Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Next Post: New laws
Posted in:
* April 23…
Democrats across the country may be split about whether President Donald Trump should be impeached following the release of the Mueller report, but Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Monday said he has seen nothing to change his mind.
“Well, I was right two years ago when I called for his impeachment, and I’m right today. I’m sticking by that,” Pritzker told the Sun-Times.
* July 27…
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who first called two years ago for Trump’s impeachment, said in an interview that, for tactical reasons, he is no longer certain if Democrats should pursue impeachment.
“I think that we’re now a year and a quarter away from the general election, and so I think there is a question, could you actually accomplish the goal of removing the president by impeachment before he would be removed by virtue of the election,” Pritzker said. “It’s a question of timing: How long would that take, how effective would that be?”
*** UPDATE *** The governor was asked about the above comment today and he appeared to back away from backing away. He talked about the amount of time it took to start the investigative process in the Congress, but then said…
I think he should be out of office as soon as humanly possible. So the only question to me is, is that gonna happen with an impeachment process or is that gonna happen with an election.
…Adding… Bernie…
“It does sound like he’s going all in … on the Illinois is a progressive state thing,” said CHRIS MOONEY, professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
“The way he’s talking is unusual in the state of Illinois,” Mooney added, saying politics has tended to be more middle-of-the-road.
“But he’s taken a different approach,” Mooney said.
“That may be because he sees demographic trends and political trends in this state moving in that direction, and he wants to get ahead of it,” Mooney said. “It may be because that’s just who he is and that’s what he wants to do and he’s been elected and now he’s going to do it. Or it may be because he’s a neophyte.”
Mooney noted Pritzker’s statements on abortion “really got under the nerves of a lot of right-wing Republicans,” and the cancellation of the Confederate Railroad concert could have been done “without the flamboyant rhetoric.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Next Post: New laws
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
=== “It’s a question of timing: How long would that take, how effective would that be?”===
Timing is the safety valve to effective.
The closer it gets to election day as POTUS still sows seeds of racism, the impeachment process will only engage Trump voters to beat anyone not like “them” in PA, AZ, FL, MI, WI…
The brand is division. An impeachment process now only fuels that brand and it will lead to defeat come 2020
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:09 am
The governor is being optimistic if he thinks McConnell will even allow an impeachment trial. “Too close to the election, blah blah…”
What happens in the Senate is beside the point. Someone has to take a stand and say, “This is wrong. Trump is a criminal and has gravely violated his oath of office. Enough is enough.”
The House needs to go on the record with that, because nobody else will, or even can. If the Senate Republicans want to go on the record as not caring, then let that be on them. But someone needs to do the right thing, and that means impeachment.
Comment by Nick Name Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:09 am
Mueller made it clear that Trump can be indicted after he leaves office. If he loses, that will be in January 2021, not that long from now. Democrats and the left will need to unite and go at Trump full-force in the 2020 election.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:14 am
The sad thing is that impeachable offenses, like violating the emoluments clause and campaign finance violations like using non-campaign funds for the campaign expense of paying off Stormy Daniels, have been public knowledge for a long time. Democrats had the opportunity to impeach with clear reason, but failed to do so. And Nancy Pelosi isn’t helping them at all.
Comment by Techie Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:15 am
Trump has called Democrats treasonous for failing to clap during the State of the Union. He has fomented hate and racism time and time again. He has questioned the legitimacy of the American electoral system by claiming he actually won more votes during the last election and is already sowing the seeds to question the legitimacy of the next election should he lose. There’s not a day that goes by that he doesn’t say something despicable. Would impeachment be a good thing? Absolutely. The man isn’t fit to be President of the United States as evidenced by the things he does and says. Would it be the smart thing to do? Absolutely not. All it would do is make his support from those that support him that much stronger. It seems that the people that support him want a President that acts the way he does and is a complete embarassment to the country.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:16 am
===will even allow===
The politics and built in cushion that won’t result in a conviction of POTUS would say have the trial, fuel the anger with the racist base, but drag it out as much as a “jury” can…
Every day closer to election day would be better and better to have this trial continually sow that divide.
