I'm starting to believe they are actually in fear for their lives. I think they've probably have gotten some serious threats as that seems to be the way the MAGA crowd deals with life...
Schiff skated very close to saying that in his closing: "CBS has reported that certain senators have been warned, 'Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike."
It would explain the mass exodus of GOP Congressmen who chose not to run for re-election in 2018.
It makes Trump's voice on the Parnas tape saying "TAKE HER OUT. DO IT." in reference to former Ambassador Yavanovitch even more chilling.
As a Sicilian/American I hear no other way than for it to be a hit. They got her out of there fast when they feared something wasn't right. Sad to think the prez simply has to write a letter saying your services are no longer needed...there was no need for any of that talk or action except to silence something she knows
What is upsetting is that first the narrative was I did nothing wrong, they are making it up.
After things were proven by phone calls, texts, emails and testimonies, the narrative is, well these are not things he can be impeached for.
Then the distractions, the lawyers assert look they just want to "take away your ballot when you voted for him".
Nobody is questioning the ballot results, it is the actions taken after he took office.
But there is more not necesssarily related to the impeachment trial, the US considered (and I am not sure they didn't) training Saudi intelligence operatives in US spy techniques.
"The Guardian’s revelations about the effort by US and British authorities to ensure Cengiz was protected follows a report by the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that the US state department recently rejected a proposal by a US defence company, DynCorp, to train Saudi intelligence services because the kingdom did not have “proper safeguards in place to prevent lawless covert operations” like the killing of Khashoggi."
Comments: US defense forces considered training Saudi intelligence services.
What's next? Telling us Osama was a Saudi spy but he went rogue so they had to kill him. I am so done.
What is upsetting is that first the narrative was I did nothing wrong, they are making it up.
After things were proven by phone calls, texts, emails and testimonies, the narrative is, well these are not things he can be impeached for.
Then the distractions, the lawyers assert look they just want to "take away your ballot when you voted for him".
Nobody is questioning the ballot results, it is the actions taken after he took office.But there is more not necesssarily related to the impeachment trial, the US considered (and I am not sure they didn't) training Saudi intelligence operatives in US spy techniques.
I am so done.
You're right. There are an untold number of offenses we don't know about. At one point, the HR had 7-10 charges they could've made in the Articles of Impeachment.
The HR strategically decided to limit impeachment to the Ukraine matter. They have everything to prove the case; the defense has nothing. Charging more would be "piling on" and an overload for the senate as well as the American public. We don't need the senate to hear every single act of wrongdoing in this administration. If the senate won't take action for one airtight case, then that tells us that Trump really could shoot someone on 5th Ave in NYC & get away w/it. Disheartening.
The defense expects to wrap up their case tomorrow.
Trump will have a $10 million ad in the Super Bowl about the Impeachment.
The State of the Union address is next week.
And reportedly the Trump International Hotel [the old Post Office] in D.C. is up for sale. Interesting since he plans to stay in the White House for four more years.
[Edited on 1/27/2020 by gina]
Dinner break 6 pm to 645 pm at the not so peachy Impeachment Trial in D.C.
Schiff skated very close to saying that in his closing: "CBS has reported that certain senators have been warned, 'Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike."
It would explain the mass exodus of GOP Congressmen who chose not to run for re-election in 2018.
It makes Trump's voice on the Parnas tape saying "TAKE HER OUT. DO IT." in reference to former Ambassador Yavanovitch even more chilling.
As a Sicilian/American I hear no other way than for it to be a hit. They got her out of there fast when they feared something wasn't right. Sad to think the prez simply has to write a letter saying your services are no longer needed...there was no need for any of that talk or action except to silence something she knows
And yesterday, we have the prez tweeting that Schiff is “a corrupt politician, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!”
