Impeachment

Romney: I take an oath before God as enormously consequential.

Good for him. Good for Amash. Men of honor, who took their duties under the constitution seriously. The rest I think we all know what their obituaries will read.
 
Romney: The president is guilty of a flagrant abuse of public trust ... Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine.

Indeed.

Right still does matter. For a very small number of Republicans. As for me, I am very happy I changed my party registration the summer of 2016.
 
Last edited:
1st Senator in history to vote to convict a POTUS of their own party.

Highlighting the silliness of those saying (D) should have waited - shooting their shot too early.
(R) was never going to convict
Thinking so is historically ignorant.

As to Pelosi tearing up the speech --so what
As to (R) chanting 4 more years --- so what

As to Joe Wilson yelling "you lie" --- that was when the civility in the chamber should have been addressed. Or when that Senator in the 19th century beat his fellow with a cane.
 
Last edited:
I guess it doesn’t take much these days, but I was genuinely impressed by Romney’s speech, his decision, and his reasoning.

I guess one slightly cynical note is that he doesn’t have to worry about post-politics employment, etc.

Makes the Murkowski/Collins/Gardner crowd look small, and the rest of the Rs downright craven.
 
Romney laid it out perfectly. If their names were anything but Biden IMPOTUS would not have cared about the investigations. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a very bad liar
 
57Brave said:
1st Senator in history to vote to convict a POTUS of their own party.

Highlighting the silliness of those saying (D) should have waited - shooting their shot too early.
(R) was never going to convict
Thinking so is historically ignorant.

As to Pelosi tearing up the speech --so what
As to (R) chanting 4 more years --- so what

As to Joe Wilson yelling "you lie" --- that was when the civility in the chamber should have been addressed. Or when that Senator in the 19th century beat his fellow with a cane.
Click to expand...

It wasn't about conviction. It don't believe it ever truly was. What it most certainly was about was letting the public hear the testimonies from high ranking officials and keeping the hear on Trump during a re-election bid. The Dems absolutely shot their wad too early too early here.
 
Carp said:
It wasn't about conviction. It don't believe it ever truly was. What it most certainly was about was letting the public hear the testimonies from high ranking officials and keeping the hear on Trump during a re-election bid. The Dems absolutely shot their wad too early too early here.
Click to expand...

I get what you’re saying, but there’s not any reason to think that they could have gotten testimony from any high-ranking official without a court fight that would have dragged on beyond the election. ****ing Bolton only volunteered his testimony after the articles had already been sent. Is there another high-ranking official who would move the needle whose testimony could have been had with merely a subpoena?
 
“I have found, in business in particular but also in politics, that when something is in your personal best interests, the ability of the mind to rationalize that that’s the right thing is really quite extraordinary,” Mr. Romney said. “I have seen it in others and I have seen it in myself.”

As Mr. Romney revealed on the Senate floor how he would cast his votes, Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, dabbed at his eyes.

“I had an instinct,” he said afterward, “that this might be a moment.”

“He’s been grappling with it,” added Senator Mike Braun, Republican of Indiana, who sits next to Mr. Romney on the Senate floor. He said that he respects Mr. Romney’s decision.

The lead-up to Mr. Romney’s announcement was a rare cliffhanger in a process whose ultimate conclusion — the president’s acquittal — was never seriously in doubt.

Mr. Romney’s address, a copy of which his office provided Wednesday afternoon on an embargoed basis, called the actions of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “unsavory but also not a crime.” He added that Mr. Trump’s lawyers provided no evidence that a crime was committed by either of the Bidens.

“The president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit,” Mr. Romney said. “There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have done what he did.”

When asked Wednesday morning if he had any special flourishes planned for his speech, Mr. Romney just shrugged. “I’m planning on tearing it up when I’m finished,” he quipped, a reference to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s response to the President’s State of the Union address Tuesday night.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/politics/romney-convict-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I agree that Hunter Biden's trading on his father's name was unsavory. However, one of the underplayed aspects of this is how a private citizen (Hunter Biden) became a play thing for a president. Do we really want to live in a country where a private citizen becomes a target like that for a president's whims. Isn't that effectively a bill of attainder. And wasn't the fight against bills of attainder part of what the Revolutionary War was all about.
 
