Democrats need to understand that we are a big tent party. In fact, we are THE big tent party.
So, when Colin Peterson, representing Congressional District 7 in Minnesota votes in favor of environmentally irresponsible mining, or against health care reform, or against sensible gun control, or against a woman’s right to choose, he looks like a Republican, acts like a Republican, and smells like a Republican, but we accept that because we are a big tent party and he represents a very conservative district.
When Colin Peterson votes in favor of mining-influenced labor at the expense of the regional environment that supports business and workers in the very important tourist industry, we somehow manage to accept that because we are a big tent party and we recognize that he is representing the anti-environmentalists who are apparently in the majority in his district.
But yesterday, Colin Peterson voted to protect Donald Trump from justice. He voted to place Donald Trump above the law.
If that vote is not a career ending vote with the Democratic Party, the the Democrats that choose to put Peterson up for election have a reckoning before them.
The big tent should not be a cover for rape or rapists. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of Donald Trump he is supporting a rapist. The DFLers of the 7th District should not endorse a candidate who favors rape over the law.
The big tent should not include white supremacy. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of the white supremacist in the White House, he is attacking every Minnesotan including those in his own district whether they realize it or not. The DFLers of the 7th district should not stand for this.
The big tent should not include criminal behavior. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of a president whose associates are in prison for things that president himself is done, he is attacking the rule law and telling us that Trump is above the law, and thus, above all of us as, effectively, a dictator. The DFLers of the 7th district can not possibly think that Donald Trump is above the law. Right?
The big tent should not include people who throw our allies under the bus, and use the military as a political tool. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of Donald Trump, he is throwing the military, our veterans, our national security and our foreign policy under the bus. Is this what the DFLers of the 7the district support?
The big tent does not include the Kremlin, or Vladimir Putin, or Russian foreign policy. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of Donald Trump he joins an attempt to overthrow our democracy. He joins an attempt to end our civilization. He joins and attempt to ruin the futures for our children and grand children. I simply can not believe that the DFLers of Minnesota’s 7th district want to throw our democracy away.
There is no Democratic Party or DFL tent that includes Donald Trump and his followers. Colin Peterson is an accolade of Donald Trump. Colin Peterson carries Trump’s water. It is appalling that he represents the DFL.
I hereby call on Representative Colin Peterson to resign from the DFL and name himself as what he is: A Republican. Following his vote against progressing with an impeachment inquiry, he is no longer of sufficient moral standing to be a Democrat. There is no tent that includes him.
I’m hearing the “oh, but we are a big tent” excuse from many DFLers in the 7th district. Some seem to not realize that there are limits to that concept, and that opposing an impeachment inquiry is, at this point, beyond that limit. DFLers of Minnesota’s 7th district: now is the time for you to stand up for what is right. Endorse someone else, and if we lose the seat, so be it. But above all, stop trying to convince yourselves that we can’t win with a real Democrat. Maybe we can, maybe we can’t, but we never will if you don’t even try. And, if Colin Peterson is all you’ve got, it is not worth it. Put your shoulder to some other task and win there.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Yeah, un-effing believable. I’ve been too busy to search for what possible excuse the two Dems could have had for their votes, so I don’t know if they have tried to defend themselves or not.
It isn’t surprising that every Republican voted against — when your election and future depends on keeping the worst people in the country on your side you don’t dare exercise anything resembling integrity or rational thought.
Ya I heard, I think it was on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show, that they were waiting until all the evidence was in before deciding. That is a nice bit of gaslighting – there is already ample evidence. These two DINOs are putting their reelection chances ahead of country and constitution. They are oathbreakers.
I think that is a good idea. Colin Peterson should switch to the Republicans. That would be great. Then he can win his seat again in 2020 in the 7th district and the Republicans can continue making Minnesota more purple.
It’s not an impeachment resolution.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1188933086387593217
They are trying to conduct investigations contrary to House rules, where they can poison the jury pool with selective leaks, and not let the minority call witnesses or even question the witnesses that were called.
Taylor’s opening statement was released, but not his cross-examination which the Republican members claim eviscerated his opening statement.
Vindman’s questioning by Republicans was shut down by Schiff, again with GOP claiming it, but no transcript released.
MikeN:
I agree – the process is very unusual and problematic.
In my view, Congress doesn’t even have oversight of Article II plenary matters – like foreign diplomacy. Of course, that only goes so far. For example if a President committed treason during foreign diplomacy, Congress could investigate and impeach.
