ChrisWeigant.com

What To Look For In The Fourth Democratic Debate

[ Posted Monday, October 14th, 2019 – 16:40 UTC ]

Tomorrow night the top Democratic candidates will debate each other, for the fourth time in the 2020 primary race. The number of candidates on the stage has grown from the third debate (up from 10 last time around to tomorrow night's even dozen) as a result of the Democratic National Committee laying down exactly the same entry criteria for both events. Since there was more time to qualify, more people managed to make it onto the stage for the fourth debate than the third. From this point on, though, the D.N.C. seems likely to reset the criteria individually for each debate, so this is probably the last time the field will expand rather than shrink. Also, the decision was made to put all 12 on stage together tomorrow night rather than breaking them up into two debates of six candidates each, held on two successive nights. What this means is that each candidate will not have very much time to speak tomorrow night.

This is also the last time we'll likely see a number of these candidates in a debate, as the entry criteria continues to tighten. What this means is that there will be a number of very desperate candidates who know full well that this may be their last chance at making their mark and breaking through the crowded field. The full list of candidates who will appear tomorrow night is: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer, Julián Castro, and Tulsi Gabbard. Steyer and Gabbard are the two who didn't appear in the third debate, but eventually squeaked out high enough polling numbers to qualify for tomorrow night.

Of that list, at least five and perhaps seven candidates can be accurately called desperate. Obviously, Steyer and Gabbard have already missed one debate and are not likely to appear at the next one. But Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Julián Castro are also teetering on the brink of irrelevancy as well. Their national poll numbers are pretty dismal, and a good argument can be made that they're just cluttering up the stage at this point. The other two who also are struggling to gain support are Beto O'Rourke and Andrew Yang, although their poll numbers are marginally better (by just a few points) than the bottom tier.

This essentially leaves five candidates with a decent degree of viability: Warren, Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, and Harris. Of these, there are only three real leaders in the polls, since Buttigieg and Harris are locked in a two-way race for fourth place (at approximately five percent support), while the other three are the only candidates to continually enjoy double-digit support in the polls. Bernie Sanders seems -- so far -- to have not lost much support after his recent heart attack, and he's still holding onto his base of around 15-17 percent of Democratic voters. Warren and Biden are now the clear frontrunners, however, both regularly polling above 20 percent (and even, at times, above 30 percent).

We're now at the point where Biden and Warren have both seen leads over the other in individual polls, but only inconsistently. One poll will show Warren up by five points or so, and then a different poll shows Biden still up over Warren. Neither one of them has a clear lead at this point when you take all the aggregate polling together. But Warren's rise is notable, since she's the only candidate to show such dramatic movement in the polls in the past month or so. Warren went from being neck-and-neck with Bernie to being neck-and-neck with Biden in a fairly short period of time, while almost all the other candidates have seen their polling trends flatten out.

Of course, this means that both Warren and Biden will have targets on their backs tomorrow night. The only way any of the other candidates (excepting possibly Bernie) can boost their standing is to steal support away from the two frontrunners, at this point. But doing so is a tricky business indeed, since direct attacks on Biden and Warren are quite likely to backfire among Democratic voters. Even if a struggling candidate manages to raise doubts about the two, if there is any shift in voter support, it will likely go to a different candidate than the one who made the attack. This presents a tough choice for the desperate candidates -- either they launch a full frontal attack on Warren and/or Biden, or they lay back and try to make a positive case for their own candidacy. Neither tactic has any guarantee of success, though, and time is quickly running out.

Of the three candidates at the top of the race, two of them have serious vulnerabilities heading into tomorrow night. Joe Biden has the whole Hunter Biden situation to explain, while Bernie Sanders has drawn new attention to the advanced age of the frontrunners with his recent heart attack. However, both subjects are pretty tough for other Democrats to raise without seeming to either do Trump's bidding (in Biden's case) or appearing to be callous about health problems (in Bernie's case).

Added to this mix is the fact that Hunter Biden will be appearing in his first television news interview tomorrow, on ABC. He was interviewed over the weekend, and ABC is obviously airing the clips of this interview (annoyingly split over several of their news shows) to maximum effect, just before the debate begins. What Hunter says on the air tomorrow will definitely influence what the candidates have to say about it later in the day.

Both Bidens have finally realized the damage all of Trump's attacks are doing to Joe's electability argument. Even if no laws were broken (and nobody yet has shown the slightest proof of such wrongdoing), the whole situation is pretty hard to defend, because it shows how even those in proximity to the powerful can easily cash in on their status without any other obvious qualifications than being related to a political bigwig. Hunter's lawyer just released a statement promising that Hunter will soon be stepping down from the investment company connected to China and also foreswearing any foreign entanglements should Joe become president. That's a welcome development, but it only serves to draw attention to the fact that he did not make such a pledge when his father was vice president.

Joe Biden has been rather slow to respond to all the attacks from Trump and his minions. He finally managed to sound indignant, but it took weeks for him to do so. This more than anything else should raise questions in voters' minds about his ability to keep up with the fast pace of campaigning in the Trump era. By the time you've done a few focus groups and polled a few times on the issue and then calmly discussed possible responses with your campaign staff, it may already be too late to undo the political damage. His response to the attacks on his son show this more than anything else has, to date. This is the real question some of the Democrats may attack Biden on tomorrow night: is he really nimble enough to keep up with the furious pace that Trump is already setting? This pace is only going to accelerate during the general election campaign, after all, and Democrats truly need a candidate who can keep up and fight back within the same news cycle. There's an old adage that is more true now than ever before: a lie can go halfway around the world while the truth is still pulling its boots on.

One avenue of attack for all Democrats so far has not been adequately explored by any of them. Perhaps it is a reluctance to use the normal Republican tactic of "whataboutism," but in this case it seems perfectly appropriate. Whatever Hunter and Joe Biden did, it was years ago, but Trump's close relatives are currently doing much worse. The roles of Ivanka, Jared, and Donald Trump Junior (and to a much lesser extent, Eric) are all ripe for scorn from Democratic candidates -- and yet, nobody seems to have realized this yet. There is also a reluctance to launch second-hand attacks on a politician's children, but such niceties should really be limited to minor children, not adults who are actively involved with the politics of their father (or father-in-law). Adult children -- especially those who work in the West Wing -- are certainly fair game for political attacks. And yet, the Democrats have so far shied away from doing so, which to me is absolutely inexplicable. Perhaps this will change tomorrow night, since directly attacking Joe Biden is a lot more risky -- even for the desperate candidates -- than attacking the Trump children.

