https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jes...lindly-support-him-are-a-profile-in-cowardice When President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on Dec. 19, 1998 – almost exactly 21 years ago – I was 14 and paying more attention to playing basketball, boys and homework. I knew the impeachment was taking place, but didn’t follow every development. Things are very different today. I can’t seem to stop paying attention and am oftentimes overwhelmed by the gravity of what we’re witnessing. Though it’s my job to pay attention, the dynamics of this story – from the president’s abuse of power, to the geopolitics, to the personal stories of those who have testified – would draw anyone in. Our reality TV president is now the subject of a reality TV impeachment filled with dramatic twists and turns – and the show isn’t over yet. The evidence in favor of impeachment seems overwhelming to me. And President Trump’s misconduct seems a lot more serious than President Clinton’s. Clinton lied about sex – but his conduct didn’t endanger our national security or threaten the system of government established in our Constitution. I agree with Democrats seeking Trump’s impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. In my mind, it’s obvious that Trump threatened the president of Ukraine to demand a political favor and improperly held back $391 million in desperately needed military aid approved by Congress to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. Trump eventually gave Ukraine the money – but only after a whistleblower exposed the president’s improper conduct. It’s even more obvious – and indisputable – that Trump has refused to allow members of his administration to testify before Congress or provide subpoenaed documents for the House impeachment inquiry. Those brave and patriotic officials who testified did so in defiance of Trump’s obstruction. How can anyone argue with a straight face that Trump didn’t obstruct Congress to block it from carrying out its constitutional oversight responsibility? The framers of the Constitution created impeachment so that the president of the United States could be held accountable for misconduct. Sure, Trump doesn’t like it. But he doesn’t have the power to ignore the Constitution and follow only the parts of it that he likes. The action by the House Judiciary Committee Friday adopting the two articles of impeachment against Trump was historic. I find it disappointing that not a single Republican joined Democrats in voting to impeach. It seems they will stick with him no more what, putting party loyalty over patriotism. When he was running for president Trump said: "The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's like incredible." When it comes to holding onto Republican support in the House and Senate, I think Trump’s statement is actually true. As he said before, “It’s like incredible.” The Judiciary Committee vote Friday along party lines to impeach Trump wrapped up a contentious two days of debate that foreshadows continued partisan bickering that will carry over to the Senate in an impeachment trial for the president. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has made it clear will do Trump’s bidding. It seems that no matter what Trump asks McConnell to do, McConnell will reply: “Yes, sir!” McConnell admitted as much to Sean Hannity of Fox News, telling Hannity “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position in how to handle this … there’s no chance the president will be removed from office.” Too bad McConnell sees himself as Trump’s personal servant rather than the public servant he was elected to be. I never thought there was a chance Trump would be removed from office by the Senate. But now that McConnell has made it perfectly clear, we can stop fantasizing about Republicans finding some moral courage. Their actions are profiles in cowardice. In the week ahead the spotlight shifts to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the full House, when Democrats are expected to impeach Trump by approving the articles of impeachment adopted by the Judiciary Committee. One of Pelosi’s great strengths has been her willingness to give members free rein to be themselves, vote their conscience and campaign for their districts. This approach was surely critical to Democratic victories in 2018, when Democrats won over 35 seats in purple or red districts to regain majority control of the House. Pelosi gave Democratic candidates license to do what’s right for their constituents, even if it meant bashing her and committing to not voting for her to regain the gavel if Democrats were in the majority again. And it worked. Just like it will work again with the impending House vote next week. There have been a lot of rumblings that Pelosi could lose Democratic votes on impeachment. Two House members voted against opening the impeachment inquiry – with Pelosi’s blessing – and the conventional wisdom is that there could be more for next week’s vote. As the Washington Post reported, there are several moderate Democrats who wanted other options, like a censure vote. They could also do what many Democrats did for Clinton’s impeachment and only vote for one article of impeachment to show some degree of independence. