Another Republican comes out concerning impeachment

His closing entreaty to the current members of Congress, especially his fellow Republicans:  

“Republicans, don’t fight the process, follow the facts wherever they lead, and put country above party.”

I don’t think that is too much to ask.

49 thoughts on “Another Republican comes out concerning impeachment

      1. Disingenuous?

        The Democrats were committed to impeaching Trump since the morning after the election, grasping at one straw after another in hopes of something plausible.

        Now they have given up on finding something real and are settling on a cause that exists only in the presumptions of offended bureaucrats.

        Expect Pelosi to fold in mid December rather than allow the Senate to have its turn calling witnesses.

        Like

        1. “ …cause that exists only in the presumptions of offended bureaucrats.”

          Really. I know you have great disdain for bureaucrats, but just dismissing their testimony as nothing is a bit pretentious.

          IMHO

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Really?

            Which of them testified that Trump directly ordered them to threaten Ukraine with denial of military aid unless Biden was investigated?

            I’m not interested in what they thought he wanted, or whether they agreed with his policy.

            Which one testified that Trump ordered them to break the law?

            It’s not just disdain for bureaucrats, it’s adherence to the Constitution. Policy is made by officials who must face the voters. No one else. Bureaucrats advise and carry out the policy of elected officials, they don’t overrule or ‘work around’ the elected officials.

            No matter how smart they think they are, or even if they are that smart, if you want to make policy, get elected.

            Like

          2. There is a lot of irrelevant discussion on this thread about directed “crimes” and such.

            Bribery to effect the 2020 election by a foreign power was already confessed to: by the President.

            Impeach and remove; or admit the US Constitution is null and void…

            Liked by 1 person

          3. @Tabor

            So, if there really is nothing to see here why are the people closest to Mr. Trump being blocked from giving their testimony? Here is a thought . . . NOBODY – and especially not Trump- would block someone who had exonerating testimony to offer. The lack of first hand testimony is part of yet another impeachable offense – contempt of Congress. We have a President, not a King and the idea he confers blanket immunity from process on those around him is anathema.

            Your claims that Democrats have been committed to impeachment from day one is simply something that you have pulled out of your ass. Maybe you are confusing the Republican Robert Mueller appointed by the Republican DOJ with the Democratic Party? In fact, when the Democrats took the House and thus had the power to impeach the Democratic leadership made it clear that impeachment was NOT a priority. None of this would be happening had not a patriotic whistle blower stood up against the criminal behavior going on around him and forced their hand.

            Attempting to spin this criminality as a tempest in a bureaucrat’s teapot does not stand up to the facts. The phone call alone proves corrupt intent and that is just in the expurgated version we have seen.

            Liked by 4 people

        2. Your interpretation of their testimonies is obviously from your point of view.

          I saw, or read, none of that. I heard that they were trying to do their jobs in chaotic conditions, with shifting policies and trying to understand Giuliani’s role.

          The “workaround” was by Giuliani and the “three amigos” whose roles were not even communicated to the professionals.

          Bottom line is that the professionals were often left in the dark. And Sondland was a clueless wreck.

          For that mess you blame the bureaucrats?

          Sure, why not. That is the “Trump Way”, blame everyone else for his chaotic foul ups.

          Liked by 4 people

          1. So?

            How is that relevant? Did any of them swear under oath that Trump ordered them to do anything illegal?

            I really don’t care if they presumed he wanted them to. They could always ask for clarification.

            Like

          2. @Tabor

            So now your theory is that the months long extortion conspiracy did not have a leader. These dozen or so public and private individuals cooked it all up themselves leaving poor little Donnie in the dark? How then do you account for the overheard phone call from Sondland in that Kiev restaurant – in a breach of security that would cause heads to explode if Hillary or Obama had done it?

            I wonder, at what point does your self-respect kick in and you stop acting as an apologist for this demented con man?

            Liked by 2 people

        3. “ They could always ask for clarification.”

          I believe Taylor did in his texts and subsequent conversations with Sondland. Those were pretty damning on their own.

          Like Dr. Hill said, they were just testifying to the facts as they understood them from what they were told and heard.

          Did you expect to plead the Fifth out of loyalty to the president or the truth out of loyalty to our country?

          Liked by 4 people

          1. How is Taylor querying Sondland. when both admitted they were acting on presumptions, in any way clarifying of Trump’s intent?

            When Sondland finally did get around to asking Trump, Trump answered pretty clearly. Prior to that, Sondland was acting on his own presumptions.

            Like

          2. Sondland did not ask nor get clarification from Trump until AFTER the call’s concerns were raised. The timeline is extremely important in this regard. Trump did not say anything about “no quid pro quo” until after the details started coming out and it was backside covering 101.