Bernie Sanders has a different problem, obviously, one much more personal. Health scares directly feed into voter worries about the advanced age of all three leading Democrats (all of whom are septuagenarians, just like Trump). It's also a much tougher thing for another Democrat to attack, since doing so directly would be almost inhumane. So look for lots of not-so-subtle suggestions from the younger candidates that maybe youth and vigor should be held in higher esteem than is currently true. And look for lots of seemingly-heartfelt statements of: "My best wishes go to Bernie and I hope he enjoys a full recovery," which normally would not be seen as negative in any way, but in the context of a presidential race will only serve to shine the "He's really old!" spotlight on Bernie.

Of the three frontrunners, the only one without a recent obvious avenue for attack is Elizabeth Warren. She has not stumbled on the campaign trail and she has no family or health problems to defend, which means that the only way the other candidates can take her down a peg would be to go after her political agenda and her voluminous plans for everything. Warren did survive her own family scandal much earlier on in the campaign, but it's highly doubtful any of the Democratic candidates will call her "Pocahontas" tomorrow night. Trump's slur has lost its punch, plain and simple. More recently, the Republicans tried to disparage her story of being fired as a teacher long ago because of her pregnancy, but this largely backfired and it's almost certain no Democrat will attempt to use it against her.

The interesting thing to watch tomorrow night is what the moderators choose to focus on. Up until now, they've largely been eager to drive wedges into the differences between the candidates' stances on things like healthcare reform and climate change -- even when those differences are actually pretty minor (especially considering how radically different Donald Trump's stances are from every Democrat on the stage). But this time around, there may be a change in tone due to two presidential crises hitting at the same time -- impeachment and the rapidly-deteriorating situation in Syria. Trump made two enormous foreign policy blunders in a very short amount of time, and they have been dominating the media ever since. This has all served to focus the public's attention on how any of the Democratic candidates would be handling things right now if they were president, which is good news for the Democrats since Trump is so obviously in over his head. Will we see a substantive debate on not only Syria but the entire Middle East tomorrow night? That would certainly be a welcome change from: "Would you like to turn to your fellow Democrat and attack their plan for X right to their face?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

110 Comments on “What To Look For In The Fourth Democratic Debate”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of that list, at least five and perhaps seven candidates can be accurately called desperate. Obviously, Steyer and Gabbard have already missed one debate and are not likely to appear at the next one. But Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Julián Castro are also teetering on the brink of irrelevancy as well.

    Hmmmm. Well, they better be nice to Biden, then. Heh.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neither tactic has any guarantee of success, though, and time is quickly running out.

    But, one tactic is definitely very bad for the future of the candidate who uses it.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joe Biden has the whole Hunter Biden situation to explain, while Bernie Sanders has drawn new attention to the advanced age of the frontrunners with his recent heart attack. However, both subjects are pretty tough for other Democrats to raise without seeming to either do Trump's bidding (in Biden's case) or appearing to be callous about health problems (in Bernie's case).

    I'll be surprised if age or heart attacks come up at the debate. Well, not if Democrats are serious about beating Trump.

    As for Biden's "vulnerabilities", I'll be very surprised if he doesn't put all of it to rest, forcefully and once and for all. Frankly, I think he already has.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, if that is not good enough for American voters, then good luck with four more years … and beyond.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Even if no laws were broken (and nobody yet has shown the slightest proof of such wrongdoing), the whole situation is pretty hard to defend, because it shows how even those in proximity to the powerful can easily cash in on their status without any other obvious qualifications than being related to a political bigwig.

    First off, what is known about what Hunter Biden was doing for these companies and whether he was qualified. I don't see anything mentioned here about it (so far, I haven't read the entire column, yet!) so I'm guessing that the younger Biden was indeed qualified for the job. Why assume otherwise, in other words.

    Secondly, not only were no laws broken, no ethics rules or regulations were broken, either. In other words, there's no there here.

    This is worth repeating … Biden followed all the ethics rules and regulations. What can be said about Trump and why should we be paying attention to anything he says about the Bidens or anything else. I mean, give me a freakin' break.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's a welcome development, but it only serves to draw attention to the fact that he did not make such a pledge when his father was vice president.

    That's Hunter Biden's problem and he's not running for public office let alone the presidency. Seriously.

    How many people in the country have taken advantage of their parents name to get in the door?

    How many parents were like Biden and made sure they followed all ethics rules and made the proper disclosures? I'll bet that Biden is in a league of a very few.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joe Biden has been rather slow to respond to all the attacks from Trump and his minions. He finally managed to sound indignant, but it took weeks for him to do so. This more than anything else should raise questions in voters' minds about his ability to keep up with the fast pace of campaigning in the Trump era.

    Wow. Chris, you can't possibly be serious!

    But, if what you say is true, then I'd say the chances for another four years of Trump just got better.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This pace is only going to accelerate during the general election campaign, after all, and Democrats truly need a candidate who can keep up and fight back within the same news cycle. There's an old adage that is more true now than ever before: a lie can go halfway around the world while the truth is still pulling its boots on.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't this tactic of fighting back against every single one of Trumps lies one of the reasons why Hillary lost?

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Perhaps it is a reluctance to use the normal Republican tactic of "whataboutism," but in this case it seems perfectly appropriate. Whatever Hunter and Joe Biden did, it was years ago, but Trump's close relatives are currently doing much worse.

    To me, that sounds like an extremely lame argument to make and certainly one that Biden won't make, without any context, at least.

    To make this a real argument a candidate should make clear that there is no comparison between the Bidens and the Trumps in any way, shape or form. And, then just dive into all of the details. I'm sure the voters can take the depth.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Adult children -- especially those who work in the West Wing -- are certainly fair game for political attacks. And yet, the Democrats have so far shied away from doing so, which to me is absolutely inexplicable. Perhaps this will change tomorrow night, since directly attacking Joe Biden is a lot more risky -- even for the desperate candidates -- than attacking the Trump children.

    I think voters are too smart not to see this tactic for what it is … a veiled attempt to smear their fellow candidate and former vice president.

    So, they will try this tactic at their peril. I'm talking to you, Senator Harris.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Elizabeth Warren can look for "attacks" on her policies, some of which many moderately politically inclined American voters probably disagree with.

    But, I could be wrong.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The interesting thing to watch tomorrow night is what the moderators choose to focus on.

    Actually, the interesting thing to watch for will be whether the moderators are able to do their jobs and moderate a real debate.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm done. :)

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, let me make one prediction … if there is a question on Syria, they won't ask Biden.

    Par for the course.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    HAPPY THANKSGIVING, EVERYONE!

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    happy sukkot liz

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks!

  18. [18] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Um, I think we're still in October so let me add a hearty Happy Halloween! I bought my first quart of eggnog yesterday so I'm happy.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're also not in the right country.

  20. [20] 
    dsws wrote:

    not only were no laws broken, no ethics rules or regulations were broken, either. In other words, there's no there here.

