House Dem reverses course on Trump impeachment as support among independents falls
House Dem now sees no 'value' in Trump impeachment, as polls show fading support among independents
"Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, has abruptly announced that she no longer saw any "value" in the process and called for her fellow Democrats to throw their support behind a symbolic censure resolution."
There will be more Democrats against impeachment as they hear from the people in their respective districts asking hard questions such as - Why is the Mexico-Canada-America Trade agreement just sitting there? What have you done legislatively to improve drug costs? What have you done to support America and American interests while in office?
The Democrats are really stuck in a lose-lose situation. They don't have bipartisan support for impeachment, but Adam Schiff has already taken them down the rabbit hole and they will be forced to vote (and guaranteed to lose bigly in the Senate (plus exposing a lot of other things) OR pull back and demonstrate to America that it was always about getting Trump out of office rather than doing their jobs OR watch the rank and file vote no and have a Party mutiny on their hands....
The usual Fox News horsepoop. She merely suggested censure instead of impeachment.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4721 … aching-him
And the alleged swing against impeachment also is horsepoop. If anything, support for Trump's impeachment is growing.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -6957.html
I see this "news" comes straight from the mouth of the always inaccurate Sean Hannity.
https://hannity.com/media-room/losing-s … stigation/
Lol! Complete with obviously photoshopped picture of Schiff. Hannity thinks his viewers are easily bamboozled....
What if it didn't come only from Fox News or Hannity, is it still "horsepoop"?
"“Sitting here, knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of kicking him out of office, but I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable,” Lawrence said during a Sunday episode of No BS News Hour.
LeDuff asked Lawrence whether she felt it was “unwise to tear him from the chair” during an election year.
“Yes,” she responded. “I want him censured. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their jobs.”"
You can hear her say it here: Podcast starting at 26:15
I realize you are a Trump supporter, so I understand why you aren't appreciating my point. It's horsepoop considering the source and the distortion of the context.
She doesn't represent a collapse of Democrat intention to impeach Trump. She is expressing an opinion that censure is simpler and more credible with the nation as a whole.
You realize I am a Trump supporter? Is that simply because I offer a counter to your comment?
However, it seems your "point" is that it isn't horsepoop when the Detroit news source, (or any news source except Fox), prints it, or the podcast airs her saying it, but it is horsepoop when Fox or Hannity repeat it. Is that your point? If so, you are right, I am not appreciating it
I didn't see the OP saying it did represent a collapse of the Democrats' support for impeachment. Did I miss something?
The OP didn't say anything about Fox or Hannity, so why did you automatically go check Fox or Hannity and jump to an accusation of distortion?
Since I can agree with your closing sentence, why do you have a problem with who reported that opinion?
No, because you constantly defend Trump no matter what he says or does. You ignore 99% of the BS that Trump extremists post on here.
Otherwise, there is no point into getting greater detail because you will rationalize every bad behavior of your warped President and argue in excruciating detail anyone who says otherwise.
For example, you ignored the link to the exact quote I provided from Sean Hannity. You rationalize Mike's gross distortion of both the original quote and the polls.
How can you be so blind?
Obviously, I would have a different opinion promisem. I think that rather than saying I constantly defend Pres. Trump, I would say I constantly point out incorrect or hypocritical statements. However, you are right that I usually don't respond to 99% of the extremist Trump supporters' comments. There is no profit in joining such exchanges—no realistic opportunity for discussion.
I have the perception that you haven't met previous challenges in our exchanges, but I will try one more time; show me one of my comments that you think rationalizes any Trump behavior. But . . . comments criticizing false declarations of fact, or comments proposing other possibilities don't count—they aren't rationalizations.
Regarding your link; I wasn't responding to the link, I was responding to your comment, (which was a reiteration of a point made in a previous comment), not some quote as you claim.
Here are your two comments prior to my response to you. Where is the ". . . exact quote I provided from Sean Hannity." that you say I ignored?
I have tried to make this response not one of excruciating detail, so come on bud, how about supporting those claims that I rationalize and ignore.
You completely fail to see that Mike took her comments out of context and that his claim of collapsing support for impeachment is provably false.
