I told you Tulsi's the one!

[Ron Ecker]

To play devil's advocate, Tulsi wanted the House to censure Trump, not impeach him. So she didn't "condone" what he did. She wanted censure and then let the people decide. But instead, with impeachment, we now have a political circus going, thanks to what used to be the Republican Party, with the imbecilic Trump ranting for two solid hours to his devoted cultists in Michigan, and (the latest) Pelosi hinting that she may not even send the articles to the Senate. This is what America has come to.

 

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Censure won't mean anything. We've had a political circus going on for 3 years Ron.  As I mentioned the idea of holding on to the judgment is more likely to ensure Trump won't try to interfere with the election process again. Also who knows what further crimes Trump has committed that may still be exposed and crimes he may commit still.

There's also the leverage angle. Some of us think Pompeo, Mulvaney, Mc Gann and Bolton should testify, and stopping them from testifying is obstruction of justice. It's obvious now Mac Connel has expressed he will in essence be part of a further obstruction. 

This could also be a leveraging for a roster of witnesses to testify and some not to testify. (Hunter Biden) People can certainly disagree about  whether the political strategies will work or backfire.

But if you're really that concerned about what's good for the country, by all means-vote!

Yes, I expect Trump to go into multi hour long diatribes similar to Fidel Castro in the future.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Larry Hancock]

Actually I don't think its a circus at all, the process is simply exposing the fact that individuals who claim to be the proponents of checks and balances actually are only as long as the checks and balances do not threaten the power structure which benefits their political careers and agendas.  Beyond that the politicians who say they are willing to reach a conclusion while actually supporting obstruction of justice in sanctioning the withholding obvious witnesses and documentation are visibly outed in terms of their disdain for actual justice. Its sort of refreshing to see that level of hypocrisy so clearly exposed - nauseating yes but still its the ultimate transparency. 

 

[Ron Ecker]

To see how America has changed, go back to the hearings where Nixon faced impeachment. There were some men with honor then in the Republican Party like Howard Baker. Try to find one now.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

There she is again, opposing HRC and making too much sense:

 

In my view, the fact that she has to go on Tucker Carlson to get her message out on these stupid regime change wars tells us reams about CNN and MSNBC.  Because if she went on those two all she would hear is, "Why do you like Assad?"

[Ron Ecker]

Where we need a regime change is here in the United States.

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

Where we need a regime change is here in the United States.

 

 

Agreed, but which "regime," ultimately, needs to be changed?

I think JFK had the right idea about U.S. regime change when he told Mike Mansfield that he wanted to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces and cast it to the wind."

As POTUS, Hillary Clinton would, doubtless, have followed the Neocon/PNAC war plans in the Middle East, but now Donald Trump appears to be a Neocon mule in his own right, as Michael Wolff claimed in Fire and Fury.  The only difference between HRC and Trump in that regard is that Trump is a far more impulsive, reckless Neocon mule than Hillary would have been.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Donald Trump to tell us "who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11."

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim said: In my view, the fact that she has to go on Tucker Carlson to get her message out.

That's because nobody wants to hear from her anymore. Shes political dead meat and dead meat for good. Of course Tucker Carlson wants to find Democrats who stand with Trump, she was  MIA in impeachment. That's what the major Cable news are doing now, mining defectors.

Shes not the only candidate who wanted to end regime change wars. But the others could speak volubly on other subjects that are just more important to the American public. And she didn't show the power of her convictions, was MIA with the Democrats on Trump impeachment,

And now, of course now this debate is over. HRC  would never have reversed the Iran Peace Treaty and would never have taken Soleimani out. As W says, For any who had doubts, Trump was always a neocon mule.  Shes lost any battle cry she had. You can be again be crushed over it, Jim, but people make bad judgments and later suffer the consequences and that's just politics.

 

  

 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway

[Douglas Caddy]

Tulsi Gabbard Claims 'Iran Is Closer Now To A Nuclear Weapon Than Ever Before,' Slams Trump For 'Undermining National Security'

 

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-claims-iran-closer-now-nuclear-weapon-ever-before-slams-trump-undermining-1481351?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&fbclid=IwAR0nPu8tPQ3uF0tfckRtxN8VkceCXnoRppP1t8sWslBm7gLVFGOHSa4TnnE#Echobox=1578594418

[James DiEugenio]

Bailing out of the Iran deal was just stupid.

ANd I think Trump did it just to spite Obama.