Thread: The NEW Impeachment Thread

cyclone88 - 12/17/2019 at 03:34 PM

Because the other impeachment thread has been derailed by posters into name-calling about something other than impeachment, I wanted a place to talk about impeachment.

Today is Impeachment Tuesday. More than 550 demonstrations (at least one in each state) are being held (w/sponsors from the Sierra Club to unions) to remind Congress that several polls indicate Americans are IN FAVOR of impeachment (the process). I'm not a big believer in polls but the point is that we're fine w/Congress proceeding w/the constitutional blueprint to examine a president's behavior as opposed to watching a bunch of old white men screeching at each other on TV until the election.

Four GOP politicos (campaign strategists) announced the formation of the Lincoln Project with an aim of defeating DJT because he doesn't represent what the GOP stands for (or did before 2016).

I'd like to make the assumption that the HR has proceeded according to the constitution & that Articles of Impeachment were drafted & voted on & will go to the Senate.

If you want to rant about liberals v. yourself, the Dem plan to do this since 2016, or Nancy Pelosi's cosmetic surgery, the other thread is still available. This may be the 1st & last post of the thread because maybe no one else cares, but I thought I'd give it a shot keeping in mind that we're here for the music & this is just an aside.


BrerRabbit - 12/17/2019 at 04:31 PM

History in the making. Foregone conclusion on the Senate vote, but it is an important statement. The Liberty Bell can still chime.

I am sure there is secret dissent in the Senate, a few who know they are on rhe wrong side of history. If there is even one stray Senate GOP vote for impeachment, it will have the effect of a corn cob buried under a tree stump. You country boys know what I mean, you want a stump removed, just bury some corn cobs around it with a bit showing - the pigs will dig a crater rooting for more.

Impeachment most likely fails, but the Trump administration is going to uproot itself.




cyclone88 - 12/17/2019 at 05:19 PM

The pigs/corn cob/tree stump story was certainly enlightening. Good to know there is someone who can't quite believe that ALL GOP Senators are sheep.

And there is a lone Dem who isn't voting for impeachment.

What I find shocking or at least new is the boldness w/which McConnell/Trump are planning the outcome. Deals are usually done in secret/behind the scenes. This is akin to a defense attorney openly meeting w/the jury foreman to strategize the best way to get a Not Guilty verdict for his client. In a criminal trial for an ordinary citizen, it would be jury tampering.


BrerRabbit - 12/17/2019 at 05:31 PM

Flagrant disregard for process. Open insult to the country. This is a test - they are sticking a fork in the American Turkey to see if it is done.


Jerry - 12/17/2019 at 05:48 PM

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf

Link to full report. Click the icon beside the printer one to download the report. It is a l-o-n-g read and sometimes it gave me a headache.
Please read the dissenting views also.


nebish - 12/17/2019 at 06:19 PM

I have not been very involved or interested in this topic, but on a long drive last Thursday did listen to several hours of the House Judiciary Committee on the radio where all the members were allowed to speak one after the other if they so wished, you know "striking the last word" type thing.

The Democrats case is much stronger than the Republicans here. The Republicans do have some points, however most do not stand up well to Democrat responses.

It is true that some people (some people here in fact) have wanted to impeach the President from the first day he took office. Wanting to do so and having reason to do so don't always align so neatly. It has taken 3 years for the President to do something to rise to an impeachable offense. And we all know, all of us, if it was a Democrat in office all these Republicans would be rushing to impeach, and all these Democrats would be trying to obstruct. That's just what it is. Otherwise, to one guy in middle America, I think they are rightfully proceeding with impeachment - so I'm fine with it. On the other hand, if they weren't doing so, I guess I'd be fine wiht that too. These days I'm more of a sit back and let the elected officials do what elected officials are supposed to do. You won't find me protesting one way or the other.


Skydog32103 - 12/17/2019 at 06:38 PM

quote:
Otherwise, to one guy in middle America, I think they are rightfully proceeding with impeachment - so I'm fine with it. On the other hand, if they weren't doing so, I guess I'd be fine wiht that too. These days I'm more of a sit back and let the elected officials do what elected officials are supposed to do. You won't find me protesting one way or the other.


Same here. We have turned a blind eye to quite a bit with Trump already. What would history say about the U.S. if we all sat back and did nothing after witnessing him ask foreign countries to investigate Americans? I thought he should be impeached after undermining all of our intelligence agencies to side with Putin - that was more than enough for me right there. But I support standing up to him, whether it ends up helping him or not. I’ll sleep well at night knowing we fought back and did the right thing.

However, I do think it will only help him get re-elected easily. Remember, he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn’t lose any votes, so I don’t see why impeachment over the Ukraine call would change any minds.

I still can’t believe a candidate said that about his voters, and they still voted for him. Imagine being intentionally insulted by the candidate you support!


Jerry - 12/17/2019 at 06:41 PM

Nebish, for informational reading, download the report and look at the dissenting remarks.
One in particular gives a list of things that hasn't yet been done in the process that is part of the process.
Reading it gave me the impression that parts were not introduced that are integral for the impeachment to go forward.


MartinD28 - 12/17/2019 at 06:48 PM

quote:
quote:
Otherwise, to one guy in middle America, I think they are rightfully proceeding with impeachment - so I'm fine with it. On the other hand, if they weren't doing so, I guess I'd be fine wiht that too. These days I'm more of a sit back and let the elected officials do what elected officials are supposed to do. You won't find me protesting one way or the other.


Same here. We have turned a blind eye to quite a bit with Trump already. What would history say about the U.S. if we all sat back and did nothing after witnessing him ask foreign countries to investigate Americans? I thought he should be impeached after undermining all of our intelligence agencies to side with Putin - that was more than enough for me right there. But I support standing up to him, whether it ends up helping him or not. I’ll sleep well at night knowing we fought back and did the right thing.

However, I do think it will only help him get re-elected easily. Remember, he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn’t lose any votes, so I don’t see why impeachment over the Ukraine call would change any minds.

I still can’t believe a candidate said that about his voters, and they still voted for him. Imagine being intentionally insulted by the candidate you support!


This administration & and the GOP has shown that there is little regard for the Constitution and that our intel professionals once regarded as protectors are just trying their best to getting in the way of foreign interence in elections. Unfortunately their facts and warnings are no longer wanted by or cared about by 40% of the population and a subset of "leaders".


nebish - 12/17/2019 at 07:40 PM

quote:
Nebish, for informational reading, download the report and look at the dissenting remarks.
One in particular gives a list of things that hasn't yet been done in the process that is part of the process.
Reading it gave me the impression that parts were not introduced that are integral for the impeachment to go forward.



I know. I should read a lot more things. I find it hard to find time to read the things I want to these days let alone the things I feel obligated to read.

But from some basic knowledge here, I do believe there are some legitimate complaints on the process. The other side has explanations for it. I don't know. I will try and get to glancing that link over.

[Edited on 12/17/2019 by nebish]


cyclone88 - 12/17/2019 at 09:03 PM

quote:
I should read a lot more things. I find it hard to find time to read the things I want to these days let alone the things I feel obligated to read.

None of us can read everything. Not even the professionals charged to do so in DC - they have staffs to do that.

The upshot of the process so far is that despite whatever defects were suggested, the vote was to move forward w/the process. So, here we are.

Both sides will have ample opportunity to raise issues during the trial in the senate. Remember, Mitch McConnell doesn't run the trial; CJ Roberts does. Roberts will no doubt allow some latitude for both parties to feel "heard," but he's not going to allow lengthy off-topic tangents.

The most important things are the 2 charges. My approach is to know what exactly is being charged & to listen w/an open mind to both the evidence presented and the rebuttals offered in defense. There will probably be short daily summaries as there were in Clinton's trial. The media makes it hard to see the forest for the trees because they delight in theatrics. If we just ask 1) what did the prosecution say? and 2) what was the defense response? w/o all the obfuscation in which some politicians delight, it should be a historic trial.




cyclone88 - 12/17/2019 at 09:22 PM

quote:
However, I do think it will only help him get re-elected easily. Remember, he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn’t lose any votes, so I don’t see why impeachment over the Ukraine call would change any minds.

In the announcement of the formation of the Lincoln Project, the founders pointed to wealthy incompetent NY politician Dan Sickles who made the US blunder that almost allow Gen Lee's army to win at Gettsyburg as being one of their sources of inspiration. In addition to his poor military judgment, he actually shot & killed his wife's lover across the street from the WH & still remained in Congress. They don't want another "incompetent NY politician who claimed he could shoot someone on 5th Ave & get away w/it to ruin the country."


MartinD28 - 12/18/2019 at 12:16 AM

Today our esteemed prez sent a "love letter" to the Speaker of House re: impeachment. Portions of it read like something a third grader would write.

The letter misrepresents what the Constitution states and what the rule of law is. Does that really surprise anyone?

It is full of anger and rage. Does that also not surprise anyone?

In one bizarre highlight Russian Don states, "‘You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: “I pray for the president,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!" No one should should dispute that because we know that Trump is truly a man of faith.

The history books that our children and grandchildren will read will speak to the legacy of Donald Trump, & the next generations will scratch their heads in bewilderment.

Is this man not a clear & present danger?

Russia - if you are listening, Trump wants your help in 2020.


BrerRabbit - 12/18/2019 at 06:20 AM

quote:
Russia - if you are listening, Trump wants your help in 2020


They are listening all right. They wouldn't miss it for the world. This is what they bought and paid for. Divide and conquer.


cyclone88 - 12/18/2019 at 01:32 PM

quote:
The letter misrepresents what the Constitution states and what the rule of law is. Does that really surprise anyone?

It is full of anger and rage. Does that also not surprise anyone?

In one bizarre highlight Russian Don states, "‘You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: “I pray for the president,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!"

He's certainly full of surprises (thereby displaying his ignorance of anything remotely related to procedure, process, & the constitution), but this is part of his plan w/McConnell to dismiss impeachment as nothing more than empty partisan theatre rather than a legitimate checks & balances action. He wasn't writing "for history" as he says; he was writing for the news cycle on the eve of the full HR vote.

He certainly displays his full range of anger, paranoia & arrogance as he belittles someone's faith & the constitutional process, throws in a lot of long-debunked theories, again berates the "corrupt" FBI & and threatens individuals. He sounds unhinged even in the sections someone else who is capable of writing a full sentence completed for him. The letter reads as a command to a sub-ordinate rather a respectful request (if belated) to a co-equal branch of government. He knows his audience, though, & he throws out "coup" and calls impeachment an "ugly" word. Impeachment is a neutral term; the actions that led to it are ugly.

Wonder what Pelosi will do w/this unprecedented, out-of-order missive akin to a defendant writing the DA/judge that would be returned unread to the defendant as an improper communication. Guess today will be a full day of @real hysterical tweets.




MartinD28 - 12/18/2019 at 02:56 PM

quote:
quote:
The letter misrepresents what the Constitution states and what the rule of law is. Does that really surprise anyone?

It is full of anger and rage. Does that also not surprise anyone?

In one bizarre highlight Russian Don states, "‘You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: “I pray for the president,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!"

He's certainly full of surprises (thereby displaying his ignorance of anything remotely related to procedure, process, & the constitution), but this is part of his plan w/McConnell to dismiss impeachment as nothing more than empty partisan theatre rather than a legitimate checks & balances action. He wasn't writing "for history" as he says; he was writing for the news cycle on the eve of the full HR vote.

He certainly displays his full range of anger, paranoia & arrogance as he belittles someone's faith & the constitutional process, throws in a lot of long-debunked theories, again berates the "corrupt" FBI & and threatens individuals. He sounds unhinged even in the sections someone else who is capable of writing a full sentence completed for him. The letter reads as a command to a sub-ordinate rather a respectful request (if belated) to a co-equal branch of government. He knows his audience, though, & he throws out "coup" and calls impeachment an "ugly" word. Impeachment is a neutral term; the actions that led to it are ugly.

Wonder what Pelosi will do w/this unprecedented, out-of-order missive akin to a defendant writing the DA/judge that would be returned unread to the defendant as an improper communication. Guess today will be a full day of @real hysterical tweets.




Everything you said in your full post is spot on. I will concentrate on the final line above - "Guess today will be a full day of @real hysterical tweets." This is standard operating procedure for Trump & defines everyday of his tenure. It would be abnormal if he didn't do this. His letter to the Speaker was nothing more than an extension of his daily rants and lies via tweets. He probably would have tweeted it, but the number of characters exceeded the twitter limit.

Lincoln had his Gettysburg Address, but Trump one-uped him with a deranged diatribe full of lies and self serving inaccuracies. History will judge Trump poorly and as an abberation.


Skydog32103 - 12/18/2019 at 04:18 PM

Tom Cole just began his remarks by first asking Democrats to show respect for his opinion, and then seconds later he declares the whole thing a "charade", like a parrot. Someone should tell this clown that calling their serious work a "charade" reduces him to a carnival barker who deserves nothing. Had he not asked for respect first, then I wouldn't have thought anything of it, but to ask for it, and then insult their work, is evidence of a seriously flawed and misguided person, who shouldn't be leading anything.

Secondly, can someone supporting Trump explain to me why he didn't ask the United States to investigate an American? I've been asking this multiple times, and for some odd reason.......





[Edited on 12/18/2019 by Skydog32103]


Billastro - 12/18/2019 at 04:42 PM

Points to consider: After the Clinton impeachment, Newt Gingrich lost his position as Speaker of the House, and Clinton's popularity increased.

Risky game for Nancy Pelosi & co., methinks.

Billastro


BrerRabbit - 12/18/2019 at 05:01 PM

If impeachment is so great for Trump and will sink the Dems why then the Redhats ought to be happy about it. If you want someone to fall off a cliff and you see them walking toward the cliff why would you warn them away?


Billastro - 12/18/2019 at 05:54 PM

quote:
If impeachment is so great for Trump and will sink the Dems why then the Redhats ought to be happy about it. If you want someone to fall off a cliff and you see them walking toward the cliff why would you warn them away?
Who cares? "Why?" is a pointless question when dealing with irrational, self-destructive behavior. The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration. Just more craziness from the far left/progressive movement.

Billastro


BrerRabbit - 12/18/2019 at 06:03 PM

quote:
Who cares? "Why?" is a pointless question when dealing with irrational, self-destructive behavior


Good point.


Skydog32103 - 12/18/2019 at 06:25 PM

quote:
The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration.


He spends his day reading stories about himself and responding to them on Twitter, doing what we're doing here in the Whipping Post, which is beyond sad to say about the President of the United States. We've all been talking about it since 2015 because it was obvious to detect his personality disorders that are a threat to national security. You want to direct the conversation towards policy or values, when you know damn well it's about his fragile and dangerous mental state. That you don't want better for the leader of our country is suprising. I would think someone who loves this country would want someone like Reagan, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr - men with dignity, integrity, and kindness, not this slop we have now.