But what Trump did in that call is much less than treason.
My analysis:
What Biden did in 2016 in Ukraine was either wrong or not wrong. If wrong, then it is ok for Trump to ask for it to be investigated by Ukraine, as they have the facts about the prosecutor that Biden got fired, using the threat of withholding military aid to accomplish that. If not wrong – then what did Trump do wrong? He is just asking Ukraine to verify that Biden’s curtailment of the 2016 investigation of Hunter’s company was ok and proper. I don’t see the problem.
Maybe the prosecutor was corrupt and it was ok for Biden to leverage foreign aide to get him fired. Maybe Biden had corrupt motives to get the prosecutor fired (to help Hunter). If what Biden did turns out to be ok – than how can Trump have a problem using foreign aid as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate matters related to the 2016 campaign? Even just to verify nothing wrong happened.
The fact that Trump may benefit politically in 2020 because Biden is running has nothing to do with what Biden did in 2016, which may have benefited a company his son was on the board of.
Maybe both Biden and Trump committed impeachable offenses by leveraging foreign aid for personal gain. In which case, Trump asking Ukraine to investigate is also ok.
So far, what I have seen of the call doesn’t amount to what I would call a high crime or misdemeanor. It looks like normal foreign diplomacy to me. Using foreign aid as leverage is the norm, not an impeachable offense. What is unusual isn’t that foreign aid was used as leverage here – it is that Biden did the same thing in 2016 that Trump did in 2019, which is now being considered an impeachable offense by a partisan democratic house, and also that Biden (who arguably did the same thing) is now running against the President in the upcoming campaign. It is not as if Trump asked Ukraine to make stuff up to help him in his current campaign for reelection.
Of course the House can impeach on a partisan vote – if they want.
I think it will only garner Trump more support, and the Senate will acquit – but so be it.
I am sure we will learn more about how this whole matter started in the first place. It looks to me like a group of never trumpers and resistance democrats embedded in the Trump administration worked directly with Schiff to whip this whole thing up, using Trump’s obsession with the 2016 democratic dirty tricks and his desire to have Ukraine investigate them against him when the opportunity arose. But we will see. I look forward to seeing all the contacts the so called whistleblower had with Schiff and his aides, and whether Schiff and his aides helped write the whistleblower complaint.
So the entire process does look fishy to me.
Trump’s done much else that would be formally identified as treason in most other countries, and it would be so identified in the USA were it only for a formal recognition of a state of war.
Ironically Putin has as good as declared cyber war on the USA, by hacking and by manipulating social media for propaganda purposes, and the Trump administration has turned a blind eye to the fact: not only does this aid Putin in his attack against the USA, it provides cover for Trump’s behaviour in aiding and providing comfort to Putin’s attacks.
And there we see two prime examples of right-wingers willfully ignoring reality (with 50% of them outright lying).
“What Biden did in 2016 in Ukraine was either wrong or not wrong. ”
Well we know it wasn’t — he acted along with requests from the EU and other countries. The original investigator wasn’t doing the job, he was sitting on it: the replacement did proceed with the investigation. That came out long ago.
But, since it’s rickA, the default realization reading the comment is that it will be a bald-faced lie, and yes, reading through his crap, nothing in it is true. (Just his usual bullshit “opinions”.)
Everything that has come out of the depositions so far has made it obvious that Trump & his minions are even more corrupt and ignorant than I thought they were. And every criticism of the “process” is to me evidence that the process is a good one, though I’m sure that the Republicans wish that it wasn’t.
The ridiculous Republican carping and whining about the process ignores the plain and simple fact that the investigative process is not subject to the same rules as the judicial process. The suspect(s) in a possible crime, don’t get to crossexamine the witnesses nor do they have any right to full disclosure of the evidence, for or against, as it is amassed. That’s what courts are for.
Why should they worry about facts when it’s easier to say they’re being treated unfairly?
No reason at all; so far it’s worked for them. Poor Republicans, how they suffer. First that nasty black man wouldn’t accept their agenda after he was somehow elected president, then they were criticized for inviting Russians to saturate Facebook with lies that led to a rich white man in the white house again, and now that poor Trumpkin is being harassed because he tried to encourage more of the same. Oh cry for us America, they weep.