Breaking that down. A corrupt businessman (w/corrupt associates in jail) is POTUS is pointing the finger to the prosecutor in his trial as corrupt. He goes on to say the prosecutor is "probably a very sick man." Trump is the man about whom 37 psychiatrists notified Congress that his mental health made him unfit to hold the Exec office in 2017 & in December, 2019 350 psychiatrists notified Congress that Trump's mental health had deteriorated significantly in recent months so as to make him "dangerous" and in need of "monitoring."
And then there is the strong man threat: the prosecutor has yet to PAY THE PRICE for daring to do his job & prosecute DJT based on an investigation & HR vote to impeach.
That's a lot of threats for the Leader of the Free World.
It was hard not to ROFL as Ken Starr, the man who came up with 11 offenses for which Clinton should be impeached in 1999 (he was impeached for 3), bemoaned the fact that there are too many impeachments. The man who led Clinton's impeachment 20 years ago thinks there are too many impeachments. That's Trump's defense.
Beyond that, there was a segue into defending Rudy Guiliani who is not on trial. Guiliani later politely thanked Trump's lawyers for the nice defense even though it was pointless.
Later, there was a mention that Joe Biden's son took a summer off from working. No one named Biden is on trial or has been cited as knowing anything about what Trump-Rudy-Parnas were doing re Ukraine yet that's Trump's defense.
The conclusion w/Jeffrey Epstein's "fantastic plea negotiator" in FL Alan Dershowitz will contradict himself, the Founders, and the constitution as to what impeachment means.
[Edited on 1/28/2020 by cyclone88]
It was hard not to ROFL as Ken Starr, the man who came up with 11 offenses for which Clinton should be impeached in 1999 (he was impeached for 3), bemoaned the fact that there are too many impeachments. The man who led Clinton's impeachment 20 years ago thinks there are too many impeachments. That's Trump's defense.
Beyond that, there was a segue into defending Rudy Guiliani who is not on trial. Guiliani later politely thanked Trump's lawyers for the nice defense even though it was pointless.
Later, there was a mention that Joe Biden's son took a summer off from working. No one named Biden is on trial or has been cited as knowing anything about what Trump-Rudy-Parnas were doing re Ukraine yet that's Trump's defense.
The conclusion w/Jeffrey Epstein's "fantastic plea negotiator" in FL Alan Dershowitz will contradict himself, the Founders, and the constitution as to what impeachment means.
[Edited on 1/28/2020 by cyclone88]
Too bad nothing they said matters one bit. The defense team could have admitted everything and dared the senate to convict and Trump would have gotten a pass. The cult is strong and they believe Trump is untouchable. I think they are right. He's a God-like figure to 40% of the country who can do no wrong. I wonder if our friends OG, Big C, and Jerry would conceive of a scenario that the would support removal of Trump. I'm guessing not.
i think the right should stop the charade of acting shocked and surprised at the left’s disgust with Trump and how/why he got elected. how does a group of voters go from distinguished honorable role models like Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr, to Donald Trump? Based on the right’s excellent track record of choosing excellent leaders, what’s the explanation? it’s not crazy for people to wonder what the F happened to the right to do a complete 180. what if the left went from Obama to Antonio Brown? wouldn’t you deserve an explanation? Forget today’s economy being reported by the fake news media enemy of the people. during his campaign, what made y’all decide to go from the Reagan type to Donald?
The question the left continues to ignore is "How in the Hell did Hillary lose to this guy"?
This was a softball served up waist high and the fence was only six feet away.
Schiff skated very close to saying that in his closing: "CBS has reported that certain senators have been warned, 'Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike."
It would explain the mass exodus of GOP Congressmen who chose not to run for re-election in 2018.
It makes Trump's voice on the Parnas tape saying "TAKE HER OUT. DO IT." in reference to former Ambassador Yavanovitch even more chilling.
As a Sicilian/American I hear no other way than for it to be a hit. They got her out of there fast when they feared something wasn't right. Sad to think the prez simply has to write a letter saying your services are no longer needed...there was no need for any of that talk or action except to silence something she knows
And yesterday, we have the prez tweeting that Schiff is “a corrupt politician, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!”