    What about the idea that existing rules are inadequate? That money goes to people connected to major politicians, on grounds that meet the requirements of existing rules, in order to facilitate access or promote goodwill, and in return the politicians don't go against their principles but are subject to subtle influences within the range of acceptable options.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You make good points, Dan, and I agree.

    So does Senator Biden.

    I don't think the subject of new rules should come up until after the 2020 election, especially by Democrats, running for president or not.

    Why? Because it is tantamount to smearing Senator Biden in the minds of American voters who aren't keeping up with all of this and they only hear Trump because Trump is everywhere and who would normally vote for Biden but may not now because they mistakenly think that there is enough there there to smear Biden.

  22. [22] 
    dsws wrote:

    Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't this tactic of fighting back against every single one of Trumps lies one of the reasons why Hillary lost?

    I think you're not wrong. But there's fighting back effectively, and then there's what Hillary did. If you reply to the substance of a lie directly, the very next day, by trying to correct it, all you've done is to give it an extra news cycle. And you lose. If you know your liabilities in advance, and respond in real time by triggering the news hook of an image or narrative that evokes a completely different conceptual framework, you starve the lie of its first news cycle.

    And if you let the lie go unchallenged for several days, and then respond directly just as its echoes were fading in the chamber and it was looking around for a new news hook to get them amplified again, then you lose even worse than if you had responded immediately.

  23. [23] 
    dsws wrote:

    it is tantamount to smearing Senator Biden in the minds of American voters who aren't keeping up with all of this

    Back atcha: good point and I agree.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And if you let the lie go unchallenged for several days, and then respond directly just as its echoes were fading in the chamber and it was looking around for a new news hook to get them amplified again, then you lose even worse than if you had responded immediately.

    Dan, is this what you think Biden did?

    Maybe you're right but, it wasn't like the story was anywhere near to going away when he first spoke about it.

    Then he put out his plan for building on the strong rules of the Obama administration with specifics just the other day.

    And, still the story isn't going away. In fact, I think Biden will be dealing with this until the end of this election cycle, in one way or another.

    Because that is who he is dealing with ...

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Back atcha: good point and I agree

    Well, you know, I learned to take into account those many American voters who don't pay attention the way do from you!

  26. [26] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I, personally, think Biden handled this perfectly! To respond to allegations that have already been proven by multiple news agencies to be completely false would be playing into Trump’s hand. Biden should smack down any journalists that question him about Trump’s allegations by pointing out that they know he is lying. Then ask if they don’t realize that Trump is going after Hunter to keep the press from going after his own kids. Kinda like the way he attacks immigrants so brutally — making him seem like the last person who would be willing to work as a foreign asset!

    Then Biden should ask them why the hell they are continuing to treat Trump’s lies like they have even an ounce of credibility to them. Ask them If they are going to play along with Trump’s conspiracy theories, at least they could turn the focus on why Trump’s kids are not currently being investigated for their abusing daddy’s new importance to make some quick cash!

    The rules of engagement need to be changed when it comes to Trump’s manipulating the press. Democrats need to start forcing the press to do their jobs and stop allowing Trumps lies to be published without clearly pointing out that they are lies!

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeezus, Liz and dsws!!

    Let someone else get a word in edgewise, eh!? :D

    heh

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as Joe Biden and his scandal???

    Two words...

    Barack Obama

    I'll let our Grand Poobah say it...

    The first is the absence of Barack Obama. He needs to get off the sidelines, plain and simple. Joe Biden didn't go rogue and pressure the Ukrainians on his own initiative, from all accounts, it was not only an official White House policy but it was in fact the same goal that most of Western Europe was had with the Ukrainian government. So Obama needs to state this now, in explicit terms. A simple tweet would be enough, at this point: "Vice President Biden did exactly what I told him to do in the Ukraine, and it had absolutely nothing to do with his son, period." This would be the strongest possible defense for Biden, which is why Obama really needs to jump into the fray, here. It is not showing favoritism in the primary race to defend what his own vice president did, after all.
    -CW

    As long as Obama remains silent, Joe Biden will always be branded as corrupt.. A rogue influence peddler...

    Biden will never be the Dem nominee as long as Obama remains silent.

    I will entertain ANY wagers on this.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fair is fair, right??

    GOP lawmaker introduces bill to investigate Biden family's dealings with Ukraine
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/gop-congressman-byrne-investigate-biden-ukraine

    Democrats want investigations.. Let's have investigations...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for a bit of comic relief...

    https://youtu.be/8cfeTZNcA3g?t=20
    BOOOM!!!! HEAD SHOT!!!

    :D

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    No matter what you look for in the debate all you will find is empty promises (plans) for action with legislation some point in the future that they have no intention of passing and/or couldn't get passed by the legislators controlled by the big money interests.

    It will be followed by articles that treat the empty promises as if they were real and could actually be accomplished without first replacing the big money legislators with small donor candidates, perhaps even with references to previous articles predicting the possibilities that may materialize in the show.

    These articles spreading the lies may even include references to a clever saying such as "...a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth can even pull it's boots on."

    These articles will not include any realization that the articles are how the lies spread half way around the world because the truth is omitted from the articles.

    The people that write these articles have no interest in the truth because their job is to promote the show.

    The show must not go on.

    Get Real.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unhealthy cynicism.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unhealthy cynicism.

    A cynic is oft defined as a premature realist... :D

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know what that means.

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    A healthy sceptic is often described as an unhealthy cynic by those choosing to ignore reality.

    If our current reality is premature we has better stop it now before it grows up.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know what that means.

    Basically it means a cynic is a realist before it's appropriate...

    :D

    When DSWS and JL say that President Trump is going to be re-elected, they are labeled as cynical. But when President Trump IS re-elected they are realists..

    So, in effect, DSWS and JL are realists before anyone realizes they are realists..

    Hope that clears things up.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What do you think about the police officer who was charged with murder for killing a woman in her house?

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you think about the police officer who was charged with murder for killing a woman in her house?

    I don't have all the facts so I can't comment.

    I WILL say however, that it's a sad day when cops are thrown on the altar of political correctness just to appease cop haters..

    I'll also point out that ANYONE who wants to throw cops under the bus (which is the Left's default position) needs to walk in cop's shoes for a day before they sit in judgement..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looking at the video, I would say it was a good shoot..

    There was a gun on the floor and the subject did not obey commands to show the officer her hands...

    It's just a sad state of affairs when the Left uses these tragedies to further their own cop hating agenda..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Police also released a still image of a firearm found in the home where Jefferson was shot. Merritt, the family’s attorney, said that the firearm was legally owned and that Jefferson had a license to carry it.

    Why was the weapon just lying on the floor with an 8-yr old around??

    Did the subject have the weapon in her hand and it was dropped on the floor when she was shot??