@ Tyvor
Nitpicking – there are some doubts about the ‘rich’ part. Well, richer than me, I agree, but that’s not much.
Unless you count debts and an almost-supernatural ability to make other people pay for you…
This reminds me:
> to turn down NRA money?
What should people do in the special election in Pennsylvania?
Conor Lamb is pro-NRA, and Rick Saccone is endorsed by the NRA.
What if you have a Democrat endorsed by the NRA running against a Republican who isn’t supporting the NRA?
Reply
Greg Laden
February 22, 2018 at 3:25 pm
Good questions. In the former case, I would vote for the Democrat then I’d be all over that candidate like ugly on an ape every minute until they changed their minds, and I’d be looking for an alternative to primary them next time around. In the case of the later … well, show me examples and I’ll respond on a case by case basis. I doubt you’ll find any current examples.
So where’s the all over that candidate? Where’s the primary challenger?
After two weeks of impeachment hearings, Trumps support has gone up. The facts are very ambiguous. Trump wanted investigations in return for a meeting? Not aid? Were the investigations related to 2016 (looking backwards) or related to 2020 (looking forward)? Not clear. It doesn’t look like a strong case for impeachment. But the democrats have the votes, so they don’t really need a strong case.
Trump will get acquitted in the Senate.
Meanwhile the IG report will come out Dec. 9th and Dunham’s report will follow sometime thereafter (no idea on when that is coming out). I look forward to seeing what these reports say and I am still interested in whether Schiff’s people helped write the whistleblower’s complaint. Maybe Bolton will have something to say?
So a lot to look forward to.
Still – all in all – it looks to me like Trump will have to be beaten with electoral votes next year and won’t be removed from office.
He got beaten with votes the first time around. Three million of them. It’s only your fucked-up, Republican-favouring Electoral College system that put the clown in the White House.
And only the Party-before-country Republicans that will keep him there when he obviously should be impeached.
Enjoy your turkey. You’ve earned it.
Re: “After two weeks of impeachment hearings, Trumps support has gone up.”
With the Republican base perhaps but not the general public.
“The facts are very ambiguous. Trump wanted investigations in return for a meeting? Not aid? Were the investigations related to 2016 (looking backwards) or related to 2020 (looking forward)? Not clear. It doesn’t look like a strong case for impeachment.”
You must not have been paying attention; all of those things you mentioned were clear enough that the Republicans haven’t been able to say or do anything intelligent in rebuttal at all. And some Republicans in the administration have done damage to the current inhabitant of the White House while the others don’t dare testify under oath because they can be punished for lying and they have nothing truthful to say that will help at all. Trump, as usual, is simply lying every time he opens his mouth.
Just to get you up to date: Trump withheld a meeting AND monetary aid from Congress. The latter is an illegal usurpration of Congress’s power of the purse. The meeting was important because it was a symbol of U. S. support for an ally in a precarious position even now fighting a war with Russia, and the money was support for that war. That was what the President was dangling over the new president of Ukraine. That this was known to be wrong by the President is shown by the fact that he used his personal layer and an alternate cast of dubious characters to implement his plan, rather than working through the professional diplomats and staffs.
The condition for restoring the meeting and the money was made known to the Ukrainians’ it was a public announcement by the president of Ukraine that the Bidens were to be investigated as would a fake theory (already debunked by American intelligence as well as a bipartisan Congressional committee) that it was not the Russian wh originating in Russian intelligence that the Ukraine and not Russia that had interfered with the 2016 election in Trump’s favor, but the Ukraine.
Note that the money wasn’t Trump’s to hold up or give; it had been appropriated by Congress with no conditions attached about investigations. Compounding his wrongdoing, Trump illegally ordered his minions to refuse to testify or provide documents to the Congressional investigative team, and that clearly constitutes obstruction of Congress’s Constitutional oversight power, which, of course, is a violation of the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution which all government employees take and that includes abiding by the separation of powers.
There was no benefit to the U. S. as a country in any of Trumpist plot, in fact it was the opposite, it was purely an attempt to (1) get “dirt” on Joe Biden before the 2020 election, or at least indicate/imply that there was some dirt to get, and (2) smooth the way for Russia to interfere with the 2020 election on Trump’s behalf. Therefore it was an abuse of the power of the Presidency by Donald Trump and the only way he will not be impeached for it is by the Republican senators ignoring the facts, violate their oaths, and refusing to impeach him for fear of angering the Republican base and thereby failing to get reelected when they come up for reelection.