Breaking that down. A corrupt businessman (w/corrupt associates in jail) is POTUS is pointing the finger to the prosecutor in his trial as corrupt. He goes on to say the prosecutor is "probably a very sick man." Trump is the man about whom 37 psychiatrists notified Congress that his mental health made him unfit to hold the Exec office in 2017 & in December, 2019 350 psychiatrists notified Congress that Trump's mental health had deteriorated significantly in recent months so as to make him "dangerous" and in need of "monitoring."
And then there is the strong man threat: the prosecutor has yet to PAY THE PRICE for daring to do his job & prosecute DJT based on an investigation & HR vote to impeach.
That's a lot of threats for the Leader of the Free World.
On the "liberal news" last night there was an interview with 4 of the most far right HOR deflecters, enablers, and Trump sycophants. Bolton's statements are just tossed aside. There are some astounding responses from these supposed representatives of the people. Watch the lies and spin. How these people can sleep at night knowing what they say defies reality. I watched this, and thought I was watching SNL except SNL is more based in reality.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/white-house-impeachment-team-weighs-in-on-bolton-claims/
it’s the “looters in a riot” mentality. they know it’s wrong, but there are no cops around to bust them. it doesn’t feel good to steal a TV, even if you get away with it. Poor folks. Trump is pushing them down a path that will only hurt them later. Too bad.
Paychecks, wonderful benefits, & influence = power.
Ethics, truth, national security impacts, and reality = outside the realm of expectations.
On the "liberal news" last night there was an interview with 4 of the most far right HOR deflecters, enablers, and Trump sycophants. Bolton's statements are just tossed aside. There are some astounding responses from these supposed representatives of the people. Watch the lies and spin. How these people can sleep at night knowing what they say defies reality. I watched this, and thought I was watching SNL except SNL is more based in reality.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/white-house-impeachment-team-weighs-in-on-bolton-claims//blockquote >
SNL is better written, too. These four bots just blurt out lines they've been taught in random sequence & certainly not in response to the question being asked. My favorite line is "let's call Hunter Biden as a witness." Hunter Biden has never been mentioned in any publicly released documents or videos as having participated in the WH discussions re Ukraine. He couldn't add a thing to what POTUS said or did & as a witness, he would certainly be a waste of time.
The question the left continues to ignore is "How in the Hell did Hillary lose to this guy"?
Political strategists will be analyzing the 2016 election results as a case study for many years. It's irrelevant to impeachment. Perhaps it can be addressed in the 2020 candidates thread.
Paychecks, wonderful benefits, & influence = power.
Ethics, truth, national security impacts, and reality = outside the realm of expectations.
I wonder how much influence the sheep really have. Given how disposable they are to Trump & how quick he is to tweet venomous things about those who stray from the flock, I'd say it's zero. They do get paychecks, though.
As for being outside the realm of expectations, I imagine he'll figure out a way to replace the "Welcome to DC" signs over the Potomac to "Welcome to Trumpland." It's a giant theme park.
Paychecks, wonderful benefits, & influence = power.
Ethics, truth, national security impacts, and reality = outside the realm of expectations.
I wonder how much influence the sheep really have. Given how disposable they are to Trump & how quick he is to tweet venomous things about those who stray from the flock, I'd say it's zero. They do get paychecks, though.
As for being outside the realm of expectations, I imagine he'll figure out a way to replace the "Welcome to DC" signs over the Potomac to "Welcome to Trumpland." It's a giant theme park.
You are correct. But if these 4 continue to be good little sheep, then there would be no need to dispose of them. Given who these particular 4 sheep are and their records of nothing but loyal support to the king, they are consistent in always saying, "baa".
Paychecks, wonderful benefits, & influence = power.
Ethics, truth, national security impacts, and reality = outside the realm of expectations.
I wonder how much influence the sheep really have. Given how disposable they are to Trump & how quick he is to tweet venomous things about those who stray from the flock, I'd say it's zero. They do get paychecks, though.