            Liked by 2 people

        4. “ Prior to that, Sondland was acting on his own presumptions.”

          Sondland was the treasured million dollar donor to Trump. He was not the career diplomat. He could, and did of course, just pick up his phone and call Trump anytime.

          Taylor was the man trying hard to do his job, by the rules, as he was been paid to do. To him, Trump’s clumsy attempt to bribe Zelensky for his own political gain was wrong.

          Gee, an ethical man is sure a pain in the butt.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. It’s not disdain for diplomats, and it doesn’t matter if they are right and Trump is wrong. What matters is that Trump is elected.

            It is certainly wise to seek their council, but remember that their council got us into the endless wars.

            And the GOP committed to beating Obama at the next election, not to try to impeach him, though they should have.

            Like

          2. …to try to impeach him, though they should have.”…

            You always say that and I have come to believe that you would feel that way of ANY president from the Democratic Party. If he had done anything worthy of impeachment, they would have gone for it. Look to 1998 for reference. Obama did NOTHING remotely like what Trump has done.

            It amazes me that someone who is so steeped in the Constitution is so blind to what has been done to it by this man.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Obama should have been impeached when he unlawfully used US forces to assist in the overthrow of Gahdafi.

            THere was no declaration of war, AUMF from 9/11 did not apply as there was no terrorist activity against the US in Libya, and the War Powers Resolution also did not apply as Gahdafi was no threat to us or any ally.

            So firing over 100 cruise missiles against Libyan forces was not just impeachable, it was a war crime.

            Like

          4. You are entitled to your opinion, as wrongheaded as it is. And if that were the case, the GOP leadership, with Magic Mitch as drum major, would have been leading the band to call for such impeachment. Wasn’t even considered.

            Like I said; You would find any excuse to impeach a Democratic POTUS, just because he (or she) is a Democrat. Party over country is the mantra of the day. I just never thought a leading Libertarian would be acting that way.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. The GOP was so afraid of being called racist that they wouldn’t impeach Obama if he had murdered the Supreme Court.

            Refer to Article I section 8 of the Constitution which gives Congress the sole power to declare war. There were lots of things Obama did that I think were wrong, but Fast and Furious and the attack on Libya are the only ones I recommended he be impeached for.

            Like

          6. That article has been ignored since after December 8, 1941, so invoking that as an impeachable action is horse feathers.

            And the GOP showed zero backbone if what he did was impeachable. Kind of like the lack of spine they have now under the thumb of one Donald J. Trump.

            Like

        5. “It’s not disdain for diplomats, and it doesn’t matter if they are right and Trump is wrong. What matters is that Trump is elected.

          It is certainly wise to seek their council, but remember that their council got us into the endless wars.”

          How have the diplomats gotten us into endless wars?

          As far a right and wrong, it does matter. A lot. Bush got us into the mess in the Middle East, the “endless wars” by ignoring his advisors and listening to Cheney and the neo-cons. Generals were adamant that the kind of war Rumsfeld was proposing would not work. Tenet has admitted that he regretted the false statement of WMD’s being a “slam dunk”. But he succumbed to the pressure of the ELECTED officials.

          In other words, the elected officials and the political appointees screwed everything up royally. And the cost in lives and treasure has been on a catastrophic scale.

          If the professionals see wrong doing or laws being broken, it is their duty to report it. It is not a matter of making policy, it is a matter of the rule of law, domestic and international. The president is not above that law either.

          Trump has fired, let go or ignored almost all of his advisors until he got the sycophants. He even has gone as far as not selecting some cabinet bosses so the interim ones are not subject to Senate approval.

          So when Trump goes “stupid” there is no control. I don’t care if he is elected or not. Stupid moves by the president are dangerous and often cost lives and money on a grand scale.

          IMHO

          Liked by 4 people

          1. How is any of that relevant?

            Unelected bureaucrats have no authority to substitute their judgment for that of elected officials.

            If they don’t like a policy, they can voice their objections through their superiors, and if they can’t accept the decision, they can resign, but they cannot go rogue and overrule the elected officials.

            Like

          2. “Unelected bureaucrats have no authority to substitute their judgment for that of elected officials.”

            Maybe not. But they do have a duty to report malfeasance when they see it coming from the elected leaders. Trump’s action were not national security policy; they were attempts to influence a foreign leader to give him political cover.

            And the backside covering that has gone on since the whistle blower report became evident is almost comical. It would be funny if it weren’t so damaging to the country as a whole.

            Like

        6. Maybe the Democrats were INDEED committed to impeaching ‘djt’. They witnessed the same things I did; such as a presidential candidate asking a foreign leader to help him get elected by meddling in our election. That,alone always seemed impeachable to me. Among other things of course.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. In context, the email thing was a pretty funny joke.