McConnell will say, “hey, he was tried and acquitted, time to move on”… to the next election and a martyred POTUS
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:18 am
Politics and History are battling on this decision. Listening to Mueller changed my mind. I am for impeachment. I don’t want my grandkids reading about this time (much like I did with the Japanese internment camps in the 1940s) with shame on me that we, as a country, did nothing to stop his actions.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:25 am
===drag it out as much as a “jury” can…===
That’s certainly a possibility. But McConnell has a track record of simply refusing to allow the Senate to take up anything, whether appointments (Garland) or legislation, that he doesn’t want.
Comment by Nick Name Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:27 am
===Democrats had the opportunity to impeach with clear reason, but failed to do so.===
1) They only got the House back in January
2) Dems made a case to “wait for the Mueller report” which tactically was the correct move, but Dems thought the report would be “damaging”, when all the while POTUS and company hammered at the credibility of Mueller, his team, the evidence… and arguably won the idea that facts don’t matter… by, you guessed it, sowing division, hate, and anger.
3) The Mueller testimony gave no call to arms now, even deferring to “after” POTUS isn’t POTUS.
4) There’s never been a 100% all-in take to Dems and impeachment, allowing a “the left only wants this” narrative to fester, again, “winning the message without too many facts” kinda strategy.
Finally,
5) Dems are like herding cats; diverse, fractionalized, different, which makes their party strong, but many times toughbto pull in one direction. Trumpkins are monolithic as… “we’re wity POTUS” and… that’s usually it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:31 am
“It fires up his base” is a bad argument against doing something.
Everything “fires up the base.” It doesn’t matter what the Democrats do, he’ll fire up his base with lies anyway.
Comment by ChicagoVinny Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:31 am
===But McConnell has a track record of simply refusing to allow the Senate to take up anything…===
Impeachment helps come election time.
You don’t stop what will help, and it will help McConnell in KY too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:32 am
The quickest solution is beating Trump in 2020 and seeking to indict him in 2021. Democrats also can’t lose sight of the fact that behind the rallies and tweets, Trump is no populist. He’s a Republican, doing what the party does: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation and pollution, fighting to end the ACA, driving up debt and deficits, denying climate science, RTWFL for the entire public sector, etc.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:35 am
===“It fires up his base” is a bad argument against doing something.===
How about finding 2/3 of the Senate that will look at evidence and even “consider” conviction and removal?
How about that argument?
Doing something because it’s right and just and feels good in these times is usually allowing the other side to pounce in a way that isn’t helpful to the politics, then later the governing.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:35 am
I’m not sure the Mueller report was a punt or wasn’t a call to arms. The report outlined TEN (10) different possible obstruction of justice examples from the president. I didn’t know that before his testimony. Just because people are desensitized to Trump’s misdeeds, doesn’t mean we as a people shouldn’t move to stop him.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:37 am
I see this as a mistake by JB who I consider a successful governor so far. I realize Illinois isn’t a red or purple state, but why bring up impeachment? JB ,himself, is under criminal investigation . It appears Mike Madigan might be under criminal investigation. Does JB want Trump tweeting about Illinois political corruption? What’s the point of talking about something that probably isn’t going to happen: impeachment and removal?
https://nalert.blogspot.com/2019/03/photo-flashback-september-27-2018-danny.html
Comment by Steve Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:39 am
===That’s certainly a possibility. But McConnell has a track record of simply refusing to allow the Senate to take up anything, whether appointments (Garland) or legislation, that he doesn’t want.===
Sounds eerily familiar to what happens on the daily in the Illinois House. An end run around Democracy . . . .yes. Distasteful and wrong regardless of who is perpetrating the offense.