As for being outside the realm of expectations, I imagine he'll figure out a way to replace the "Welcome to DC" signs over the Potomac to "Welcome to Trumpland." It's a giant theme park.
You would think that with the history of what happens to people who work for him, Cohen, Manafort, Flynn...etc...why would anyone who cares anything about their own legacy attach themselves to that man? What do they think their end game is gonna be? Jail, humiliation, cast aside by everyone. By the end of the this week *tRump probably won't know who Rudy is...."Never meet the guy"..."The letter was a forge"...."The pictures are all photo shopped".
I saw a picture of Lev at Ivanka's 8th birthday party, I'm sure he's been one of *tRumps strong arm guys for years
It was hard not to ROFL as Ken Starr, the man who came up with 11 offenses for which Clinton should be impeached in 1999 (he was impeached for 3), bemoaned the fact that there are too many impeachments. The man who led Clinton's impeachment 20 years ago thinks there are too many impeachments. That's Trump's defense.
Beyond that, there was a segue into defending Rudy Guiliani who is not on trial. Guiliani later politely thanked Trump's lawyers for the nice defense even though it was pointless.
Later, there was a mention that Joe Biden's son took a summer off from working. No one named Biden is on trial or has been cited as knowing anything about what Trump-Rudy-Parnas were doing re Ukraine yet that's Trump's defense.
The conclusion w/Jeffrey Epstein's "fantastic plea negotiator" in FL Alan Dershowitz will contradict himself, the Founders, and the constitution as to what impeachment means.
[Edited on 1/28/2020 by cyclone88]
Too bad nothing they said matters one bit. The defense team could have admitted everything and dared the senate to convict and Trump would have gotten a pass. The cult is strong and they believe Trump is untouchable. I think they are right. He's a God-like figure to 40% of the country who can do no wrong. I wonder if our friends OG, Big C, and Jerry would conceive of a scenario that the would support removal of Trump. I'm guessing not.
You are so funny.
1) I'd love to see the Bidens testify under oath. The entire impeachment is about a phone call concerning them, or am I mistaken in who the phone call was about.
2) Please quote the post where I have said anything against the impeachment. We all knew it was coming since some Dems have called for impeachment BEFORE Trump took office. Some even ran their campaigns on how much they wanted to impeach the Prez. We all knew that the Dems would find something, somewhere to force the impeachment. God knows they have tried several times.
I wonder if our friends OG, Big C, and Jerry would conceive of a scenario that the would support removal of Trump. I'm guessing not.
You are so funny.
Please quote the post where I have said anything against the impeachment.
You guys fight that one out.
Jerry, you have contributed useful links and posed reasonable questions regarding the impeachment process, particularly about the Founders, on this thread. If you watched Dershowitz's embarrassing argument yesterday that a statutory crime was required for impeachment, you no doubt noted it was NOT based on what the Founders wrote. It was based on a law journal article written by one of his Harvard law colleagues about yet another lawyer's opinion of Andrew Johnson's 1868 impeachment defense strategy. The author of the law journal article has publicly proclaimed Dershowitz's deliberate misinterpretation of his article because a statutory crime is most certainly NOT required, especially since there are a wide number of crimes that are based in common law as well as common sense.
I'm aware that you and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum but I don't know your exact views on impeachment nor is it any of my business. We're all entitled to our opinions.
It was hard not to ROFL as Ken Starr, the man who came up with 11 offenses for which Clinton should be impeached in 1999 (he was impeached for 3), bemoaned the fact that there are too many impeachments. The man who led Clinton's impeachment 20 years ago thinks there are too many impeachments. That's Trump's defense.
Beyond that, there was a segue into defending Rudy Guiliani who is not on trial. Guiliani later politely thanked Trump's lawyers for the nice defense even though it was pointless.
Later, there was a mention that Joe Biden's son took a summer off from working. No one named Biden is on trial or has been cited as knowing anything about what Trump-Rudy-Parnas were doing re Ukraine yet that's Trump's defense.
