Pelosi directs House Democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment against Trump

[seer]

Pelosi directs House Democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment against Trump

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/pelo...nst-trump.html

[rogue06]

I predict that we'll see a fawning press lauding her leadership/courage/bravery.

[seer]

I predict that we'll see a fawning press lauding her leadership/courage/bravery.

Except they have no proof that Trump did what they are claiming.

[whag]

I predict that we'll see a fawning press lauding her leadership/courage/bravery.

Yes, because Trump has no fawners who cite his courage and bravery.

[Charles]

House Speaker Pelosi asks chairmen to pursue articles of impeachment against Trump

USA Today has put some interesting perspectives on recent events:

In the article it is shown how a certain strategy failed:

President Donald Trump and his aides saw this week's NATO meeting as a chance to showcase his leadership on the world stage and rise above the political fray while "crazy" Democrats back in Washington sought to impeach him.

It didn't work out quite that way.

Nope. It did not work out quite that way. The article goes on:

Instead, Trump was mocked by some world leaders in a moment captured on video, fought openly with others, misstated U.S. policy on Iran and canceled a highly anticipated news conference, all obscuring his message on global leadership, amplifying his problems back home and giving political ammunition to his critics.

And it get's both funny and tragic when we read the following:

"Trump was elected to stand up to world leaders. He did just that," said Frank Luntz, a longtime GOP consultant. "I just wish it wasn't our NATO allies."

Anyway, the moment has finally arrived when we read that:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...mp/2617351001/

And it goes on:

It is going to be very interesting.

[Mountain Man]

Except they have no proof that Trump did what they are claiming.

It's worse than that: they don't have proof that a crime was even committed in the first place, leading to the the repeated refrain that impeachment doesn't have to be predicated on a crime despite the clear language of the Constitution.

[whag]

It's worse than that: they don't have proof that a crime was even committed in the first place, leading to the the repeated refrain that impeachment doesn't have to be predicated on a crime despite the clear language of the Constitution.

[Mountain Man]

There's no denying that Democrats used focus groups to decide which accusations played best to their base. And it wasn't "extortion" they settled on, it was "bribery". But they have also been selling the unconstitutional idea that impeachment doesn't need to be tied to an actual crime (here's a Newsweek article from 2017, and it was repeated again in yesterday's hearing), so it's not an either-or scenario like you're implying. The Democrat narrative seems to be that if Trump committed a crime, then he should be impeached; and if Trump didn't commit a crime, then he should be impeached. Heads, they win; tails, he loses. That's Democrat "justice" for you.

[whag]

There's no denying that Democrats used focus groups to decide which accusations played best to their base. And it wasn't "extortion" they settled on, it was "bribery". But they have also been selling the unconstitutional idea that impeachment doesn't need to be tied to an actual crime (here's a Newsweek article from 2017, and it was repeated again in yesterday's hearing), so it's not an either-or scenario like you're implying. The Democrat narrative seems to be that if Trump committed a crime, then he should be impeached; and if Trump didn't commit a crime, then he should be impeached. Heads, they win; tails, he loses. That's Democrat "justice" for you.

[Mountain Man]

Except there is direct evidence that Bill Clinton actually committed crimes. Democrats still haven't figured out what laws Trump is supposed to have broken.

[whag]

Except there is direct evidence that Bill Clinton actually committed crimes. Democrats still haven't figured out what laws Trump is supposed to have broken.

[Watermelon]

[seer]

botox???

[Watermelon]

botox???

[Mountain Man]

It is all hearsay. "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy" is not evidence, it's gossip. The only person on record who spoke directly to Trump was told "No quid pro quo."

"Shadow diplomacy" is just another name for regular old diplomacy, but some people are trying to make it sound sinister when the fact is, every US president since George Washington has used so-called "shadow diplomacy".

It's not Trump's supposed "carelessness" that's the problem but the Democrat party's almost clinical obsession with trying to overturn the 2016 election. I mean, just today you had Rep. Al Green suggesting that they're going to keep investigating and submitting one article of impeachment after another until something sticks!

As for your last paragraph, roughly translated, it reads "If you don't agree with the conservative pundits that I happen to agree with this one time, then you're a stupid head!" which is just