[Edited on 12/18/2019 by Skydog32103]


2112 - 12/18/2019 at 06:27 PM

quote:
Points to consider: After the Clinton impeachment, Newt Gingrich lost his position as Speaker of the House, and Clinton's popularity increased.

Risky game for Nancy Pelosi & co., methinks.

Billastro


The difference is that Clinton was a popular president. Trump is not. The majority of people support impeaching and removing Trump, and that was not the case with Clinton. The risk is that a few Democrats in the house might be put in a tough position in Republican leaning districts. Of course, the opposite is true in the senate in states like Colorado and Maine.


Chain - 12/18/2019 at 07:01 PM

quote:
quote:
Otherwise, to one guy in middle America, I think they are rightfully proceeding with impeachment - so I'm fine with it. On the other hand, if they weren't doing so, I guess I'd be fine wiht that too. These days I'm more of a sit back and let the elected officials do what elected officials are supposed to do. You won't find me protesting one way or the other.


Same here. We have turned a blind eye to quite a bit with Trump already. What would history say about the U.S. if we all sat back and did nothing after witnessing him ask foreign countries to investigate Americans? I thought he should be impeached after undermining all of our intelligence agencies to side with Putin - that was more than enough for me right there. But I support standing up to him, whether it ends up helping him or not. I’ll sleep well at night knowing we fought back and did the right thing.

However, I do think it will only help him get re-elected easily. Remember, he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn’t lose any votes, so I don’t see why impeachment over the Ukraine call would change any minds.

I still can’t believe a candidate said that about his voters, and they still voted for him. Imagine being intentionally insulted by the candidate you support!


I disagree that Impeachment gets him re-elected. He may win in 2020 but I don't think Impeachment will be the reason.


Billastro - 12/18/2019 at 07:04 PM

quote:
quote:
If impeachment is so great for Trump and will sink the Dems why then the Redhats ought to be happy about it. If you want someone to fall off a cliff and you see them walking toward the cliff why would you warn them away?
Who cares? "Why?" is a pointless question when dealing with irrational, self-destructive behavior. The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration. Just more craziness from the far left/progressive movement.

Billastro
To clarify, I should have linked the irrational, self-destructive behavior to the far left/progressive movement. The right is likely watching them gather enough rope to politically hang themselves. They're like the folks who watch Laurel and Hardy coming up with a plan that inevitably leads to chaos and destruction.

Billastro


Chain - 12/18/2019 at 07:06 PM

quote:
Points to consider: After the Clinton impeachment, Newt Gingrich lost his position as Speaker of the House, and Clinton's popularity increased.

Risky game for Nancy Pelosi & co., methinks.

Billastro


Possibly....But then again most people understand the difference between perjury about consensual oral sex and treasonous actions such that Trump has and continues to engage in.

Not to mention Trump has never enjoyed the popularity Clinton had before or after Impeachment. Significant difference methinks.


cyclone88 - 12/18/2019 at 07:06 PM

quote:
Tom Cole just began his remarks by first asking Democrats to show respect for his opinion, and then seconds later he declares the whole thing a "charade", like a parrot. Someone should tell this clown that calling their serious work a "charade" reduces him to a carnival barker who deserves nothing. Had he not asked for respect first, then I wouldn't have thought anything of it, but to ask for it, and then insult their work, is evidence of a seriously flawed and misguided person, who shouldn't be leading anything.

Secondly, can someone supporting Trump explain to me why he didn't ask the United States to investigate an American? I've been asking this multiple times, and for some odd reason.......[Edited on 12/18/2019 by Skydog32103]


The McConnell strategy (I'm not calling it the GOP strategy because I cling to the hope that there are some serious people in that party) of shrugging off impeachment as a comedy & ignoring conventions & rules is wrong in that it sets the precedent should the parties be reversed at the next impeachment or worse, to embolden an entire population of followers to believe that the 3-pronged system of government w/checks & balances is an antiquated notion that can be mocked or ignored. I would've thought one member of the party would've figured that out.

As to your second question, DJT considers the FBI to be "corrupt" along w/intel & military agencies so in his mind, he had no one he could trust to investigate an American. Previously, he'd had Michael The Fixer Cohen & Roger Stone look under some rocks, but they had their own problems by 2018.


cyclone88 - 12/18/2019 at 07:27 PM

quote:
Who cares? "Why?" is a pointless question when dealing with irrational, self-destructive behavior. The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration. Just more craziness from the far left/progressive movement. Billastro

I believe this belongs in the other impeachment thread. That's where the blanket insults & nonsensical sentences are welcomed & appreciated.

Jerry, who has not indicated he's in favor of impeachment in the past, made succinct logical comments in this thread and posted a link to the actual HR report for clarification should anyone want to read both the report & the dissent. His posts furthered the discussion w/o any of the vitriol that lives on the other thread. You might consider his example.



pops42 - 12/18/2019 at 09:25 PM

quote:
quote:
If impeachment is so great for Trump and will sink the Dems why then the Redhats ought to be happy about it. If you want someone to fall off a cliff and you see them walking toward the cliff why would you warn them away?
Who cares? "Why?" is a pointless question when dealing with irrational, self-destructive behavior. The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration. Just more craziness from the far left/progressive movement.

Billastro
So, you are ok with trump inviting foreign interference into U.S. elections?.


nebish - 12/18/2019 at 11:43 PM

quote:
Secondly, can someone supporting Trump explain to me why he didn't ask the United States to investigate an American? I've been asking this multiple times, and for some odd reason.......


The only angle I think they would or could come up with is that the intelligence and criminal investigative groups and mechanisms in the US would protect Biden and wouldn't produce any findings to support the suspicion or the conspiracy of whatever it is that the Biden son was involved in and everything that went with that. I might be the least informed person on this specific subject, but I do believe I can offer the above explanation as something somebody who supported Trump could or would offer as to why they sought foreign assistance. We already know they do not trust US intel so why would they rely upon it now? For this?

Then in reality you have the whole thing about them just wanting the appearance that something was being investigated rather than an actual investigation - no US intelligence agency or investigative unit would go along with that.


2112 - 12/19/2019 at 05:19 AM

Ignoring what Trump may or may not have done regarding Ukraine, I am more concerned with the Obstruction of Justice. When Trump directs his staff to ignore congressional subpoenas, that sets a dangerous precedent that goes way beyond anything having to do with Ukraine. Our founding fathers carefully put in a system of checks and balances into our constitution. If a president can ignore a congressional investigation and get away with it, then our entire system of government will be changed forevermore. Someday there will be a corrupt Democratic president in the Whitehouse, and if Trump gets away with ignoring congressional subpoenas the precedent will be set for that to happen again. Remember when Hillary testified under oath during a congressional investigation? That will NEVER happen again if Trump is not held accountable for ignoring congressional subpoenas now. All I can say Trump supporters is be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. Think about this, Trump is cleared in the senate, and Biden wins next November. Do you think for a single second that the senate Republicans will be able to conduct an investigation into his possible wrongdoing in Ukraine? Nope, that barn door is closed, and you can thank their protection of Trump for it.


joyful_noise - 12/19/2019 at 10:41 AM

What I like about this is that partisan politics isn't being played out. Both sides are coming together in agreement to right a wrong. It's nice to see both sides working together for what is best for America.

Merry Christmas America! Peace and Love to all!


cyclone88 - 12/19/2019 at 12:11 PM

quote:
Ignoring what Trump may or may not have done regarding Ukraine, I am more concerned with the Obstruction of Justice. When Trump directs his staff to ignore congressional subpoenas, that sets a dangerous precedent that goes way beyond anything having to do with Ukraine. Our founding fathers carefully put in a system of checks and balances into our constitution. If a president can ignore a congressional investigation and get away with it, then our entire system of government will be changed forevermore.


My concern all along. From Day 1, Trump has believed himself to be king, emperor, god or whatever term is used to mean absolute power. Even his closest realistic supporters didn't believe him capable of governing because he didn't have a clue about basic civics. He has spent the past 3 years breaking down what he considered unnecessary constraints on his brilliance to handle every issue as he saw fit through executive orders, firings, & tantrums. Not only did HE order staff (some of whom no longer work for him) but THEY complied!!! This disregard seems to be contagious & has certainly infected McConnell. At least a signal has been sent that democracy isn't dead yet.


cyclone88 - 12/19/2019 at 12:35 PM

For a man to whom branding is everything, the asterisk next to his name really chafes.

Nancy Pelosi continues to surprise me w/her strategic foresight. Since McConnell has proclaimed his partiality as a juror & co-ordination w/Trump to have a drive-by trial that ends in acquittal, Pelosi has made a move of her own in not rushing the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. She's slowing things down & may even have leverage to force McConnell to have witnesses at the trial. There's nothing to prevent her from never sending them to the Senate so that DJT is NEVER acquitted.

To everyone McConnell is trying to convince that the trial is no big deal & ordinary Americans who are sick to death of politics, a proper Senate trial might make interesting - if not riveting - TV. If the facts are laid out, argued publicly, and people can see for themselves what's been charged minds may change. McConnell's refusal to call witnesses who were actually involved in events but refused to comply w/a subpoena at Trump's direction seems cowardly, pointless & reckless. He'll be at loggerheads w/Trump who WANTS a trial so he can clear his name (although never remove the asterisk).

Finally, Trump's reaction was 50% predictable - rally, lapse into the royal "we" so he doesn't have to say "I was impeached," and sing his own fictitious praises for 2 hours. What was surprising is his cruel assertion that the late Rep. Dingell from Michigan was "looking up at Trump from hell." The man was the longest serving Congressman (59 years) at the time of his death & Trump when on to crack that his wife (Rep. Debbie Dingell) is "a real beauty." I doubt he thinks even that was wrong.


gina - 12/19/2019 at 12:38 PM

quote:
History in the making. Foregone conclusion on the Senate vote, but it is an important statement. The Liberty Bell can still chime.

I am sure there is secret dissent in the Senate, a few who know they are on rhe wrong side of history. If there is even one stray Senate GOP vote for impeachment, it will have the effect of a corn cob buried under a tree stump. You country boys know what I mean, you want a stump removed, just bury some corn cobs around it with a bit showing - the pigs will dig a crater rooting for more.

Impeachment most likely fails, but the Trump administration is going to uproot itself.





They need 67 Senate votes to remove him from office, something like 53 will vote Against impeachment.

Also ALL the Senators come up for re-election next November now that also plays into how they vote.


adhill58 - 12/19/2019 at 02:01 PM

quote:




They need 67 Senate votes to remove him from office, something like 53 will vote Against impeachment.

Also ALL the Senators come up for re-election next November now that also plays into how they vote.


Wow! Obviously, one-third of senators will be up for re-election next year. It is pretty hard to get a six year term in if they all face re-election every time. Also, I think it is projected to be a relatively tough round for Republicans, similar to how 2018 was for Democrats.



What I find most disturbing about the House Republicans was their reluctance to stick up for the Constitutional powers of their own institution. They were the ones who demanded (correctly) that Congress had every right to drag in the former Secretary of State for hours of testimony even if the real goal was only to damage her future political prospects (as Mark Meadows admitted). Now they are okay with current executive branch employees ignoring subpoenas.

It seems like a willful public self-emasculation by the former "Benghazi Boys".


Jerry - 12/19/2019 at 05:04 PM

quote:

Nancy Pelosi continues to surprise me w/her strategic foresight. Since McConnell has proclaimed his partiality as a juror & co-ordination w/Trump to have a drive-by trial that ends in acquittal, Pelosi has made a move of her own in not rushing the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. She's slowing things down & may even have leverage to force McConnell to have witnesses at the trial. There's nothing to prevent her from never sending them to the Senate so that DJT is NEVER acquitted.



I don't think Pelosi wants witnesses to testify under oath at the trial. If so, all hearsay testimony will not be heard, which means that 3 of her 4 witnesses at the hearings would not be allowed since those 3 stated they had no direct knowledge of the phone call, only that they heard from others what was said.

Go back over the report and skim through the dissenting views if you have time.

PS: The report is in searchable PDF if you want to get the Cliff Notes read.


cyclone88 - 12/19/2019 at 06:06 PM

quote:
I don't think Pelosi wants witnesses to testify under oath at the trial. If so, all hearsay testimony will not be heard, which means that 3 of her 4 witnesses at the hearings would not be allowed since those 3 stated they had no direct knowledge of the phone call, only that they heard from others what was said.

Go back over the report and skim through the dissenting views if you have time.

PS: The report is in searchable PDF if you want to get the Cliff Notes read.


I don't know what she wants, but it would be interesting to have all witnesses Schumer has requested to testify - the point is to hear truthful testimony as a basis for us to make up our own minds. You raise an interesting point as to what would be considered hearsay in a Senate trial v. basic rules of Federal Procedure.

Thanks for the searchable tip; 700 pages is A LOT.


Jerry - 12/19/2019 at 07:15 PM

quote:
quote:
I don't think Pelosi wants witnesses to testify under oath at the trial. If so, all hearsay testimony will not be heard, which means that 3 of her 4 witnesses at the hearings would not be allowed since those 3 stated they had no direct knowledge of the phone call, only that they heard from others what was said.

Go back over the report and skim through the dissenting views if you have time.

PS: The report is in searchable PDF if you want to get the Cliff Notes read.


I don't know what she wants, but it would be interesting to have all witnesses Schumer has requested to testify - the point is to hear truthful testimony as a basis for us to make up our own minds. You raise an interesting point as to what would be considered hearsay in a Senate trial v. basic rules of Federal Procedure.

Thanks for the searchable tip; 700 pages is A LOT.


Yeah, I've been using the search function a LOT.

A link to information about how the rules will be set up.
https://theconversation.com/impeachment-comes-to-the-senate-5-questions-ans wered-124632

The article brings up the possibility that the Senate could call up both Bidens to give testimony about their possible roles in what caused the impeachment proceedings to start.

I agree with you that the point is to hear truthful testimony, just as in any trial.


Chain - 12/19/2019 at 10:11 PM

quote:
For a man to whom branding is everything, the asterisk next to his name really chafes.

Nancy Pelosi continues to surprise me w/her strategic foresight. Since McConnell has proclaimed his partiality as a juror & co-ordination w/Trump to have a drive-by trial that ends in acquittal, Pelosi has made a move of her own in not rushing the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. She's slowing things down & may even have leverage to force McConnell to have witnesses at the trial. There's nothing to prevent her from never sending them to the Senate so that DJT is NEVER acquitted.