The conclusion w/Jeffrey Epstein's "fantastic plea negotiator" in FL Alan Dershowitz will contradict himself, the Founders, and the constitution as to what impeachment means.
[Edited on 1/28/2020 by cyclone88]
Too bad nothing they said matters one bit. The defense team could have admitted everything and dared the senate to convict and Trump would have gotten a pass. The cult is strong and they believe Trump is untouchable. I think they are right. He's a God-like figure to 40% of the country who can do no wrong. I wonder if our friends OG, Big C, and Jerry would conceive of a scenario that the would support removal of Trump. I'm guessing not.
You are so funny.
1) I'd love to see the Bidens testify under oath. The entire impeachment is about a phone call concerning them, or am I mistaken in who the phone call was about.
2) Please quote the post where I have said anything against the impeachment. We all knew it was coming since some Dems have called for impeachment BEFORE Trump took office. Some even ran their campaigns on how much they wanted to impeach the Prez. We all knew that the Dems would find something, somewhere to force the impeachment. God knows they have tried several times.
I honestly don't care if the Bidens testify under oath or not. It's not really relevant though to whether Trump bribed a foreign government for his political gain. After all, he didn't ask Ukraine to conduct an actual investigation, he only asked them to announce that they were conducting an investigation.
Let me ask you this. If Hillary were to have offered a Russian bank financial aid in exchange for Trumps Tax returns under the guise of a corruption investigation, would you be ok with it? If not, how is it really different?
2112 posted the following question
Let me ask you this. If Hillary were to have offered a Russian bank financial aid in exchange for Trumps Tax returns under the guise of a corruption investigation, would you be ok with it? If not, how is it really different?
1) Doesn't answer my request you show where I have posted anything against the impeachment.
2) Nice try to deflect a request with a question that has no relevance to the thread.
Do you believe Trump should be impeached?
I believe he was impeached.
He has been and the real end game for Nancy Pelosi wasn't him getting removed...that would have been frosting on the cake. She has set the ball in motion for him to answer for all his crimes without being pardoned and that was her end game I believe. She knew the chances of him getting removed were slim to none but marking him with that "*" makes me vulnerable to all state crimes he's committed. He's going to jail now its just matter of time. So keep the perspective of why this has happened. It wasn't to remove him it was t set him up to go to jail later. Because he's been a criminal running under the radar for decades and he wasn't happy with that.
1) Doesn't answer my request you show where I have posted anything against the impeachment.
Do you believe Trump should be impeached?
Show where I have posted anything against impeachment.
Otherwise, quit wasting my time.
Show where I have posted anything against impeachment.
Otherwise, quit wasting my time.
I was curious as to your opinion on it - no need to get defensive.
first, I don't know why you are responding to my post to 2112, are you two joined at the hip?
Also, the question to both is, Quote the post where I say anything against the impeachment. If that doesn't answer your question, nothing I could ever say will suffice.
So, for both of you, quote where I said anything against impeachment, or quit wasting everyone's time.
Also, the question to both is, Quote the post where I say anything against the impeachment. If that doesn't answer your question, nothing I could ever say will suffice.
glad to hear it. I’m genuinely curious, what made you want him gone?
When you quote any post I made saying anything against the impeachment, I'll answer your question.
Until then quit wasting peoples' time.
Do you believe Trump should be impeached?
Trump WAS impeached on December 18, 2019. We're now in Day 8 of the trial - Written Q from the up-to-now-silent senators asked by CJ Roberts & answered by the legal teams. 16 hours have been allowed for this so it may last 2 days. Top of the list of questions seems to be whether any side knew about Bolton's book - seems to be a bit off track as to the facts of the Ukraine quid pro quo & cover-up. Bolton's book certainly is getting a lot of free PR - wonder if the publishing house planned that...
You are so funny.
1) I'd love to see the Bidens testify under oath. The entire impeachment is about a phone call concerning them, or am I mistaken in who the phone call was about.
