7 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

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


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


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


I think Ms Pelosi is being politically prudent, rather than attempting to not offend the offenders. There is no point in putting tRump on trial (i.e. impeachment) until at least a portion of Republican lawmakers can be convinced of his wrong doing. It took substantial effort over many months before there was any Republican disenchantment with Nixon. Hopefully, the Mueller Report will be a stepping stone towards impeachment.

I don't understand that logic. You don't put someone on trial unless you know what the verdict is going to be before the evidence is even presented in a coherent manner? That makes no sense to me at all. People keep saying it, but they don't explain why it makes any sense at all given that impeachment trials have never hurt the party doing the impeachment.

@redbai The impeachment of any President is a political act as much as it is a legal one. POTUS is a special case, not at all similar to the legal status of anyone else. An impeachment has as much to do with irrational emotions as it does with any right or wrong doing. The first President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson, who became President upon Lincoln's assassination. Johnson was impeached solely on political grounds. He was never charged with a crime, but because his actions as a Southerner towards the South angered the Congress.

@TheAstroChuck This isn't anything at all like Andrew Johnson. There are demonstrable crimes that Trump has committed and he is in blatant violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. Clinton was impeached for purely political reasons too and the Republicans couldn't get Democrats to go along with them so Clinton was never convicted. That didn't stop the Republicans from winning the next presidency.

So again. Where is the down side of attempting to impeach a demonstrable criminal from the presidency? It has NEVER proven to be political suicide regardless of the party so why is that a reasonable rationale now?

@redbai I agree that Andrew Johnson and tRump cases are totally different. It was meant to show the political aspects of impeaching a president. The impeachment of Clinton did reduce the Republican majority the House and the net loss of 4 Republicans in the Senate, resulting in a 50-50 split, which forced VP Chaney to be present on critical votes. Moreover, that impeachment led to a deeper and more divided electorate. When Obama took office, the Republican leadership decided on inauguration day, to vigorously oppose POTUS on every issue big or small and independent of whether the Republicans thought it benefitted the US or not. Today, Republicans (and to a large extent the Democrats) put party over nation on most issues. Moreover, too many legislative actions are voted strictly along party lines. For example, it only takes 51 Senators to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. So the trends favor a much greater downside backlash from an impeachment.

It was extremely difficult to get any Republican support for impeachment of Nixon right up until the very end. In tRump's case, it will be necessary to get sufficient smoking-gun evidence from Mueller and other investigations. You and I know tRump is already worthy of impeachment and a Senate trial, but virtually no Republicans are. The downside of starting impeachment proceedings now could well insight an actual civil war resulting in numerous deaths.

@TheAstroChuck Sorry, not buying it. It sounds like scare tactics to keep the nation from doing the right thing. I'm more afraid of a lawless President than I am a political war. If kicking Trump out of office starts a civil war then this country needs a civil war. But i don't for a second believe it will come to that and I certainly don't believe that such a fear (without a shred of evidence to back it up) should keep the nation from expelling an incredibly bad leader that is literally destroying all norms of decency. This is the same logic that allowed Wall Street execs to collect million dollar bonuses after the 2008 recession. Fear that the people who got us into the trouble being removed would so upset the markets that the nation couldn't take it. To Big To Fail and couldn't be angered by taking their bonuses for screwing up the economy. Now we are apparently applying the phrase to criminals who are running the country.

Sorry, but that's pathetic and only seems to apply when rich white men are the culprits.

@redbai Not to put to fine of a point on it, but we are in an extremely precarious position currently. Our politics, our economy, and even our government are indeed pathetic. We are facing serious and significant problems on several fronts, all without solutions. We are on the precipice of a collapse of the entire Western Industrialized Civilization. That is monumental with horrific consequences.

I fully expect another economic unraveling leading to a 2008-style recession to begin unfolding any month now. This time, however, the US government will not have the juice to reverse course and the US economy will collapse, followed in a year or two later by the collapse of the US government. The turn of events will be reminiscent of the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Similar to the Soviet Union, the US will fragment into several smaller regions and/or states going their separate ways. There will likely be military conflicts between the various portions of the US. Most of it former citizens will enter a famine state. Most European nations and several nations of the Pacific Rim are in similar straights.

As much as I would like to see the US return to it former glory with values such as human rights reinvigorated, I don't see any possibility of that happening.

@TheAstroChuck I find it interesting that you believe that America's "former glory" included more than lip service to "values such as human rights". It has not been my experience that anything besides rhetoric even implied such an America existed. The only difference I see now is that the leadership of the country isn't giving that lip service anymore.

But I also see another side. I see young people in the Democratic Party fighting for those values because they believed the rhetoric they were taught in school and actually want the country to represent those values. That's what AOC and Omar are in my mind. The voice of the future. The voices that are calling forth the positive path to a the country we pretend this once was. The evidence that change is on the wind.

The problem is that the Democratic Leadership is still using the ideas and processes filled with racist and misogynistic practices instead of defending these new leaders and even attempting to make those who are tearing down the rule of law, pay for their actions.

@redbai Yes, I knew that "former glory" statement would get me into trouble. With regards to human rights, most of it was (and is) lip service by many people. I view it in a Tale Of Two Cities fashion - significant progress has been made over the last half of the 20th century in some ways, but in many other ways it has not.

My clumsy attempt at "former glory" was intended to mean if the US had the economic wherewithal to implement reforms and to respond to disasters. Today, the US is not and is unable to respond adequately to natural disasters or to implement needed reforms. AOC and Omar will be the voice of the future if the US has a future.


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. 😛


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.


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?


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

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



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
Humanist does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer
  • Humanist.com is the largest non-profit community for humanists!