Last edited:
Manchin: “I have always wanted this President, and every President to succeed, but I deeply love our country and must do what I think is best for the nation.”

Also a courageous vote in light of the politics of West Virginia.
 
Now that this **** is legalized how about Democrats send a letter to Qatar telling them how deeply worried they are about corruption in their country, specifically they are concerned about the company they have a large stake in that bought a 99 year lease 1 billion dollars up front from Jared Kushner on a property he was about to default on. Why were they suddenly blockaded out of nowhere a few years ago? That was odd. Might it have been a pressure campaign after they tried to turn down Jared? Well as Congressmen they have a constitutional duty to ensure they are not giving aid to a corrupt country. Now that its settled that asking a foreign government to investigate a political rival is legal, lets bring it on.
 
84655541_10156818706496464_2975370785083883520_n.jpg
 
Carp said:
It wasn't about conviction. It don't believe it ever truly was. What it most certainly was about was letting the public hear the testimonies from high ranking officials and keeping the hear on Trump during a re-election bid. The Dems absolutely shot their wad too early too early here.
Click to expand...

there we agree.

It wasn't about conviction -- it was about reeling in a rogue President. Calling him to task for blatant/admitted high crimes and misdemeanors.
The eventual jury is the voters --- if 2018 is any indicator

The (R) Senate that gave Kavanaugh a pass was never going to convict/expel Trump.
The Senate that never pressed McConnell on Merrick Garland was never going to convict /expel trump

And who will be on trial in November ?
Collins, Gardner, Graham, Cornyn , Sasse, McSalley, Ernst, Tillis, Capito, Perdue and of course McConnell. Etal

Each in varying degrees, vulnerable

A week before New Hampshire this was their first statement for re election.
All year now, McSalley etal has to run against her acquittal vote.
Politically speaking that is called making lemonade.
 
Carp said:
It wasn't about conviction. It don't believe it ever truly was. What it most certainly was about was letting the public hear the testimonies from high ranking officials and keeping the hear on Trump during a re-election bid. The Dems absolutely shot their wad too early too early here.
Click to expand...

We agree. But i don't agree the dems shot too early.

The McGahn subpoena lasted 8 months before resolution. If they subpoenaed Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, Guiliani, etc. in Jan or December, they are looking at potentially waiting until July or August. We all know the GOP would just complain about the process dragging in an election year. So they went the expedited route still without rushing. They had hearings closed and public and the GOP still says they rushed the impeachment.

The thing the House Dems didn't anticipate was the fact the "moderate" GOP senators had no spines other than Romney. It must be truly depressing to know that those moderate senators who are always talking country first put party over country.
 
And Trump just linked the freeze in NY travel program to the states investigation into his tax fraud. He learned something alright. He learned nothing he does will get him removed via impeachment. Thankfully he saved us the trouble of subpoenaing records and just admitted it on twitter.
 
The Chosen One said:
We agree. But i don't agree the dems shot too early.

The thing the House Dems didn't anticipate was the fact the "moderate" GOP senators had no spines other than Romney. It must be truly depressing to know that those moderate senators who are always talking country first put party over country.
Click to expand...

Pelosi is a vote counter supreme. She knew she didn't have the votes in the House this time a year ago and knew all along she wouldn't have the (R) in the Senate.
Even Romney was touvh and go until the vote was counted
What she now has is those moderate (R) on record/on the run, answering questions they might not had to answer during an election.

There are upwards of 10 Senate seats that are get-able where a year ago that number might have been 3 or less.
 
cajunrevenge said:


And Romney is voting for the subpoena. I don't know why Hunter would show up. Congressional subpoenas are not enforced.
Click to expand...

Is Hunter being subpoenaed. I dont think so. But if he is the proper response is to ignore it. Go to jail. Become a political prisoner. That would be the best thing he could do to help his father's campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top