2) Please quote the post where I have said anything against the impeachment. We all knew it was coming since some Dems have called for impeachment BEFORE Trump took office. Some even ran their campaigns on how much they wanted to impeach the Prez. We all knew that the Dems would find something, somewhere to force the impeachment. God knows they have tried several times.I honestly don't care if the Bidens testify under oath or not. It's not really relevant though to whether Trump bribed a foreign government for his political gain. After all, he didn't ask Ukraine to conduct an actual investigation, he only asked them to announce that they were conducting an investigation.
Let me ask you this. If Hillary were to have offered a Russian bank financial aid in exchange for Trumps Tax returns under the guise of a corruption investigation, would you be ok with it? If not, how is it really different?
I'm not following along too closely but am listening to some today. If I heard it right, the defense believes that having a foreign government investigate something that had not been previously investigated does serve a public interest.
For the record, I think the assertions by the Democrats are stronger than the defense by the Republicans.
I'm not following along too closely but am listening to some today. If I heard it right, the defense believes that having a foreign government investigate something that had not been previously investigated does serve a public interest.
For the record, I think the assertions by the Democrats are stronger than the defense by the Republicans.
All the answers are provided by the lawyers. Prosecutors (in this case, the HR case managers) are charged w/finding the truth. Defense attorneys are only tasked w/getting their client off. So, don't expect accurate information from the defense; they're saying whatever makes Trump look best.
Foreign governments can & do investigate US citizens all the time just as we keep an eye on other countries' citizens - thru the CIA & other intelligence/military/tax agencies. Allies share information through the appropriate organizations.
What CAN'T be done is for a president to bypass the CIA, military & other US agencies to ask another country to investigate or pretend to investigate a US citizen for POTUS's personal advantage & if it refuses, withhold taxpayer funds appropriated by Congress for war aid to that country & deny that country's president a WH meeting that had previously been approved.
No public interest is being served by Trump asking the Ukraine prez to pretend to investigate a US citizen when Trump knew his allegations against Biden's son had already been disproven.
I agree w/you. The HR case is airtight. They proved Trump committed the offenses & attempted to cover it up. Trump's lawyers have nothing to say except we don't believe in impeachment, there are too many impeachments, and Trump committed the offenses but he shouldn't have been impeached.
I question the mental status of Dershowitz at this point. Obfuscation is often a successful defense technique, but he has wandered off into quoting Lincoln's permission for soldiers to vote during the Civil War. He doesn't seem to know what that we are in the 21st century and that the trial is that of Trump's Impeachment. His comment that he's the only law prof in 150 years who actually understands the impeachment clause that the prez can do anything he wants w/o restraint is astounding. He needs to sit down & shut up.
[Edited on 1/30/2020 by cyclone88]
2112 posted the following question
Let me ask you this. If Hillary were to have offered a Russian bank financial aid in exchange for Trumps Tax returns under the guise of a corruption investigation, would you be ok with it? If not, how is it really different?
1) Doesn't answer my request you show where I have posted anything against the impeachment.
2) Nice try to deflect a request with a question that has no relevance to the thread.
I thought I remembered you posting that you were against impeachment. I don't have time to search for it, so based on your response here I guess I was wrong, and I apologize if I lumped you in with the others incorrectly.
That said, we still have posters here that would never be against Trump regardless of what he did. Those same posters would be all over a Democrat for doing the exact same thing. I find that not only sad, but also scary.
I am not saying he is innocent, but this woman from the 1990's NOW turns up demanding his DNA for an alleged rape that happened in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman's (a high end retail store). She alleges she has DNA on the sleeve of a dress, which she has saved all these years.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/e-jean-carroll-accused-donald-203000457.html
Is this like a Monica Lewinsky type effort to get him impeached? But the event happened before he was President so it cannot have any bearing on his impeachment case. The timing is just very strange. The story itself is very strange.
https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html
[Edited on 1/30/2020 by gina]