    That makes more sense that someone leaving a weapon just lying on the floor with an 8 year old in the room...

    The more I look, the more it's looking like a good shoot..

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Shocking. Positively shocking.

    The Fort Worth Police Department disagrees with you.

  42. [42] 
    John M wrote:

    Really Michale???

    Remember, the victim here, the person who was shot and killed, was the person the police were supposed to be doing a safety check on. The police were supposed to be making sure that she was healthy and safe.

    The police, who was outside the house, shot and killed her through a window while she was inside her own house completely minding her own business and not engaged in any kind of crime whatsoever.

    If some strange person starts shouting at you through your window while you are going about your own business inside your own home, what is your first reaction going to be?

    You seriously are going to tell me the outcome would not have been different if she had been a pretty white girl with blond hair and not a black woman.

    Do you really think the officer's first reaction would be to shoot into some white person's home to kill? Not even knowing if there were children in the same room?

  43. [43] 
    John M wrote:

    The first reaction of that police officer should have been:

    Duck down

    Pull back

    Wait for back-up

    Seal off the house and establish a perimeter

    Try to contact the person inside

    Set up negotiations as if you were in a hostage situation

    Not start randomly and indiscriminately firing your weapon into the house.

    Especially when you were sent there to ensure the safety of the person whom you just shot and killed.

    Do we really want to say it is completely ok for the police to start killing people in their own homes whom they were sent there to supposedly protect in the first place???

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Fort Worth Police Department disagrees with you.

    No.. The political "leadership" of the Fort Worth PD disagree with me..

    The rank and file cops are on my side..

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    The first reaction of that police officer should have been:

    Duck down

    Pull back

    Wait for back-up

    Seal off the house and establish a perimeter

    Try to contact the person inside

    Set up negotiations as if you were in a hostage situation

    Not start randomly and indiscriminately firing your weapon into the house.

    Especially when you were sent there to ensure the safety of the person whom you just shot and killed.

    And what tells you this??

    Your VAST experience as an LEO???

    Or watching THE ROOKIE and 911 on TV??

    :eyeroll:

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember, the victim here, the person who was shot and killed, was the person the police were supposed to be doing a safety check on. The police were supposed to be making sure that she was healthy and safe.

    And the responding officer KNEW that the person he observed was the person who needed checking on, exactly how??

    You have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight..

    You seriously are going to tell me the outcome would not have been different if she had been a pretty white girl with blond hair and not a black woman.

    Oh pullleeesse.. You morons and your frakin' race card... Jesus H Christ!!

    Do you really think the officer's first reaction would be to shoot into some white person's home to kill? Not even knowing if there were children in the same room?

    I am not even going to dignify such racist spewage as yours with an answer...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Until any of you have been there and done that (as I have) NONE of ya'all have ANY moral foundation to criticize...

    Go thru an Academy.. Put on the uniform and pin on a badge..

    THEN come talk to me about how easy it is to make the perfect life/death decision every time...

    Ya'all's ignorance is offensive.. Especially when ya'all choose to wallow in it by making lame and ignorant proclamations..

  48. [48] 
    John M wrote:

    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "The question is, Who gets to define "criminal activity"??

    If "criminal actitity" is seeking "dirt" with which to besmirch your opponent, then thare's really nothing in politics that's NOT "criminal activity", right?"

    The government gets to define criminal activity.

    NO. By all means seek all the dirt on your political opponent that you want. Hire any domestic private investigator to do it.

    Just don't try to normalize or excuse what is not normal. Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

    Don't hire a foreign government or agent to dig up dirt. That is what is illegal and that Stucki is what you don't seem to be able to understand.

    Why is it that you don't or won't understand that???

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    THE BIDENS CONCEDE

    Not even the Biden family seems willing to stand behind their questionable financial arrangements. A business associate in Shanghai doesn’t seem to have an explanation yet, either. Are the bitter-enders at CNN and NBC News finally ready to stop defending the indefensible?

    Last week this column noted that former Vice President Joe Biden once again declined to offer a defense of his family’s business model even in an op-ed ostensibly responding to attacks on this model. Over the weekend, his son Hunter Biden quit another of the overseas engagements for which he seemed eminently unqualified.

    The Journal’s Ken Thomas and Thomas Grove noted on Sunday:

    Hunter Biden is stepping down from a director’s position at a Chinese private-equity firm and said he wouldn’t serve on any foreign boards if his father, Joe Biden, is elected president, lowering his controversial business profile as it becomes embroiled in the 2020 election and Democrats’ efforts to impeach President Trump.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-bidens-concede/ar-AAILOi6

    Bidens admit that their actions are unsavory and questionable..

    That, coupled with Obama's continued silence is signaling the end of Biden's final campaign...

  50. [50] 
    John M wrote:

    [44] Michale wrote:

    "No.. The political "leadership" of the Fort Worth PD disagree with me..

    The rank and file cops are on my side.."

    Really? So you have conducted a poll of the Forth Worth police force? Please publish your tabulated results here.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just don't try to normalize or excuse what is not normal. Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

    It seemed to be "normal" when Hillary did it..

    Or, at least, normal enough that you didn't mind..

    Don't hire a foreign government or agent to dig up dirt. That is what is illegal and that Stucki is what you don't seem to be able to understand.

    Why is it that you don't or won't understand that???

    Because you CAN'T point to a single solitary law that says what you claim it says..

    THAT'S why... Duuh...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? So you have conducted a poll of the Forth Worth police force?

    I don't have to...

    I know cops.... You can bet that the rank and file are behind this cop... THEY know that it's political bullshit that is prosecuting these cops for doing their jobs..

  53. [53] 
    John M wrote:

    [45] Michale wrote:

    "And what tells you this??

    Your VAST experience as an LEO???

    Or watching THE ROOKIE and 911 on TV??"

    Says the man who has repeatedly stated that HIS only law enforcement experience is as a military MP.

    Really BIG :eyeroll:

    Sounds like I am at least as qualified as you are.

  54. [54] 
    John M wrote:

    [52] Michale wrote:

    "Really? So you have conducted a poll of the Forth Worth police force?

    I don't have to...

    I know cops.... You can bet that the rank and file are behind this cop... THEY know that it's political bullshit that is prosecuting these cops for doing their jobs.."

    In other words, you have NO FACTS

  55. [55] 
    John M wrote:

    [46] Michale wrote:

    "You seriously are going to tell me the outcome would not have been different if she had been a pretty white girl with blond hair and not a black woman.

    Oh pullleeesse.. You morons and your frakin' race card... Jesus H Christ!!

    Do you really think the officer's first reaction would be to shoot into some white person's home to kill? Not even knowing if there were children in the same room?

    I am not even going to dignify such racist spewage as yours with an answer..."

