I would like your opinion on this anti-impeachment article.

[Gregg]

I am sure most of you know more about politics than I do.

I would appreciate it if you would read the whole article and then comment on it.

I would like to know where it is in error and where it is factual.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/this-impeachment-subverts-the-constitution/ar-AAJn6gw

[revo]

The first part about the unvoted on "impeachment inquiry" being unconstitutional has already been shot down by a Federal judge, so while I did read the whole article (and David Rivkin leans heavily right, BTW), he was wrong right off the bat, so it's kind of already lost me.

So did:
"House Democrats have discarded the Constitution, tradition and basic fairness merely because they hate Mr. Trump." *sigh*

Then he continues with the old chestnut, which GOPers pulled out of their ass in the Mueller probe, of "there is no crime as defined by law." Oh please. Because "interference with an election" is not in the federal code does not mean it is not an impeachable offense.

He then continues that other presidents have withheld funds for other nations, which is true -- but not solely for personal gain, like Trump has. He doesn't even mention that part of his point.

I'll write this off as right wing nonsense, trying to attack the messenger rather than defend what the guy in the WH actually did.

[nots]

I am sure most of you know more about politics than I do.

I would appreciate it if you would read the whole article and then comment on it.

I would like to know where it is in error and where it is factual.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ion/ar-AAJn6gw

I think it accurately summarizes the right’s point of view.
If you read someone from the left, you can gain another perspective.

[Gregg]

The first part about the unvoted on "impeachment inquiry" being unconstitutional has already been shot down by a Federal judge, so while I did read the whole article (and David Rivkin leans heavily right, BTW), he was wrong right off the bat, so it's kind of already lost me.

So did:
"House Democrats have discarded the Constitution, tradition and basic fairness merely because they hate Mr. Trump." *sigh*

Then he continues with the old chestnut, which GOPers pulled out of their ass in the Mueller probe, of "there is no crime as defined by law." Oh please. Because "interference with an election" is not in the federal code does not mean it is not an impeachable offense.

He then continues that other presidents have withheld funds for other nations, which is true -- but not solely for personal gain, like Trump has. He doesn't even mention that part of his point.

I'll write this off as right wing nonsense, trying to attack the messenger rather than defend what the guy in the WH actually did.

Thank you for your input. I appreciate it.

[Ken]

I think it accurately summarizes the right’s point of view.
If you read someone from the left, you can gain another perspective.

It's weird to me that this is right or left. The fundamental issues here should apply regardless of who is in office. (And to be clear, my view is that impeachment should have happened already - I don't understand how the right can sleep at night with all the back bending trying to justify the obvious corruption going on)

[nots]

It's weird to me that this is right or left. The fundamental issues here should apply regardless of who is in office.

Sure, in a non-partisan world. I fear those days are long gone though.

[Gregg]

I think it accurately summarizes the right’s point of view.
If you read someone from the left, you can gain another perspective.

That is why I posted it in here to get the left perspective.

I wasn't trying to read anything political when the headline caught my attention. I ended up reading the article and thought it was well written. I know nothing about the author, but figured he leans right.

I hate politics and know I am not going to deep dive his article. Thought I would ask for some help in here.

[Ken]

Sure, in a non-partisan world. I fear those days are long gone though.

Does partisanship mean we throw out all logic? It's too much. I'm seeing party being placed in higher regard than both country and even basic human rights. It's ridiculous.

[Gregg]

It's weird to me that this is right or left. The fundamental issues here should apply regardless of who is in office.

I agree, but I do not know enough to know if that is the case. Quite frankly I don't think it is.

[nots]

Does partisanship mean we through out all logic? It's too much. I'm seeing party being placed in higher regard than both country and even basic human rights. It's ridiculous.

I agree it’s ridiculous, but here we are.

[nots]

That is why I posted it in here to get the left perspective.

I wasn't trying to read anything political when the headline caught my attention. I ended up reading the article and thought it was well written. I know nothing about the author, but figured he leans right.

I hate politics and know I am not going to deep dive his article. Thought I would ask for some help in here.

I think real clear politics.com is a good place to read. They usually have articles about a specific issue with one leaning left and one leaning right. Some are just pure red meat for the base (Brietbart, Mother Jones) but most have intelligent takes by folks on both sides of the aisle. You can usually discern who has the better argument after reading them back to back.

[TranaGreg]

I agree it’s ridiculous, but here we are.

but in here we're just posting our own positions aren't we? If something is clearly fundamental (to use Ken's word), shouldn't we be able to state that without having to try to find an opposing/counterbalancing viewpoint?

[TranaGreg]

fwiw I came across https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news recently ... posting articles from each side; of course you may disagree with what they label as left-centre-right, but hey, it's something ...

[Sour Masher]

It's weird to me that this is right or left. The fundamental issues here should apply regardless of who is in office. (And to be clear, my view is that impeachment should have happened already - I don't understand how the right can sleep at night with all the back bending trying to justify the obvious corruption going on)

I agree completely. What is right and wrong should not be dependent on what side someone is on. If Obama did this exact same thing, and also had Trump's history and own damning words, which alleviate any benefit of the doubt, I'd be for his impeachment too. The problem I have is that folks trying to prove everyone is partisan sometimes compare cases that are not the same. The facts of an individual case should speak for themselves, and they do, very clearly in this case. I understand folks not wanting to believe someone they support is capable of something wrong, but Trump doesn't do such folks any favors. He is brazen with his actions, as if daring to be called out for it.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I agree it’s ridiculous, but here we are.

OK so we know the problem--now what will you do about it? You specifically.


I know what I'm doing--I'm advocating for what's right regardless of politics.


In that I stand with Ken. (and that's saying something)