Legal: Over 1,100 people have been charged for Jan. 6. 560 defendants have been sentenced, and over 330 have been sent to prison. This is not a novel theory. While it is unique to have a leading politician facing so many federal charges, it is also unique to have a politician involved in so many alleged crimes!
Political: independent voters hate what happened on Jan. 6. Sure, this guarantees Trump gets the Republican primary. But it also makes a Republic win that much more unlikely in the general. Biden won partly because of Trump fatigue; this reminds the public how disgusted they were during Trump’s tenure and why Biden, despite his many pitfalls, is at least not Trump.
Legal: novel legal theory; good luck proving Trump’s mindset required – i.e., that he intended to lie and didn’t actually believe what he is saying (even though all evidence suggests he always believes everything he says, no matter how ludicrous)
Political: cements Trump’s hold on the primary. Nobody has lost a primary after holding a lead like’s Trump’s current lead, and this prevents any other candidate from getting enough attention to tackle that insurmountable distance.
Schiff’s censure is a devastating attack on institutional comity masked as a political stunt. It is undisputed that Trump’s campaign (Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman) gave internal campaign polling data to a Russian intelligence operative while Russian intelligence was helping his campaign. Marco Rubio’s Senate Intel Committee investigated these contacts and found that the Russian government wanted Trump to be president, Russian intelligence viewed Trump’s campaign as easily manipulated, and that Trum’s advisers were eager for help from Russia. While this may not have amounted to a “coordinated conspiracy” with the Russian government, Schiff was right to flag this, and to argue over the semantics of how he characterized Manafort’s behavior is a charade.
Even if the censure was appropriate, the circus of people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert made a completely mockery of the process. Plus, the censure lacks legitimacy without a bipartisan consensus.
As someone that despises Trump and sees him as a threat to democracy, Schiff’s censure makes sense – but not entirely for the reasons the Republicans claim. Schiff misrepresented (lied?) about confidential evidence he claimed proved that Trump colluded with Russia. Once it was revealed that there was no such collusion, Trump solidified his base and forever has the shield of calling any attack on his behavior as a “witch hunt.” The false claim also undermined faith in the intelligence communities. This is just like how the NY/Brag case undermined the records/Smith case.
Ignore the attempts to draw false (or non-false) equivalences, as they ignore the conduct at issue here. Maybe there are other cases against other people for similar cases, but that is a separate debate depending on the facts of those cases. The allegations charge, among other things, that a defendant showed highly sensitive information to someone without clearance regarding US defense weaknesses and plans. The defendant also obstructed attempts by the government to retrieve the information. Removing the name of the defendant, anyone would want this person in jail. We can’t make exceptions for those that we politically admire (or despise).
The allegations are so broad that they would sweep in anyone with classified information. There are no allegations that Trump gave documents to others, just that he (ill advisedly) bragged about having them. We would assume any high ranked military official could also brag about knowing this information, but we are not charging them with these crimes.
Trump must be impeached and removed from office immediately and barred from ever attempting to hold elected office again. There are two primary reasons for this. First, we are all at risk every day he remains in office. The shorter the time he has power, the more risk we have of him engaging in increasingly brazen and treasonous acts to maintain power. We simply cannot risk another minute of his presidency.
Second, it is the right thing to do. We do not want to set a precedent for ourselves -or the world - that Trump's behavior is fitting of the Presidency. We need to stake out this warning to all want-to-be despots that this behavior will result in public humiliation and historical vilification.
The contrast could not be any sharper. Biden laid out his policies for bringing America forward in the world in the face of incredibly challenging issues. Rather than engage with those issues (or the topics which Chris Wallace attempted to showcase), Trump was his usual nasty self and primarily resorted to name calling. America was left with two choices: a seasoned policy expert on the on hand, and a carnival barker on the other.
Biden made the mistake of preparing for a debate. Trump turned it into a boxing match. By constantly interrupting Biden, Trump prevented Biden from fully articulating his arguments. Sure it was a low blow, and Trump may have had little regard for the truth, but he succeeded in his goal: Trump transformed the debate into a spectacle demonstrating his quickness and prowess, compared to Biden allowing himself to be interrupted and look weak/tired.
