Isn't it Ironic

[Art]

I turned on the "idiot box" today and saw Alcee Hastings who currently chairs the House Rules Committee presiding over the hearing that's supposed to set the rules for the House impeachment vote. He was doing it pretty smugly too. Rep. Hastings used to be on the House Intelligence Committee, something he mentioned during the proceedings. Hastings is no longer on the Intelligence Committee because the Dems realized that as the ranking member on that Committee he would have chaired it when the Dems took back the House of Representatives last year. It would have been too hard for them to explain that Hastings, who, when he was a Federal District Judge, was impeached by the House of Representatives of taking bribes from drug rings and convicted and removed from the bench by a vote of 85 to 0 in the Senate was now in charge of the committee on state secrets. Not a single Democrat senator had his back in the senate trial though some "heard their momma calling" and found somewhere else to be when the vote was taken. I guess all this shows how much it takes to embarrass the Democrat party today. Any Republican who did anything approaching what Hastings did not only wouldn't be in Congress he'd probably be in Jail.

He did find a district in Florida that would make him its congress critter though. Talk about a "pocket borough."

[RED]

This is the same Alcee Hastings that was a Judge and was impeached for bribery and perjury by the House by a vote of 413-3 in 1988.

Where does that relate? That makes him an outstanding Democrat.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Hastings.htm

[dryheat]

I just knew it.

[oscars]

"I guess all this shows how much it takes to embarrass the Democrat party today. Any Republican who did anything approaching what Hastings did not only wouldn't be in Congress he'd probably be in Jail." These two sentences don't hang with the body of the post. Seems to be typical "whataboutism" or more formally parallelism in argumentation.

Your interpretation of the impeachment of Hastings fails to note that he was impeached by a Democratic Congress with a few Senators disappearing. Do you think that the present Republican Senate could get their collective noses out of Trumps rectum to do likewise? Me thinks that they are suffering from Potomac River Fever and have massive fears of losing privilege.

[lyman]

" they are suffering from Potomac River Fever and have massive fears of losing privilege.

that goes for both sides of the aisle

[togor]

"I guess all this shows how much it takes to embarrass the Democrat party today. Any Republican who did anything approaching what Hastings did not only wouldn't be in Congress he'd probably be in Jail." These two sentences don't hang with the body of the post. Seems to be typical "whataboutism" or more formally parallelism in argumentation.

Your interpretation of the impeachment of Hastings fails to note that he was impeached by a Democratic Congress with a few Senators disappearing. Do you think that the present Republican Senate could get their collective noses out of Trumps rectum to do likewise? Me thinks that they are suffering from Potomac River Fever and have massive fears of losing privilege.

Nice post. Yes, a lot of that going around.

And then there is the irony-impared GOP Congressman observing that there is no direct evidence of Trump committing impeachable acts, overlooking the fact that the principals have thus far escaped giving testimony under oath. And then when the GOP Senate lets Trump keep his job (out of fear for their own), we will be told that this is exoneration. And at some level it is. But not exoneration by the facts.

[barretcreek]

If I were subpoenaed by either house, knowing absolutely nothing I'd refuse to testify for fear of being set up in perjury trap. Goes 10X if I'd walked down a hallway in the WH.

[togor]

Some have testified extensively before Congress on this and come through it clean. So, it can be done. The key may be, to use Bolton's phrase, to "stay out of drug deals".

How different the current administration deals with Ukraine than a prior one did with Iran-Contra. I still remember Reagan's speech. He admitted like a man that something happened on his watch and took steps to get a handle on the problem. Meanwhile Giuliani continues to get fresh marching orders! Two entirely different examples of moral fiber. But then, Trump's lack of morals is part of his appeal--no deed is too unseemly if it helps Make America Great Again.

[RED]

A lot of people say Barry Goldwater lost his bid for the Presidency in 1964 because he said that "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

The quote was taken out of context and slewed. He was trying to get a message across along the lines of Nathan Hales statement on the gallows, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." That statement has been widely accepted as patriotic.

But today Barry still has a role in this world with the so called Goldwater Rule. The National/Socialist/Democrat Party has violated that rule ad nauseam.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/psychiat...rule-trump-era

The new NSD party slogan is "Any action done to promote or Make America Great Again is unseemly and a high crime."

[togor]

The older fellows may remember the famous Johnson "daisy" ad. Goldwater did open the door with some of his rhetoric. These days the ad would barely get noticed. In my dad's papers I have a reply written by Sen. Goldwater to him after the 1964 election (my dad having written a letter expressing disappointment at his loss). My sister has a similar reply to a letter she wrote to Gerald Ford after the 1976 election. Back when a lot of guys here were still voting Democrat.

[togor]

The new NSD party slogan is "Any action done to promote or Make America Great Again is unseemly and a high crime."

Back to the Nazi thing. But did you not notice that the Democratic House was willing to pass NAFTA2? How can that be if what you write is true?

[Roadkingtrax]

Back to the Nazi thing. But did you not notice that the Democratic House was willing to pass NAFTA2? How can that be if what you write is true?

A celebration of bipartisan, one Trump could claim if he had any political sense...however in his warped sense...working together doesn't fire up the "base".

[RED]

A celebration of bipartisan, one Trump could claim if he had any political sense...however in his warped sense...working together doesn't fire up the "base".

Of course you don't understand that NAFTA2 was negotiated and presented to Congress months ago. The Democrats in Congress refused to approve it knowing that the delay would cost the U.S. billions. That was fine with them, they would prefer to see the USA completely bankrupt with millions starving to death if they could blame Trump. All they care about is gotcha games like teeny boppers.

It is an absolute, utter, baldfaced, blatant lie when anyone even hints NAFTA2 approval was "bipartisan."

[Roadkingtrax]

Red, I do hope you get that weed removed in time for Christmas.

[RED]

Red, I do hope you get that weed removed in time for Christmas.

You are the psycho that lies when the truth would be better. Congress could have signed NAFTA II in May, June, July, August, September, October, or November. Who changed their votes? It wasn't the republicans it was the Democrats. The treaty was a good one and the only reason for them not to sign it was because that it would be a plus fotr Trump and America. Apparently they hate both of those.

Now here you come along and praise the Dems for being bipartisan when just the opposite is the truth and you know that and still claim I am on weed? Fess up! You lied about this because you hate Trump, yopu hate the Constitution, and would do anything to overthrow the U.S. Government. Go ahead and for once in your life tell the truth.