    Says the pot calling the kettle black! Sounds like I really hit a nerve too close to home.

  56. [56] 
    John M wrote:

    [47] Michale wrote:

    "Ya'all's ignorance is offensive.. Especially when ya'all choose to wallow in it by making lame and ignorant proclamations.."

    The only lame and ignorant proclimations here are yours, as shown by your response in # 52

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    The best way to understand the speaker’s true aim is to ask “How would Pelosi, Schiff, and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by impeachment?”

    The short answer is that they would bend over backwards to show the whole process is fair, open, and deliberate. They would use that impartial process to forge a broad, bipartisan consensus that the president had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and should be removed. That’s exactly what Democrats did during the Nixon impeachment. It’s not what they are doing now.

    It’s not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been entirely shut out of the process. Nor is it only that Pelosi and her allies are determined to rush a foregone conclusion through committee and avoid going to court if Trump refuses to provide documents or witnesses. (Normally, federal courts would settle such a standoff between the legislative and executive branches.) Schiff and Pelosi have announced that they won’t litigate these issues or give the White House due process. Instead, they will count any refusal as evidence of obstruction. Their reason is simple: Speed is more important than judicial legitimacy.

    All these are important points, but there is a bigger one. These streamlined, partisan procedures are proof that House Democrats are not trying to win bipartisan support for impeachment or set the stage for Senate conviction. They are building a case against Trump to defeat him at the ballot box.

    Politically, that strategy makes sense. Republican officeholders won’t abandon Trump unless he is badly weakened. Until then, they fear his clout; he has proven he can defeat enemies in party primaries. Just ask the governors of Florida and Georgia.

    Pelosi understands this terrain and the choice it poses. She can either drop the endless investigations and face the wrath of her party base, or she can plunge ahead, call it impeachment, and hope to defeat Trump next year. She has chosen the latter.

    This impeach-and-be-damned strategy is risky. It is already hurting vulnerable, centrist Democrats, and the damage could mount. Ukraine is the only plausible issue for impeachment, but that focus has already knee-capped the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. His son, Hunter, earned big money from a Ukrainian energy company without any qualifications beyond his DNA. The more Democrats focus on Ukraine, the worse for Biden.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/15/what_pelosi_really_wants_from_impeachment_141494.html

    Pelosi knows that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that President Trump will be removed from office.. Hell, even official Weigantia concedes as much...

    Pelosi's goal is simply to provide bullshit spewage that has no basis in fact.. To throw as much shit on the wall as she can in hopes that SOMETHING... ANYTHING... sticks..

    They tried that with their Russia Collusion delusion.. They failed.

    And they will fail again...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only lame and ignorant proclimations here are yours, as shown by your response in # 52

    Yea, you always say that..

    But my bona fides are well established..

    What's your training, education or experience do YOU have that allows you to second guess street cops..

    I mean, besides watching THE ROOKIE and 911.... :eyeroll:

    You have NOTHING to support your claims except your cop hating attitude..

  59. [59] 
    John M wrote:

    [51] Michale wrote:

    "It seemed to be "normal" when Hillary did it..

    Or, at least, normal enough that you didn't mind.."

    Oh, so what exactly was the instance where Clinton invited a foreign government to interfere in the election? Please, by all means point it out.

    "Because you CAN'T point to a single solitary law that says what you claim it says..

    THAT'S why... Duuh..."

    It's in federal campaign finance law, which has been repeatedly pointed out to you and which you have repeatedly ignored.

    Duuh

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Says the pot calling the kettle black! Sounds like I really hit a nerve too close to home.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to give yerself a woody.. :^/

    The fact is, it's a pure bona fide racist who always brings up race in EVERY issue..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, you have NO FACTS

    I have the FACT of over 2 and a half decades in the field..

    What do YOU have??

    Oh yea.. Yer a big fan of Hawaii Five-0 and Blue Bloods :eyeroll:

  62. [62] 
    John M wrote:

    [58] Michale wrote:

    "But my bona fides are well established.."

    Yeah, you always say that. But your bona fides are neither proven or well established.

    "You have NOTHING to support your claims except your cop hating attitude.."

    You have nothing to support your own claim except your knee jerk slavery to the ideology of the blue wall of silence code.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    More damage is coming if impeachment reaches a House vote. Pelosi holds the speaker’s gavel because centrists Democrats won in districts Trump carried three years ago. Their voters’ central message was to work with Republicans and get things done. These newly elected officials couldn’t accomplish that. The fault may not be theirs, but they still have nothing to show voters back home. If they lose next year, Pelosi could lose her gavel. That’s one reason she has postponed a floor vote to authorize the inquiry. But she can’t delay forever or deliver on the centrists’ promise to pass significant, bipartisan legislation.

    This drama is building to a nasty climax: a dirty campaign from now until November 2020. Trump and his allies will run on a strong economy and against a “do nothing” Congress controlled by “radical socialists.” Democrats will run against a “corrupt, erratic, self-dealing Trump and his spineless supporters.”

    Unless the Democrats can find a clean, competent, center-left candidate to lead them, they face a difficult task. They will need to sell the public on unpopular, brutally expensive new Washington programs. That agenda doesn’t just split the country, it splits the Democrats. What unifies them is hating Trump and everything he stands for.

    Pelosi’s impeachment strategy is not separate from this electoral calculation. It’s central to it.

    Democrats are facing decimation in Nov of 2020....

    They know it.. This whole faux impeachment coup REEKS of desperation...

  64. [64] 
    John M wrote:

    [60] Michale wrote:

    "The fact is, it's a pure bona fide racist who always brings up race in EVERY issue.."

    Oh my god, that is so damn ridiculous. Thanks, I just died on the floor with my big laugh of the day. You really are just too priceless and precious for words Michale.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, you always say that. But your bona fides are neither proven or well established.

    Ahhh, but they have.. Yer just too much of a noob to realize it...

    And what's even MORE funny is you have nothing else to support yer bullshit..

    So, of course you call into question my established expertise..

    Because yer absolutely ignorant of the facts..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh my god, that is so damn ridiculous. Thanks, I just died on the floor with my big laugh of the day. You really are just too priceless and precious for words Michale.

    Facts hurt, don't they JM....

  67. [67] 
    John M wrote:

    [61] Michale wrote:

    "I have the FACT of over 2 and a half decades in the field.."

    Really? What police force? What position? What badge number? What academy did you graduate from? Go on, I double dare you to list them.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, run away like you always do when ya get bitch-slapped to hell... :D

  69. [69] 
    John M wrote:

    [66] Michale wrote:

    "Oh my god, that is so damn ridiculous. Thanks, I just died on the floor with my big laugh of the day. You really are just too priceless and precious for words Michale.

    Facts hurt, don't they JM...."