To everyone McConnell is trying to convince that the trial is no big deal & ordinary Americans who are sick to death of politics, a proper Senate trial might make interesting - if not riveting - TV. If the facts are laid out, argued publicly, and people can see for themselves what's been charged minds may change. McConnell's refusal to call witnesses who were actually involved in events but refused to comply w/a subpoena at Trump's direction seems cowardly, pointless & reckless. He'll be at loggerheads w/Trump who WANTS a trial so he can clear his name (although never remove the asterisk).

Finally, Trump's reaction was 50% predictable - rally, lapse into the royal "we" so he doesn't have to say "I was impeached," and sing his own fictitious praises for 2 hours. What was surprising is his cruel assertion that the late Rep. Dingell from Michigan was "looking up at Trump from hell." The man was the longest serving Congressman (59 years) at the time of his death & Trump when on to crack that his wife (Rep. Debbie Dingell) is "a real beauty." I doubt he thinks even that was wrong.


Count me among those who wanted a new Democratic Leader of the House when the process for voting began. I now and have for some time now recognized why I was wrong in that wish.

The way Pelosi corralled the Freshman members of her caucus the past few weeks and her latest tactical move to slow things down and not rush sending The Articles Of Impeachment to the Senate is very shrewd. A lesser experienced and knowledgeable leader may never have been to able to pull any of this Impeachment process off.




BrerRabbit - 12/19/2019 at 10:59 PM

Gotta love this fanal incontinence from Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga. :

“Before you take this historic vote today, one week before Christmas, I want you to keep this in mind: When Jesus was falsely accused of treason, Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than Democrats afforded this president in this process.”








MartinD28 - 12/20/2019 at 12:14 AM

Now here's a surprise - Vlad Putin backs Trump on Impeachment. What a shock. Wondering if maybe we'll see Vlad on the stage with Trump at future campaign rallies?

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2019-12-19/putin-on-trump -impeachment-your-members-of-congress-should-know-better


OriginalGoober - 12/20/2019 at 04:25 AM

Why are you liberals running away from the original thread? You should own it, from inaguration day to the present its been the top priority for your party to Impeach Trump. So much so the party has not focused on much else. At least the USMCA deal was finally done so your party can defend itself from a total failure of leadership argument.


2112 - 12/20/2019 at 07:09 AM

quote:
Why are you liberals running away from the original thread? You should own it, from inaguration day to the present its been the top priority for your party to Impeach Trump. So much so the party has not focused on much else. At least the USMCA deal was finally done so your party can defend itself from a total failure of leadership argument.


Ok Comrade.

Your support of the lying treasonous "president" has been noted. You must be very proud of him.


BrerRabbit - 12/20/2019 at 07:43 AM

quote:
Why are you liberals running away from the original thread? You should own it, from inaguration day to the present its been the top priority for your party to Impeach Trump


Liberal isn't a party. You are sounding kind of vindictive today. Telling everyone what they should do. Mr. Bossypants!


cyclone88 - 12/20/2019 at 12:24 PM

quote:
Why are you liberals

You're in the wrong thread. I started this one for a discussion of impeachment w/o the use of blanket taunts & ignorant rhetoric on other topics. Run back to the other one where you belong, troll. Your vocabulary is limited to 3 words - liberals, dems & liberal dems (guess that's only 2 words) & you wield them like the insults they aren't. Move along, troll.



[Edited on 12/20/2019 by cyclone88]


cyclone88 - 12/20/2019 at 12:41 PM

quote:
"During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than Democrats afforded this president in this process.”

And the leading evangelical magazine Christianity Today founded by the late Rev. Billy Graham called on Thursday for impeachment AND REMOVAL of Trump & urged evangelicals to withdraw their support.

"That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president's moral deficiencies for all to see."

"To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency."

The publication of the editorial caused the magazine's site to crash due to traffic in what's been described as a "watershed" moment.






MartinD28 - 12/20/2019 at 01:49 PM

quote:
quote:
Why are you liberals running away from the original thread? You should own it, from inaguration day to the present its been the top priority for your party to Impeach Trump. So much so the party has not focused on much else. At least the USMCA deal was finally done so your party can defend itself from a total failure of leadership argument.


Ok Comrade.

Your support of the lying treasonous "president" has been noted. You must be very proud of him.

Notice how goob always points fingers at the libs or Dems while never responding to questions when confronted about Trump's actions. I'm curious if goob supports Trump's Helsinki moment when Trump sided with Putin over our intel agencies. There are countless other examples - several of which I've asked goob about but never received an answer.


BrerRabbit - 12/20/2019 at 06:09 PM

quote:
And the leading evangelical magazine Christianity Today founded by the late Rev. Billy Graham called on Thursday for impeachment AND REMOVAL of Trump & urged evangelicals to withdraw their support.

"That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president's moral deficiencies for all to see."

"To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency."

The publication of the editorial caused the magazine's site to crash due to traffic in what's been described as a "watershed" moment.


"Remember who you are and whom you serve." This is a huge lash back. Huge.



cyclone88 - 12/20/2019 at 08:07 PM

quote:
"Remember who you are and whom you serve." This is a huge lash back. Huge.


That plus the MI pushback re the egregious comments he made about the late Rep. Dingell made it not a good day for DJT. And DJT REPEATED the comment elsewhere. Lindsey Graham is telling him it's not a joke; it's not funny.


BrerRabbit - 12/20/2019 at 08:21 PM

@cyclone - What was timeline on the Christianity Today call for removal of Trump, was that published before or after the House vote? Trying to get some idea as to how much Republicans are willing to double down on their Trump bluff. I think we are going to start seeing some of them snap out of their Soviet mind control comas here pretty soon.


[Edited on 12/20/2019 by BrerRabbit]


Chain - 12/20/2019 at 09:42 PM

quote:
quote:
Why are you liberals

You're in the wrong thread. I started this one for a discussion of impeachment w/o the use of blanket taunts & ignorant rhetoric on other topics. Run back to the other one where you belong, troll. Your vocabulary is limited to 3 words - liberals, dems & liberal dems (guess that's only 2 words) & you wield them like the insults they aren't. Move along, troll.



[Edited on 12/20/2019 by cyclone88]


You forgot "Fake News." So I guess he knows four words.....That's actually pretty good for the typical Russian bot.


cyclone88 - 12/20/2019 at 10:06 PM

quote:
@cyclone - What was timeline on the Christianity Today call for removal of Trump, was that published before or after the House vote? Trying to get some idea as to how much Republicans are willing to double down on their Trump bluff. I think we are going to start seeing some of them snap out of their Soviet mind control comas here pretty soon.[Edited on 12/20/2019 by BrerRabbit]


It was published yesterday so I assume during business hours before the vote in the evening. I think I read the website crash was during the afternoon when media heard about it. Trump has been tweeting that it's a "liberal rag" all day today. He's freaked.


BrerRabbit - 12/20/2019 at 10:32 PM

quote:
It was published yesterday so I assume during business hours before the vote in the evening. I think I read the website crash was during the afternoon when media heard about it. Trump has been tweeting that it's a "liberal rag" all day today. He's freaked.


Not much lead time for GOP congresspersons to digest that info - am sure they were preoccupied in the few hours before the vote.

The website crash, interesting. Media overload, or Russian DOS attack?

Trump didn't hesitate to show his true colors. Amazing how fast he turns on people when they try to pull their tongues out of his butt.

This is getting interesting.


cyclone88 - 12/20/2019 at 11:45 PM

quote:
Trump didn't hesitate to show his true colors. Amazing how fast he turns on people when they try to pull their tongues out of his butt. This is getting interesting.


Here's the link to the editorial:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be -removed-from-office.html

One of his tweets today: "The fact is, no President has ever done what I have done for Evangelicals, or religion itself!"

He's done more for religion than any other president. Think about that one...




MartinD28 - 12/21/2019 at 12:24 AM

quote:
quote:
"During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than Democrats afforded this president in this process.”

And the leading evangelical magazine Christianity Today founded by the late Rev. Billy Graham called on Thursday for impeachment AND REMOVAL of Trump & urged evangelicals to withdraw their support.

"That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president's moral deficiencies for all to see."

"To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency."

The publication of the editorial caused the magazine's site to crash due to traffic in what's been described as a "watershed" moment.




Yet the Falwells & Grahams pf the evangelical world along with 90 some pct evangelicals are still in the fold. They got there SC judges so nothing else that Trump says or does matters to them even though he has and acts nothing like them and has nothing in common. It is hypocritical symbiotic relationship and fails in the tests of their religious principles. Religion = politics. There is no separation.


cyclone88 - 12/21/2019 at 02:08 AM

quote:
Yet the Falwells & Grahams pf the evangelical world along with 90 some pct evangelicals are still in the fold. They got there SC judges so nothing else that Trump says or does matters to them even though he has and acts nothing like them and has nothing in common. It is hypocritical symbiotic relationship and fails in the tests of their religious principles. Religion = politics. There is no separation.

On NPR today, there was a discussion that now that pro-life SCOTUS judges have been appointed, the Evangelicals don't need DJT. More importantly, younger evangelicals don't support him, particularly re climate change/environment, immigration & its treatment of families, and hostility towards the poor & homeless & have changed party affiliation.

Several of the Graham children (adults in their 60s now) have histories of infidelity, domestic abuse (oldest daughter arrested in FL for assaulting both her husband & boyfriend while drunk), & drug/alcohol addiction so their opinions don't carry as much weight as their father's w/in that community. Falwell Jr wasn't mentioned.


Skydog32103 - 12/21/2019 at 01:55 PM

I don't think the magazine will have any negative affect for Trump in 2020, sadly. They will now shrug off the magazine as something that is barely read, infiltrated by liberal staff members who are bitter about losing the election, blah blah blah. Nothing will change their minds - remember, he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and wouldn't lose a vote.


OriginalGoober - 12/21/2019 at 02:08 PM

Democrats are highly concerned the American people will interfere with the next election.


Chain - 12/21/2019 at 02:09 PM

The author of the Christianity Today article, Mark Galli, was interviewed on NPR yesterday and had some interesting things to say about Trump....Here's a link if anyone wishes to listen to a relatively short, 7 minute interview:


https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/790130632/christianity-today-editor-discusse s-calling-for-trumps-impeachment


[Edited on 12/21/2019 by Chain]


Skydog32103 - 12/21/2019 at 02:23 PM

quote:
Democrats are highly concerned the American people will interfere with the next election.


I agreed with this 100% after the Mueller report found no collusion. But witholding the Ukraine aid, combined with what he said in the call, combined with asking for China to do it too, just forced their hand. Only a fool would let a President of the United States say those things without any type of retribution. If Trump would just shut his stupid big mouth, you conservatives would have the world by now, and you know it. I know for a fact that deep down, you truly hate Trump for being so stupid and ruining everything for you.




[Edited on 12/21/2019 by Skydog32103]


cyclone88 - 12/21/2019 at 03:44 PM

quote:
The author of the Christianity Today article, Mark Galli, was interviewed on NPR yesterday and had some interesting things to say about Trump....Here's a link


Thanks for the link. When asked why now? & why did evangelicals support such an immoral man in the 1st place? the answer was he was anti-abortion. Sole reason. Now that the anti-abortion SCOTUS appointments have been made, they don't need him.

I don't think the article is going to change any minds. The mind-changer is Trump's illogical responses. He tweets things like the pro-impeachment editorial would prefer a "radical liberal, non-believer" to be president when his successor should he be removed from office would be Pence - hardly radical, liberal, or a non-believer.


stormyrider - 12/21/2019 at 03:52 PM

Here's what I don't understand

How can a true Conservative support someone who:

on a public stage, on TV said he believed Putin over the FBI, CIA, and NSA. It was on TV
(remember, Mueller said "if I could exonerate him I would, but I can't)

Said "there were good people on both sides", which includes guys wearing swastikas and white hoods

Doesn't believe in freedom of the press ex "the press is the enemy of the people"

doesn't believe in separation of powers

doesn't believe in the constitution example -ex "phony emoluments clause" Article 1, section 9

disrespects all who disagree with him - most recently Dingell looking up from hell, even called out by Graham

behaves as if he wants to be a monarch with absolute power and president for life (he has talked about > 2 terms). He talks as if he thinks he is above the law. The framers of the Constitution did not want a monarch, they wanted checks and balances.

I understand people who disagree with Democrats, "liberals", etc. I can't understand how someone that believes in the constitution can support Trump

[Edited on 12/21/2019 by stormyrider]


Chain - 12/21/2019 at 04:07 PM

quote:
quote:
The author of the Christianity Today article, Mark Galli, was interviewed on NPR yesterday and had some interesting things to say about Trump....Here's a link


Thanks for the link. When asked why now? & why did evangelicals support such an immoral man in the 1st place? the answer was he was anti-abortion. Sole reason. Now that the anti-abortion SCOTUS appointments have been made, they don't need him.

I don't think the article is going to change any minds. The mind-changer is Trump's illogical responses. He tweets things like the pro-impeachment editorial would prefer a "radical liberal, non-believer" to be president when his successor should he be removed from office would be Pence - hardly radical, liberal, or a non-believer.



You're welcome for the link.....I agree with your thoughts about the article as I don't think it brings to light anything we didn't already know. Truth is the anti women's health crowd hitched their wagon to the treasonous Trump knowing full well they made a deal with the devil.

The only revelation in this is finally someone is speaking out in the open what they've been saying behind closed doors since Trump's inauguration.


cyclone88 - 12/21/2019 at 04:26 PM

quote:
I can't understand how someone that believes in the constitution can support Trump

I've asked that question re GOP leaders & gotten the anti-abortion SCOTUS appointments & they don't want to lose their seats. Well, reason #1 is gone; there are now 2 GOP-selected justices on SCOTUS. As for #2, I don't see how having a trial w/witnesses (as McConnell insisted on for Clinton but not Trump) and not announcing the verdict in advance of even getting the Articles of Impeachment is a bad thing. Removing Trump from office gives us Pence. I don't see why the GOP thinks that's so terrible. He's far from my 1st choice, but he has at least a bare bones knowledge of the constitution & isn't a raging bull.


Chain - 12/21/2019 at 05:54 PM

quote:
quote:
I can't understand how someone that believes in the constitution can support Trump

I've asked that question re GOP leaders & gotten the anti-abortion SCOTUS appointments & they don't want to lose their seats. Well, reason #1 is gone; there are now 2 GOP-selected justices on SCOTUS. As for #2, I don't see how having a trial w/witnesses (as McConnell insisted on for Clinton but not Trump) and not announcing the verdict in advance of even getting the Articles of Impeachment is a bad thing. Removing Trump from office gives us Pence. I don't see why the GOP thinks that's so terrible. He's far from my 1st choice, but he has at least a bare bones knowledge of the constitution & isn't a raging bull.


