what he said? You are only telling the part that benefits your side of the argument.

How about this definition of a gaffe?

"A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit. The term comes from journalist Michael Kinsley, who said, "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_gaffe

36 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

There will be no impeachment because Nancy doesn't have the votes.  This is just another part of the smear campaign against Trump.  They can't beat him on the issues so the smear campaign is all they have.

Ahhhh you do know that half of Donald’s scandals are created to distract from the issues because he is failing a few examples health care ,trade ,infrastructure ,taxes ,immigration ,race relations ,the other half are from shear incompetence they have more than enough in the house and the senate will come around imo

Ahhhh you do know that half of Donald’s scandals are created to distract from the issues because he is failing a few examples health care ,trade ,infrastructure ,taxes ,immigration ,race relations ,the other half are from shear incompetence they have more than enough in the house and the senate will come around imo

Yes, the left is doing all they can to stop him from doing anything.

You must be proud

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

That is all that he said. There was a quid pro quo. Reporters asked him several times to give him a chance to clarify or change and

 he kept on saying it. Then finally said thats the way its done, get over it.

 

He was very open about what was done.

 

only later after he was told the truth should not be told did he try to walk it back. But not successfully.

Local news service gave us both sides of the story.

 

"successfully" depends on which side you are sitting. I found it satisfactory.

 

IMO won't change anything, as a "trial" in the senate would surely allow Trump's team to give similar examples of what the Dems have done in the past.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

How about this definition of a gaffe?

"A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit. The term comes from journalist Michael Kinsley, who said, "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_gaffe

Why did you quote me when you ignored what I posted?

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Local news service gave us both sides of the story.

 

"successfully" depends on which side you are sitting. I found it satisfactory.

 

IMO won't change anything, as a "trial" in the senate would surely allow Trump's team to give similar examples of what the Dems have done in the past.

Can you cite some similar examples? Or is this just another instance of faith-based Trumpism?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, it depends on the % of GOP senators voters that want them to vote against Trump. No senator that faces re election is going to vote against their self interest, IMO. They are after all politicians. No statesmen around anymore, IMO.

 

Joni Ernst, Corey Gardner, Susan Collins are polling quite poorly over the past week or so.

 

Still a big enough back-stop to allow some GOPers to convict in order to salvage their re-election.

 

BTW, It (conviction) requires two-thirds of senators present for the proceedings. And not 67.

 

 

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Local news service gave us both sides of the story.

 

"successfully" depends on which side you are sitting. I found it satisfactory.

 

IMO won't change anything, as a "trial" in the senate would surely allow Trump's team to give similar examples of what the Dems have done in the past.

Trump's team, who will be on it? Giuliani has thrwon himself under the bus, the new guy has already withdrawn. Won't be much of a team left.

8 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Joni Ernst, Corey Gardner, Susan Collins are polling quite poorly over the past week or so.

 

Still a big enough back-stop to allow some GOPers to convict in order to salvage their re-election.

 

BTW, It (conviction) requires two-thirds of senators present for the proceedings. And not 67.

 

 

If any GOP senator absented themselves from a vote without some absolutely amazing reason, the voters will take revenge on them anyway.

Interesting times we live in indeed.

 

It's becoming apparent that the house will, in the absence of some unknown reason, uphold impeachment. IMO they know that if they don't after all the uproar they'll look like fools, and it's even possible that enough GOP senators could be persuaded to convict to remove him, but IMO they'll try and delay it as long as possible, as every day between Trump being removed and the new president being sworn in next January will be a day for Pence to be in charge, and I don't think he'll be as reticent as Trump in bringing the hammer down on the Dems.

IMO, the Dems will rue the day they removed Trump through impeachment and not at the ballot box.

Be careful what you wish for.

Can you cite some similar examples? Or is this just another instance of faith-based Trumpism?

Yes, thousands, but they would all be termed deflections, off-topic, but-but-but, ad nausea

23 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

I'm leaning towards no impeachment.

 

He'll have to resign.

 

I have to say that the pace of his mental decline is startling.

 

Sad.

He'll have to resign because.....

On 10/16/2019 at 11:12 AM, Opl said:

 

Trump Just Blamed Barack Obama For His Impeachment

 

Sarah Reese Jones

 

✔ @PoliticusSarah

 

 

Trump claims Obama conspired against him in 2016 and appears to blame Barack Obama for his impeachment in a rambling mess of self-pity word salad.

 

 

129

5:45 PM - Oct 16, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

98 people are talking about this

 

There is no impeachment. Nancy won't even hold an inquiry vote. The only thing that has changed in the years-long "GET TRUMP!" obsession of Democrats is they've decided to put lipstick on the pig and say they're having an impeachment inquiry.

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If any GOP senator absented themselves from a vote without some absolutely amazing reason, the voters will take revenge on them anyway.

Interesting times we live in indeed.

 

It's becoming apparent that the house will, in the absence of some unknown reason, uphold impeachment. IMO they know that if they don't after all the uproar they'll look like fools, and it's even possible that enough GOP senators could be persuaded to convict to remove him, but IMO they'll try and delay it as long as possible, as every day between Trump being removed and the new president being sworn in next January will be a day for Pence to be in charge, and I don't think he'll be as reticent as Trump in bringing the hammer down on the Dems.

IMO, the Dems will rue the day they removed Trump through impeachment and not at the ballot box.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

The funny thing is the more articles of impeachment they bring will only be dismissed in the senate. So by all means throw the kitchen sink at Trump. Then when the senate tosses it out there is no ammo left.

He will never resign!  If he looses the election they will probably have to carry him out of the White House in a straight jacket with him screaming "DEEP STATE, FAKE NEWS"!

On 10/15/2019 at 4:46 PM, wayned said:

I think that Pelosi realizes this and it is why she held off endorsing the impeachment inquiry until other members of the house "convinced" her too.  What she is now hoping is that there will be enough evidence of Trump's abuse of power that, even if the Senate doesn't remove him, it will sway some of the folks in middle America to not vote for Trump.  It's a big gamble, nut what's the other choice now that the inquiry is formally started.

The inquiry hasn't formally started. That's the big con.

1 minute ago, wayned said:

He will never resign!  If he looses the election they will probably have to carry him out of the White House in a straight jacket with him screaming "DEEP STATE, FAKE NEWS"!

 

After he wins in 2020 Ivanka or Eric can carry the torch in 2024. They are as sharp as nails compared to anybody the dems have with the exception perhaps of Pete or Tulsi. 

On 10/14/2019 at 10:28 AM, heybruce said:

And Trump's bragging about all the money he's made from Russian's, negotiating a real estate deal with Moscow while running his "let's be friends with Russia" campaign, defiance of precedent and not releasing his tax returns, etc., is cause enough to find out what is going on.

 

President's Zelensky's request for military aid, bet with a "do us a favor" response followed by a request for an investigation of discredited conspiracy theories is a request for illegal campaign help.

What's wrong with making money from Russians? What's wrong with doing a real estate deal in Moscow? What's wrong with wanting to be friends with Russia? I seem to recall another US politician who was $145 million friendly with Russia.

 

As for your assertion about a discredited conspiracy theory, that is flat out FALSE.

What's wrong with making money from Russians? What's wrong with doing a real estate deal in Moscow? What's wrong with wanting to be friends with Russia? I seem to recall another US politician who was $145 million friendly with Russia.
 
As for your assertion about a discredited conspiracy theory, that is flat out FALSE.

Yeah remember, the ‘80s called, and they want their foreign policy back.

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

The inquiry hasn't formally started. That's the big con.

The witnesses that have given evidence dont agree with you.