Complaining about an autocratic US Senate President while tolerating the IL House Speaker who has perfected the art is the very definition of duplicitous.
Comment by All In Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:39 am
To bring this back to the Governor, and Illinois…
The idea that Casten and Underwood would be hurt by an impeachment indictment… just the indictment… that in those cases would be folly.
The GOP nominee against both Casten and Underwood would then have to “choose” to defend POTUS. Not a great look in suburban districts.
So while the governor is, in my opinion, 100% correct, id heel a lot different if I were Casten and Underwood, vines the politics and how they themselves won their first time out.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:42 am
How about JB worrying about taking care of his own admin. Republicans running government 7-8 months after your inauguration is ridiculous. A lot of those ground workers that helped him get elected left in the dark. Can’t get returned phone calls from your own political party is an absolute joke.
Comment by Anon Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:43 am
I don’t think anyone knows how this thing would play out, especially because everything about Trump and his rise to power has defied conventional wisdom.
Which is why Democrats shouldn’t be trying to think about the ‘right’ thing to do politically. National Dems are terrible at the ‘game’ generally and more terrible against Trump for some reason. They don’t know what the right move is; so the only thing you can do is the *right* thing. Mueller found evidence of obstruction of justice and threw it to Congress to deal with it. Open the inquiry and see what happens and where the evidence leads.
Maybe it ends with his reelection but *not* doing it doesn’t guarantee a lack of reelection. There isn’t a smart play; gotta do the morally right play and maybe it comes up heads.
Comment by lakeside Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:43 am
== How about finding 2/3 of the Senate that will look at evidence and even “consider” conviction and removal? ==
This is conflating an “impeachment investigation” with “articles of impeachment.”
Most Americans have not read the Mueller report or are aware of Trump’s specific crimes.
Dems need to do *something* to cut through the noise and publicize those crimes. An impeachment investigation probably does that. Who cares if you ever pass actual articles?
I think “drag your feet on aggressive investigation and do nothing”, the current course, is not an outcome that is going to get the desired result (Trump losing in 2020).
Comment by ChicagoVinny Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:46 am
===Complaining about an autocratic US Senate President while tolerating the IL House Speaker who has perfected the art is the very definition of duplicitous.===
So no impeachment… “because Madigan”?
Is that you John Kass?
Oh… - All In -
Put 60 on the stairs, pick your choice of policy, or law and demonstrate where this is happening in Illinois.
McConnell has used the power of majority to not only block, which are in the rules, and Majority Leader Harry Reid used and was warned not to open that Pandora’s Box, while also using the rules of the Senate, the vote thresholds, to maneuver.
There are House rules to get things beyond leadership, but I’ve yet to see 60 on the stairs to get that done.
If ya wanna say “oh, they’re too scared”… isn’t that in the scardy-cats?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:50 am
I support impeachment because when alleged crimes are committed, it’s not in the interest of justice to merely be politically expedient. Not doing anything sets a precedent and message that it’s okay to break the law because politics may stop an impeachment inquiry.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:51 am
===Maybe it ends with his reelection but *not* doing it doesn’t guarantee a lack of reelection.===
Pretty big gamble, given his electoral defeat is easer seen than finding 67 United States senators willing to convict.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:51 am
It’s not just JB. This clearheaded position on impeachment is shared by just about all Democratic governors, even those serving deep blue states. They’re not caught up in the Beltway fervor and aren’t worried about being out-flanked in a gerrymandered Dem congressional district.
Maureen Dowd wrote an outstanding column this weekend on the topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-trump-impeachment.html
Comment by Roman Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:52 am
===JB ,himself, is under criminal investigation ===
Perfect example of facts not getting in the way of making a claim.
Please, provide the source that JB is under criminal investigation.
Lots of people have made the claim of wrongdoing, but that has never been confirmed. The only source I’ve ever seen is that unnamed source quoted in the WBEZ story. That was it.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 9:54 am
If the office of special counsel, that had Republicans and Democrats, could not agree that there were crimes committed by President Trump, why would the House and Senate?