I've wondered about the Pence idea as well. I chalk their reluctance to remove Trump for Pence to knowing that Trump is far more popular among the base and that they still need that very base to ensure reelection of congressional seats in both the House and Senate.

Trump knows this too and that is why he holds these very corny rallies every few days. Not to impress the opposition per say, but to remind the Republican establishment that their future lies with him and not some other potential Republican president.


MartinD28 - 12/21/2019 at 08:48 PM

The evangelicals rally around Trump. Justice would be served if their kids grew up to emulate Trump & take on his value system.

The New York Times
Evangelical Leaders Close Ranks With Trump After Scathing Editorial

https://www.yahoo.com/news/evangelical-leaders-close-ranks-trump-150745454. html


BrerRabbit - 12/21/2019 at 08:53 PM

Pharisees


lukester420 - 12/22/2019 at 08:55 PM

I wondered how long the Evangelical community could continue their support. Had to make for some interesting holiday family dinners with those who still support him and those who came to their senses and realized they elected Caligula.

Between the CT editorial and the idiotic blaspheming comparison of the impeachment to the trial of Jesus Christ by Rep. Loudermilk I think those of faith who have any conscience whatsoever have realized they elected a maroon.


BrerRabbit - 12/22/2019 at 10:47 PM

quote:
Loudermilk


lol


Chain - 12/23/2019 at 11:53 PM

Interesting email Chucky Schumer is flashing about in his latest press conference....


cyclone88 - 12/24/2019 at 12:36 AM

quote:
Interesting email Schumer is flashing

I'm taking the last holiday of the year, but thought Sen. Patrick Leahy (D)'s op ed today crystallized exactly why Schumer's 99 colleagues should think hard about their position re the trial. They take an oath - separate & apart from their oath of office - "to do IMPARTIAL JUSTICE according to the constitution & laws" during a trial. McConnell & Graham publicly announced their partiality before Trump was even impeached. Are they announcing they intend to perjure themselves? Trump vacillates between saying the trial is a sham & he wants a full trial to exonerate himself.

Nothing's going to happen over the Christmas recess (at least we're spared last year's sight of Trump sitting alone eating fast food having shut down the government & leaving certain types of employees unpaid) beyond the senators perhaps listening to some open-minded constituents. Or not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/opinion/senate-impeachment-trial.html?ac tion=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

What the Senate Does Now Will Cast a Long Shadow

When the Senate ultimately convenes to consider whether to remove the president from office, for just the third time in its history, it will convene not as a legislative body, but as a court of impeachment. And it will not just be President Trump on trial. The Senate — and indeed, truth itself — will stand trial.

Senators serve as a unique combination of judge and juror during an impeachment trial. Sworn in by the chief justice of the United States, senators take a special oath to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” This is an oath I have taken several times. First elected to the Senate in 1974, in the wake of Watergate, I have served on six impeachment trials since then — five judges and one president. I take this oath extraordinarily seriously. And it’s one I fear the Senate is on the verge of abandoning.

Senator Lindsey Graham has admitted that he’s “not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.” The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, vowing a quick acquittal, boasted that he is “not an impartial juror” and pledged that “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

This is tantamount to a criminal defendant being allowed to set the rules for his own trial, while the judge and jury promise him a quick acquittal. That is a far cry from the “impartial justice” required by our oaths and the Constitution.

Given this, I understand why the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, did not rush to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate before the holiday recess. A sham trial is in no one’s interest. A choreographed acquittal exonerates no one, serves only to deepen rifts within the country and eviscerates the Senate’s constitutional role. That is why the advice I shared with my fellow senators last week was to go home for the holidays, take a deep breath, and come back and conduct the trial as the Senate should — and as the Constitution requires.

How the Senate conducts the trial will be up to 51 senators, not simply one or two. While the chief justice presides, the duration and scope of the trial, including whether to call witnesses or compel document production, will be decided by a simple majority of the Senate. It is my hope that those decisions will be agreed to by all senators.

For example, although the House impeachment of President Bill Clinton was marked by deep partisan acrimony, the Senate came together, 100 to 0, to approve a resolution outlining trial procedures. I said then that we had “to preserve the Senate and give the country a sense of credibility.” Asked at the time by this newspaper about grumblings from the White House, I made it clear that it is not the Senate’s role to defend either the president or the House.

There was a sense then, shared even by Senator McConnell, who first came to the Senate in 1985, that the Senate itself was on trial. That is even truer today.

The House has accumulated significant evidence that Mr. Trump used his office, and leveraged congressionally appropriated foreign security assistance, for his personal political benefit by attempting to coerce Ukraine, a foreign ally facing Russian aggression, to announce an investigation into a domestic political rival.

The trial is the president’s opportunity to present a full-throated defense. There are many documents that could shed additional light on the president’s actions and several witnesses who have yet to testify. If exculpatory, I would expect the White House to welcome the production of the documents and urge the participation of the witnesses. They include the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who publicly acknowledged that aid to Ukraine was tied to the prospect of investigations; the former national security adviser John Bolton, who described the president’s advisers’ attempts to compel Ukraine to intervene in our domestic affairs as “a drug deal,” and the senior White House budget official, Michael Duffey, who — we learned over the weekend — quietly ordered the Pentagon to freeze aid to Ukraine roughly 90 minutes after Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president for a “favor” on July 25th.

But so far, the president has directed these and other witnesses not to cooperate, and key documents have been withheld. That should change when the Senate holds a trial. During the Clinton trial, Senate Republicans passed a second resolution to call specific witnesses — even though those witnesses had previously testified extensively. Today, Mr. Trump is blocking critical witnesses from testifying at all.

The Senate should reject such stonewalling. It should not be complicit in a cover-up. We deserve to have the full story.

Nor should the Senate be complicit in promoting fact-free distractions and distortions. The president and some of his defenders have embraced objectively false and misleading defenses in the face of the House’s substantial evidence, including promoting a baseless theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Even the president’s own national security advisers dismissed this theory as “completely debunked” and “a fictional narrative” that was “propagated by Russian security services.” The longer we permit cynically derived conspiracy theories to be equated with actual facts — with the truth — the more perilous the state of our republic.

How the Senate handles the coming trial will shape both the presidency and our constitutional system of checks and balances for decades, long after Mr. Trump leaves office. Will the Senate allow the president to abuse his public office to pursue wholly personal gains? Will the Senate permit the coercion of foreign governments to interfere in our domestic elections? Will the Senate enable the unprecedented, wholesale disregard of lawful congressional subpoenas to cover up the truth? Will the Senate make this the new norm?
I would not suggest to any senator that his or her oath requires at this time a specific verdict. Whether allegations are proven at trial is an entirely separate matter. But I strongly believe that our oath requires that all senators behave impartially and support a fair trial, one that places the pursuit of truth above fealty to this or any other president.

After vigorous debate, the framers included the power of impeachment in the Constitution for a reason. Presidents are not kings. Nor are they above the law. They can be removed for high crimes or misdemeanors, which means, according to Alexander Hamilton, an “abuse or violation of some public trust.”
The Senate has a job to do. And it’s not to rig the trial in favor of — or against — President Trump. Our job is to follow the facts and abide by the Constitution. An acquittal based on anything less would hardly be an acquittal at all.



Chain - 12/25/2019 at 03:25 PM

Thanks for sharing this editorial, cyclone.....

I mentioned a few weeks ago that another perhaps just as important figure in a Senate impeachment trial will be Chief Justice John Roberts. What he does in this process will be crucial for the future and reputation of the as yet less mentioned and discussed third branch of government, the Supreme Court.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong on this, he can compel witness testimony and demand evidence be presented even if the Senate votes not to. Maybe you can clarify this cyclone as you're an attorney?


cyclone88 - 1/6/2020 at 12:51 PM

Assassination is certainly a way to get the Senate's focus off his impeachment & onto moving us toward war WITHOUT bothering to inform Congress (except for his Senatorial guests at Mar-a-Lago during the holidays). Were it not so serious, it would be laughable that he's thrown another tantrum to prove he's smarter than Pelosi by an unlawful assassination that 2 administrations (Republican & Democratric) considered at length (one during an actual war) & refused to do due to the enormity of the risks of retaliation through the middle east, the world, and Americans everywhere. AND he's saying he did it because of intelligence he received from the same agencies he's declared worthless, incompetent, and corrupt. How does a person reconcile that bit of illogic?

He persists in acting unilaterally w/defiance that he answers to anyone. His tweet that his "Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!” In other words, he's going to do what he wants & tweet afterwards as "notice" if anyone in Congress wants to read about our current foreign policy.

His complete disregard for ANY executive accountability to the legislature is yet another indicator that the man isn't fit for office & has abused his power of office. Doubtful that the as-yet-to-be-delivered impeachment articles can be amended to included this latest evidence but the HR decided to confine its charges to the Ukraine deal.

He's a hellbound train.






BrerRabbit - 1/6/2020 at 03:22 PM

quote:
He's a hellbound train.


Yessir and we are on it. He just started a war all by himself. Flat out gangster mode - drive by shooting on enemy turf.
Illegal bullsh*t. This isn't just about impeachment. He wants to f*ck it all up so bad it can't be fixed. We are marked now.

This is all on the Redhats. .

[Edited on 1/6/2020 by BrerRabbit]


Skydog32103 - 1/6/2020 at 03:34 PM

quote:
Yessir and we are on it. He just started a war all by himself
Illegal bullsh*t. This isn't just about impeachment. He wants to f*ck it all up so bad it can't be fixed. We are marked now.

This is all on the Redhats. .


This is what they want. The redhats are celebrating all the danger. They are excited for it. No sense in calling them out anymore. We either vote him out or just shut up, deal with it all, and hope for the best. And then we remember who the redhats are and avoid them like the plague. That’s the only option.


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2020 at 03:42 PM

Trouble ahead, lady in red


cyclone88 - 1/6/2020 at 03:57 PM

quote:
This isn't just about impeachment. He wants to f*ck it all up so bad it can't be fixed. We are marked now.

This is all on the Redhats. .

I respectfully disagree about the motivation, Mr. Rabbit. It is ALL about a distraction from impeachment & he made it so big & so illegal & so destructive that he's got McConnell & Graham talking about not even negotiating rules for impeachment & some clown vowing to request a dismissal. It's SOP for him in business - implode a building rather than lose it in foreclosure.

I agree that it IS on the Redhats now to finally see him for the madman he is. There is no government if a cowardly legislature allows him to violate laws re their notification of certain acts, violate international laws re targets & sites, & cover it up w/pronouncements the Pentagon has made for almost 20 years - yes, Soulamani was the kingpin in the Middle East & there have been opportunities before to take him out but at a cost no administration wanted to risk. It's absurd for an Exec to announce that his required notice to any other branch of government will be done after the fact via twitter. Of course, Redhats will see him as a Man of Action Who Dared To Do What No Prez Before Him Would for some unfathomable reason. It's also on the Senate for not expelling Comrade McConnell for abetting this dangerous idiot.

None of this will stop impeachment process which was expected to result in his remaining in office. Perhaps, with this latest stunt, some senators won't be so quick to keep him. One can only hope.


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2020 at 05:06 PM

quote:
I respectfully disagree about the motivation, Mr. Rabbit. It is ALL about a distraction from impeachment


Let me try to rephrase my vague reply. I agree it is all about impeachment, and I was upping the ante to they are trying to create chaos and bring down American Democracy altogether.

Ask any Redhat if they would like to see their boy a fascist Putin-style president for life, and prune off a couple branches of govt. I have suggested this here several times, never once disagreed with or told hey rabbit that is over the top. Redhats are flat out fascists.


cyclone88 - 1/6/2020 at 05:41 PM

quote:
I agree it is all about impeachment, and I was upping the ante to they are trying to create chaos and bring down American Democracy altogether. Ask any Redhat if they would like to see their boy a fascist Putin-style president for life, and prune off a couple branches of govt. I have suggested this here several times, never once disagreed with or told hey rabbit that is over the top.

Got it. Trump, however, isn't a long-term strategic thinker & most certainly doesn't want to be CEO of the US for life. IMO, were it not for legal proceedings awaiting his departure from office, he'd have resigned long ago so he wouldn't have to constantly be told what he can't do. The news that there are other branches was a shock to his system.

As for his disciples, the news that a large portion of Americans don't understand how government works or even the meaning of the terms democracy v. fascism has finally reached SCOTUS. In his year-end report on the judiciary, CJ Roberts decried the lack of basic civic knowledge & enumerated all the judicial initiatives that exist to combat that. He stopped short of dissing the education system. It's taken the ignorance of Trump & Co to be an "AHA moment" for leadership to realize that Americans can't be trusted to protect democracy & the constitution if they don't know what it is. I don't disagree that there are some undercurrents of revolution, but neither side wants to disrupt their comfortable lives.


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2020 at 05:57 PM

quote:
Americans can't be trusted to protect democracy & the constitution if they don't know what it is.


The RatherBeRussians know what democracy is. They are revolting, a passive revolution, but revolting nonetheless.


cyclone88 - 1/6/2020 at 06:00 PM

quote:
As I understand it, and I could be wrong on this, he can compel witness testimony and demand evidence be presented even if the Senate votes not to. Maybe you can clarify this cyclone as you're an attorney?

Yes, I'm an attorney but not an impeachment scholar and you may have already gotten the answer to this. Impeachment is a legislative process w/rules made by the Senate. The blueprint of 26 rules was first drafted for Johnson's impeachment in 1868 & tweaked for Clinton's trial. Every single rule has to be approved by the majority of the Senate. My understanding is that the Trump trial was using the Clinton rules as a blueprint and Clinton DID have 3 witnesses who testified under oath in closed sessions.

CJ Roberts' role is to preside - basically keep order (all the Senators have to remain seated & silent & show up at the appointed time), make limited evidentiary rulings, and generally make sure that the rules and the constitution are followed. He can be over-ruled by the Senate.

So, the short answer is no. His mentor was CJRehnquist who presided over Clinton's trial and by his own account "did very little very well." Although Roberts is likely to follow Rehnquist's example in most instances, he may mediate negotiations re the rules or at least move them in a "fair" direction so that the trial isn't a travesty.

The assassination of Soleimani may change the timing, approach to rule-making, & outcome of the trial. Some senators may use the opportunity to show that they will NOT be dismissed when it comes to the Exec notifying them of such actions.


cyclone88 - 1/6/2020 at 06:12 PM

quote:
The RatherBeRussians know what democracy is. They are revolting, a passive revolution, but revolting nonetheless.

You certainly have the ability to take any position on any topic. Again, I disagree w/you that the RBRs know what democracy is in practical terms - like 3 branches of government. But the real question is WTH is a passive revolution? They eat more fast food? Pay off their mistresses? Hang posters of Putin in their children's bedrooms? Cheat on their taxes?