Please quit cherrypicking and rationalizing to defend your vote for Trump.
I don't agree promisem. I double-checked just to be sure by the OP clearly said House Dem, singular, and then spoke to that one House Dem's comment.
Of course, you are free to take any inference, but at face value, it does not say what you claim it does. you want from that And relative to your "out of context" claim, you can hear her entire interview in the podcast link I previously provided. Her statement is the context of her part of the interview.
Now, where in my comments have I cherrypicked or rationalized anything to defend Pres. Trump? Bump the table Scott, you are stuck in a groove.
Gus, you seem to be the most open-minded of the Trump defense here. Wondering if you could provide a reasoned reply to this: Why was a public announcement of an investigation into Biden necessary in order for Ukraine to get a meeting at the White House? Couldn't they have just gone through regular channels to inquire about the action to remove Shokin? Why was announcing it publicly even a demand?
What answer would you expect from me Valeant? One that would have the words you want to hear coming from the mouth of a purported Trump supporter?
I don't feel like cooperating. You already know the answer to your question. You just want me to give you support by repeating it.
I have already stated that I think Pres. Trump did do what is alleged in this Ukraine issue. Besides, if you can't make your case with true Trump defenders I don't think anything I can say would help, other than offering you a token to wave in their faces. (and maybe earning a little 'suck-up' with Randy so he will let me join his crew)
I wasn't looking for an expected answer. I just want to prove a point that there is no basis to even ask for a public declaration unless your motive is to smear Biden. Once the motive of a personal benefit towards the 2020 election is established, this now falls into a campaign crime. Some of us still want free and fair elections, not criminals using foreign nations to influence our elections...again.
Did you expect GA to carefully examine all possible motives and discard all but the one? Or are you going to simply assume that if no one gives an alternative that you will accept as far more likely than the one you want then it is "obvious" that the motive was to smear a competitor? What if the alternate possibility paints Trump in an even worse light - would you exchange that for the one you want then?
It's no surprise you're touting the Russian narrative of Ukraine being the cause of the meddling into our election, Dan.
I've been begging Trump defenders on here for even one other motive for tying a public announcement to the White House meeting, including you, which has been met with silence. I'm trying to lead you all to the obvious conclusion of what this whole thing is about so you can see why there is criminality. But, alas, people like you seem to be willing to overlook all manner of crimes when it comes to Trump.
No, you've been begging for someone (defined as a "Trump defender" if they don't jump on your bandwagon) to accept that if they don't give a motive that is acceptable to you then they must accept the motive you've come up with, and to do so without any evidence at all outside of you claim that it is true. That your chosen motive is "obvious" to you does not mean that it is true, particularly as you refuse to consider anything that does not demonize Trump.
Without evidence? Are you serious? First off, I consider sworn testimony as evidence and I'm sorry that you do not. That's why I can call you a Trump defender as you do not accept testimony given under oath as valid. You are so disconnected to reality it's sad.
I listened to Sondlund testify that a meeting with the White House was contingent on the announcement of an investigation - not an actual running of one - just the announcement of one.
Now, what motive could you possibly come up with to explain that? You continue to refuse to answer that very simple question. In that last post, you didn't even try, just a deflection to an attack on my beliefs. C'mon Dan, cut the horseshit or move on.
I've asked the same question to some of the same people you have. They always deflect or ignore the query. This say a lot about their defense of the cretin.
Not a single testimony offered proof of motive. Only opinions on what they thought it was, just as you do - I do make an assumption that they, like you, are unable to distinguish between proof and opinion as a result of that continued failure.
"Now, what motive could you possibly come up with to explain that?"
Perhaps they, like you, believe that asking unanswered questions constitutes proof, somehow? Even if I don't answer it? It is interesting, and somewhat intriguing, that you continue to declare that my ignorance, and yours, constitutes proof of something. Hint: it doesn't. It is only proof of ignorance, nothing more. Of course, I've said that before, and here you are yet again, using ignorance as proof once again as if that ignorance gives you free reign to make up whatever motive you like.
