• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Andrew Sullivan: Congress must move forward with impeachment

Why would the people who didn’t follow this for two years and didn’t follow Mueller last week follow impeachment hearings?

I agree with this Atlantic article.

“But a formal impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee would be politically perilous—and while politics cannot override duty, Democrats cannot risk the kind of 2020 backlash that would come if a large share of the voting public came to see the House as Javert-like, abandoning its focus on health care, jobs, and the other issues that dominate most Americans’ lives in a monomaniacal quest to get Trump. A quick move to impeachment would be used by Trump and his acolytes, from the Senate to Fox and talk radio, to incite and outrage the GOP base.”
...
“There is, I believe, a reasonable path forward that, besides being politically palatable, has the added advantage of being the right thing to do. It starts with a coordinated and in-depth examination of the Mueller report by the House.

What we need is for the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Homeland Security Committees to conduct a series of deep dives into the areas of communication and coordination between Trump and his campaign with Russians and their surrogates, such as WikiLeaks; the multiple categories and areas of obstruction of justice that Robert Mueller outlined; the threats to our intelligence operations and our justice system from Trump and his operatives; and the moves by Russia to interfere in and influence our elections used by Trump and unchecked by Republicans. Other committees, such as Ways and Means and Banking, need to be ready to do the same thing as more information emerges from the SDNY and the New York attorney general, among others, about Trump’s financial dealings, including with the Russians, and about Russian money laundering. The witnesses need to include Mueller and Rosenstein, of course, but also the range of figures mentioned in the report, and also a range of experts in areas such as ethics, constitutional violations, intelligence operations, and election administration and security.”

Most important.

“Democrats need to stage and coordinate hearings across committees and subcommittees, to make sure they do not overload Americans’ ability to pay attention. Most important, they need to structure the public hearings in a dramatically different way than usual. Each committee needs to use experienced counsel—a good example might be former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara—and limit, if not abandon, opening statements, except from the chairs. No five-minute rounds of questions going down the line of every committee member, leading to utterly disjointed discourse, making it easy for hostile witnesses to evade, filibuster, or otherwise avoid follow-ups and get through a five minute period, which is then followed by a five-minute breather with an ally on the Republican side, and then another five minutes from the next member of the panel that may have nothing to do with the previous round of questions.”

http://on.theatln.tc/WcKvK5q
 
If Trump wins re-election after surviving impeachment then he was going to get re-elected anyway. Who is going to to sit through an impeachment of this jackass even a failed impeachment and be more likely to vote for him?

It could easily get people who weren't going to vote to the polls and switch some of the votes of surburbanites who voted Dem in 18 back to the GOP.

Get all the info out to the public and destroy Trump at the polls and take back the Senate. Then, arrest Trump on January 22, 2021.
 
Why would the people who didn’t follow this for two years and didn’t follow Mueller last week follow impeachment hearings?

I agree with this Atlantic article.

“But a formal impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee would be politically perilous—and while politics cannot override duty, Democrats cannot risk the kind of 2020 backlash that would come if a large share of the voting public came to see the House as Javert-like, abandoning its focus on health care, jobs, and the other issues that dominate most Americans’ lives in a monomaniacal quest to get Trump. A quick move to impeachment would be used by Trump and his acolytes, from the Senate to Fox and talk radio, to incite and outrage the GOP base.”
...
“There is, I believe, a reasonable path forward that, besides being politically palatable, has the added advantage of being the right thing to do. It starts with a coordinated and in-depth examination of the Mueller report by the House.

What we need is for the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Homeland Security Committees to conduct a series of deep dives into the areas of communication and coordination between Trump and his campaign with Russians and their surrogates, such as WikiLeaks; the multiple categories and areas of obstruction of justice that Robert Mueller outlined; the threats to our intelligence operations and our justice system from Trump and his operatives; and the moves by Russia to interfere in and influence our elections used by Trump and unchecked by Republicans. Other committees, such as Ways and Means and Banking, need to be ready to do the same thing as more information emerges from the SDNY and the New York attorney general, among others, about Trump’s financial dealings, including with the Russians, and about Russian money laundering. The witnesses need to include Mueller and Rosenstein, of course, but also the range of figures mentioned in the report, and also a range of experts in areas such as ethics, constitutional violations, intelligence operations, and election administration and security.”

Most important.

