Ted Rall for October 01, 2019

When making a position based on moral considerations, one needs to remember that the outcome of that moral decision may be even more immoral than the original immoral action. This is a characteristic of a moral dilemma. In other words, many moral decisions are not binary, good vs. bad, but rather in a spectrum from best to worst.

We give our presidents wide latitude in many things. Foreign policy and immigration policy to name two. The Courts can curb abuses in immigration policy. Congress can pass laws.

This is a different animal. It is difficult to restrain the President in the implementation of foreign policy. Congress can make laws, but the executive may stretch, ignore or evade these limits (see Iran-Contra). Largely, we rely on the good faith of the POTUS in the handling of these matters. The current President and “good faith” are not well acquainted. The Mueller investigation demonstrated how hard it is to catch him red handed.

The Orange EmbarrASSment withheld duly appropriated funds from an ally to extort that ally’s cooperation in an attempt to torpedo the person expected to be his opponent in the next election. This breaches his duty to conduct foreign policy in the nation’s interest, abuses his authority as president, and shows him soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election-the very thing he claimed exoneration from in the Mueller report. This conduct requires impeachment, whether or not he is removed from office.

Caricature or….?

Each situation in each panel is presented as not simply an exaggeration but as an outright distortion of reality.

There’s also the apples and oranges problem.

And the problem of what can be proven, legally.

And the question of which of the actions referenced are actually illegal/unconstitutional and which not.

Even though caricature, whether drawn or described, is an honored element of humor, It can also be an accidental way to misunderstanding. Or an intentional way to mislead.

Panel 2 is the way the war against terrorism should have been fought. Send a letter to the countries that have terrorists in their borders. Tell them they can take care of them or we will. Use our intelligence agencies to find the terrorists, then strike them with drones and send in special forces for clean up. No occupation with ground forces. Sorry to say, some civilians would be killed, but not as many as an occupation. Just look at Iraq.

Disingenuous. Although potentially actionable, those specific instances by the Bush and Obama administration were not considered impeachable offenses by the Legislature. Trump, however, has accumulated enough transgressions to be considered impeachable by the current congress.

So you’re good with him using our tax dollars to extort help for his re -election from a country who is desperate for the military aid because the Russians invaded them and killed 13,000 of their people, and counting?

And don’t forget that the first thing he asked for was something he could use to say that Russia never interfered in our election because Putin needs those sanctions lifted.

I prefer “dodgy” over “sleazy.” Less pejorative but still carries punch.

Whoa.. you’d think she’d be wearing a “Pussy Riot” t-shirt.

Great cartoon work, Ted. I agree with you 100%. Priorities of our congress are screwy, and upside down. I detest Trump, but the BS that is used to try to boot that SOB is about as sleazy as Trump is.