So c'mon, Valeant, cut the horseshit and move into reality. A reality of innocent until proven guilty, and where your ignorance does not give you the right to make up answers and then call it proof of guilt. Not even my own gut feeling that Trump did these things to eliminate competition is sufficient for you to declare proof of guilt, because I freely admit I don't know and will not make that call based on my own ignorance. But then I am a firm believer in the precepts of our justice system (and the sense of right and wrong it provides), even if it is very often perverted into political stands as it is here.
And in most cases, motive is not something actually provable unless the accused actually admits to their reasoning. So, you're trying to argue for something not given while I think it more than obvious that there is no other reasonable motive for the announcement of an investigation that was ordered of Sondlund by Guiliani and Trump than one of personal gain for the accused. When no other reasonable motives can be presented, the obvious can and should be accepted. I have not seen Trump or any of his ardent defenders come up with a viable alternative to pressing for the announcement. That's a reality that you are in denial about.
Thankfully, motive is not even necessary to convict in a criminal proceeding. But it sure does explain what led to the criminal intent in creating a quid pro quo of freezing legally approved aid and of a White House meeting being tied to that announcement.
And one last thing, if you're such a believer in innocent until proven guilty, pushing to publicly announce an investigation into someone sure doesn't follow that mantra. Publicly telling people of an investigation into another person is making people wonder what they did wrong.
I think all of us citizens want free and fair elections. But the parties' apparatus might have other thoughts. ;-)
No, "all of us" don't.
Trump supporters including some people on here clearly want Russian help in any way they can get it.
In their minds, Constitution be damned.
This is, unfortunately, true. If one continues to support Trump after all that has come to light regarding Russian interference in 2016, and Trump continuing to seek foreign influence thereafter, then one is knowingly and willingly supporting the end of "free andfair" elections.
People are forgetting their values. Party over Country. Trump over everything. If we don't stop this insanity in the next election by throwing out this mentally ill con man on his ass and repudiating his corrupted supporters, our country will fall. Maybe not immediately, but it will fall.
Agreed. And it's not just about Russia.
It's the flood of generals, ambassadors, prosecutors, career government officials, intelligence officers, conservative columnists and even members of Trump's own administration.
They all say the same thing about his total incompetence and mental instability. Trump apologists deny all of it.
To your final point, the country already is falling. It's only a question of how far.
To little to late... The foolishness has already been perpetrated. However, I guess this might be a learning experience for the Dem Party.
I believe President Donald Trump is the Roadrunner to the Wylie E. Coyote Democrat party. Beep Beep.
But he's not smart enough to bribe the Ukraine and get away with it. DOH!
I think you need to educate yourself on the legal concept of bribery.
Until then all I can say is "Bless Your Heart!"
I'm sure you know just as much about bribery as you do hearsay and conviction. Trump should hire you to replace Rudy who is being tossed aside. He needs a fresh acolyte to chew up and spit out.
Another attempt to make a point that only displays extreme TDS. There is help available.
I have been consistent from Day One on my opinion of Donald Trump. A lying con man with Narcissistic Personality Disorder makes an acceptable reality TV star but an unacceptable president.
What will it take for you to admit you made a colossal mistake supporting this pathetic criminally incompetent excuse for a human being?
Oh, never mind. That crack legal mind of yours is too busy distorting legal terminology.
Bribery, extortion, choose your poison, Mike. My heart is over blessed by this point. I don't understand why especially you are defending a cretin who held up aid to your ancestor's homeland in an attempt to harm the Bidens for his own personal gain.
Yuy said Biden did the same, but neglect to mention Biden went to the Ukraine with the blessings of republicans and the EU.
You try Randy, you really try to make a valid point. I applaud your efforts. Please keep trying and some day, it just may happen.
Let me provide you with a little insight into my ancestor's homeland and the obama administration. Many people there hold him responsible for losing Crimea. When the Russians invaded, he did absolutely nothing. Now, move forward to the President Donald Trump administration. Ukraine has serious war on it's eastern front, the Russians are massing troops on the western part of the Ukraine in Crimea. The Ukraine doesn't have the resources to fight a two front war. President Donald Trump sends a serious amount of "offensive" weapons." Hand held rockets that can destroy tanks and planes. State of the art anti aircraft weapons and more. Because of this, the Russians in Crimea backed down and a huge crisis is averted.