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, one of the freshman Democrats who hails from a vulnerable Trump-supporting district in Michigan, appeared on “America’s Newsroom” on Fox News Channel to discuss the challenges facing Democrats. Her struggle is one that over 30 of her colleagues are grappling with. That said, Pelosi’s approach to managing her caucus when it comes to the impeachment vote is already paying off. On Thursday and Friday three vulnerable Democrats declared their intention to vote to impeach President Trump. Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, said: “It is clear the president engaged in an abuse of his authority, putting himself above the law, and his personal interests above the nation’s. These uncontroverted facts are an unacceptable violation of his oath of office and constitute an impeachable abuse of power. This is a somber moment for our nation, and I have not reached this decision lightly.” Over in Pennsylvania, Democratic Rep. Conor Lamb told a local radio station: “The evidence is strong, and it warrants impeachment. The facts show the president abused his office and compromised our national security. I can't think of anything more serious than that.” And Rep. Max Rose, D-N.Y., also said he will vote to impeach Trump. “Party and politics will never come before the country I bled to protect – and would unquestionably do so again,” Rose said in a statement. The Army combat veteran who served in Afghanistan and currently serves in the National Guard added: “A President coercing a foreign government into targeting American citizens is not just another example of scorched earth politics, it serves as an invitation to the enemies of the United States to come after any citizen, so long as they disagree with the President.”
You should have seen the Watergate hearings. I was working at Tektronix at the time. We made TV switching equipment which was a sort of CGI that I first saw while watching sporting events. Anyhow, we had lots of TV monitors and privately owned portable radios. I was working on the loading dock and had to deliver all kinds of our products to and from the delivery trucks. I would pass by all these monitors and everyone was glued to the Congressional action. Then, I would go home and all you could see on TV was more action in the House on impeachment hearings. The Trump hearings remind me a great deal of the Nixon impeachment hearings. The Clinton impeachment hearings were small potatoes compared to Watergate and Trumpgate.
Hey, Lanny....do you know a guy by the name of Steve Gerg? He used to work at Tektronix and was my neighbor when I lived in Aurora,
Fox does have a number of liberal commentators and contributors. Jessika Tarlov is certainly one of them. Others include Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, Doug Schoen, Lanny Davis, Juan Williams, etc.. Even Sheppard Smith before he retired. Moreover, I'd wager that Fox has far more liberal commentators/contributors than CNN has conservatives. PS: Schoen and Tarlov co-wrote a book....
Yeah, I was about 20 at the time but I do remember watching a good bit of the Nixon fiasco...John Dean was the most memorable part to me.
He's since gone to be with the Lord, but I really, really admired this man.... https://www1.cbn.com/700club/chuck-colson-35-years-faith
1. Don't remember those names posting an opinion as scathing and as contrary to the outlet's usual bias as the one in the OP. 2. Not so sure that's true so you might not wanna risk any of your money.
It’s funny to see people constantly whining about Fox News as if they are the only partisan outlet which specializes in bullshit...and then turn around and cite places like Salon.com or MSNBC.
Fox News is like the only right wing slant news organization on tv lol yet that’s one too many for the bozos out there.
Sorry, but I don't "whine" about anything, especially Faux News...I do however, laugh at them. But you already knew that, right? ...and if you can disprove the ONE link to the Salon article that I provided and prove that other news outlet/s didn't also show the same thing I will gladly apologize and remove the post. But we both know that won't happen because we both know the truth...and the truth is that at times you have a propensity to make claims that you cannot/will not support with a factual basis.
How many right-wing slanted networks are there on tv? I can’t really think of any besides Fox News. I guess RT is pretty right wing but I wouldn’t really call them a major network in the US. I haven’t payed for cable in probably 7 years though, I just see clips online of all the dumb stuff all the various networks say.