And now back to impeachment...


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2020 at 07:12 PM

quote:
You certainly have the ability to take any position on any topic.


I actually pride myself in knowing my position and being happy to state it without deflection or obfuscation. I do tend towards the big picture however, which can be irritating when trying to nail down specifics, I will grant that. If you are going to call me a chameleon you will allow me the chance to defend myself, as that is a serious accusation in my book.

It seems to me that the ignorance of democracy is willful, and it is naive to think that it is from lack of education. Every Redhat on this board is aware of the mechanics of democracy.


cyclone88 - 1/6/2020 at 08:42 PM

quote:
I actually pride myself in knowing my position and being happy to state it without deflection or obfuscation. I do tend towards the big picture however, which can be irritating when trying to nail down specifics, I will grant that. If you are going to call me a chameleon you will allow me the chance to defend myself, as that is a serious accusation in my book.
It seems to me that the ignorance of democracy is willful, and it is naive to think that it is from lack of education. Every Redhat on this board is aware of the mechanics of democracy.


Oh, pull yourself together silly Rabbit. That was a compliment - to be able to see not only both sides of a question but the short & long term consequences. It requires both knowledge & critical thinking.

I'm not saying a lack of civic education is the problem - CJRoberts alluded to it in his annual report. His remarks were for generations NOT represented on this forum who seem to be clueless as well as disinterested in anything beyond their favorite IG influencers.


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2020 at 09:06 PM

Ah So. You will forgive my obtuse defensiveness - it hit nerve because I juggle a lot of conflict : Confuse-us say "He who juggle cat, chainsaw, and torch end up with hairless cat with no tail."

When all else fails, retreat into remotely relevant absurdism.

[Edited on 1/6/2020 by BrerRabbit]


Chain - 1/6/2020 at 09:53 PM

quote:
quote:
As I understand it, and I could be wrong on this, he can compel witness testimony and demand evidence be presented even if the Senate votes not to. Maybe you can clarify this cyclone as you're an attorney?

Yes, I'm an attorney but not an impeachment scholar and you may have already gotten the answer to this. Impeachment is a legislative process w/rules made by the Senate. The blueprint of 26 rules was first drafted for Johnson's impeachment in 1868 & tweaked for Clinton's trial. Every single rule has to be approved by the majority of the Senate. My understanding is that the Trump trial was using the Clinton rules as a blueprint and Clinton DID have 3 witnesses who testified under oath in closed sessions.

CJ Roberts' role is to preside - basically keep order (all the Senators have to remain seated & silent & show up at the appointed time), make limited evidentiary rulings, and generally make sure that the rules and the constitution are followed. He can be over-ruled by the Senate.

So, the short answer is no. His mentor was CJRehnquist who presided over Clinton's trial and by his own account "did very little very well." Although Roberts is likely to follow Rehnquist's example in most instances, he may mediate negotiations re the rules or at least move them in a "fair" direction so that the trial isn't a travesty.

The assassination of Soleimani may change the timing, approach to rule-making, & outcome of the trial. Some senators may use the opportunity to show that they will NOT be dismissed when it comes to the Exec notifying them of such actions.


Thanks for the clarification Cyclone....And for the very interesting and informative discussion between you and Rabbit....Thanks to both of you.


cyclone88 - 1/7/2020 at 12:02 AM

quote:
Thanks for the clarification Cyclone....And for the very interesting and informative discussion between you and Rabbit....Thanks to both of you.

The clarification may change, of course, as Trump rips up the constitution to suit himself. I don't think the Founders had a post-hoc explanation via twitter in mind when war powers were addressed. Re impeachment, things like Bolton's public announcement today that he's willing to testify should he be called could put pressure on McConnell to actually have a trial w/witnesses & evidence. What a concept!

The constitution is consistent in the complete division of powers w/checks & balances. A trial in the legislature is run by the legislature. The SCOTUS chief justice presides to make sure the wheels don't totally come off & to protect the Exec office if not its occupant.

Rabbit is always up for a good exchange. I fully expected Trump to do something to get impeachment off the front page while Congress was in recess but I certainly didn't expect an assassination!


playallnite - 1/8/2020 at 04:43 AM

I'm still amazed that 40% of people still support a rich guy who was born into money and cheated his way through school and life.

While they're living pay to pay and barely scratching by.

Gaslighting works on the uninformed.

Sad but true.


cyclone88 - 1/8/2020 at 12:13 PM

quote:
I'm still amazed that 40% of people still support a rich guy who was born into money and cheated his way through school and life.

While they're living pay to pay and barely scratching by.

Gaslighting works on the uninformed.

Sad but true.


Thanks for pointing out that many of his supporters are living pay to pay & barely scratching by despite this highly touted 3.9% unemployment number ( I'd really like to see that broken down. Are we talking "healthcare" jobs that are actually $8/hr home health aides?)

I'm amazed that senators who are NOT uninformed continue to support a reckless, impulsive, mercurial, unstable man who can be baited w/a tweet are standing behind him, especially in the context of this escalation of tensions (I'm not saying war) w/Iran of which Congress wasn't informed beforehand. They have a chance to get him out of office through impeachment before he does further damage, but they're marching in lock-step behind McConnell who apparently is either 1) ignorant of the constitution or 2) blithely choosing to ignore it for which he should be expelled from Congress.

The answer can't be that ALL of them fear losing their senate seat (some aren't even running for re-election) & their constituents got what they wanted w/"pro-life" justices appointed. Does Pence scare them? WTH are they afraid of? If the choice is Trump or nuclear war, isn't nuclear war scarier?


adhill58 - 1/8/2020 at 01:59 PM

quote:
quote:
I'm still amazed that 40% of people still support a rich guy who was born into money and cheated his way through school and life.

While they're living pay to pay and barely scratching by.

Gaslighting works on the uninformed.

Sad but true.


Thanks for pointing out that many of his supporters are living pay to pay & barely scratching by despite this highly touted 3.9% unemployment number ( I'd really like to see that broken down. Are we talking "healthcare" jobs that are actually $8/hr home health aides?)

I'm amazed that senators who are NOT uninformed continue to support a reckless, impulsive, mercurial, unstable man who can be baited w/a tweet are standing behind him, especially in the context of this escalation of tensions (I'm not saying war) w/Iran of which Congress wasn't informed beforehand. They have a chance to get him out of office through impeachment before he does further damage, but they're marching in lock-step behind McConnell who apparently is either 1) ignorant of the constitution or 2) blithely choosing to ignore it for which he should be expelled from Congress.

The answer can't be that ALL of them fear losing their senate seat (some aren't even running for re-election) & their constituents got what they wanted w/"pro-life" justices appointed. Does Pence scare them? WTH are they afraid of? If the choice is Trump or nuclear war, isn't nuclear war scarier?



My opinion is that all of the enablers have gone along with and defended Trump through so many objectively ridiculous situations that there is no way to stop now. They are "all-in' whether they want to be or not because they have given him so many passes already. How do you say "y" is inexcusable behavior from a president when you already let "x" slide? They knew it was wrong before the 2016 RNC convention, but he was popular with the base. It has to be a bad feeling to know that if you lose the racist vote you don't have a chance in elections.


Skydog32103 - 1/8/2020 at 03:19 PM

quote:
The answer can't be that ALL of them fear losing their senate seat (some aren't even running for re-election) & their constituents got what they wanted w/"pro-life" justices appointed. Does Pence scare them? WTH are they afraid of?


Among his supporters: unrest, threats of domestic terrorism towards other civilian Americans, loss of public trust and loyalty to the United States. They are rabid and radicalized. The Republicans in the Senate recognize the instability of his base, recognize the threat they pose, and are trying to prevent mass violence. They are backing him to create the perception that “they are trying” for them.

Because there are millions of brainwashed ticking time bombs ready to retaliate and destroy America even more than they have already, we have to let him leave office in the most natural way possible so as not to set them off.


BIGV - 1/8/2020 at 05:33 PM

quote:
quote:
The answer can't be that ALL of them fear losing their senate seat (some aren't even running for re-election) & their constituents got what they wanted w/"pro-life" justices appointed. Does Pence scare them? WTH are they afraid of?


Among his supporters: unrest, threats of domestic terrorism towards other civilian Americans, loss of public trust and loyalty to the United States. They are rabid and radicalized. The Republicans in the Senate recognize the instability of his base, recognize the threat they pose, and are trying to prevent mass violence. They are backing him to create the perception that “they are trying” for them.

Because there are millions of brainwashed ticking time bombs ready to retaliate and destroy America even more than they have already, we have to let him leave office in the most natural way possible so as not to set them off.


Is it possible that so many like the President solely because of the alternatives (or lack thereof) ?

What other choices do voters have?


Skydog32103 - 1/8/2020 at 06:20 PM

quote:
Is it possible that so many like the President solely because of the alternatives (or lack thereof) ?

What other choices do voters have?


Some yes, but I’m referring to his core base, the ones who threaten domestic terrorism if he’s impeached. If you think that type of passion is about policy, I have some real estate in FL to sell you.

During his campaign, he asked Russia to hack our election and another American’s email, mocked a disabled person, tried to turn Americans against the FBI, CIA, federal judges, John McCain, asked his supporters to commit violence against protestors, and the list goes on, all while praising foreign adversaries. It’s extremely dysfunctional to choose this type of personality to lead our country, simply because you don’t like Democrats.

People don’t even know why they hate Hillary. Trump created the fake narrative about her to give folks like you all the justification they needed to commit domestic terrorism. He suckered all of you folks, and the Scarlett letter will forever hurt you.


BIGV - 1/8/2020 at 06:51 PM

quote:
People don’t even know why they hate Hillary.


Personally, I believe voters should be given more credit than that. One voter's reasoning is judged to be ridiculous by the next and yes, it goes both ways.


BrerRabbit - 1/8/2020 at 07:17 PM

quote:
People don’t even know why they hate Hillary.


That "Why do you hate Hilary" thread I started a while back was page after page of not one actual reason why. Even when given the floor to cut her to pieces her worst detractors had nothing to offer.


goldtop - 1/8/2020 at 07:19 PM

quote:
Because the other impeachment thread has been derailed by posters into name-calling about something other than impeachment, I wanted a place to talk about impeachment.

Today is Impeachment Tuesday. More than 550 demonstrations (at least one in each state) are being held (w/sponsors from the Sierra Club to unions) to remind Congress that several polls indicate Americans are IN FAVOR of impeachment (the process). I'm not a big believer in polls but the point is that we're fine w/Congress proceeding w/the constitutional blueprint to examine a president's behavior as opposed to watching a bunch of old white men screeching at each other on TV until the election.

Four GOP politicos (campaign strategists) announced the formation of the Lincoln Project with an aim of defeating DJT because he doesn't represent what the GOP stands for (or did before 2016).

I'd like to make the assumption that the HR has proceeded according to the constitution & that Articles of Impeachment were drafted & voted on & will go to the Senate.

If you want to rant about liberals v. yourself, the Dem plan to do this since 2016, or Nancy Pelosi's cosmetic surgery, the other thread is still available. This may be the 1st & last post of the thread because maybe no one else cares, but I thought I'd give it a shot keeping in mind that we're here for the music & this is just an aside.




cyclone88, I would say that this thread is about to fall victim to the same diversions the other thread did...


Chain - 1/8/2020 at 07:40 PM

quote:
quote:
People don’t even know why they hate Hillary.


That "Why do you hate Hilary" thread I started a while back was page after page of not one actual reason why. Even when given the floor to cut her to pieces her worst detractors had nothing to offer.


The "Hate Hilary" movement began long before Trump ever considered running for the presidency. The movement began literally decades ago as a way for many on the right to foment a lucrative living bashing the Clinton's.

Roger Ailes, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Kelly Ann Conway, that other skinny, pale white women (her name escapes me at the moment) have made a boatload of money basically creating the "Hate Hilary" campaign. To their credit, they've milked it for money, power, ratings, and ultimately getting a buffoon reality tv star elected to the presidency.

But yeah, actually ask for specifics as to why they hate Hilary and many can't answer the question as they've simply been spoon fed conspiracy theories and outright lies so much for so long they can't remember what it is they actually hate about her.

I do agree with Big V however in that there are enough that can articulate their hate and it's those that convince the others. They're the herd leaders, the alpha males and females so to speak.


porkchopbob - 1/8/2020 at 07:43 PM

quote:
quote:
People don’t even know why they hate Hillary.

That "Why do you hate Hilary" thread I started a while back was page after page of not one actual reason why. Even when given the floor to cut her to pieces her worst detractors had nothing to offer.

99% of the people chanting "Lock Her Up" couldn't even name a crime she should have been charged with. It was all hate. So, no, I don't give them much credit.


cyclone88 - 1/8/2020 at 08:25 PM

quote:
Is it possible that so many like the President solely because of the alternatives (or lack thereof) ? What other choices do voters have?

Liking someone isn't the same as having no alternatives. Accepting, putting up with, bearing up, waiting him out, or hoping there are grown-ups in the room while he's still around isn't "liking."

There is no "choice" during his term except impeachment which is underway or invoking the 25th amendment which was my choice early on. Voters can only pressure their senators to vote for rules for a fair trial & to vote according to what evidence is presented at trial.


cyclone88 - 1/8/2020 at 08:35 PM

quote:
cyclone88, I would say that this thread is about to fall victim to the same diversions the other thread did...

I hope not. I plan to stick to impeachment in part because it is such a rare occurrence - only 3 in the entire history of the US and one that was being considered when Nixon had the good grace and humility to resign rather than distract Congress from its duties for a trial when he knew he was guilty & his trusted advisers told him they could no longer stand behind him in good conscience. I believe the current defendant fears criminal trials awaiting him in several states as well as any federal indictments under seal or he might have resigned instead of having that permanent asterisk by his name.

I couldn't care less about any 2016 candidates from either party. Knock yourselves out elsewhere if you want to beat that old news to death. If people wander off impeachment, then I'll move on.


goldtop - 1/8/2020 at 08:54 PM

quote:
quote:
cyclone88, I would say that this thread is about to fall victim to the same diversions the other thread did...

I hope not. I plan to stick to impeachment in part because it is such a rare occurrence - only 3 in the entire history of the US and one that was being considered when Nixon had the good grace and humility to resign rather than distract Congress from its duties for a trial when he knew he was guilty & his trusted advisers told him they could no longer stand behind him in good conscience. I believe the current defendant fears criminal trials awaiting him in several states as well as any federal indictments under seal or he might have resigned instead of having that permanent asterisk by his name.

I couldn't care less about any 2016 candidates from either party. Knock yourselves out elsewhere if you want to beat that old news to death. If people wander off impeachment, then I'll move on.