So, the aid is delayed. Everything from the United States is delayed. It happens all the time. I appreciate President Donald Trump and his desire to investigate a corrupt former vice president who took advantage of the Ukraine in ways you know nothing about. Obama and Biden are not well thought of in Ukraine. President Donald Trump is far more popular.
“Biden went to the Ukraine with the blessings of republicans and the EU”
? And I suppose they told him to bribe Ukraine to fire they’re prosecutor with their blessing?
I doubt that but
Mike, this demonstrates that to liberals wrong is right as long as it is approved by the government, like Hiliary being cleared by the FBI or Obama spying on an election campaign. Government is God, the feds can approve anything they want if it is wrong and that makes it right - to a liberal.
I suggest you learn the difference between "their" and "they're," T. You're on a writer's site you know. Or perhaps you have no idea as to the difference...
The best Randy can do is criticize an automated spell check error? Par for the course, anything to distract from the substance or truth especially if he thinks he can use it to attack the messenger instead of conceding he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
His tactics do have a certain entertainment value however, like listening to a stand up comedian.
Coming from you that means nothing to me. After all, you support the criminal
Yeah, we're all just here to prank you guys like these super smart Trump supporters...
So why would Obama give support to a well known corrupt administration. Mike? The one Biden was sent to curtail?
You didn't address the Republicans and the EU supporting Biden's actions re the Ukraine prosecutor, Mike. A simple oversight, or intentional act on your part?
Here is the problem Randy, I don't care. Screw the Eu, they've been a problem for Ukraine for a long time. They promise things and don't deliver. Plans have been made based on promises of the EU and when they didn't deliver, Ukrainians died. Screw them. Republican support? You would have a tough time proving that one. Maybe RINOs, but that's it.
It makes most Ukrainians laugh when the United States talks about its corruption. A Ukrainian talk show host made me laugh. He said if a corrupt US politician like Biden had not been so corrupt, the United States would have no problems. A caller said people in the United States believe he did nothing wrong. The talk show host says "That is what we say about our politicians. See how much we are like the United States."
I laughed. The United States and Democrats especially accusing any person or any country of being corrupt is like Canada telling people they take the game of hockey too serious. It is a joke.
I didn't make it up about the republicans being all for Biden going to the Ukraine. You simply don't like it because it's true. A true Trumper you are, Mike.
You want America to have no allies but Russia, like Trump is working towards?
What I do know is that you do make an honest attempt to provide an insightful comment. To date, you have not succeeded. You have provide serious comedy for me and my friends to enjoy. Your responses are funny and trust me, not taken serious.
Keep it going Randy and Bless Your Heart.
I don't think anyone is against attempts to curb corruption but when you learn how someone financially gained, suspiciously, you think that corruption always finds a way.
It's like, no one is against a public works project. What they find offensive later on is they find out no bid contracts cost the public more than it should have cost and part of the bid includes a kick back to the politician who orchestrated it.
I, personally, want to know the truth. If there was no corruption on the part of Biden and his family that will restore some faith.
Trump didn't care if the Biden's were investigated as they were already cleared of wrongdoing. There's no law against Hunter getting a lucrative job in the Ukraine. You may not like it as Hunter appears to have no experience in the NG business, but then, Jarrod Kushner had absolutely no experience in world affairs, and look what job his pa-in-law gave him.
Personally, I don't care about the investigation into the Bidens, but Trump simply wanted the appearance of an investigation to hurt Joe during the election cycle.
I'd like to see the documents showing how Jarrod and Ivanka got their security clearances, but once again Trump refuses to let Congress see them. I believe our security is more important than Hunter's job in Ukraine, don't you?
"already cleared of wrongdoing"
Really? By whom? Was there an investigation? I think you are just repeating Democrat talking points. If Biden was cleared, I like to know the details. This may be a bit of a fabrication.
The Biden accusation was "debunked" as Fiona Hill stated. She would know better than you.
Fiona Hill. One person says it's not true and in your mind that makes it not true?
So, there was NO investigation and let me explain something, Fiona HIll is not is a position to declare anything as debunked. So, how did she come to this conclusion? I think they call this an opinion.