I never said the article was false, I didn’t even read it. I refuse to give clicks to a publication that defends pedophilia. I cited examples of this in another thread. They have released multiple articles by a pedophile writer that defend pedophilia. I’m not saying you are cool with that, you probably didn’t even know that. But that’s my beef with Salon. I won’t read their content, period.
For the most part, with a few exceptions, they're all pretty much biased one way or another. I mean, they all are catering/targeting to a specific audience and while they hold them captive they also naturally throw in commercial ads. Money, Money, Money.
When I worked there last there were about 22,000 employees. I knew some of the big shots and several engineers and technicians, even a few production workers but that name is unfamiliar.
Actually, Clinton's impeachment was the only successful one, resulting in 9 FELONY CONVICTIONS. Each and every one more serious than anything Nixon was charged with and not convicted for as he was allowed to resign and walk away unscathed. Adultery, border-line pedophilia...Dems re-elected him showing their moral standard of excellence. Not one fact of evidence implicating POTUS TRUMP in any crime appears anywhere in the recording of this amateurish farce. Ain't going anywhere.
Oh wait, here's some evidence of conspiracy to rig/overturn an election, by the Deep State. Nunes demands Schiff call on IG Horowitz to testify before House Intelligence Committee By Talia Kaplan | Fox News Rep. Devin Nunes: We need to know what the FISA court is really doing California Congressman Devin Nunes, Republican ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee demands Schiff to call on IG Horowitz to testify before House Intelligence Committee. In an exclusive Fox News interview, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., demanded Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., call Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz to testify in front of the committee before a likely Senate impeachment trial got underway, saying, "The longer that this goes on, the longer it takes America to heal itself." Speaking on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo, Nunes said, "We need to have a hearing with IG Horowitz next week." He added, "The [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court itself is in tremendous jeopardy. We cannot support the FISA court right now. The judges are refusing to take action against these dirty cops and dirty lawyers who did this. That’s totally unacceptable." Horowitz’s 476-page report concerning the origins of the Russia investigation and the issuance of FISA warrants for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, released this past Monday, said investigators found no intentional misconduct or political bias surrounding efforts to launch that 2016 probe. However, the report revealed at least 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the Page FISA applications. "Remember, this is a secret court. The people who, like Carter Page, they have no recourse except for Congress," Nunes told Bartiromo on Sunday. "This is why the House Intelligence Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee were created. So, it’s important, I think, to take people back." Also Sunday, Nunes told Schiff in a letter that the Democrat was "in need of rehabilitation" after the Horowitz report contradicted some of Schiff's past assertions. In a 2018 memo, Schiff dismissed Nunes' concerns about the FBI's use of a FISA warrant to monitor Page. The IG report confirmed that the FBI's warrant applications included the 17 errors and omissions, including a doctored email and reliance on unverified information from British ex-spy Christopher Steele. "After publishing false conclusions of such enormity on a topic directly within this committee's oversight responsibilities, it is clear you are in need of rehabilitation, and I hope this letter will serve as the first step in that vital process," Nunes wrote in the Sunday letter. Schiff's memo downplayed Steele's role and denied FBI wrongdoing, saying, "FBI and DOJ officials did not 'abuse' the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign." Schiff also claimed at the time that the DOJ "made only narrow use of information from Steele's sources" for the Page warrant. Speaking with Bartiromo exclusively on Sunday Nunes also said, “We need a free and fair press, but we don’t have that today.” He said there remained "numerous members of the media, hundreds of them, who attack" House Republicans and anyone in the media "who said, 'Hey, maybe the Republicans might have a point here, should we get to the bottom of it?'" Nunes added, "Remember, we spent a year saying these documents need to be declassified, that would have ended it there. Instead, what happened is, the Democrats lied, and now they have put the American people in tremendous danger, the judges on the FISA court are putting the American people in danger." He continued, "We're not going to give up our liberty in order to have some secret court operate to spy on political campaigns and to use our counterintelligence capabilities to do that."