            The point being that by the time Clinton erased her server it had probably been hacked by every foreign intelligence service in the world, so they could give us copies of the missing emails.

            Like

          2. No proof of your BS. And if that were the case it would have happened by now.

            You finding Trump to be a stand up comedian is hysterical itself. I’d rather see him @ the Funny Bone than in the Oval Office

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I find it laughable that so many ‘djt’ defenders still stick with the nonsensical notion that he was joking. If he HAD been joking I think he wouldn’t have rebuked Katy Tur twice in one day when she asked him if he wanted to rethink that request. I guess the JOKE defense is better than nothing….

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Read more carefully. It was not a request, it was a joke based on the certainty that Clinton’s servers had ALREADY been hacked by everyone who had a desire to already. Any foreign intelligence service in the world could have supplied us with the missing emails. Why should they have them and the national archives not?

            Like

        7. Going rogue?

          Who went rogue and overruled elected officials?

          The whole Ukraine mess started when a whistleblower did go to superiors to report a wrongdoing.

          How did the bureaucrats effect policy? All they did was report what happened and elected officials took it from there. Their testimonies under oath required them to tell what they knew. The only one who tried to lie but finally came around was Sondland who was Trump’s boy, not a pro.

          Sorry, but you are either not making sense or I am totally missing some nefarious actions by the professionals.

          Liked by 1 person

  1. Democrats still lack the smoking gun that proves something that isn’t even “unlawful” happened. I thought, I believe, thats what it looked like is not proof of squat. I challenge any liberal to show us the “law” that was broken. Everyone knows none exists. The only thing that exists is democrats finding political fault in unpolitical people and the voting public has tired of the phony suspense. That is trouble for Democrats and the reason that Schitt won’t commit to articles. He wants to stick his political toe in the water first.

    Like

    1. “Everyone knows none exists” Talk about presumptions. Even the GOP said Trump did it, but their fealty to Trump causes them to say that it isn’t unconstitutional. When in actuality, to MANY, it appears to be.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. So the test is to lick your finger, stick it in the air and yell something is abuse of power because you say so? What GOP said he did it? A few republicans doesn’t make the GOP.

        Like

        1. I wasn’t the first to say it. But at least I can see it for what it is: Impeachable Conduct.

          And I left out “many in”. The point is, even Graham, the most ardent supporter in the Senate, said he did what he did, but like Mr. Roberts, he says “So what”. And 1998 Lindsay Graham would be apoplectic over Trump’s actions. He certainly was when Clinton was lying about a little “smoke job” in the Oval Office. But he fears Trump and his 40% base. As do many in the GOP. Party comes first to these folks and it is a sad time for all of us because of it.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. So, on short, you made it up. Very typical of liberals these days, phony mass hysteria to stomp feet, scream and pour over.

            Like

    2. @Smith

      What law was broken? Which one wasn’t might be a shorter answer. But here, learn something. Not only is bribery a listed impeachable offense in the Constitution. Guess what, it is also a crime. Don’t want to believe me? Okay, how about the U.S.Code . . .

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

      Note that under the law bribery occurs not just when something of value is transferred but as soon as the public official demands such a favor.

      “whoever being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly DEMANDS, SEEKS, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

      (A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;”

      As soon as Trump personally asked Zelensky for that favor of investigating Biden he was in violation of this law.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. “Impeach him for his buffoonery.”

      Exactly. Impeachment is in the Constitution to allow our democracy to deal with a President or other high official who is simply unsuitable – for whatever reason – for the trust they had been given.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Speaking of buffoonery, the newspaper sent me a renewal bill to go through June 2020. I looked at it and thought, “Wow, 6 months went by awfully fast.” So, I checked my check register for the last payment.

    I sent it in July, which would have been 1 month before the end of the last subscription, August. Wait. It does say 6 months. That’s two months I’m missing out on in a year.

    That’s when I read the fine print. “We publish 11 special editions each year at a cost of $4.99 which is charged against your subscription. If you end your subscription with insufficient funds you will be billed separately, otherwise the cost will be charged against your subscription.”

    Sneaky bastards.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I had the same issue and if memory serves, they also reduced the number of months inbetween billing cycles so you wouldn’t notice the big increase in the price.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I changed my subscription from Wednesday through Sunday to just Wednesday AND Sunday, including digital. They were running a “deal” for $75/year. Oh, and the caveat was the same for “extra” inserts and “this could change anytime we feel like it”.

      Who knows? All I do know is that my carrier gets a cash tip from me at Christmas. I get up in the dark and wait for her and greet her personally. I don’t think the paper would screw her out of my tip, but at least I know who she is. And, yes, it has been a woman most years.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s