It needs to be properly investigated since that has yet to happen. If he has nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem.
I think Lindsay already announced an investigation, didn't he? Like Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! Now, we'll have Burisma, Burisma, Burisma!
Lindsay is a good little Trump lackey. I wonder what Trump has on him?
I feel the same way about Trump. If he's so innocent, then why all the obstruction of documents and witnesses appearing before the congress? What's he trying to hide, Mike? Of course, you already know, as do we all.
Randy, it would take way too long and require too much effort and still end up failing to try and get you and others on the left to grasp the history and significance of executive privilege. So, let us say much of what is happening is beyond those on the left.
And Randy, Mike can never understand the precedents set in the Nixon impeachment when he writes his falsehoods while claiming to be this all-knowing legal scholar.
I appreciate your efforts, but you need to do a little more work.
1.A legal precedent is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule.
2.Nixon v United States involved a request for tapes and information by a Grand Jury. The requested information was ultimately turned over to a federal district court.
3.President Donald Trump is not being investigated by a Grand Jury.
4.There is NO precedent involving executive privilege and an impeachment inquiry.
I hope I've explained this in a way you can understand. I did try to put it down to the level Democrats can understand.
It's obviously more complicated, but let us not go there.
Let us now apply that ruling based upon the argument that soliciting foreign interference in an election is a crime.
'In a unanimous decision — meaning that even the conservative justices whom Nixon appointed agreed — the court ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes, arguing that presidents can’t just say that material is confidential in order to withhold criminal evidence.'
Now, Guiliani is under investigation for his work in Ukraine. All Congress needs to do is to tie that investigation into the impeachment and then they have an avenue to force testimony via criminality, either by foreign agent or by campaign finance.
Grasping how to use a precedent was clearly beyond you.
You are struggling with legal concepts.
1. You can't apply a ruling on executive privilege to one involving an election crime. It just doesn't make sense.
2. You need to focus. Executive privilege is one thing and election crimes are an entirely different subject.
3. See, precedent involves ruling on similar or same subject matter.
I'm sure you know an attorney or someone involved in the legal field that can help you understand this. Helping you in this way IS beyond me.
Obviously it's not beyond you as you keep making these idiotic statements. Let me walk you through it like the adult toddler you appear to be.
The Supreme Court, that's the biggest court in the United States. The United States - well that's a big country that you live in when you're not promoting Russian propaganda online.
The big court ruled that executive privilege - that's something not written anywhere into the Constitution by the way - that in cases of criminality - of which asking a foreign government to interfere in an election is one, acting as a foreign agent would be a second - executive privilege has limitations.
It's awesome to see someone take a Trumpian stance on the law. Comical even. Tell me, where did you get your law degree again?
Yeah, should not have made the call per protocol with 12 people listing, and held up the aid per protocol. Oh, and also for months before spoke about his concerns about checking what other countries were giving in aid to Ukraine, and his concern that there were holdovers in the new president Zelinsky's administration. An this is what the Dem' call bribery? Do you see how foolish this all is?
Yeah, just not smart enough?
Should not have admitted his extortion attempt either. Yes, not smart enough to get away with it.
by Readmikenow 7 weeks ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
by The Minstrel 15 months ago
With something so serious, you would think that Pelosi and the rest of her conspirators would bring a level of respectability to their so-called impeachment inquiry by following a strict adherence to the Constitution and rules. No, they have chosen to use their majority to run a kangaroo court....
by Readmikenow 24 months ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting a high bar for impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her left flank clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of...
by IslandBites 5 months ago
Trump and the WH said is not true. Nevertheless, many, including veterans and even GOP members have condemned him.Some said that they believe it to be true because there is precedent, like the multiples times he attacked John McCain.Today, Jennifer Griffin, a Fox News reporter, doubled down on her...
by Sharlee 6 weeks ago
So far it is obvious President Donald Trump is extremely unlikely to resign in the final few days of his presidency. And VP Pence is equally unlikely to force him out by invoking the 25th amendment of the Constitution, despite calls from the Democrats to do so.So, in the wake of last week’s...
by Sharlee 5 days ago
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it," McConnell said at the time. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|