Home » Hey, shouldn’t the Democratic candidates who are senators…

Comments

Hey, shouldn’t the Democratic candidates who are senators… — 15 Comments

  1. It’s funny that recusal isn’t an issue in this circumstance where the possibility of conviction is practically nil . . . but imagine the balance of power were heavily tilted to a close vote toward 2/3s for guilty on the same charges and (lack of) evidence? Oy, would those Dem. Presidential contenders be hearing an earful then.

  2. Reality Show, Publicity Stunt only about the 2020 election going on, there nothing about unlawful act or obstruction by Trump and the Dems know it. The really big players on both sides know the actual facts and what they call a trial is just about as fair as professional wrestling which of course it theatre with bad acting and sound effects. Therefore it really makes little difference if the Senators who think they should be president are recused or not and the facts be damned.

    I am however getting a little glimmer of hope that the GOP fence sitters have become tired and annoyed enough to support an early fast vote and shut this thing down.

  3. “The real question is whether the person has the constitutional and/or statutory power to make that decision, and whether the person follows the proper procedure in carrying it out, and whether there are independent reasons and arguments for wanting it done.”

    Or, even if the answer to all of those is ‘no,’ whether it amounts to a crime, much less a high crime, or more generally an impeachable offense. In any case, the answer to at least the first and third questions (and probably to all three) is clearly ‘yes.’

    Also, I would think financial gain is a more serious problem than political gain. As you say, politicians do politics, but they’re not supposed to be up for sale. Which brings us to the Biden family….

  4. Jimmy:

    I wasn’t just referring to impeachment in that last paragraph. I was speaking more generally.

  5. Jimmy

    I agree entirely with your last statement. Someone should post a “For Sale or Rent” advertisement on eBay: “One politically connected family. Interests include building, banking and petroleum businesses. Will do what you want in exchange for sizable retainer. Headquartered in NJ but can relocate. Contact Sleepy Joe at ______”.

  6. I was thinking along the lines of Jimmy’s comment.

    “Personal political benefit” vs. “private personal benefit.” Many politicians have been busted for lining their pockets in the last decade or two. These indictments always get reported, but don’t get much attention unless the pols are high profile or Republican.

    Off the top of my head: Sheldon Silver (a real power broker), Bob McDonnell, a whole group in CA, and Rod Blogojevich. Many indictments fail to get convictions. I think the McDonnell appeals case narrowed the range of the criminal acts.

  7. I just glanced at Facebook and the first thing I saw there was a post by longtime novelist/journalist Steve Erickson in which he praised Schiff, saying that “with every brilliant, scathing word” Schiff made his irrefutable case. The post had a quick 54 “likes,” many of them recognizable names from the L.A. Times, Rolling Stone, Village Voice and so on, a veritable who’s who of the intelligentsia. Someone in the comments said that he teaches debate and that Schiff’s words constitute one of the greatest speeches he’s ever heard.

    Boomers, all of them, the recognizable names, just by the way.

  8. If all 47 Democrats vote to convict and if four Republican Senators defect (Murkowski, Collins, Romney and ???), there will be 51 votes to convict. Of course, the Constitution requires 67 votes, but the Democrats will proclaim “a majority voted to convict!” — the same way they proclaimed “Hillary won the popular vote!”

    That is a very good reason for Mitch McConnell to demand their recusal.

  9. This is where Bernie Madoff F’d up; he should have registered to run for political office as soon as it was obvious he would be indicted; which of course his political opponents would have used against him.
    Bernie could then claim he was being investigated/persecuted in an effort to destroy his candidacy.

    Then Bernie could have claimed that the indictment was purely a political ploy of his opponent(s) thus rendering the indictment improper and providing grounds for Bernie to sue his opponents and the prosecutors.

  10. This thing is all so fake. The Democrats are outrageously outraged like always and the milquetoast moderate Republicans are outraged at the outrageously outraged Democrats about some outrageous comments about heads on pikes. Outraged they are.

    It’s all a kabuki theater signifying nothing.

    And that really is outrageous.

  11. It’s not about presenting a legitimate case for conviction.

    It’s about setting up the preconditions for a narrative of obstruction of justice in the Senate. A narrative that the dems and MSM will be screaming from now to November.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>