Republican Senator J.D. Vance warns of 'hidden impeachment clause' buried in $95 BILLION Ukraine and Israel aid package that he says could backfire on

[wing2000]

If this impeachment requires 2/3'rds to expel him, it doesn't seem that is going to happen, because,well, it doesn't seem that Mayorkas has done anything illegal or unethical. It seems that this Republican party are just all for show. They are trying to build up excitement in their base about the border and hoping to campaign on that. They don't seem to care about facts or laws. Just perception.

Your perception is correct.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ultimately if the public want to remove the SWAMP it is up to then to pay attention and to vote out those senators that are acting childishly.

I think your analysis is mostly spot on. I would just say that the Senate, one way or another, is not going to remove Mayorkas, so the real ire should fall on the House Republicans who voted to impeach (minus the three who managed to act independently).

Clearly Speaker Johnson and whatever other powerbrokers there are in the House GOP wanted this impeachment to happen, and they pulled every string to make it happen. As you say, it's a childish gesture that will go nowhere in the Senate. They deserve to face consequences for this empty, petty gesture.

 

[Pommer]

The Speaker is indicating he may not bring it up for a vote.

Next time he walks across the aisle to “do a deal” he’s going to have an uphill walk.
This post is about the aid package not impeachmen.

 

[stevil]

Clearly Speaker Johnson and whatever other powerbrokers there are in the House GOP wanted this impeachment to happen, and they pulled every string to make it happen. As you say, it's a childish gesture that will go nowhere in the Senate. They deserve to face consequences for this empty, petty gesture.

You'd expect more from a Speaker, it's supposed to be a honorable position, one that make a functional House that can get lots done for the benefit of the people. When they act with partisan theatre games like this, it must be hard for people across the aisle to work with them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm trying to understand the USA system. It's really weird and seems to rely on the public to pay attention.

It is weird. That's for sure. (Do other countries politics allow bad behavior to be contained without paying attention?)

If this impeachment requires 2/3'rds to expel him, it doesn't seem that is going to happen, because,well, it doesn't seem that Mayorkas has done anything illegal or unethical. It seems that this Republican party are just all for show. They are trying to build up excitement in their base about the border and hoping to campaign on that. They don't seem to care about facts or laws. Just perception.

That's what it seems like to me. I haven't dug in to the Mayorkas bits specifically.

I could be wrong however, but it would be useful to see a Senate trial hearing. Having a hearing that the public can see, will allow the public to know whether those voting to remove, or not remove are acting in bad faith and are corrupt. Ultimately if the public want to remove the SWAMP it is up to then to pay attention and to vote out those senators that are acting childishly. The weird thing though, is that the only people that can make these bad politicians accountable, are the people from that party and/or supporters of that party. i.e. Only Democrat supporters can hold Democrats that are acting in bad faith accountable, only Republican supporters can hold Republicans that are acting in bad faith accountable.

If your thinking of putting Republicans behaving badly on display will cost them. I have my doubts. Most of the managers (the Representatives who will prosecute the case) are from safe districts and some (like Ms. Greene) have pretty extreme reputations already. The Senators would just sit there and listen, asking questions by note card.

If the people just are partisan and always vote for their own team, then they will never be able to clean up the mess of USA government, which is degrading so much now as to be dysfunctional.

Yep.

 

[stevil]

It is weird. That's for sure. (Do other countries politics allow bad behavior to be contained without paying attention?)

Countries based on the British parliamentary system can have the party members themselves take a vote of no confidence to oust their own leader and simply take a party vote for their next leader. Makes it easy for the party to protect themselves from a leader that is poisoning the reputation of the party.

 

[Larniavc]

If any nation invades my USA, I do not want or need or desire help from any of the rest of the nations of the world. I am still a soldier in the Army National Guard, and this soldier knows that we can never EVER depend upon the help of an "alliance of nations" to defeat another nation that tries to invade America.

So then why do you expect Ukraine to give up. Would you?

 

[Vambram]

So then why do you expect Ukraine to give up. Would you?

Why should we keep on funding a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of people?

 

[Larniavc]

Why should we keep on funding a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Well I guess if you want a strong Russia gobbling up nations until it’s strong enough to take on America then letting them carry on as they are is a good idea.

But if you don’t want Russia trying to absorb Europe and be knocking on America’s door they should probably be stopped.

 

[wing2000]

Why should we keep on funding a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Do you believe the United States should support in freedom for the Ukranian people or tyranny at the hands of Vladmir Putin?

 

[Vambram]

Do you believe the United States should support in freedom for the Ukranian people or tyranny at the hands of Vladmir Putin?

I believe that we should have supported a strategy in this war that would have allowed Ukraine to take an aggressive fight against the Russian military. Instead, Ukraine has been fighting mostly a defensive war that has mostly stayed within their borders. Why? Well, that would be because Ukraine hasn't been allowed to strike out with large artillery attacks or large raids of missiles and/or fighter planes aggressively inside of Russian territory.

If we are going to help Ukraine win this war against the Russian military, then we need to take the gloves off, metaphorically speaking. Europe, NATO, and the USA should help Ukraine go on a massive offensive against the Russian military. Instead, because of the lack of strong leadership amongst western politicians, Ukraine has had little choice but to fight a defensive war of attrition against Russia. This has resulted in a long war that is costing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives.