Gerald Ford had it right, a criminal prosecution of a President even one who was no longer in office would be divisive and would literally bring the federal government to a standstill.
Republicans paid a high price for impeaching Clinton, who Ken Starr charged with crimes.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:05 am
“Lots of people have made the claim of wrongdoing, but that has never been confirmed. The only source I’ve ever seen is that unnamed source quoted in the WBEZ story. That was it.” And that story specifically said he personally was not. This is completely bogus.
BTW, Willy is 100% right. “McConnell will say, “hey, he was tried and acquitted, time to move on”… to the next election and a martyred POTUS.” Impeachment is 100% counterproductive and not supported by the American people. Don’t do it.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:17 am
===Complaining about an autocratic US Senate President while tolerating the IL House Speaker who has perfected the art is the very definition of duplicitous.===
Deep, cleansing breaths, please.
Comment by Nick Name Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:19 am
Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon…justified.
Bill Clinton…a partisan mess.
Donald Trump…an even more partisan mess.
This is the remedy of last resort. Bringing it up before a person is even sworn in abuses the very reason for the remedy in the first place.
JB’s issue met the standard of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Should we impeach him? Of course not. This whole argument is ridiculous. Our state has become Coastal. Maybe because our politics has made it so, or it’s an incredible Inferiority Complex that earned the name “Second City” in the first place.
There’s work to do. Everyone just Govern!
Comment by A guy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:19 am
===Republicans paid a high price for impeaching Clinton===
Really?
The GOP kept control of House, and Bush won in 2000.
This idea of seats is so arbitrary.
It’s controlling the chamber(s) or winning the executive that is the true measure.
Losing the House, Gore defeating Bush, those would’ve been prices, but losing seats, not so much.
The lesson isn’t about superficial “wins or losses” it’s truly about gaining control of governing.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:22 am
==given his electoral defeat is easer seen than finding 67 United States senators willing to convict.==
Ideally, we’d have both - a Senate willing to look at the facts and an electorate ready to vote him out (obviously that’s my politics there). But opening an impeachment inquiry doesn’t delay or remove the coming election; they aren’t mutually exclusive.
There’s no way to know how long such an inquiry would take. Maybe it’s over in 3 months, maybe it goes till Jan 2021. Or into a new term if he gets reelected.
I have 0 confidence that McConnell will do the right thing if there is evidence Trump committed acts that warrant his removal from office. But that doesn’t mean Democrats shouldn’t do (what I view as) the right thing because of McConnell.
Comment by lakeside Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:32 am
===Donald Trump…an even more partisan mess.==
You don’t think there’s enough evidence to try Trump?
Incredibly telling. Thanks for that.
===JB’s issue met the standard of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Should we impeach him?===
Really? Please explain.
Seeing - A Guy - as a Trumpkin is incredibly telling.
Ya can’t decide to vote for this POTUS and ignore who he is now…
It’s like those who wear the shirts … “Russia before Democrat”
Like is said, very telling.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:34 am
===Ideally===
I’m gonna stop you there.
Governing and democracy is messy. If you are looking for ideally, you are 100% doing this wrong.
===I have 0 confidence that McConnell will do the right thing if there is evidence Trump committed acts that warrant his removal from office. But that doesn’t mean Democrats shouldn’t do (what I view as) the right thing because of McConnell.===
Your idealism is heartwarming but it won’t get it done.
What do you gain by feeling good you did the “right thing” and then watch POTUS take the oath again.
Feel better?
What if you helped… by making POTUS that martyr.
Feel better?
To this… (Sigh)
===But opening an impeachment inquiry doesn’t delay or remove the coming election; they aren’t mutually exclusive.===
The impeachment process helps POTUS win the election.
That’s the ball game.