Don’t try to use facts with rickA. He’s not familiar with them so they mean nothing to him.
Have a great thanksgiving everybody!
Well it has been another week and impeachment fever is receding.
Several democrats have come out against it, perhaps sensing that support has dropped for impeachment and the facts are not as strong as originally hoped for.
It will be interesting to read the intelligence committee report and see how they massage the facts to try to make an impeachable offense out of them. This is where it will all start to fall apart (I believe). Bribery isn’t going to sell, so it sounds like they will default to obstruction and maybe throw in some of the Mueller stuff – I guess we will see.
Then the action will shift to the justice committee – that will be interesting.
I cannot wait to see what they actually draft up for the articles of impeachment.
That should be interesting and entertaining.
Lots of popcorn consumed this week.
I predict that Trump will choose not to participate and hold all his cards for the Senate trial.
As Ralph Nader recently wrote on Truthdig, Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office along with his gang of corporate goons for his attempts to turn the biosphere into a simmering greenhouse gas chamber. Forget Ukraine and Biden – Trump’s brazen disregard for climate science is enough for him to be evicted from office.
This whole administration is rotten to the core. It is tragic that Trump’s ‘base’ are just too dumb to see it.
Dumb and, as we see here, dishonest to their core.
As a real lawyer myself, I am used to hearing real lawyers. All I hear is personal opinion – and biased personal opinion at that. Personal opinion which is widely disputed by other lawyers (such as myself and Turley). Am I partisan – of course. Are all the lawyers testifying partisan – of course. We are all partisan – that is a fact.
This hearing is a joke. I look forward to reading the actual articles of impeachment. Since this is clearly a partisan matter, they might as well just move to the house floor with the articles of impeachment and conduct the partisan vote, so we can move on to the Senate and actually hear some evidence on the defenses the President will surely be able to mount.
Like why cannot he ask a foreign government ask for an investigation of potential criminal behavior. Didn’t Biden personally benefit in stopping the investigation of a company his son sat on? In an election year (2016)? Would press about an investigation into a Ukrainian company that Biden’s son sat on in 2016 be bad for Biden’s re-election as vice president? Of course Biden personally benefited by stopping any such investigation – at least according to the current expansive definition of “bribery” and abuse of power. He obtained personal political benefit and he used American money to do it – isn’t that what is currently being alleged against Trump? What is good for the goose is good for the gander – right?
Personally, I don’t see what Biden did or what Trump did as an impeachable offense – but the comparison will surely come up in the Senate trial. Also, what the President’s actual intent for withholding the aid was will come up as well. Actual intent which we do not even know yet. Nobody knows why Trump delayed the aid – that was clearly testified to. All we have are assumptions and presumptions. Trump keep the reason very close to his chest – as he is won’t to do. Only Trump and perhaps some other cabinet or white house officials know this – and they have not testified yet. Why? Because of executive privileged – a perfectly valid defense which the courts have not finally ruled on yet. To call this obstruction is a another joke.
But no matter – the house has the votes and they can vote to impeach if they choose to do so. I say let it be done and over with. Then the matter can move to the senate and it can be done with (one way or the other – although I bet on an acquittal).
This is very bad of the house and they will rue the day they watered down an impeachable offense to the point that every president who ever was elected committed an impeachable offense. Because every future president will be found to have committed an impeachable offense in our very partisan future.
I cannot think of any act of foreign diplomacy which wouldn’t be impeachable – given the broad definition.
Obama didn’t invade Syria – even after they violated the line in the sand he had drawn. Clearly he personally benefited politically and therefore this was an impeachable offense (arguably).
Carter tried to rescue the Iran hostages just prior to an election – clearly impeachable (had he won reelection) – after all he clearly did it for personal political gain. A successful rescue would have helped him in the election.
Give me a break. Perhaps you can see the problem (or probably not).
Fund raisers are for personal political gain.
Politicians are political and they do lots of things to try to win elections – and now all of those actions will be impeachable (arguably).
This is such a bad idea – but that won’t stop the democrats – they will vote to impeach anyway.
I suspect this will guarantee Trump’s reelection.
I guess we will see.
You’re protesting too much. Again.