    If you had ANY FACTS, they might. But since you don't. No, you did not hurt my poor little feelings in the least.

    But going on thinking you did. If it helps your little ego. Whatever gives you a woody baby.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? What police force? What position? What badge number? What academy did you graduate from? Go on, I double dare you to list them.

    BBBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yea, like I am going to list all my personnel info to fuckheads like you..

    Everyone here has seen what you fuckheads do with personal information...

    I may have been born AT night, racist..

    But I wasn't born LAST night...

    Suffice it to say I have POST accreditation that would allow me to work at any PD or SO in the country...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    But going on thinking you did. If it helps your little ego. Whatever gives you a woody baby.

    Wow.. Yer so lame you can't think of ANY retorts.. You have to use mine!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  72. [72] 
    John M wrote:

    [68] Michale wrote:

    "Now, run away like you always do when ya get bitch-slapped to hell... :D"

    Actually I believe that your M.O. Or Modus Operandi since you need everything spelled out for you.

    Bitch slapped to hell? Honey I know drag queens who can deliver it a lot better than the panty waisted slap you just tried to so unsuccessfully pull off.

    Now please run along little boy while the adults can get back to some serious discussion.

  73. [73] 
    John M wrote:

    [71] Michale wrote:

    "But going on thinking you did. If it helps your little ego. Whatever gives you a woody baby.

    Wow.. Yer so lame you can't think of ANY retorts.. You have to use mine!!"

    Wow, he can't even recognize sarcasm when he sees it. ROFL

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    What are the Democrats hiding about impeachment inquiry?

    America’s top two Trump-hating newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, have now both called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a vote of the full House of Representatives to make the “impeachment inquiry” truly official — and to set rules like those for the inquiries targeting Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, so that the minority party and the White House weren’t totally sidelined.

    So far, though, Pelosi and her impeachment pointman, Rep. Adam Schiff, are moving the opposite way.
    https://nypost.com/2019/10/14/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-about-impeachment-inquiry/

    WaPoop and NY Grime are calling on Pelosi to do a full House vote on impeachment..

    Democrats are refusing because they know they will lose...

  75. [75] 
    John M wrote:

    [70] Michale wrote:

    "Yea, like I am going to list all my personnel info to fuckheads like you..

    Everyone here has seen what you fuckheads do with personal information..."

    in other words, all bluster and bullshit with nothing to back it up. LOL

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow, he can't even recognize sarcasm when he sees it. ROFL

    Yea.. It's called NOT HAVING ANY FACTS..

    Which you don't...

    You don't even have any experience, training or expertise in the field...

    Hay! Maybe you can get on a board and get $50K a month like Hunter Biden did..

    Oh wait.. Yer dad aint VP..

    So I guess yer screwed there too...

    Poor JM.. You can't win at ANYTHING, can ya... :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    in other words, all bluster and bullshit with nothing to back it up. LOL

    My LEO and military bona fides were well established long before you polluted this once great community..

    Tough luck yer such a JEEP...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump and other Republicans have been complaining about Schiff’s decision to hold most hearings behind closed doors, yet the Intelligence Committee chief opted for even greater secrecy in last Friday’s questioning of Marie Yovanovitch, the former US ambassador to Ukraine — conducting it as a deposition, which makes it a criminal offense for either side to discuss her answers.

    That keeps even the rest of the House in the dark about everything except the opening statement Yovanovitch made public.

    Schiff is going to even greater lengths when it comes to the whistleblower whose complaint launched this whole … adventure. He might not even have the guy testify — which would remove any chance for anyone to probe his motives and biases.

    This, when Schiff has admitted that, contrary to his earlier account, his staff was in touch with the whistleblower before he’d even begun to file his complaint.

    And when the Washington Examiner has revealed that at least two Schiff staffers (one of them hired in the midst of the complaint filing) worked with the whistleblower at the White House back when he was advising the Obama point man on Ukraine, Veep Joe Biden.

    Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together can see Democrats are heading for disaster...

    They are looking at 4 more years for President Trump, a filibuster proof Senate and the House back in GOP hands by a large margin..

    Adding to the Dims woes will be a 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS for a year or so, then a 7-2 Conservative SCOTUS for the rest of President Trump's term of office.. :D

    Life is going to be really REALLY good.. :D

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Happy ever after in the market place,
    Desmond lets the children lend a hand.
    Molly stays at home and does her pretty face,
    and in the evening she still sings it with the band.

    Obladi, Oblada, life goes on, bra,
    Lala how their life goes on.
    Obladi, Oblada, life goes on, bra,
    Lala how their life goes on.

    -The Beatles

    :D

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Politico reported in 2017, Ukrainian officials during the 2016 campaign “tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office … disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and … [and] helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.” What did the whistleblower, and Schiff’s staffers, know about all that — and why did no one blow any whistles then?

    What are they trying to hide?

    Schiff doesn’t want anyone to get the chance to ask.

    Pelosi has a clear duty here: Go to the full House to pass rules so her impeachment inquiry can be more than an outright frame job.

    Funny how no one here cared when Hillary went thru the Ukrainians to a Brit and eventually Russian intelligence..

    When HILLARY did it (as reported in Politico) ya'all totally and unequivocally supported it..

    So, yer lame CAN'T GET DIRT ON POLITICAL OPPONENTS FROM FOREIGN SOURCES!!!! rings very hollow cuz ya'all accepted it when Hillary did just that..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awwww JM..... Don't run away mad.... :D hehehehe

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ha!!!

    Democrats are already walking back their accusations..

    "There Doesn't Need To Be A Quid Pro Quo For Ukraine Call To Be An Impeachable Offense"
    -Adam Schiff

    The Schiff-head is admitting there was no quid pro quo in the Ukraine call..

    Yet he claims it's still impeachable..

    Of course he can't EXPLAIN why it's impeachable...

    Democrats have NOTHING...

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!!??

    Oh.. Wait.. :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Joe Biden Has a Problem Because of his Son’s Foreign Business Dealings. It Looks Bad. It Smells Bad."
    -CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez

    "People Would Change the Channel if Network Broadcasted a Biden Rally."
    -CNN Media Coordinator Nick Neville

    hehe CNN don't like Joe Biden....

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (37)-
    It's pretty obvious what a subject changing question means.

    Unhealthy avoidism.

    Another point on the unhealthy cynicism claim- the skepticism is coupled with optimism that citizens are capable of taking action to solve the problem.

    The real cynicism is believing the only two choices are the big money Democrats and Republicans and that citizens can't do anything aboot it so they should just settle for not as bad.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay JM...

    Here's a question you can answer when you grow a pair and come back..

    Liz, in his absence, if you want to take a swing at it..

    Anyone else, feel free to chime in..

    OK??? Good?? Here goes..