Without 67 votes, in the case of this POTUS… the best angle of removal is at the ballot box, so why make it more difficult to defeat him?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:40 am
- TheInvisibleMan -
Has not JB acknowledged that he’s got a lawyer working on the investigation of he and his wife?
Comment by Steve Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:43 am
==The impeachment process helps POTUS win the election.==
Willy, if you are from the future, my friend, why not just help us all out and tell us how it ends? If, however, you are living in the present day without a flying DeLorean, seems to me that you know just about as well as any of us what the future holds.
Anyway, I come here for IL-centric stuff, and regret helping turn this thread into my twitter feed. *vanishes from thread*
Comment by lakeside Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 10:52 am
Willy, it’s very hard to keep up with your 50 opinions here. JB deliberately tried to evade his property taxes. He paid the back tax; that’s an admission of something.
I suppose you believe Mrs. Clinton was Lily pure. Is there enough evidence to try Trump? Anyone can be “tried” I would imagine. Is the juice worth the squeeze if the evidence isn’t so compelling that over 2 years of investigation, countless subpoenas and witnesses, tons of cash, produced something less than an irrefutable case?
I can separate the personality from the policy, and the policy is working for this country and for many who it hasn’t worked for in a long time, if at all.
==It’s like those who wear the shirts … “Russia before Democrat”==
This is an incredibly inane statement.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:01 am
Start impeachment hearings. Pursue the truth aggressively.
Only vote for impeachment when conviction in the Senate is likely.
This helps Casten and Underwood. May get rid of Trump early.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:01 am
@Steve
Not that I can find. In fact JB and his lawyers have stated they are not aware of any such contact involving JB.
A trib story from April;
-”Pritzker said he and his wife had not been contacted by law enforcement and were unaware of any review”
-In a statement, Marc Elias, a Perkins Coie partner who represents the Pritzkers, echoed the governor’s comments. “Neither the Governor nor the First Lady have been contacted by law enforcement regarding the property tax appeal”
While I have no insider information on this, the claim came out right before the election, and contained a lot of innuendo, but no actual substance. If you read the words of those making the claim carefully, you can see they seem to have deliberately stopped short of stating there was actually an investigation taking place.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:03 am
Reading is fundamental…
=== ==The impeachment process helps POTUS win the election.==
Willy, if you are from the future, my friend, why not just help us all out and tell us how it ends?===
The process, acknowledged by the POTUS folks and the Dems unwilling to force the impeachment vote, helps POTUS.
I don’t think I said how it would end, but, again, reading is fundamental, and both sides believe the political take in this process helps POTUS, and no one, including me, see foreigners conclusions.
I’ll add this, again…
“Pretty big gamble, given his electoral defeat is easer seen than finding 67 United States senators willing to convict.”
Doing things that are right and feel good in this instance is a gamble that removing this POTUS might not happen, and in political analysis, likely helping POTUS win.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:03 am
It seems to me, especially watching Jerry Nadler and his “non-inquiry inquiry” announcement Friday in seeking the Mueller grand jury testimony, that there may be an attempt to split things down the middle—not take it all the way to an impeachment trial (which everyone knows would end up in Trump’s “exoneration” in the Senate if it happened now), but rather, have a lengthy public airing of all the presidential dirty laundry in the months before the election. In other words, “Benghazi” Trump, as I heard one commentator say a few months ago. (Remember how those endless Benghazi hearings cast a cloud over HRC?)
Trump people are going to come out on Election Day regardless, and so are strong anti-Trumpers. It’s the folks who don’t pay attention to politics until the election gets close who need to be persuaded.
Not saying it’ll work, but maybe that’s the calculus.
Comment by Crispy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:04 am
===I can separate the personality from the policy===
Just for starters.
You support locking up folks and separating children?
That’s a policy.
Like I said, speaks volumes about you.
Oh… probably why I wanted this for openers…
Rauner signs a bill, a policy bill, on abortions… you first said it was a deal breaking type move, but you then supported Rauner, again, in the end.