There's no doubt he's going to be indicted when he leaves and he knows it and so does Nancy Pelosi...

I hope you can avoid running down the rabbit hole with the sites chicken little/boy who cries wolf...

And I enjoy your educated perspective on the subject...


porkchopbob - 1/8/2020 at 09:26 PM

quote:
quote:
Is it possible that so many like the President solely because of the alternatives (or lack thereof) ? What other choices do voters have?

Liking someone isn't the same as having no alternatives. Accepting, putting up with, bearing up, waiting him out, or hoping there are grown-ups in the room while he's still around isn't "liking."

There is no "choice" during his term except impeachment which is underway or invoking the 25th amendment which was my choice early on. Voters can only pressure their senators to vote for rules for a fair trial & to vote according to what evidence is presented at trial.

No, these helpless victims have no choice but to cover their trucks in red flags and foam at the mouth at rallies, rather than support one of the many candidates who understand the process of law.


Skydog32103 - 1/8/2020 at 09:41 PM

quote:
Personally, I believe voters should be given more credit than that.


I realize that many of his votes came from conservative people who vote conservative across the board, and while I think it was foolish, I don't judge their character....only their foolish decision. But his core base is a dangerous group of bad people who are a threat to decency. It's is far from normal to chant "lock her up", and far from normal to have a picture of Hillary behind bars on your assault rifle. It's far from normal for our President to ask for protestors to be punched in the face in exchange for legal fee compensation. These people are animals.

cyclone, I apologize for derailing the thread, but I do think it all ties together. This entire impeachment is about going on record for the history books, so it's as plain as day who stood up for good, and who succumbed to evil and temptation. Isn't it obvious that the Senate will acquit him in the fastest manner possible, based on Mitch's promise to align with the White House counsel? When I hear about the impeachment, I think of what the Democrats' long term plan is, because we know he's getting acquitted in the short term. I'm glad it's going on record. Backing down would've been a bad idea. But I think it's mostly symbolic.


cyclone88 - 1/8/2020 at 09:55 PM

quote:
There's no doubt he's going to be indicted when he leaves and he knows it and so does Nancy Pelosi...

I hope you can avoid running down the rabbit hole with the sites chicken little/boy who cries wolf...

And I enjoy your educated perspective on the subject...

Like Ford, Pence can pardon federal offenses but not those pesky state offenses that await him.

Appreciate your comments; we all have a vested interest in the process. I'm interested in watching how things unfold and the machinations behind them (like Pelosi's calculations that include indictments awaiting him.) As of this second, we're to believe Iran has finished its retaliation for the distracting assassination. (I don't think the Ukrainian Boeing 737 crash in Iran was Trump's doing but no doubt conspiracy theorists are at work.) My perspective on impeachment is that he should've been impeached & there should be a trial w/witnesses (somewhere between the 3 of Clinton and 41 of Johnson) before a decision is made. Although neither Johnson's nor Clinton's impeachment resulted in removal of office, the gravity of the process was respected and the decision was considered legitimate by history. I'd like to see 3-4 GOP Senators vote on the evidence & abide by their oath to be impartial rather than deciding weeks ahead.

This is Rowland's province. I just wanted a place to talk about impeachment w/o all the other noise.



cyclone88 - 1/8/2020 at 10:42 PM

quote:
cyclone, I apologize for derailing the thread, but I do think it all ties together. This entire impeachment is about going on record for the history books, so it's as plain as day who stood up for good, and who succumbed to evil and temptation. Isn't it obvious that the Senate will acquit him in the fastest manner possible, based on Mitch's promise to align with the White House counsel? When I hear about the impeachment, I think of what the Democrats' long term plan is, because we know he's getting acquitted in the short term. I'm glad it's going on record. Backing down would've been a bad idea. But I think it's mostly symbolic.

Hey, it's not my thread. I was gone for 2 weeks and it seemed to have existed w/o me.

It's not symbolic to follow the constitution. It's government by the people. Neither previous trial ended in removal from office, but the articles outlined in the constitution were followed - something McConnell wants to avoid. He's getting pushback from potential witnesses like Bolton, senators who were dissed by not being informed of the planned assassination unless they were dancing at Mar-a-Lago, and senators who don't want to have their votes counted prior to the start of the trial.

For the 1st time in over 40 years, the senate is NOT made up of a majority of lawyers. There are still a lot, but they're not the majority whereas at one point, 75% were lawyers. That could mean some current senators are not as careful about constitutional considerations as their lawyer colleagues. McConnell, a lawyer himself, was targeted by 300 law professors, judges, & lawyers in private practice yesterday urging him to follow the constitution not a Man on Trial.


goldtop - 1/9/2020 at 12:18 AM

quote:
quote:
There's no doubt he's going to be indicted when he leaves and he knows it and so does Nancy Pelosi...

I hope you can avoid running down the rabbit hole with the sites chicken little/boy who cries wolf...

And I enjoy your educated perspective on the subject...

Like Ford, Pence can pardon federal offenses but not those pesky state offenses that await him.

Appreciate your comments; we all have a vested interest in the process. I'm interested in watching how things unfold and the machinations behind them (like Pelosi's calculations that include indictments awaiting him.) As of this second, we're to believe Iran has finished its retaliation for the distracting assassination. (I don't think the Ukrainian Boeing 737 crash in Iran was Trump's doing but no doubt conspiracy theorists are at work.) My perspective on impeachment is that he should've been impeached & there should be a trial w/witnesses (somewhere between the 3 of Clinton and 41 of Johnson) before a decision is made. Although neither Johnson's nor Clinton's impeachment resulted in removal of office, the gravity of the process was respected and the decision was considered legitimate by history. I'd like to see 3-4 GOP Senators vote on the evidence & abide by their oath to be impartial rather than deciding weeks ahead.

This is Rowland's province. I just wanted a place to talk about impeachment w/o all the other noise.





People are standing around wonder what's different...they're not going to remove him...nope but when he's out of office he can't be pardoned for his crimes and that is going to be the difference for him and Nancy Pelosi knows that. So it is just a matter of time. That is what is different about him being impeached if he's removed or not. Lovely isn't it. That sick bastard is going to go to jail where he belongs with all his friends. Nancy knew all along once she slammed the gavel he's fate was sealed.

*Donald J Trump Impeached 12/19/2019 now can't be pardoned for his crimes


cyclone88 - 1/9/2020 at 04:33 PM

quote:
they're not going to remove him...nope but when he's out of office he can't be pardoned for his crimes and that is going to be the difference for him

You raise an interesting question. Trump can't be pardoned for the crimes for which he was impeached but as far as I know (& the few law journal articles I've read & scholars I've talked to casually) whether he can be pardoned for federal crimes for which he wasn't impeached is questionable. Some of the crimes - like obstruction - that Mueller passed on to federal prosecutors have the same elements as his impeachment crimes, but the HR concentrated on charging him only re Ukraine because they wanted a focused event for which they had evidence.

Nixon is looking more brilliant by the day. [These are words I'd never though I'd write back in high school.] Ford gave him a blanket pardon for ANY federal crime that might've been led to impeachment so Nixon got a complete pass because he was never impeached.

The question is if Trump is impeached & can't be pardoned for X & Y, can he be pardoned for Z? I don't know. You may be 100% correct that he can't be pardoned for ANY federal crime. I'm sure Pelosi's advisers are experts, but I think anyone thinking of DJT in prison is picturing a tough state prison rather than a federal country club.


goldtop - 1/9/2020 at 05:25 PM

quote:
quote:
they're not going to remove him...nope but when he's out of office he can't be pardoned for his crimes and that is going to be the difference for him

You raise an interesting question. Trump can't be pardoned for the crimes for which he was impeached but as far as I know (& the few law journal articles I've read & scholars I've talked to casually) whether he can be pardoned for federal crimes for which he wasn't impeached is questionable. Some of the crimes - like obstruction - that Mueller passed on to federal prosecutors have the same elements as his impeachment crimes, but the HR concentrated on charging him only re Ukraine because they wanted a focused event for which they had evidence.

Nixon is looking more brilliant by the day. [These are words I'd never though I'd write back in high school.] Ford gave him a blanket pardon for ANY federal crime that might've been led to impeachment so Nixon got a complete pass because he was never impeached.

The question is if Trump is impeached & can't be pardoned for X & Y, can he be pardoned for Z? I don't know. You may be 100% correct that he can't be pardoned for ANY federal crime. I'm sure Pelosi's advisers are experts, but I think anyone thinking of DJT in prison is picturing a tough state prison rather than a federal country club.



From my understanding is he can't be pardon for any state crimes. I'm not sure about federal. NY state will indict him and those will stick.


cyclone88 - 1/9/2020 at 05:28 PM

quote:
I'm not sure about federal.

Definitely, he can't be pardoned for state crimes and NY, NJ, and FL are 3 of who knows how many who are at least investigating him or have indicted him under seal. I think he'll be spending more time in courtrooms than golf courses after he leaves office.


Chain - 1/9/2020 at 09:09 PM

quote:
quote:
I'm not sure about federal.

Definitely, he can't be pardoned for state crimes and NY, NJ, and FL are 3 of who knows how many who are at least investigating him or have indicted him under seal. I think he'll be spending more time in courtrooms than golf courses after he leaves office.


Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....


cyclone88 - 1/9/2020 at 09:25 PM


Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....


LOL. We know DJT is obsessed w/optics. When seeing photos/vid of the crowds of Soleimani mourners I wondered whether DJT was comparing the size to to the imaginary hordes at his Inauguration.


Chain - 1/9/2020 at 10:43 PM

quote:

Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....


LOL. We know DJT is obsessed w/optics. When seeing photos/vid of the crowds of Soleimani mourners I wondered whether DJT was comparing the size to to the imaginary hordes at his Inauguration.


Ha, ha...He probably was doing exactly that as he watched it on Fox News. Deep down in that twisted brain of his he was probably burning with envy as his gatherings/rallies don't come close to what we saw at Soleimani's funeral.


MartinD28 - 1/9/2020 at 11:01 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I'm not sure about federal.

Definitely, he can't be pardoned for state crimes and NY, NJ, and FL are 3 of who knows how many who are at least investigating him or have indicted him under seal. I think he'll be spending more time in courtrooms than golf courses after he leaves office.


Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....


Yes, I saw that too. If I was a Dem candidate, I'd run ads running up to the election reinforcing / exposing this. Further during the prez debates, whoever the Dem candidate is should repeatedly bring this up on stage vs Trump hammering him over & over for details exposing his unwillingness for transparency. This and also bring to national attention buckets full of emoluments violations by Trump = using his office to make money off the American taxpayers. Tell it to the public in ads and in debates & watch him turn orange.

Sorry for going off topic.


cyclone88 - 1/10/2020 at 03:54 PM


exposing Trump's unwillingness for transparency.

No one expects transparency from Trump. If he hadn't "ordered" the 4 key witnesses to defy HR subpoenas to testify in their impeachment hearings, there wouldn't be a delay now in determining trial rules for witnesses. They would've testified & that evidence would've been on the record for the Articles of Impeachment. They would've been transmitted & the managers selected by now.


MartinD28 - 1/10/2020 at 05:02 PM

quote:

exposing Trump's unwillingness for transparency.

No one expects transparency from Trump. If he hadn't "ordered" the 4 key witnesses to defy HR subpoenas to testify in their impeachment hearings, there wouldn't be a delay now in determining trial rules for witnesses. They would've testified & that evidence would've been on the record for the Articles of Impeachment. They would've been transmitted & the managers selected by now.



True but I think a working strategy running up to the election would be to put Trump on the defensive especially on the debate stage. He likes to own the stage. So take it away from him and call him out on things that will anger him and let him dance around transparency. He doesn't get a pass just because he's Trump and no one expects that of him. Show him for who he is. If any votes are flipped then good enough.


cyclone88 - 1/10/2020 at 06:26 PM

quote:
True but I think a working strategy running up to the election would be to put Trump on the defensive especially on the debate stage. He likes to own the stage. So take it away from him and call him out on things that will anger him and let him dance around transparency. He doesn't get a pass just because he's Trump and no one expects that of him. Show him for who he is. If any votes are flipped then good enough.

Having Bolton under oath likening the hold on Congressionally allocated money until Ukraine announced an investigation into a Trump political rival to a drug deal might've gotten some attention during the trial & maybe swung some senatorial votes so that the outcome wouldn't be unanimous on the GOP side. Voters [and the historical record] would've had sworn testimony to that effect in the Senate chamber. To me, it carries more weight than whatever is said by politicians on the debate stage.

Caveat: I haven't watched a political debate since my family crowded around to watch JFK/Nixon in black/white so I'm not the person to comment on debate strategy. No question Trump wants to own every stage, room, and photo op he wanders into.


2112 - 1/10/2020 at 07:56 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I'm not sure about federal.

Definitely, he can't be pardoned for state crimes and NY, NJ, and FL are 3 of who knows how many who are at least investigating him or have indicted him under seal. I think he'll be spending more time in courtrooms than golf courses after he leaves office.


Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....


Yes, I saw that too. If I was a Dem candidate, I'd run ads running up to the election reinforcing / exposing this. Further during the prez debates, whoever the Dem candidate is should repeatedly bring this up on stage vs Trump hammering him over & over for details exposing his unwillingness for transparency. This and also bring to national attention buckets full of emoluments violations by Trump = using his office to make money off the American taxpayers. Tell it to the public in ads and in debates & watch him turn orange.

Sorry for going off topic.


Wouldn't be my strategy. Those who dislike Trump already are convinced he is a crook. Those who support him either don't care or they believe any bad thing said about him is Fake News. The only way to pick up any new voters is to explain why your policy will better benefit them than Trump's policy. Trashing Trump won't get you any new voters.


BrerRabbit - 1/10/2020 at 08:57 PM

quote:
He doesn't get a pass just because he's Trump


The fact that he is in the White House proves this statement incorrect.


Chain - 1/11/2020 at 12:01 AM

Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...

I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..


goldtop - 1/11/2020 at 12:28 AM

quote:
Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...

I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..


They don't really need to hear what *tRump said to Bolton. They only need to know what Bolton knew and told staff to go to the lawyers about. Why he thought it was a "drug deal". Direct conversation would be great but the fact he sent his staff to the lawyers office to let them know is pretty damning evidence of what he knew and he's a lawyer.


Chain - 1/11/2020 at 12:40 AM

quote:
quote:
Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...

I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..


They don't really need to hear what *tRump said to Bolton. They only need to know what Bolton knew and told staff to go to the lawyers about. Why he thought it was a "drug deal". Direct conversation would be great but the fact he sent his staff to the lawyers office to let them know is pretty damning evidence of what he knew and he's a lawyer.