“Democrats need to stage and coordinate hearings across committees and subcommittees, to make sure they do not overload Americans’ ability to pay attention. Most important, they need to structure the public hearings in a dramatically different way than usual. Each committee needs to use experienced counsel—a good example might be former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara—and limit, if not abandon, opening statements, except from the chairs. No five-minute rounds of questions going down the line of every committee member, leading to utterly disjointed discourse, making it easy for hostile witnesses to evade, filibuster, or otherwise avoid follow-ups and get through a five minute period, which is then followed by a five-minute breather with an ally on the Republican side, and then another five minutes from the next member of the panel that may have nothing to do with the previous round of questions.”

http://on.theatln.tc/WcKvK5q

Weird take to question whether people would follow impeachment hearings, but then support public hearings for the purpose of getting America's attention. I agree with the investigations/public hearings first, as I said, but if they do not lead to impeachment, what is the purpose?
 
Weird take to question whether people would follow impeachment hearings, but then support public hearings for the purpose of getting America's attention. I agree with the investigations/public hearings first, as I said, but if they do not lead to impeachment, what is the purpose?

At a minimum to get Mueller on the record about why he didn’t state that Trump obstructed Justice. It’s clear Barr misled the public but the American people deserve to know whether Trump’s position shielded him from prosecution.
 
Weird take to question whether people would follow impeachment hearings, but then support public hearings for the purpose of getting America's attention. I agree with the investigations/public hearings first, as I said, but if they do not lead to impeachment, what is the purpose?

You keep Trump's treachery front and center in the American discourse just like Republicans did with Hillary's emails
 
At a minimum to get Mueller on the record about why he didn’t state that Trump obstructed Justice. It’s clear Barr misled the public but the American people deserve to know whether Trump’s position shielded him from prosecution.

Exactly.
 

I'm not debating the need for the hearings as I have said, but to have them with no repercussions at the end (and censure is effectively nothing), seems silly to me. Then it will really feel like a waste of time/resources, and don't think Republicans won't point that out.
 
Moonz: sorry, I don't hear your cries. While I don't have you on ignore, I ignore everything you post on this board. I do enjoy your posts on other boards sometimes though!
 
No horseshit is 98% of the content you post
 
Like she I said there’d be no collusion?
And Hillary would lose?
And the heads of justice were in trouble?

Those times??
You said that there would be no incriminating evidence presented in the Mueller report. When there's been tons of it you've called it horseshit. You have predicted that heads would roll over so many republican non-issue investigations I've lost count. You arent some sort of wise sage like you imagine yourself to be. And when Trump loses in 2020 maybe you will finally STFU but i doubt it.

Hey weren't you predicting just a few months ago that the dow would be down around 12 thousand?
 
Last edited:
You said that there would be no incriminating evidence presented in the Mueller report. When there's been tons of it you've called it horseshit. You have predicted that heads would roll over so many republican non-issue investigations I've lost count. You arent some sort of wise sage like you imagine yourself to be. And when Trump loses in 2020 maybe you will finally STFU but i doubt it.

Hey weren't you predicting just a few months ago that the dow would be down around 12 thousand?

The Dow was sinking until Powell caved

I’m no fan of trump on his efforts to manipulate the fed

Not at all
 
The Dow was sinking until Powell caved

I’m no fan of trump on his efforts to manipulate the fed

Not at all

The dow was correcting. We were overdue for this to happen.

Are you seriously arguing after QE and 17 months of QT and multiple rate hikes that Powell saying he was going to be flexible on future rate hikes is the difference in 12K and 26K? Really?
 
The dow was correcting. We were overdue for this to happen.

Are you seriously arguing after QE and 17 months of QT and multiple rate hikes that Powell saying he was going to be flexible on future rate hikes is the difference in 12K and 26K? Really?

What corrected?

Who gained money who STAYED in the market

I do believe a huge correction is coming

We’re the same age

I’ve been through 2000 and 2009

I can’t afford another kill like that

So I’ve made my choices

Still in the market but parked as well

I bet you may be a little too
 
I'm not debating the need for the hearings as I have said, but to have them with no repercussions at the end (and censure is effectively nothing), seems silly to me. Then it will really feel like a waste of time/resources, and don't think Republicans won't point that out.

Oh man, I really hope the GOP doesn’t criticize Dems!
 
Oh man, I really hope the GOP doesn’t criticize Dems!

Not really understanding this response. I am in favor of being more aggressive, not less because of worry about how it will play with voters and the Republican response. My point is that I don't think taking the weaker route will play more favorably.
 
Back
Top