    In YOUR world, can a white cop shoot a black person and it be justified??

    What would such an incident look like to you??

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    anyone can shoot anyone and have it be justified, if said person was being attacked and had no way to safely retreat. police have more leeway than most citizens in this regard because they're expected to have the training to know the difference between a threat to public safety and someone who is not a threat.

    however, police should know that our country's long history of racism means that unless they legitimately fear for their own safety, they need to check their racial bias before drawing their weapon.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    anyone can shoot anyone and have it be justified, if said person was being attacked and had no way to safely retreat.

    That's not the ONLY circumstances where deadly force is justified..

    police have more leeway than most citizens in this regard because they're expected to have the training to know the difference between a threat to public safety and someone who is not a threat.

    Exactly.. So why not give the officer the benefit of the doubt because they DO have the training??

    however, police should know that our country's long history of racism means that unless they legitimately fear for their own safety, they need to check their racial bias before drawing their weapon.

    And 99.9% of the officers do..

    Now how about those cop-haters check THEIR racial bias before they start screaming about a white cop that is justified in shooting a black person??

    Such racial bias checks work BOTH ways..

    Wouldn't you agree??

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now how about those cop-haters check THEIR racial bias before they start screaming about a white cop that is justified in shooting a black person??

    This current shooting is a perfect example..

    JM screams RACISM!!! when there is not a single shred of evidence that the cop knew the race of the person..

    The video doesn't make it clear... So it's entirely likely that the cop didn't know the race.. All he saw was a threat...

    We DO know that there was a gun in the residence that ended up on the floor.. Was the subject holding it??

    These are legitimate questions that need to be asked..

    But JM et al don't WANT the facts.. They just want to yell RACIST!!!! and lynch the cop..

    And that pisses me off to no end..

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Such racial bias checks work BOTH ways..
    Yes, but not equally. In ambiguous situations, the traditionally oppressed need to receive the benefit of the doubt, but are not required to give the same.
    JL

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Captain Albert Torres
    Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, California
    End of Watch: Saturday, October 12, 2019

    And remind the few...
    When ill of us they speak...
    That we are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, but not equally.

    Hell yes, equally...

    In ambiguous situations, the traditionally oppressed need to receive the benefit of the doubt, but are not required to give the same.

    Then they have no reasonable expectation of same..

    If they want to have the benefit of the doubt, then they need to give others the benefit of the doubt.. If they don't, then they don't deserve it back..

    And let's face reality here..

    No one has been "traditionally oppressed" in this country in over 60 years...

    And, in the last 2 decades or so, it's been COPS who have been oppressed by the Democrat Party..

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one has been "traditionally oppressed" in this country in over 60 years...

    But Democrats keep telling that lie, that they are "traditionally oppressed" to black Americans so as to scare them into voting Democrat..

    Funny thing though..

    Who was it that brought black American unemployment down to it's LOWEST POINT EVER!??

    It wasn't the Democrats..

    It was President Trump.. And he did it, in spite of having to FIGHT Democrats at every turn... At every juncture...

    So, now.. Black Americans are waking up.. They are seeing the false promises of the VICTIM status that Democrats want to keep them in chains with..

    That's why overwhelmingly black Americans will vote President Trump in Nov of 2020...

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No one has been "traditionally oppressed" in this country in over 60 years...

    If you genuinely believe that, you're kidding yourself.

  94. [94] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    [57]

    It’s not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been entirely shut out of the process. Nor is it only that Pelosi and her allies are determined to rush a foregone conclusion through committee and avoid going to court if Trump refuses to provide documents or witnesses. (Normally, federal courts would settle such a standoff between the legislative and executive branches.) Schiff and Pelosi have announced that they won’t litigate these issues or give the White House due process. Instead, they will count any refusal as evidence of obstruction. Their reason is simple: Speed is more important than judicial legitimacy.

    No, the reason is far simpler than that! Democrats are not concerned with “judicial legitimacy” because this is NOT the trial....

    Trump is being INVESTIGATED, HE IS NOT ON TRIAL & HE HAS NOT BEEN IMPEACHED!

    The Republicans keep screaming that the Democrats are not allowing them the ability to interfere with the investigation! Boo Hoo!

    Schiff and Pelosi have announced that they won’t litigate these issues or give the White House due process.

    If there is no litigation, why would the White House be entitled to “due process”?

    Schiff and Pelosi sought the court’s assistance to rule on whether the White House can ignore Congressional subpoenas after the Mueller Report was released. Those cases have still not been resolved as the White House has made it clear that they intend to drag this out all the way to the Supreme Court..which could take years before it is even heard by SCOTUS.

    There is also no need to re-litigate matters that case law has already been determined. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to investigate the Executive Branch’s conduct. If the Executive Branch refuses to comply with requests for documents required by Congress to carry out their investigations, those that refuse to comply are guilty of obstruction of justice.

    Republicans cannot defend Trump’s actions, so they are attempting to confuse their supporters into thinking Trump is not being granted his legal rights as the Constitution demands.

    It’s weird that they aren’t asking the court to stop the Democrats if that were actually true, don’t ya think?

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you genuinely believe that, you're kidding yourself.

    If you DON'T believe that, give me facts (not code-words or dog whistles but stone cold FACTS) that prove me wrong..

    As I said, the FACTS clearly show that Democrats have been "traditionally" oppressing LEOS since Obama..

    "The cops acted stupidly"

    Every time a white cop shoots a black person, the cop is ALWAYS wrong, according to you Democrats..

    As I said, the FACTS clearly show that it's LEOs who are "oppressed"...

    Which brings me back to my original question..

    Is it possible that a white cop could shoot a black person and NOT be indicted or savaged by the Left??

    What would that look like??

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is being INVESTIGATED, HE IS NOT ON TRIAL & HE HAS NOT BEEN IMPEACHED!

    Oh.. so NOW yer saying he is not even being impeached right now??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Typical of Dumbocrats..

    OK Fine.. If it's NOT an impeachment, then the White House can tell Schiff-Head to go frak himself and shove the subpoenas up his ass..

    If there is NO IMPEACHMENT, then Executive Privilege rules the day... And Schiff-head can take a flying leap... :D

    Dumbass....

  97. [97] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    you know there's evidence up to gazoo about this, but are being intentionally obtuse to avoid conceding an obvious point. here's one of the MANY analyses of hard data that establish racial bias exists in the present day:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/

    Andy Dufresne: My God, Warden! How could you be so obtuse!
    Warden Samuel Norton: What the F*** did you call me?!

  98. [98] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As for the officer involved shooting...(I want to disclose upfront that I used to work as a 911 call receiver for an agency that handled calls for 13 different police departments and have been married to man who has worked the last 19 years in law enforcement)

    I think it is terrible that our society takes this event that is already devastating for all parties involved, and attempt to turn it into a battle cry for an issue that has not been determined to have actually played any part in this shooting.

