Jump to content


MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ewsieg last won the day on September 17

ewsieg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

73 Excellent

About ewsieg

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 03/26/1976


  • Location
    Warren, MI


  • Interests
    Sports, Beer, Chips


  • Occupation
    Network Eng

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They were republican witnesses prior to their testimony, after it though, obviously republicans no longer counted on them as "their" witnesses. So in short, republicans were not allowed to call anyone, in which, their testimony helped their cause.
  2. You're not actually going to get change any votes towards Trump, no need to sell/lie here. The abuse of power article is legitimate. You know it. I gave Trump the benefit of the doubt coming in and I'm often told that he does what he says he'll do. To many peoples chagrin, that's often the case. There is one other thing he said he'd do though, drain the swamp. I'm just as upset about the 'swamp' that is DC as you, you're apparently alright with just replacing the swamp with different swamp.
  3. I'll have to check that out. While I have many complaints about the two party system, it is really good and forcing a party to rebrand quickly. My hope is after Trump, many of party defectors are joined by many of the silent party members in redirecting the party. I just got around to reading the articles of impeachment. The main one is obviously the abuse of the power of the office. That's the one I do think should result in his removal, but we all know it's unlikely. What about the obstruction charge though, what do you think of this one? I feel this one is purely political and due to Pelosi believing she won't get removal anyway and wanting something additional to rally around. Congress could have pushed in the courts to enforce the subpoenas but choose to get through the trial quickly, seems odd to turn around and use that as an article as well.
  4. Because if they took it away for him, it would set a precedent that would affect the remaining members if/when they get caught.
  5. Assuming the senate doesn't vote to remove which odds are is the case, there is a valid argument that going forward with impeachment just tells future presidents that if you hold the senate, it doesn't matter. I think you can argue a censure would be much easier to get through and would give the leeway to give republicans a chance to rebuke him, without an impeachment vote. Politically, heading into 2020, that might be worse to Trump than an impeachment.
  6. Back in my day, our politicians could buy hookers and blow with their campaign funds and the journalist and prosecutors would be in partying with them rather than trying to smear them. That's what I want to go back to. That's the way I was raised and that's the way i'm gonna be.
  7. Jail time for this? C'mon, this prosecutor is potentially putting our entire democracy at risk if you can go to jail for this. We won't have anyone else left in Congress if this type of crime is punished like this. Hopefully the judge is reasonable, does a little public shaming, and sends him back on his way to being re-elected.
  8. I watched a good part of Sondland, but only a brief part of Hill. What I find interesting is the strife between them when in hindsight, they both seem to have been on the same path, but Sondland was operating under the requirement of getting the investigations in place and Hill wasn't aware of that. From the democrats standpoint, while i'd argue Sondland proved the quid pro quo, I think it would be a failed opportunity to show how unorganized Trump made his State Department by getting involved in this type of stuff.
  9. I'd argue campaign finance violations occurred when he put the AG on a case at the beginning are laws already in place. For this president, I don't think impeachment is enough. The case could be made it would be enough for most though.
  10. You're not asking people to just see the malfeasance though, you're asking them to see it, and want to pursue it to the point that you remove a sitting president from office. Once everyone knew Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice, his support turned to the question of do we want to remove the POTUS because of a *******. At that time, that alone was enough 'entertainment' for the dem support and overall public support never unified behind Clinton's removal. Republicans stuck to the facts that the leader of the executive branch lied under oath AND obstructed justice. If I didn't tell you the reasons why Trump lied under oath AND obstructed justice, but that he did, would that be alone for you to want him removed from office? All i'm saying is, if your endgame is Trump's removal via impeachment, facts alone might not get you there. While no one on this board cares about Hunter/Burisma, many in the middle will see it like Clinton's BJ. It was wrong, but not enough to remove him when we can vote him out in a year.
  11. To be clear, i'm not calling for a circus show with non-stop thrills. I just think Dems have a big mountain to climb (the Senate) and doubt it'll happen with a 'just the facts' style testimony and a big timeline presentation at the end. As mentioned before too, we need to see how this plays out. Very early in this process. On Day 1 of the public format it already setup the scene for quid pro quo, showed the republicans going after a whistleblower, and made Trump as a leader look horribly ineffective (at best).
  12. In a perfect world, you're response and attitude would be spot on. But in a political world, you couldn't be more wrong. You are correct as well that no matter what is done, the opposition will criticize. If you want Trump gone though, you need more than just facts, you need public support.
  13. That said, this isn't just a process for Congress, they need to 'entertain' a bit as well to sell it to the American people. We can all hope some republicans get a moral backbone, if the public at large doesn't buy in, it'll be that much tougher in the Senate.
  14. There have been grumblings that some democratic donors are not happy with the Warren/Sanders direction of the party. It's very possible they were feeling out Hillary. I imagine any calls to her have dried up quickly once Bloomberg news came out though.
  • Create New...