It is irrelevant if everything Trump said is wrong. People won't remember what was actually said, but they will remember that Trump had much more energy and Biden had difficulty getting his issues across. There is a saying in law: When you don't have the law, argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, bang on the table and yell. That is what Trump did, and very effectively.
Words have meaning, and Trump means what he says. Trump told the Proud Boys to"stand back and stand by." Does anyone think that the Proud Boys will not take that as an implicit statement of support from the President?
Come on, the Left's focus completely ignores the context of the previous statements. Chris Wallace asked whether Trump would ask "white supremacist and militia groups" to "stand down" to which Trump said "I am prepared to do that... I am willing to do anything. I want to see peace." He then attempted, perhaps inarticulately, to use Chris Wallace's exact phrasing: "Who would you like be to condemn? Proud Boys - stand back and stand by, but I tell you what, somebody has to do something about antifa and the left." Not only did Trump respond that he (a) would condemn those groups, he (b) then did so, and (c) said that the antifa also deserved criticism.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).
There were 269 days between Justice Antonin Scalia's death and the 2016 election (well beyond the time typically needed to confirm). There are only 42 days between now and the 2020 election, and President Trump still has not submitted a nomination. There is no plausible way the Republicans can claim to hold a thoughtful, legitimate, or thorough confirmation process before the election.
The Republicans' words provide the best argument:
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), February 2016
I want you to use my words against me: If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, "Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." And you could use my words against me, and you'd be absolutely right.
Now-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), March 2016
If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election.
The Left is primarily upset that Republicans previously engaged in political theater - and yes, lied - in stopping Merrick Garland's nomination. But guess what: Republicans' prior successful antics have nothing to do with whether Republicans now should fill a vacant Supreme Court seat.
Sure, Republicans filibustered Garland and made statements that are now hypocritical. Politicians are sleazy. But don't forget that Democrats similarly argued in 2016 arguing for the Senate voting on a President's Supreme Court nomination in an election year, yet now claim that we should wait. Again, politicians are sleazy, on both sides. Fortunately, that sleaze is unrelated to the procedural requirements for running government and filing vacant Supreme Court seats.
anon Lemur
tadalafil de 5 mg tadalafil cost walgreens tadalafil prescription cialis dosage 40 mg cialis vs viagra reviews generic tadalafil cost
She's the Bernie Sanders of this cycle. Liberal voters want a fresh face.
Warren draws crowds because she's tapping into the zeitgeist. People are sick of the same old and want change. The fundraising financials she just disclosed underscore this fact.
anon Hyena
Warren is unfortunately a victim of her own logic. Those who follow her ideas aren't looking for rational ways to pay for these bold ideas.
Crowd sizes tell more about the types of people a candidate is appealing to than the electorate at large - or more precisely, drawing large crowds just means that Warren is attractive to the types that have the (1) time and (2) desire to wait in long lines just to watch a politician deliver talking points.
Remember, in the 2012 election cycle, Romney thought he was going to beat Obama because of the large crowds he was pulling. Hillary Clinton rarely matched Bernie Sanders or Trumps' crowd sizes, but she still garnered much more votes than both.
Watching Biden desperately stumble for words to explain why he opposed busing in the 1970s is the only lasting impression that matters here. If Biden really is such a racial warrior, why couldn't he articulate that on the debate stage? There are two plausible answers: 1) Biden's progressiveness fifty years ago is downright backwards for the modern era; or 2) grandpa has aged past his prime and lost the mental acuity necessary to be Commander in Chief. Neither option is good. In Biden's flummoxing, Harris created the perfect foil: a young, smart, agressive, and progressive leader ready to take on Trump.
While Harris successfully landed a heavy blow on Biden, she has now exposed her own hypocracy: Harris herself admits that she does not support federally mandated busing; rather, she claims it should merely be a tool for local school districts. This is the exact same position Biden has held for 40 years. But her portrayal Biden's position, entirely hid this fact. How an Harris honestly attack Biden for a position that she herself - and nearly every other American - agrees with? This episode has exposed the extent to which she will shamelessly distort truth to gain political points. Isn't this why the chief reason that the left despises Trump?
Sources: https://www.apnews.com/586b1e81cb684654b0cf689b9074c1cb
Fawksian Delight