* * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *

[OhioLawyer]

I'm just happy the democrats are too pre-occupied with their war on Trump to get anything else accomplished. I'm ok sacrificing Trump since he's a terrible human being, if it means we can avoid the horrendous policies the democrats are espousing.

[OhioLawyer]

Handy's **** is love, Handy's **** is life

[CitizenSoldier3]

Hey hosers and posers 

[Turboweasle]

I'm just happy the democrats are too pre-occupied with their war on Trump to get anything else accomplished. I'm ok sacrificing Trump since he's a terrible human being, if it means we can avoid the horrendous policies the democrats are espousing.

What do you expect them to get done with the Senate and Presidency held by Republicans?

[OhioLawyer]

I'm just happy the democrats are too pre-occupied with their war on Trump to get anything else accomplished. I'm ok sacrificing Trump since he's a terrible human being, if it means we can avoid the horrendous policies the democrats are espousing.

What do you expect them to get done with the Senate and Presidency held by Republicans?

Hopefully nothing. But you'd be surprised what can be acquiesced to if it isn't too controversial. You think I trust the Republican senate or Trump to be the gatekeepers? No thank you. I feel much better with them not even attempting to push their agenda (and quite frankly I also don't want the republican agenda being pushed through either).

[OhioLawyer]

Handy's **** is love, Handy's **** is life

[Turboweasle]

I'm just happy the democrats are too pre-occupied with their war on Trump to get anything else accomplished. I'm ok sacrificing Trump since he's a terrible human being, if it means we can avoid the horrendous policies the democrats are espousing.

What do you expect them to get done with the Senate and Presidency held by Republicans?

Hopefully nothing. But you'd be surprised what can be acquiesced to if it isn't too controversial. You think I trust the Republican senate or Trump to be the gatekeepers? No thank you. I feel much better with them not even attempting to push their agenda (and quite frankly I also don't want the republican agenda being pushed through either).

Fair enough.  I was asking in good faith since, from my perspective, with there being no real way for Democrats to actually push legislation into law, impeachment is about the only productive thing they could really be doing right now.

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the Democrats' agenda?  And the Republicans'?

[OhioLawyer]

You think drafting impeachment charges is productive? It's literally a foregone conclusion that the senate will acquit. The house knew that going in. This is purely a political play and the democrats think it will help them in the next election. It will be interesting to see if their gamble pays off. Because it's just as likely from my perspective that it might end up backfiring. But don't think for one second this is about doing what's right. If that were true, sure, I'd agree doing what's right is productive even if you know it won't bring any results. But that isn't what this is about.

[Turboweasle]

You think drafting impeachment charges is productive? It's literally a foregone conclusion that the senate will acquit. The house knew that going in.

I don't know that we can say that definitively.  It would only take a few Republican senators to join the Democrats to invoke using a secret ballot, and if that happens then the vote to convict becomes a whole lot more interesting.

This is purely a political play and the democrats think it will help them in the next election.

Not sure that that's true - Speaker Pelosi had to be pressured into letting the impeachment proceedings take place at all, since she thought it was the wrong move.  She's been (at least publicly) very reluctant about the whole thing.

It will be interesting to see if their gamble pays off. Because it's just as likely from my perspective that it might end up backfiring. But don't think for one second this is about doing what's right. If that were true, sure, I'd agree doing what's right is productive even if you know it won't bring any results. But that isn't what this is about.

I think whether or not it's morally right (which by my reading is how you're using "right") is irrelevant.  The Democratic majority in the House was voted in on a wave of very strong anti-Trump sentiment, so it could be argued that the Democrats are doing right by their constituents by impeaching Trump.  If I had a Dem representative I know I'd want to see his/her name on the list of Yea votes, since that was my primary motivation in voting Dem in the midterms.


Also, not sure if you didn't see this or just didn't want to remark on it, but in case of the former:

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the Democrats' agenda?  And the Republicans'?

[OhioLawyer]

Pelosi having to be pressured into the proceedings supports my point, though. She understands like I do that it's very possible this will backfire. Her position wasn't that she doesn't want Trump impeached, because we all know she does, but rather that it is the political ramifications that are driving her actions.

Also, anti-Trump sentiment and thinking impeachment is proper are two very different things. Sure, many house dems were voted in because constituents don't like Trump. That's a long leap from there to impeaching a sitting president. I haven't liked several presidents in the past during my voting years. I have even found some to have acted so far from the constitution that it's a serious travesty. But I also didn't think impeachment was appropriate. That is for specific criminal conduct, not just because I don't like their policy, or even find it to be abusive to the constitution. I'm a strong believer in the political process. If constituents don't like something, their first and best recourse is to vote that person out of office. Impeachment was not intended to be the mechanism for removing politicians you don't like. It was designed to pierce the immunity a sitting president has as it relates to criminal charges.

[jd111]

Pelosi having to be pressured into the proceedings supports my point, though. She understands like I do that it's very possible this will backfire. Her position wasn't that she doesn't want Trump impeached, because we all know she does, but rather that it is the political ramifications that are driving her actions.