All true. However, Bolton testifying in person, in a Senate impeachment trial, stating on live television, under oath, that Trump did what we all know he did, would undercut much of the Trump crowd's spin that Trump is innocent. Especially coming from a long-time Fox news pundit, Trump supporter, and right wing hawk....Just a theory.

[Edited on 1/11/2020 by Chain]


cyclone88 - 1/11/2020 at 12:46 AM

quote:
Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...

I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..

And he's repeatedly stated that he WANTS witnesses. He just doesn't get that what he wants is irrelevant.

Executive privilege isn't absolute & both Nixon and Clinton lost their court cases re exercise of the privilege. Executive privilege is considered to have been waived if the executive discusses the topic he wants to claim is privileged. Since DJT has repeatedly discussed & tweeted about the Ukrainian quid pro quo question & described the July 25 phone call as "perfect" to anyone who'll listen, has had his personal lawyer Guiliani making the talk show rounds on the contents & context of that call, and transcripts of the call have been released there's no privilege to claim. Bolton's testimony would probably be as much about context as substance.

The man just can't stop showing his complete ignorance of how government works. He's learned some buzz words but doesn't understand their meaning.


Chain - 1/11/2020 at 01:05 AM

quote:
quote:
Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...

I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..

And he's repeatedly stated that he WANTS witnesses. He just doesn't get that what he wants is irrelevant.

Executive privilege isn't absolute & both Nixon and Clinton lost their court cases re exercise of the privilege. Executive privilege is considered to have been waived if the executive discusses the topic he wants to claim is privileged. Since DJT has repeatedly discussed & tweeted about the Ukrainian quid pro quo question & described the July 25 phone call as "perfect" to anyone who'll listen, has had his personal lawyer Guiliani making the talk show rounds on the contents & context of that call, and transcripts of the call have been released there's no privilege to claim. Bolton's testimony would probably be as much about context as substance.

The man just can't stop showing his complete ignorance of how government works. He's learned some buzz words but doesn't understand their meaning.


Watching the clip with Trump and plastic face Laura Ingrahm (the Fox Network may have the finest plastic surgeon on retainer in all of broadcast news) on Trump network earlier today proclaiming that he think's it's vital for future presidents that he invoke executive privilege was quite comical. I guess we're supposed to believe that Trump is now suddenly concerned for the future of not only the presidency but the republic too....And of course Laura neglected to point out, since she's a lawyer, exactly what you stated Cyclone....Truly shocking she'd not point this out to the viewers (again, that's sarcasm Goob and Big V)...


cyclone88 - 1/11/2020 at 01:27 AM

quote:
Watching the clip with Trump and plastic face Laura Ingrahm (the Fox Network may have the finest plastic surgeon on retainer in all of broadcast news) on Trump network earlier today proclaiming that he think's it's vital for future presidents that he invoke executive privilege was quite comical. I guess we're supposed to believe that Trump is now suddenly concerned for the future of not only the presidency but the republic too....And of course Laura neglected to point out, since she's a lawyer, exactly what you stated Cyclone....Truly shocking she'd not point this out to the viewers (again, that's sarcasm Goob and Big V)...

I think there've been many instances of hilarity during this administration were they not so serious. He's had his friendly interview now & will probably send Rudy around to discuss Exec Privilege on the Sun chat shows where there might be questions.


cyclone88 - 1/11/2020 at 08:26 PM

quote:
Further during the prez debates, whoever the Dem candidate is should repeatedly bring this up on stage vs Trump hammering him over & over for details exposing his unwillingness for transparency. This and also bring to national attention buckets full of emoluments violations by Trump = using his office to make money off the American taxpayers. Tell it to the public in ads and in debates & watch him turn orange.

W/Trump nothing is ever certain & assuming he's not removed from office at trial, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he refused to debate the eventual dem nominee. He might think it's a better show of strength to basically say, "I'm POTUS, there was a witchhunt that exonerated me (not true), there was even an impeachment & I was exonerated (TBD), why should I go on stage to tussle w/some pathetic little dem?" He has nothing to gain. He does love to strut and preen, but he also likes to shock the status quo. His idol Putin doesn't have to debate given that he's a dictator. Why should he? He's DJT, POTUS & brilliant.


cyclone88 - 1/13/2020 at 01:21 PM

quote:
Watching the clip with Trump and plastic face Laura Ingrahm (the Fox Network may have the finest plastic surgeon on retainer in all of broadcast news) on Trump network earlier today proclaiming that he think's it's vital for future presidents that he invoke executive privilege was quite comical. I guess we're supposed to believe that Trump is now suddenly concerned for the future of not only the presidency but the republic too


This is exactly what he was tweeting in November when a federal judge ruled that the Exec can't override a subpoena (The Presidents are not kings ruling) - his concern was for future prezs. He was saying he WANTS testimony from patriots like Bolton while his DOJ was appealing the ruling. He'd be a lot more credible (if that's possible) if he could take a position & stick to it. He seems incapable of doing that.

Now, after repeatedly saying he WANTS a trial, witnesses, evidence, everything to prove he's done nothing wrong, he says on the eve of transmission of the Articles of Impeachment that he wants the Senate to dismiss them rather than have a trial. Hours earlier he said he wanted a trial to prove how harassed he's been. Sounds like running scared even though his removal from office seems highly unlikely.


BrerRabbit - 1/13/2020 at 07:13 PM

Amendment XXV. Now.


cyclone88 - 1/15/2020 at 12:49 PM

Presumably, Pelosi will announce the HR managers who will prosecute the case in the Senate at 10 am today. Formalities follow w/a HR vote on the managers, engrossment of the Articles of Impeachment (declaraing it the final version), and transmission of the Articles to the Senate by walking it between House & Senate.

Pelosi didn't lose a thing by delaying this transmission. During the time between the HR vote to impeachment & today, Bolton publicly announced his willingness to testify, more emails re Trump's direct involvement w/Ukraine investigating the Bidens came to light, and constituents had to opportunity during the 2-week recess to let their senators know their expectations of comportment given that a trial would occur. Most importantly, there was significant coverage re The Rules - anyone who was interested learned that it was up to the Senate to set the rules, including witnesses, & a trial w/no witnesses is nothing short of a sham or cover-up. No one expected the delay in transmission to result in a different outcome where the Exec is removed from office.


Jerry - 1/16/2020 at 02:22 AM

I have noticed differences in articles I've read on the impeachment process. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution says "And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." as stated in the Senate website.
Other articles (none associated with Wikipedia) say that there has to be a majority vote of two thirds of the Senate.
Now, if only 9 Senators show up, would a vote of 6 be enough for a conviction as that this wold be two thirds of members present, or, does the entire Senate have to be present?
if some do not show up for the trial, but arrive for the vote, would they be barred from voting since they had not been present for the trial?
I know that some of this is dependent on the rules the Senate places on the trial, but is there precedent for it?

Also found this:
https://lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeach ment-litigation

OK, one more thing. If Trump is convicted, what are the appeals process?


Skydog32103 - 1/16/2020 at 02:44 AM

Today Pelosi said she hoped the Senate will honor their oath. If that's what she was banking on, then this was a complete waste of time.


cyclone88 - 1/16/2020 at 03:24 AM

quote:
OK, one more thing. If Trump is convicted, what are the appeals process?

As I've said before, I'm a lawyer with a strong interest in constitutional law not an impeachment scholar. It's an arcane topic & a little weird. The lawfare blog you cite is one of the most detailed best-guesses as to how things will unfold by someone who is a scholar.

Impeachment and trial are a legislative function. HR investigates, impeaches, and presents the case for impeachment at trial. The Senate sets the rules, considers the facts, and votes as to whether the charges rise to the level of removing the Exec from office. Theirs is the only vote that counts. The constitution is very specific as you note - 2/3 of those present. The end. No appeal.

The Senate generally doesn't meet or vote unless there's a quorum of 51 present. During Clinton's trial, CJ Rehnquist relied heavily on the Senate Parliamentarian as to protocol for conducting normal senate business & any deviation requires a vote. Because CJ Roberts clerked for Rehnquist & considered him a mentor, he's expected to behavior similarly.

Because the Senate sets rules for everything - like whether they're going to break at 12:30 pm or 1:00 pm - they can address the question you raise of attendance.

However, McConnell has announced that he expects ALL senators to be in attendance, in their seats, & quietly paying attention w/no cell phones throughout the entire trial. He & Schumer sent a letter to all senators today about decorum, access, and visitors during the trial. I've only seen it on twitter. I'm sure the text will be show up somewhere by tomorrow.

Hope that helps. Basically, the senate can make the rules as they go along - that's what McConnell wants to do about witnesses.


MartinD28 - 1/16/2020 at 12:35 PM

Would be nice to see a "guest appearance" by Lev Parnas, the guy that Trump claims he really doesn't know. The revelations w/in the last few days of notes, text messages, e-mails between Lev and Rudy are damming, but Moscow Mitch may attempt to not allow testimony by anyone. Hopefuly a few GOP Senators will have a sense of ethics and vote for testimony of witnesses.

Why not vote to dismiss as the entire thing is is a hoax, right?


cyclone88 - 1/16/2020 at 01:15 PM

quote:
Would be nice to see a "guest appearance" by Lev Parnas, the guy that Trump claims he really doesn't know. The revelations w/in the last few days of notes, text messages, e-mails between Lev and Rudy are damming, but Moscow Mitch may attempt to not allow testimony by anyone. Hopefuly a few GOP Senators will have a sense of ethics and vote for testimony of witnesses.

Why not vote to dismiss as the entire thing is is a hoax, right?

McConnell - who argued vigorously FOR witnesses in the Clinton trial - can't re-write his past arguments. I suspect whoever is a witness will be treated exactly as w/Clinton - closed door testimony under oath before a handful of select individuals of which "relevant" portions are allowed before the whole senate. I don't think the charming Mr. Parnas will be among them although I suspect he'd be highly entertaining.

I doubt McConnell will authorize a motion to dismiss - especially since Trump changes his mind hourly as to whether he wants a full trial that will prove his innocence (wonder if he really believes that) or a quick exoneration (wonder if he really believes that, too).


cyclone88 - 1/16/2020 at 01:30 PM

quote:
Today Pelosi said she hoped the Senate will honor their oath. If that's what she was banking on, then this was a complete waste of time.


Pelosi gets to Trump like no one else. Quotes like that plus her handing out ceremonial pens used at signing the Articles of Impeachment on camera rev him up.

This should never be considered a waste of time or money. It's a constitutional process that separates us from the Russians, Chinese, N. Koreans, and dictators everywhere. When evidence of wrong-doing by the Exec is brought to the attention of the HR, investigated to the extent it could even though hampered by the Exec's ordering key witnesses to act in contempt of Congress and refused to produce subpoened documents, and a vote taken that there is sufficient merit to warrant a senate trial, the constitution and democracy are working. Whatever the outcome, the HR followed its obligations. We have an Exec who has been told by the judiciary that he's not god or above the law and a legislature that exercised its oversight role. It's reassuring to citizens to know that the constitution hasn't been gutted.




BrerRabbit - 1/16/2020 at 08:22 PM

quote:
It's a constitutional process that separates us from the Russians, Chinese, N. Koreans, and dictators everywhere.


That explains why the Redhat hivemind is so against it.


gina - 1/16/2020 at 09:05 PM

The steps in the impeachment process explained.

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-senate-impeachment-trial-timeline-22093 0153.html



OriginalGoober - 1/17/2020 at 03:11 AM



McConnell’s brilliant statement on Nancy’s “golden pens on silver platters”
By M. Dowling -January 16, 2020


The signing of the Articles of Impeachment took place on a table with a political slogan on it, Mitch McConnell noted today on the floor of the Senate. The Senate Majority Leader said that Speaker Pelosi gave out souvenirs, “golden pens on silver platters,” as he painted a picture of a garish atmosphere.

The Speaker claimed for weeks that impeachment was a most serious and somber affair. She was very prayerful, according to her. McConnell called her on her hypocrisy.

“Nothing says seriousness and sobriety like handing out souvenirs,” McConnell said of the partisan process.

It was partisan from beginning to end, the Leader said, which is why they rushed the process in the House and denied the President due process.

[It was like a Carnival, but they are clowns.]

The Speaker didn’t find anything strange about handing out souvenirs during only the third presidential impeachment in history, McConnell asserted.

The Senate was empowered to serve as a check against a factionalized government, he reminded the members. McConnell talked of “animosities” and “animal instincts” the Senate is meant to keep at bay. The House’s hour is over and it’s time for the Senate to fulfill their purpose.

McConnell quoted Alexander Hamilton: “the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his scepter over all numerous bodies of men.”


Skydog32103 - 1/17/2020 at 03:39 AM

Hard to believe that a grown man is focused on pens instead of the President of the United States working with foreign adversaries to attack other Americans.


2112 - 1/17/2020 at 04:09 AM

I keep looking at those pens very closely and don't see "Trump Impeachment 2020" written on them anywhere. I fail to see how this is somehow proof of partisanship. It's not like she met with the accused to plot out a strategy for the trial or anything.


cyclone88 - 1/17/2020 at 04:54 AM

quote:
Hard to believe that a grown man is focused on pens instead of the President of the United States working with foreign adversaries to attack other Americans.

There was a woman reporter from Fox who noted the pens in the video of the formal signing. I don't know if that's their habit to focus on such trivia. It's SOP in government, law, and Wall Street to hand out duplicate pens of those used in the signing of significant documents. LBJ provided as many as 75 pens for documents he signed that were deemed to be of particular significance. I'm sure McConnell has quite a collection himself after 35 years in the senate. Where's the story?





BrerRabbit - 1/17/2020 at 05:24 AM

Enough with the damn pens - I just had to delete some real bad jokes.


MartinD28 - 1/17/2020 at 03:56 PM

quote:
Hard to believe that a grown man is focused on pens instead of the President of the United States working with foreign adversaries to attack other Americans.


He's going straight to the heart and matter as well as depth and substance of impeachment. IT'S THE PENS.


Chain - 1/17/2020 at 08:14 PM

quote:
quote:
Hard to believe that a grown man is focused on pens instead of the President of the United States working with foreign adversaries to attack other Americans.


He's going straight to the heart and matter as well as depth and substance of impeachment. IT'S THE PENS.


No kidding...It's uncanny just how similar the content Goob's posts are to what a bot would post....Come to think of it, bot's are far more sophisticated.


BrerRabbit - 1/17/2020 at 08:24 PM



[Edited on 1/17/2020 by BrerRabbit]


Jerry - 1/19/2020 at 06:02 AM

quote:
Enough with the damn pens - I just had to delete some real bad jokes.


I don't remember posting any in here.


BrerRabbit - 1/19/2020 at 05:47 PM

My jokes . Cant delete other peoples jokes


Chain - 1/19/2020 at 09:51 PM

quote:
quote:
The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration.