    I read that the officer resigned after the shooting. If this is true, it is more likely that the shooting was determined NOT to have been a justifiable use of deadly force.

    Until more details of the investigation are released, we won’t know any details that are not already known. I hate video being released without knowing all the facts...(And I am using the legal definition of “facts”, not Michale’s FACTS that he openly admits are not based in truth...”they are better than the truth”)

    I do want to challenge people here to not just accept the media’s claims that for police in this country, race plays a major factor in determining whether deadly force is justified and appropriate.

    Despite what the media attempts to portray, police in this country are extremely well trained in determining when the use of deadly force is justified. They run through countless training scenarios to determine that they have a good grasp of the legal criteria that must be met for them to use deadly force before they are ever allowed on the streets to interact with the public. And this training continues throughout their career in law enforcement — it is TOO IMPORTANT for it not to continue!

    The best indication as to whether an officer involved in a shooting was justified to use deadly force is 1) if they face criminal charges and 2) what the jury verdict is when there is a trial. Most officer involved shootings are determined to be “justified”. Again, this is due to the fact that officers are so well trained in when they are authorized to use deadly force.

    That being said...we should never forget that officers are human beings — thus they make mistakes occasionally. When they make mistakes, they are held accountable for those mistakes and any damages caused by their mistakes. While there have been cases of corruption where officers intentionally targeted individuals, those cases are extremely rare these days.

    The press loves to make race a factor in how police do their jobs, but the only arguments they have to support their claim are statistics that focus on race. 1 in 1000 black males in America will be killed by the police the LA times recently reported — a much higher rate for blacks compared to what white males face because blacks make up a much smaller percentage of the population than whites. But statistics don’t tell the whole story. Did the person take action that justified the police to use deadly force against them is the real question we should focus on. To think that “race” of the potential shooter plays any role in an officer’s decision to prevent their own death is ludicrous.

    (It should be noted that “killed by police” means that the individual died in police custody or the police were determined to have caused the death. A heart attack victim who died in his sleep in a holding cell is considered to have been “killed by police” according to the definition most media outlets use, but are not quick to point out to their reporting.)

    Based on info I found on Statista, in 2017, 457 whites, 223 blacks, 179 Hispanics, and 44 other races were “killed by police” . The number of white individuals killed was over twice that for blacks.

    (TBC’d)

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    if you read closely, the WP author makes the case that systemic racism in law enforcement is generally not the fault of any individual officers involved, but the system in which they operate, much of which was initially set up during the jim crow era, for the explicit purpose of racial discrimination. although the officers have changed, in many cases the systems in which they work have not changed, or at least have not changed sufficiently.

    JL

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Oh.. so NOW yer saying he is not even being impeached right now??

    the impeachment inquiry happens prior to the drafting of articles of impeachment, much less representatives voting on them. but just like a criminal investigation is part of the process of prosecuting a crime, an impeachment inquiry is part of impeaching a president. technically donald isn't being impeached yet, but the process has begun, and is constitutionally mandated. i agree with the article you cited that donald's removal by conviction in the senate is most definitely not nancy pelosi's endgame.

  101. [101] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Now think about the fact that this argument is based on specific statistics where the only factor being looked at is the person’s race. Yes, the statistics can paint some scary pictures of what different communities face. But I want to offer this example as a reminder for just how limited these stats are at telling the whole story:

    In the US, there are only 5 members of the Atlantian race living here. They are five brothers whose mother gave birth to them when she was touring with Sea World, and they chose to stay here when Mom went back to Atlantis. The brothers get together every year for a big dinner. The youngest of the brothers has a temper, especially when he drinks, and one year he gets so drunk and angry he grabs a knife and starts trying to stab his brothers. Lucky for the other 4, a police officer was responding to a call from the neighbors who heard the fighting. The officer was forced to shoot the youngest Atlantian to prevent him from stabbing the other four, and they were grateful he had saved their lives.

    Now can you imagine the headlines: 1 in 5 Atlantians killed by police. The story doesn’t clarify what the total population is, it doesn’t explain any of the factors that led to the police shooting, it doesn’t mention how the other members of the family are grateful for the police officer saving them.

    This example is a ridiculous comparison, I admit it! But the only reason it is ridiculous is because we know all the important details. If you did not know them, and just heard that 1 in 5 are killed by police every year, that stat is going to cause you to believe the police must be trying to kill this race.

    My point is that statistics, alone, do not tell us the actual story.

  102. [102] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    Am now writing a "snap reactions to the debate" column, should be up in an hour or so...

    -CW

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Be nice.

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, no column yet so I'm going to suffer - literally! - through the encore performance.

    Before I even watch the debate, I feel I must reiterate that a good debate performance does not a good president make.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    you know there's evidence up to gazoo about this,

    No, there is not ANY concrete solid FACT to support your claim..

    here's one of the MANY analyses of hard data that establish racial bias exists in the present day:

    It's cherry picked data that is spin'ed to produce a pre-determined conclusion..

    In the here and now, you cannot point to a SINGLE case of institutionalized racism save Affirmative Action..

    I'll say it again and it's completely factual..

    No one has been "traditionally oppressed" in this country in over 60 years...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one has been "traditionally oppressed" in this country in over 60 years...

    Let me amend that to say

    No race of people have been "traditionally oppressed" in this country in over 60 years...

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's not forget WHICH PARTY it was that institutionalized racism in this country to begin with..

    If you want to claim that there is institutionalized racism today, you MUST acknowledge which Party started it..

  108. [108] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    Once again your difficulty with vocabulary words is evident. "Cherry-picking" would be selecting only those two or three studies that showed no racial bias, not the seventy or eighty that do.

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    47

    Go thru an Academy.. Put on the uniform and pin on a badge..

    You're not just a fool, Mike; you're a lying fool, but like you said... you obviously don't know the facts.

    Ya'all's ignorance is offensive.. Especially when ya'all choose to wallow in it by making lame and ignorant proclamations..

    The police officer didn't identify himself, and you're obviously ignorant of Texas rules and, of course, just demonstrably ignorant in general. This officer effed up. Full stop.

  110. [110] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    94

    Nailed it, Russ!

    Mike is just repeating the right-wing talking points like the gullible rube/useful idiot he is. The spineless GOP can't defend Trump's abuse of power so they're going to whine incessantly about the impeachment process that the Constitution makes clear belongs exclusively to the House of Representatives. If he's impeached in the House (he will be), the trial in the Senate follows wherein Trump is allowed to present a defense.

    Trump's only defense as I see it is to call everyone else a liar because he's guilty of what they'll impeach him over: Abuse of Power.

    It's not rocket science. :)

Comments for this article are closed.