Real legal scholars, far more expert in constitutional law than you (patents in your case, isn’t it?) disagree with you:
https://medium.com/@legalscholarsonimpeachment/letter-to-congress-from-legal-scholars-6c18b5b6d116
“Didn’t Biden personally benefit in stopping the investigation of a company his son sat on? ”
No dickhead, he did not. That’s been covered repeatedly. Not even the first Republican review of that found anything. You keep repeating lies (as is your tradition) but they are still lies.
“As a real lawyer myself”
I chuckled, then I realized you expected us to take you seriously, and I laughed quite hard.
So now they are going to draft articles of impeachment. That shouldn’t take to long. I would be surprised if they haven’t been working on them all along. I look forward to reading them.
In the meantime, identity politics rears its ugly head (again). Now it is racist not to have people of color on the debate stage? It doesn’t matter that they don’t meet the objective criteria set forth months ago – it is racist just because they didn’t make the cut. I guess it is ultimately the democrats fault – since it is all based on polling and donations. So the accusation is an insult to the democratic base. The democrats are eating their own (again). Funny.
This is going to be such fun. I cannot wait for the Senate trial – that should be very entertaining!
Watching the Republicans wipe their collective arse on the Constitution in an egregious act of Party before country isn’t ‘entertaining’. It is the stuff of nightmares, even for non-Americans.
And you call yourself a patriot.
BBD says “And you call yourself a patriot.”
Actually I don’t recall calling myself a patriot. Quote please.
You watch what you like and I will watch what I like – that is the American way.
Are you a patriot?
Yes / no
BBD asks – Are you a patriot?
Probably not – as I do not vigorously defend all of America’s actions.
America has done plenty which is wrong and which I disagree with.
I think slavery was wrong.
I think interning Japanese Americans was wrong.
And so forth.
If drafted, would I help defend America – yes.
I guess it depends on what your definition is – which is why I didn’t think I had used that term here before.
Getting me to answer your yes/no question doesn’t change the fact that I hadn’t called myself a patriot before.
I still think the Senate trial will be entertaining.
You routinely refer – with approval – to the ‘American way’, eg.
This is inconsistent with not being a patriot. Yet you refuse to give a straight answer as it would undermine your bullshit.
Just as you dodged the fact that Republican refusal to impeach undermines the Constitution itself.
You are supposed to be a lawyer, so you will recognise a pattern of revealing obfuscation when you see it.
“This is going to be such fun. I cannot wait for the Senate trial ”
I’m sure it will be fun if you don’t care about law, the country, or basic decency. We know you don’t care about any of those, which is why you can’t wait.
Spoiler: When it gets there the republican there, who are as scummy as you are, will put their interests over the good of the country. That lack of integrity is the defining characteristic of them and people like you.
I do care about the law, the country and basic decency. It is just that my opinion on these matters differs from yours.
You think guns should be banned. I think that violates the 2nd amendment.
You think ECS is 3.0 C. I think ECS is lower than 3.0 C.
You think it is decent to make stuff up and eject someone from office over made up stuff, and I do not.
You think corporations are not allowed to engage in speech – I don’t agree.
You think it is ok to engage in name calling and I think it is rude and uncivilized behavior.
And so forth.
Just a simple difference of opinion.
I think we can agree that we disagree on a lot of issues. And that is ok. We get to do that in America.
Except this is not being made up. It is solidly supported by the evidence. Once again, you engage in counterfactual argument presented as your ‘opinion’ – as if this somehow validated your bullshit – which it does not.
“You think it is decent to make stuff up and eject someone from office over made up stuff,”
In which we see just how shitty a “lawyer” ricka actuall is.
RickA
Defending Trump and/or his team indicates that with you the definition of basic decency is very flexible.
Now, ‘the country’ and caring for it should be inclusive of all fellow citizens. Given Trump’s verbal attacks, sometimes inciting violence, against those not like his base the fact that you still stand up for Trump indicates that you don’t really care about ‘the country’.
Now I guess as a lawyer, your interpretation of ‘the law’ may be different to that of others. You have demonstrated that this is the case on numerous occasions.
“Now I guess as a lawyer,”
As repeatedly stupid as his comments are you have to wonder if he paid to get a degree from Cooley Law School — or Liberty’s, two of the worst schools in existence. It’s a better bet his was through an on-line “send us a check and a letter explaining what color your degree should be” site.
law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/12/06/hundreds-of-law-profs-declare-trumps-conduct-clearly-impeachable/?slreturn=20191107135352