Number three I haven’t read. Number two is irrelevant. Number one is interesting—not close to scale of Russian interference, but something to note—but also not relevant to these charges. None of it has anything to do with being serious. Like saying Dems weren’t serious in ‘74
-
-
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank
because LBJ and FDR did various terrible things in office and LBJ even taped meetings too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
Frankly, the 1974 House would never have said boo about any of it, had it still been LBJ doing that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Then they would have been wrong. But you never even get to, “Sure the Dems suck, but Trump is obviously impeachable.” It’s gotta be, “Dems lack moral standing so I will never concede if they’ve stumbled onto a far greater wrong.” If the accuser lacks virtue, there is no crime.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yeselson
Has nothing to do with whether Trump is guilty of anything, and everything to do with whether these clowns have any business holding a majority in the national legislature.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
You just proved my point. That’s a normative judgment that elides the issue at hand. They do indeed hold a majority and their case, in this instance, is either strong on the merits or it isn’t. That is what is under consideration, not whether you think Dems are underserving.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
And so? Again, the question is regarding Trump, not the Dems. If their evidence is strong, it doesn’t matter whether, in your view, they are undeserving of the voters support of them or not. You’ve got a point to make, but it’s orthogonal to what’s happening.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank
I might decide they are true, but trivial, but that’s not the same thing as saying, “I reject Ds standing because I despise them.” So on the despising part, I hear you—me too in reverse. But that is a distraction from considering significance and merits of particular allegations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank
And this too: 1) the case is via the testimony of career diplomats—not leftists, believe me, check my tl to see what leftists think of them—*under oath.* Believe them or not. 2) The Dems cynicism came earlier: in *not* impeaching Trump because of their fears re centrists.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm not disputing this. I'm just noting for the record that nothing Trump does is a defense for the House Democrats being unserious partisan hacks.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
So they’re unserious partisan hacks when they wouldn’t impeach Trump and unserious hacks when they will, carefully assembling the sworn testimony career diplomats? How about the Rs? Are they unserious hacks too?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank
And you’re going to write off all 233 of them.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.