You have no policy compass or “personality” compass, you have a partisan compass… not unlike the partisan shirts…
“Russia before Democrat”
Says so much about you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:09 am
===I suppose you believe Mrs. Clinton was Lily pure. Is there enough evidence to try Trump?===
Whataboutism. You support a racist, because you can’t stand Hillary? Whew.
===Is the juice worth the squeeze if the evidence isn’t so compelling that over 2 years of investigation, countless subpoenas and witnesses, tons of cash…===
I’ll stop you at cash for a second.
The monies gained by the Manafort conviction, versus how much it cost… what’s the “net”?
You have a price on Democracy, while supporting a racist POTUS. Ok.
===…the policy is working for this country and for many who it hasn’t worked for in a long time, if at all.===
When you vote for POTUS, you support a person who is a racist, sexist, xenophobe, and you care about money.
Again, says so much about you and what you are willing to vote for… for a dollar.
Whew.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:14 am
- A Guy -
===Between May 17, 2017 — the day Mueller was appointed Special Counsel — through Sept. 30, 2018, his office spent $12,287,852. This includes $7.3 million on salaries and benefits, $1.3 million on travel and transportation, and $2.2 million on rent and utilities. In the most recent of the three expense reports filed, the Special Counsel’s office also says it spent $15,618 on printing and copying needs===
Narrator: Manafort conviction netted $28.4 million in restitution.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:17 am
- A Guy -
I’ll even give ya Fox News Business;
===On average, the office spent roughly $8.4 million per each six-month period. If the final statement — which has still not been released — remains on par with previous costs, total spending from the investigation is expected to reach $34 million in both direct and indirect spending.===
A net of $6 million.
Not enough for a wall, but, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:26 am
==You support locking up folks and separating children?
That’s a policy.==
Take a walk dude. Sometimes there must be separation, for the child’s sake.
The current policy is to keep families together if it’s possible. That’s a change from the last administrations where all of them implemented separation.
You believe whatever it’s convenient to believe on any given day. Sure glad you weren’t at the table in Philly 245 years ago. You were probably just a little too young to represent the Willy Colony.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:41 am
==Whataboutism. You support a racist, because you can’t stand Hillary? Whew.==
How little you know about me to say this. Or anyone else for that matter. These days we throw around these terms to the point they mean so little anymore. It’s what happens when you cry wolf every time you see a mouse.
Your grip is getting loose man.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:46 am
===Sometimes there must be separation, for the child’s sake.===
Wow. You think the Trump Administration is “doing for the children”?
You keep digging.
===The current policy is to keep families together if it’s possible.===
No, the past policy, which you just said you support, still can’t reunite kids with parents.
I’m shocked you support it.
===Sure glad you weren’t at the table in Philly 245 years ago.===
The discussion about this clause…
“He has waged cruel War against human Nature itself, violating its most sacred Rights of Life and Liberty in the Persons of a distant People who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into Slavery in another Hemisphere, or to incur miserable Death, in their Transportation thither. This piratical Warfare, the opprobrium of infidel Powers, is the Warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.
He has prostituted his Negative for Suppressing every legislative Attempt to prohibit or to restrain an execrable Commerce, determined to keep open a Markett where Men should be bought and sold, and that this assemblage of Horrors might want no Fact of distinguished Die”
… removed to become one nation, we later revisited that removed clause as a nation… slavery.
You want to deflect how you are a Trumper and support the policies no matter how racist, and unamerican… by wondering aloud why you’re glad I wasn’t in Philly?
If it helps you sleep…
===You were probably just a little too young to represent the Willy Colony.===
“Edward Rutledge was 26, He was the youngest of them… except for Ben Franklin”
It was hot as H$&@ In Philadelphia too, as the song and story goes.