Also, anti-Trump sentiment and thinking impeachment is proper are two very different things. Sure, many house dems were voted in because constituents don't like Trump. That's a long leap from there to impeaching a sitting president. I haven't liked several presidents in the past during my voting years. I have even found some to have acted so far from the constitution that it's a serious travesty. But I also didn't think impeachment was appropriate. That is for specific criminal conduct, not just because I don't like their policy, or even find it to be abusive to the constitution. I'm a strong believer in the political process. If constituents don't like something, their first and best recourse is to vote that person out of office. Impeachment was not intended to be the mechanism for removing politicians you don't like. It was designed to pierce the immunity a sitting president has as it relates to criminal charges.

This

[Turboweasle]

Pelosi having to be pressured into the proceedings supports my point, though. She understands like I do that it's very possible this will backfire. Her position wasn't that she doesn't want Trump impeached, because we all know she does, but rather that it is the political ramifications that are driving her actions.

Since your point was "the Democrats think it will help them in the next election" I fail to see how the House Democrat leadership initially not wanting to pursue impeachment actually supports your argument that the impeachment is a "purely political play".  If the House leadership didn't want it done, it wouldn't be done, no matter what public sentiment demanded.  Pelosi was persuaded to support impeachment by the findings of the House Intelligence Committee.

If anything it shows that Pelosi was wary that a weak case for impeachment, with motivations drawn primarily from sentiment and not substance, would cause the real politik calculus to turn against them in the general election.  That impeachment is now moving ahead demonstrates the case has a level of substance that no longer threatens to backfire.

Also, anti-Trump sentiment and thinking impeachment is proper are two very different things. Sure, many house dems were voted in because constituents don't like Trump. That's a long leap from there to impeaching a sitting president.

Not if voters believe that the sitting president has committed crimes, which many do.

I have even found some to have acted so far from the constitution that it's a serious travesty.

How off the mark would I be if I assumed you were a constitutional originalist?

But I also didn't think impeachment was appropriate. That is for specific criminal conduct

Would you consider arming terrorists to destablize geopolitical enemies an impeachable crime?

If constituents don't like something, their first and best recourse is to vote that person out of office. Impeachment was not intended to be the mechanism for removing politicians you don't like. It was designed to pierce the immunity a sitting president has as it relates to criminal charges.

And if the sitting President credibly attempted to coerce a sovereign nation into influencing the intended mechanism by which constituents could vote that President out of power, what then?  Exactly what is the recourse for a President that attempts to circumvent the intended mechanism for removing him or her from power if not impeachment?

I believe in situations like those the founding fathers would have recommended a vigorous exercising of our second amendment rights, and I also believe that between the two options impeachment is the much preferred solution.

[OhioLawyer]

Boy it sure is cute (and extremely naive) of you to interpret all actions as giving democrats the moral high ground. I guess that's what they are hoping their blind followers will think. I can see right through that. LOL @ Pelosi being against impeachment until convinced in the hearings. I am literally laughing out loud as I read it. She orchestrated the whole thing from day one, putting on a public persona as wanting to do the right thing and not impeach right away, and you bought it hook line and sinker.

[Handass]

Boy it sure is cute (and extremely naive) of you to interpret all actions as giving democrats the moral high ground. I guess that's what they are hoping their blind followers will think. I can see right through that. LOL @ Pelosi being against impeachment until convinced in the hearings. I am literally laughing out loud as I read it. She orchestrated the whole thing from day one, putting on a public persona as wanting to do the right thing and not impeach right away, and you bought it hook line and sinker.

I mean, the democrats are presently in the moral high ground.

On one side, you have a sitting president who seeks to use his power to influence his own reelection(which in my book, inviting ANY foreign power to interfere, however minor, in a Federal election is treasonous, no matter the person) and his party in the senate refusing to do their Constitutionally required job of being a fair and impartial jury(McConnell already specifically said hes not an impartial juror, don't even try to refute that line).

On the other side, you have a party who actually investigated potential crimes a sitting president may or may not have done(you know, their Constitutional obligation)

[OhioLawyer]

Boy it sure is cute (and extremely naive) of you to interpret all actions as giving democrats the moral high ground. I guess that's what they are hoping their blind followers will think. I can see right through that. LOL @ Pelosi being against impeachment until convinced in the hearings. I am literally laughing out loud as I read it. She orchestrated the whole thing from day one, putting on a public persona as wanting to do the right thing and not impeach right away, and you bought it hook line and sinker.

I mean, the democrats are presently in the moral high ground.

On one side, you have a sitting president who seeks to use his power to influence his own reelection(which in my book, inviting ANY foreign power to interfere, however minor, in a Federal election is treasonous, no matter the person) and his party in the senate refusing to do their Constitutionally required job of being a fair and impartial jury(McConnell already specifically said hes not an impartial juror, don't even try to refute that line).

On the other side, you have a party who actually investigated potential crimes a sitting president may or may not have done(you know, their Constitutional obligation)

Make no mistake, there is no moral high ground here. Both sides are wallowing in filth. Pretending they aren't is ridiculous.