 

[wing2000]

I believe that we should have supported a strategy in this war that would have allowed Ukraine to take an aggressive fight against the Russian military. Instead, Ukraine has been fighting mostly a defensive war that has mostly stayed within their borders. Why? Well, that would be because Ukraine hasn't been allowed to strike out with large artillery attacks or large raids of missiles and/or fighter planes aggressively inside of Russian territory.

If we are going to help Ukraine win this war against the Russian military, then we need to take the gloves off, metaphorically speaking. Europe, NATO, and the USA should help Ukraine go on a massive offensive against the Russian military. Instead, because of the lack of strong leadership amongst western politicians, Ukraine has had little choice but to fight a defensive war of attrition against Russia. This has resulted in a long war that is costing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives.

So if I understand your position, you support Ukranian freedom, but because you disagree with the US strategic decisions, we should now stop funding Ukraine completely?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I believe that we should have supported a strategy in this war that would have allowed Ukraine to take an aggressive fight against the Russian military. Instead, Ukraine has been fighting mostly a defensive war that has mostly stayed within their borders. Why? Well, that would be because Ukraine hasn't been allowed to strike out with large artillery attacks or large raids of missiles and/or fighter planes aggressively inside of Russian territory.

Ukraine has been attacking Russian territory directly, especially in the last 6 months using their own technology. It is a different thing for American weapons to attack Russian cities or infrastructure. I completely understand why the US (and other NATO nations) have avoided providing weapons to be used against Russia itself. It also isn't correct to describe it as "mostly defensive". Ukraine has operated in mostly offensive mode from ~May-Nov 2022 and the same months in 2023. (Winter has been more defensive in character.) They have made successful gains in those offensives.

If we are going to help Ukraine win this war against the Russian military, then we need to take the gloves off, metaphorically speaking. Europe, NATO, and the USA should help Ukraine go on a massive offensive against the Russian military. Instead, because of the lack of strong leadership amongst western politicians, Ukraine has had little choice but to fight a defensive war of attrition against Russia. This has resulted in a long war that is costing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives.

The way to do that was to provide some of the weapons earlier. US tanks have arrived so late as to have been unused in the 2023 offensive. The Bradley fighting vehicles have been used, but if provided in larger numbers earlier with training could have played a bigger role in the 2023 offensive. Likewise long range missiles (Storm shadow, ATACMS) arrived late and in low numbers. Earlier and more widespread usage would have pushed back some Russian assets (helicopter bases) and supply depots. Disruption of the Russian Fall/Winter 2022 defensive line construction by missile or air attack would have made the summer 2023 Ukrainian offensive more viable. Similarly, fighter jets and attack helicopters would have provided valuable support for the ground offensive. More air defense to keep the Russian planes out of the combat would have been very useful.

None of that would have guaranteed victory, but would have made it more possible and more likely to be swift. At this point, with the delays of US aid until at least March, a 2024 offensive may be impossible.

 

[rambot]

So therefore, instead of negotiating a cease fire and a truce with a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, what would you rather the USA and NATO, and the European Union do about this 2 year old war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people?

Here's the peace deal:
Russia, withdraw fully and completely.

There should be no negotiation that involves the Ukraine losing territory. And since Russia is not interested in such a deal, pull your head out and stop demanding one.

 

[rambot]

What’s the name for able bodied people who refuse the call to defend hearth and home and instead call for co operation with the invaders?

Donald Trump

 

[rambot]

If any nation invades my USA, I do not want or need or desire help from any of the rest of the nations of the world. I am still a soldier in the Army National Guard, and this soldier knows that we can never EVER depend upon the help of an "alliance of nations" to defeat another nation that tries to invade America.

Why not?

Numerous nations have e helped you through other disasters.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's what the Prime Minister of Poland thought too.

Lindsey Graham Yells At Polish Prime Minister's Tweet On Senate Floor​

Oh and former UK prime minister and current Foreign Secretary David Cameron as well.

'I do not want us to show the weakness displayed against Hitler in the 1930s.'

'That's hilarious. David Cameron can kiss my [butt]' [Marjorie Taylor] Greene, who is against sending additional funds to Ukraine, told DailyMail.com in reaction.

 

[BCP1928]

Why should we keep on funding a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Depends on which side you want to win, I guess.

 

[7thKeeper]

Why should we keep on funding a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Does this same attitude apply to an invasion of the US? You'd just give up because "this war is killing hundreds of thousands of people"?

 

[Vambram]

If the USA and NATO is going to continue to help Ukraine in this war with Russia, we should do so with tactics, strategies, weapons, and ammunition enabling Ukraine to go on a strong enough offensive to end the war.

However, for the majority of this war, Ukraine has been on the defensive. Meanwhile, the Chinese government has fully allied themselves with Russia. Iran has also made a similar alliance. During this war, Russia's economy is still doing okay. But the Ukrainian economy and the Ukraine people are losing and dying in a war of attrition vs Russia.

At this point in time over the last few months, I don't see how Ukraine can still defeat The Russian military to the point of forcing all Russian soldiers out of Ukraine. What I forsee happening is that this war will continue to be drawn out into another long war lasting far too many months and months.
In modern warfare with modern weapons, this shall sadly result in the killings of thousands and thousands and thousands of more Ukrainians.