I’ve learned a lot. When people tell you who they are…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:50 am
Musings of a nut.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:55 am
===Musings of a nut.===
Get that from a Trump tweet… or…
- A Guy -
You want it to be about policies, not the man, yet the racist and hurtful policies you make excuses for, “because Hillary”… you are the Quintessential Trumpkin that tries to *think* they don’t support the man, or the vile policies, but in the end, like with Rauner and your phony stance on abortion… you support the partisan.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 11:59 am
He’s better off not commenting at all than going back and forth like this.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:11 pm
==JB deliberately tried to evade his property taxes.==
Yes it’s called the Vacancy Relief Provision that is available to people renovating vacant property.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:14 pm
OW,
I quit reading all your comments after you called out someone as “John Kass” but then made about 14 comments. ARe you competing with JK or Rich for total words on a story?
Comment by Law Man Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:17 pm
===ARe you competing with JK or Rich for total words on a story?===
That depends, how many more words do I need to go?
You count them, get back to us all.
Feel better typing that, or do you have an opinion you’d like to share?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:19 pm
==He’s better off not commenting at all than going back and forth like this==
Is this comment referring to JB? Or OW and Guy?
Comment by Henry Francis Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:23 pm
===Is this comment referring to JB? Or OW and Guy?===
My hope is all three of us.
It would be a tasty comment which I can support, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:25 pm
Willy,
Noted.
Not duly noted.
Just noted.
My phony stance on abortion?? Get some sleep man.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:30 pm
OW what is your alternative proposal for border enforcement?
Comment by jeffinginChicago Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:31 pm
++
==He’s better off not commenting at all than going back and forth like this==
Is this comment referring to JB? Or OW and Guy? +++
I’m beginning to hope it’s meant for me so I can acquiesce.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:32 pm
===My phony stance on abortion??===
Please don’t make me pull up your comments and how Rauner played you, and then you supported him anyway.
You’re not policy driven. You want to *believe* you stand for this or that… but in the end, in your own words, you’re not.
To bring this back…
===I think he should be out of office as soon as humanly possible. So the only question to me is, is that gonna happen with an impeachment process or is that gonna happen with an election.===
Perfectly unclear except to the point, POTUS must go.
If Dems push a vote to indict/impeach, than anything after that “good feeling” that occurs, including POTUS’ own re-elect, that gamble will be seen and understood by the unambiguous as possibly a cause that stopped the saving of the country.
It’s as good as the governor can go, that two sentence statement.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:35 pm
===alternative proposal for border enforcement===
OK, that’s it. Either stick to the topic or leave.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:36 pm
Willy, you’re mixing responses. Uncool.
As a Pro-Life supporter, the Governor race did not provide any refuge. I had 2 lousy choices for me. That being said, I’ve given JB plenty of room early to see how things go.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:46 pm
===. These days we throw around these terms to the point they mean so little anymore. It’s what happens when you cry wolf every time you see a mouse.===
The last few days of tweeting, the POTUS we’re discussing made references to quite a few folks, and their districts, even a TV commentator.
In an exchange, Chris Wallace talking within the “acting” Chief of Staff…
===“You say it has little to do with race, there is a clear pattern here,” Wallace shot back, noting that Trump has made similar remarks about other congresspeople of color, such as Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and the so-called Squad.
“Infested,” Wallace said. “It sounds like vermin. It sounds subhuman and these are all six members of Congress who are people of color.”
Mulvaney, however, told Wallace that he was “spending too much time reading between the lines.”
“I’m not reading between the lines,” Wallace countered. “I’m reading the lines.”===
You support this POTUS, this is what you support.
The question *can* be… the evidence to indict/impeach, there is no correlation to the racism, that can be an argument I guess, but the policies and politics are racial.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:49 pm
===I had 2 lousy choices for me.===
If you were so policy driven, Sam McCann was there.
But, you couldn’t vote for Sam, could ya.
To bring it back… this idea that any Trump supporter is driven by full policy backing is phony, as you state here, you can choose to not be policy driven…
Supporting Trump is embracing Trump.
