Here’s her first statement:
"Just because we have limited resources, and I think the energy and the resources need to be put into accountability, need to be put into investigations.”
Here’s her second point:
“I think after the election, we all have to just also agree that our attitude has to be to get stuff done.”
First, maybe they get a removal. Second, it would send a message. Third, since he likes to brag so much about how great he is, he can now take a new honor. But mostly the second one because he has committed so many crimes, there need to be consequences. Just add his to the list of many others that need to be impeached.
Yeah, you’re probably right. It’s highly unlikely they will get enough support to successfully impeach him, but unlike Harris and you I believe they can do more than one thing at a time and I say, “why not.” It’s the right thing to do given all of the laws he’s broken.
I think our disagreement on the whole thing is relatively minor, frankly. I’m fine with him being impeached, it’s just not worth the time to do to imho. I think that steals some energy from other things, but I don’t think it would prevent other things.
Effectively nothing, but not a whole lot can be done regardless unless the Senate is taken as well. Point is the goal is waste the administrations time and energy and block them from having a rubber stamp.
I think when she proposes, actually investigating and trying to hold them accountable is actionable work that if Democrats get enough of a majority could actually work with, rather than another impeachment hearing that will likely be dismissed by the public and stonewalled by the current congress.
Every time the Democrats tried an impeachment and failed, they lose credibility in the public eye.
I DID read it and her reasoning is shit.
Here’s her first statement: "Just because we have limited resources, and I think the energy and the resources need to be put into accountability, need to be put into investigations.”
Here’s her second point: “I think after the election, we all have to just also agree that our attitude has to be to get stuff done.”
Not good enough for me.
And precisely what do you think a third impeachment without a removal will do, exactly?
First, maybe they get a removal. Second, it would send a message. Third, since he likes to brag so much about how great he is, he can now take a new honor. But mostly the second one because he has committed so many crimes, there need to be consequences. Just add his to the list of many others that need to be impeached.
No.
I see so many complaints about how the Democrats are sending a sternly worded letter. Sounds like you want another sternly worded letter.
Yeah, you’re probably right. It’s highly unlikely they will get enough support to successfully impeach him, but unlike Harris and you I believe they can do more than one thing at a time and I say, “why not.” It’s the right thing to do given all of the laws he’s broken.
I think our disagreement on the whole thing is relatively minor, frankly. I’m fine with him being impeached, it’s just not worth the time to do to imho. I think that steals some energy from other things, but I don’t think it would prevent other things.
Effectively nothing, but not a whole lot can be done regardless unless the Senate is taken as well. Point is the goal is waste the administrations time and energy and block them from having a rubber stamp.
I think when she proposes, actually investigating and trying to hold them accountable is actionable work that if Democrats get enough of a majority could actually work with, rather than another impeachment hearing that will likely be dismissed by the public and stonewalled by the current congress.
Every time the Democrats tried an impeachment and failed, they lose credibility in the public eye.