Humanist.com

5 3

Pelosi refused to put the Bush Admin on trial for lying about WMDs in Iraq and now she's refusing to put the Trump on trial for his obvious lies. And the Democratic Party is falling in line behind her.

Whose side are the Democrats really on when the Republicans can lie and obstruct justice and the Democrats are trying to find a way to handle it in a way that doesn't offend the offenders.

By redbai6
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

since they are corporatists the answer is pretty obvious. they're just pawns in the corporatocracy.

1

The long standing Democrats are Republicans. As the shifting political landscape favors a move to the left, and further to the left, those former centrists and barely left-ists are just Republicans with a blue dot beside their names.

DINO ???
(democrat in name only)

@BeerAndWine Ha! Brilliant & funny. 😛

1

My guess they are playing what they see as a long game. They don't want to tire their voter populace with a protracted impeachment hearing. Especially as they do not control the Senate. The last time impeachment proceedings were leveled (Bill Clinton) it did not turn out well at the polls for the party who intiated it (Republicans).

t1nick Level 8 Apr 15, 2019

The "long game" is allowing him to break the laws and implant judges that will swing the courts to the right. What's the goal of this "long game" and why should the American public have to suffer a mad man in office while their playing a "game"? People's lives are at stake. The man is destroying the country and they're playing some long game that has no defined ending?

@redbai Agreed, but until we gain control of the Senate, we are hamstrung

@t1nick That's like saying that until the jury says they will convict we won't have a trial to present the evidence. That's contrary to how law is adjudicated in this country.

1

Lying itself isn't a crime... All politicians lie while campaigning for office... Then they lie some more when they are elected.... She needs proof of a crime before putting Trump on trial.... Investigations are ongoing...

They do not need proof of a crime before impeachment proceedings can begin. What's the point of investigations when there are mountains of evidence in the public record that he broke the law.

His holding on to his hotel in Washington DC is a violation of the emoluments clause. There's no need for an investigation regarding that, it's happening right in front of us. He's on record as telling the people that he fired the FBI Director because of an investigation of Trump's campaign for working with Russia. Trump told Russia on national television to find Hilliary's emails and the next day Russia started trying. He created a National Emergency because he couldn't get money he wanted with the extortion of closing the government and is trying to illegally transfer funds to build his wall anyway.

If this wasn't a pseudo-rich white guy, he'd be in prison by now let alone impeached.

@redbai what he said in public is irrelevant because he was not swore to tell the truth... He was not under the oath to tell to the truth in a court of law... He can claim it's strategy...

@Cutiebeauty I'm not stuck on what he's saying in public, I'm talking about his actions in public. Making money off his office is against the law. Promising pardons to people he tells to break the law is against the law. Obstructing justice is against the law. These are just a partial list of the laws that he has broken.

@redbai that's what's he is suspected of doing... But the evidence has to be found that proves he's done all these crimes... Right now, it's speculation... Thus, the investigations...

@Cutiebeauty All laws are only "suspected" broken until proven within a reasonable doubt in a court of law. So if they don't bring him to court to present the evidence, how are we supposed to find out if he broke the law?

@redbai but they need objective evidence before going to court... If he is put on trial too soon, without enough evidence, then it's all over... Double Jeopardy...

@Cutiebeauty What makes you think they don't have objective evidence?

[rootsaction.org]

There's plenty of evidence that this man has broken laws. If he weren't a pseudo-rich white man, there wouldn't even be a discussion about whether or not he could be convicted. And there is no Double Jeopardy in impeachment proceedings. The House can do it as many times as they want to.

@redbai ok... Good article... So they do have some objective evidence, in fact, quite a bit... So then, that certainly isn't the problem. . Thanks for posting this link...
So, maybe they won't take him to trial for political reasons? I've no idea... Also, what does impeachment do exactly? I've read somewhere that a president can be I impeached yet remain the president...

@Cutiebeauty Impeachment removes him from office and bars him from holding any other public office in the land. It also takes away the DOJs excuses for prosecuting him for his crimes.

@redbai do you have a link for that please?

@Cutiebeauty Check the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3
[famous-trials.com]

@redbai thanks! That cleared up some things for me 😊

@Cutiebeauty

0

I pin my hopes toward the NY inquiry into Trumps crimes. Perhaps they are afraid of a Trump victory in 2020. Then there is no way for to escape the culling to come.

Croebheir Level 6 Apr 15, 2019

I don't understand that logic. How does trying to impeach Trump enhance his ability to win in 2020? When the House threatened to impeach Nixon, he quit and the republicans lost the next Presidential election. When the House impeached Clinton, the Republicans won the White House with GW Bush. Where is the historical validation of the logic that attempting to impeach a President helps the president's party in the next election?

The logic also ignores the fact that an impeachment trial immediately allows for the Income Tax Returns and the Mueller Report. Bot would be entered into evidence without redaction. Once both documents are out the republicans would have to defend whatever is found in them.

The logic just doesn't work. And if we waited for proof that a jury was going to convict before having trials, no one would ever be put on trial, so the logic of waiting for republicans to agree before a trial is also bogus.

@redbai Not about logic. About image and values.

@redbai The logic is that Trump has large power at this point. That in itself goes beyond logic and into the dark realm of (insider) corruption that politicians dems/repubs both have an ear to. Wiping out enemies or perceived enemies is one of Trumps priority agendas. That's why I think the dems are going soft on Trump and repubs. Impeachment is on the back burner while dems are back walking/talking their hard stand.Historical validation/logic is obliviated in this atmosphere.

Your second paragraph makes sense to me, noted! I would like to see taxes and Mueller docs and have them used to bring Trump to just-us.

I'll pass on your third paragraph. NA imo.

@ToolGuy IOW, you don't understand it, you just accept what they are telling you will happen.

@Croebheir Trump has "large power" because the Democrats are to cowardly to weld their own.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:331357'.
Humanist does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • Humanist.com is a non-profit community for humanists!