This idea, however, of the political and not impeaching goes back to the governor looking at the earliest way to remove this POTUS and the election seems the best way.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 12:53 pm
==But, you couldn’t vote for Sam, could ya.==
No I couldn’t. Only you and about half his family members could.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 1:18 pm
===Only you and about half his family members could===
Nearly 5% of the state. Pretty big family.
The reason Trump feels empowered is because folks so compromised and willing to compromise their own beliefs, “because Hillary” and the racism of policies is fine with them… you get 90% approval of a smaller GOP littered with compromised folks that support vile policies and racism.
Impeaching this POTUS allows folks to think “we can’t let them win”.
You support a racist who has little regard for the American Experiment, because you see dollars.
The reason impeachment won’t work is compromised folks supporting Trump, no matter what. If that’s you, well…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 1:23 pm
JB in short:
Trump: IMPEACH!
Madigan: We need to wait and see…
Profile in courage right there.
Comment by Flat Bed Ford Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 1:31 pm
==Madigan: We need to wait and see…==
Where did you read Madigan said that?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 1:45 pm
“Madigan: We need to wait and see”
Where’s the investigation report or any legal proof that shows Madigan allegedly committed crimes?
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 2:13 pm
==Is this comment referring to JB? Or OW and Guy?==
It was meant for JB, but if the comment fits…
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 2:15 pm
=== Mueller made it clear that Trump can be indicted after he leaves office. ===
His point was a theoretical one. Presuming he loses, his minions would continue to argue that it was a political not legal action.
=== Democrats had the opportunity to impeach with clear reason, but failed to do so. ===
So say you. The obstacle to impeachment and conviction is the GOP congressional delegation. It’s frustrating to hear all these moralists/purists who are bashing the Dems for being cautious in the effort to try and ensure they maintain one chamber of congress and possibly take the majority in the Senate.
=== “It fires up his base” is a bad argument against doing something. ===
How about losing the remaining firewall against GOP perfidy? Think strategically, not tactically. Hold the House and gain the Senate and Presidency. If you’re a voter who wants Trump impeached and convicted, will you vote for him and the GOP if the Dems don’t move to impeach. The Dems are fighting for the middle.
=== Most Americans have not read the Mueller report or are aware of Trump’s specific crimes. ===
Information on the report is not the problem. Most Americans have their views on the topic via their media filter. Fox has been feeding the loony tunes conspiracy theories that say Mueller cleared Trump while insisting that Mueller was trying to precipitate a deep state coup. The MSM has been loudly broadcasting the facts around Trumps corruption from before he took the oath of office.
I really don’t care about JB’s reaction to impeachment. He’s not going to move the needle either way. The best thing for JB to do is work hard on maintaining the Dems new suburban members and work hard at defeating the remaining corrupt Trump sycophants in the State’s delegation.
As other conservative Never-Trumpers have come to understand, the best way to cleanse the GOP of this cancer is to vote straight Dem.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 2:49 pm
So much hatred on both sides. Lends a lot of support to the idea that it’s all just tribalism and the reasons we tell ourselves we have for leaning left or right have nothing to do with anything. As near as I can tell, children who got along with their parents end up leaning the same direction and those that rebelled against their parents end up switching parties. Seriously, look at yourself and your friends and see if that’s not true. We (myself included) only think we’re coming to well-reasoned conclusions based on fact, when it’s really just a matter of choosing which gang to belong to.
Comment by Occasional Quipper Monday, Jul 29, 19 @ 3:35 pm
==Lends a lot of support to the idea that it’s all just tribalism==
No.
People actually want things. They want a library built or they don’t. They want marijuana to be legal or they don’t. They want to pay taxes to improve the roads or they don’t want the roads improved and they want to pay less taxes. It’s always push and pull for different people for different needs.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Jul 30, 19 @ 8:16 am