He spends his day reading stories about himself and responding to them on Twitter, doing what we're doing here in the Whipping Post, which is beyond sad to say about the President of the United States. We've all been talking about it since 2015 because it was obvious to detect his personality disorders that are a threat to national security. You want to direct the conversation towards policy or values, when you know damn well it's about his fragile and dangerous mental state. That you don't want better for the leader of our country is suprising. I would think someone who loves this country would want someone like Reagan, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr - men with dignity, integrity, and kindness, not this slop we have now.



[Edited on 12/18/2019 by Skydog32103]


Well said....I would only add that watching the party of Reagan/Bush/ the past near four years now and how it has allowed this to happen is the second scariest part of this entire reign of the American Caligula.

And so ends forever the lie that they, the Republican party, are more concerned about "National Security." Seriously, they can not carry that torch any longer.


Jerry - 1/20/2020 at 10:12 PM

quote:
My jokes . Cant delete other peoples jokes


OK.


cyclone88 - 1/21/2020 at 02:44 AM

So, McConnell's plan is for the senators to sleep through the trial according to his Organizing Rules. Each side gets 24 hours to present their arguments - over 2 days!!!! That's 12 hours of argument per day. Clinton's trial was 24 hours of arguments over 4 days for each side - 6 hours/day. Since the trial day starts at 1 pm that means they'll meet until 1 am. assuming there are no breaks.

I predict some pushback on that. I can't see 100 senators sitting silently in their seats w/o their phones for 12 hours/day.


cyclone88 - 1/21/2020 at 01:08 PM

For anyone willing to wade through them, the HR case for removal of office and Trump's defense case are both available online. Both are more than 100 pages, but the body of the HR case is in the first 50 pages. The defense ony has a few pages of Appendix.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/18/797600385/read-the-impeachment-managers-resp onse-to-the-senate-impeachment-trial-summons

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/read-president-trumps-attorneys -file-110-page-legal-brief-laying-out-impeachment-defense/2202064/

These written documents are essentially what each side will argue during the trial. The HR case lays out what Trump did that is impeachable, the evidence gathered in hearings that support it, and provides a history of impeachment & why the Founders were so adamantly in favor of having such a mechanism. It comes down to if the Justice Dept believes that a sitting president can't be indicted and the president refuses to comply w/subpoenas, then he considers himself above the law. The other key point is that the Founders feared interference by foreign governments in US governance & a president inviting foreign governments to interfere in elections is precisely why impeachment exists.

The defense case doesn't really address facts. It relies on the premise that the president did those things, but we don't believe it matters. It also repeats the fictional concept that the trial is about overturning election results; that is a complete fabrication. The election results put a president in office; impeachment is the mechanism by which a duly elected president who violates the constitution and/or his office can be removed. The Founders are very clear about that, having lived under mercurial kings with lifetime reigns & feared foreign governments interfering in governance when the king was weak.

Prof. Alan Dershowitz, who's been back-tracking about being on the defense team since accepting Trump's invitation to join, is trying to distance himself from the written defense case. He's even trying to pretend he's not part of the defense team - just a specialist on one topic. This is a man who defended Jeffrey Epstein, OJ Simpson, Klaus von Bulow, and Mike Tyson so he's not squeamish about his client; he's embarrassed by the weakness or lack of a credible defense argument.

I read the documents because even CSPAN coverage is unclear. Who knows what we'll actually see.




MartinD28 - 1/21/2020 at 01:42 PM

quote:
So, McConnell's plan is for the senators to sleep through the trial according to his Organizing Rules. Each side gets 24 hours to present their arguments - over 2 days!!!! That's 12 hours of argument per day. Clinton's trial was 24 hours of arguments over 4 days for each side - 6 hours/day. Since the trial day starts at 1 pm that means they'll meet until 1 am. assuming there are no breaks.

I predict some pushback on that. I can't see 100 senators sitting silently in their seats w/o their phones for 12 hours/day.


Also saw where Mitch is working with Trump White House to take measures so that any potential testimony by Bolton is not seen by the public.

If Trump is so innocent, why are such measures being taken to not let the "picture of truth" be presented and seen by the American public and at reasonable hours of the day? Seems Mitch & the GOP are complicit in coverup and obstruction - no better than Trump.


cyclone88 - 1/21/2020 at 02:39 PM

quote:
Also saw where Mitch is working with Trump White House to take measures so that any potential testimony by Bolton is not seen by the public.

If Trump is so innocent, why are such measures being taken to not let the "picture of truth" be presented and seen by the American public and at reasonable hours of the day? Seems Mitch & the GOP are complicit in coverup and obstruction - no better than Trump.

The defense isn't that Trump is innocent; it's that who cares? or as they desperately hunted for some legal reason to present, they came up w/the argument that an impeachable offense must be a crime - completely undercut by the writings of Hamilton, Mason, Madison, and Jefferson - never mind that obstructing justice IS a crime.

Indeed. By taking the "hide Bolton measure" in co-operation w/the WH, he's already violated the oath he took Friday to be impartial. Blatantly. McConnell is taking a very risky position to be Trump's lackey for someone who once was respected if not for his policies at least his leadership going back to Trump's earliest days in office. McConnell has money & can retire; why sully himself? This is when my imagination goes to he's afraid of Trump's ally Putin & how human obstacles to his goals end up dead.


gina - 1/21/2020 at 10:02 PM

I just listened to the amendment Schumer wants entered into the record. It was well written. After it was read, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asked for a recess.

He wants the amendment tabled.

Some have complained about the trial starting at 1 pm and running for 12 hours. I see nothing wrong there. They can get sleep get up at a reasonable time, have breakfast between 10 and 11 or an early lunch, a dinner break and not deal with traffic and stress.

The House made compelling reasons why the State Department should be subpoenaed to turn over specific documents related to proving the first article of impeachment. The Senate voted against that. The State Department looks guilty of covering up for the President.

Pelosi has a kick ass group of Managers on this trial.



[Edited on 1/21/2020 by gina]


gina - 1/22/2020 at 12:10 AM

You folks should be watching this trial. It is incredible.

Go to https://thehill.com

It's worse than Watergate in collusion allegations. It is scary.

Recess till 8 pm. Mitch McConnell just keeps wanting to table amendments Schumer is submitting to subpoena the entities of the State Dept., The OEMB [budget], Nick Mulvaney. Valerie Demings, Mr. Crow, and even Adam Schiff are on top of their stuff. The Republican lawyer, Mr. Sekulow could not adequately counter any of what was said. Out of desperation he said "where's that whistleblower?". This trial is like a grand jury/military court martial.





[Edited on 1/22/2020 by gina]

[Edited on 1/22/2020 by gina]


cyclone88 - 1/22/2020 at 12:41 AM

quote:
It's worse than Watergate in collusion allegations. It is scary.

America IS watching.

This isn't news. It's what has been said for months. What impeachment & now the trial has done is laid everything out for everyone to see w/o interruption by tweets or TV analysts or supporters. It's unadulterated facts. There are no valid defenses so all McConnell has is diversion. This is just the organizational phase. The actual case w/specifics won't start presentation until tomorrow.

What's scary is that the outcome is presumed to be predetermined to allow Trump to remain in office no matter how clear & strong the facts.


gina - 1/22/2020 at 12:55 AM

People have to look at what he has done. His policies and ideas. Just this weekend he said he will not fund the seawall that NYC needs due to climate change. The Army Corps of Engineers spent considerable time submitting the proposal. His response was it was too expensive, bad for the environment so New Yorkers should just get their mops and buckets ready for the sea level rise and storm surge problems. It is even on his Twitter so we know he said it just the way it was reported. How do you write off 11+ million people effected by that?


cyclone88 - 1/22/2020 at 01:29 AM

quote:
People have to look at what he has done. His policies and ideas.

For the next two weeks, Americans & the world to some extent will be watching his trial. He has no policies or ideas. He has uncontrollable impulses & tantrums. That's who he is & has been before he was elected.


Skydog32103 - 1/22/2020 at 06:34 PM

Republicans are paving the way for future liberal candidates, like AOC, to work with other countries like Venezuela, to investigate Republican candidates. They are paving the way for the Senate to protect them. they are paving the way for the likes of Michael Moore or Al Sharpton to be viewed as perfectly qualified. I hope this tantrum and rebellion is worth it.


pops42 - 1/22/2020 at 07:02 PM

quote:
People have to look at what he has done. His policies and ideas. Just this weekend he said he will not fund the seawall that NYC needs due to climate change. The Army Corps of Engineers spent considerable time submitting the proposal. His response was it was too expensive, bad for the environment so New Yorkers should just get their mops and buckets ready for the sea level rise and storm surge problems. It is even on his Twitter so we know he said it just the way it was reported. How do you write off 11+ million people effected by that?


"Stupid is, as stupid does". [Forrest Gump]


Skydog32103 - 1/22/2020 at 07:07 PM

Part of Trump’s evil genius is his projections of his crimes onto his opponents - now it’s the Democrats “rigging” the trial, despite McConnell stating he would work in conjunction with the White House counsel. Trump knows his followers will love hearing it.

Trump supporters are 100% unique in that they KNOW what they are doing is wrong - Like looters during a riot, they know it’s wrong but there won’t be any repercussions, so they do it anyway.

His biggest supporters know McConnel is rigging it, and they have fun accusing the other side of it just to troll. This will go down as the only time in American history when voters welcomed and helped a man who offered to turn the United States against one another and its own government. It’s one big terrorist organization, and they will all hide and deny their support in a few years out of shame. Many of his supporters are already ashamed to admit it in person.

I’m so thankful that I can be proud of my choices. Must suck to have to hide who you are.


BrerRabbit - 1/22/2020 at 08:04 PM

quote:
This will go down as the only time in American history when voters welcomed and helped a man who offered to turn the United States against one another and its own government.


Could end up like Nazi Germany, with the free world coming in to liberate us. Like D-Day to end the Redhat Occupation.


gina - 1/22/2020 at 08:44 PM

IF the Republicans are innocent, they should answer the questions from the Democrats, and prove it.

Just refusing all the amendments offerred to the bill yesterday show they want to hide.

And all the Senators who just vote along party lines without giving any consideration to what has been presented are worse than liars, they do not represent the people. They only represent themselves. It is un-American.


tbomike - 1/22/2020 at 08:59 PM

He literally brags about keeping the evidence.

Trump Brags About Concealing Impeachment Evidence: ‘We Have All the Material, They Don’t’

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-impeachment-evide nce-we-have-all-the-material-they-dont-941140/


cyclone88 - 1/22/2020 at 09:18 PM

quote:
Many of his supporters are already ashamed to admit it in person. I’m so thankful that I can be proud of my choices. Must suck to have to hide who you are.

Schiff's opening statement was correct. The defense can't dispute any of the facts nor can they redefine impeachment. All they can say is "so what?" Yes, DJT's corrupt, he continues to ask for foreign interference in US elections, & the Senate refuses to remove him.

Whereas corruption & undue influence at the polls used to be domestic (poll taxes, literacy tests, deceased voters still on the rolls), the influence is now from sophisticated foreign meddling. What's that going to do to voter turnout? Why should I vote if the results are fixed by Russia or China or N. Korea? It really won't matter who votes.


cyclone88 - 1/22/2020 at 09:31 PM

quote:
And all the Senators who just vote along party lines without giving any consideration to what has been presented are worse than liars, they do not represent the people. They only represent themselves. It is un-American.

I get why Trump is scared - he leaves office & then goes straight to trial in any one of multiple jurisdictions investigating him.

What's w/the rest of them? Are their constituents going to reject them because they were Trump's lackeys rather than respected legislators? Big deal. Someone else will represent their state for 6 years; the world isn't going to end. No one is going to be as corrupt as that group of 52 glued to Trump/McConnell. It's not un-American; it's anti-American.


gina - 1/22/2020 at 09:33 PM

Hillary is so pissed off with Sanders, she may run again and this time, she may win in 2020.

Meanwhile back at the Hill,

Republican Senator Rand Paul told the Washington Post on Wednesday that 45 Senators are prepared to dismiss impeachment charges against President Donald Trump.

"There are 45, with about five to eight wanting to hear a little more," Paul said. "I will push it at some point...The more Adam Schiff speaks, the more we become unified."

Republicans need 51 votes to dismiss the charges. Republican leadership has indicated they do not want to dismiss the charges.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/trump-impeachment-trial-day-latest-u pdates-200122140252975.html


cyclone88 - 1/22/2020 at 09:39 PM

quote:
Hillary is so pissed off with Sanders, she may run again and this time, she may win in 2020.


No, she's just promoting her documentary.


cyclone88 - 1/22/2020 at 09:41 PM

It's like Hamilton was thinking of Trump back in 1792:

"When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the ability of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanor—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may 'ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'"


Skydog32103 - 1/22/2020 at 10:32 PM

quote:
It's like Hamilton was thinking of Trump back in 1792:

"When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the ability of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanor—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may 'ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'"


And there's never a denial by his own supporters that he fits this description - they simply say, "yeah, so what?" Do his supporters think they don't deserve better or something? If you choose to follow a person like Trump, aren't you saying that you don't think very much of yourself or the United States?


cyclone88 - 1/22/2020 at 10:47 PM

quote:
It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may 'ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'"

And there's never a denial by his own supporters that he fits this description - they simply say, "yeah, so what?" Do his supporters think they don't deserve better or something? If you choose to follow a person like Trump, aren't you saying that you don't think very much of yourself or the United States?


I maybe understood during the campaign that people who just saw the superficial reality TV star - brash rich womanizer - would eventually see that he was only a brash womanizer. Not rich. Not a great deal maker. Not even smart. OK. Maybe that gets him elected. Three years & dozens of examples of corruption & stupidity later, one would think they'd catch on. Apparently not.

The disheartening thing to me is that the entire GOP is willing to give him a pass even thought they see him deliberately "throwing things into confusion" at his whim. I'm beginning to think we don't deserve better because we're allowing a mafioso to run the country & hand it to Russia when he's done.


BrerRabbit - 1/22/2020 at 11:11 PM

Wow that 1792 Hamilton quote is dead on. I wonder who he was thinking of at the time? Maybe a lot of people surfing the revolution wave.


cyclone88 - 1/23/2020 at 12:23 AM

Franklin's argument for including impeachment instead of waiting for the next election was more succinct: "assassination."

[Edited on 1/23/2020 by cyclone88]


cyclone88 - 1/23/2020 at 01:40 AM

quote:
Wow that 1792 Hamilton quote is dead on. I wonder who he was thinking of at the time? Maybe a lot of people surfing the revolution wave.


Well, he & Jefferson strongly disliked Burr....


Skydog32103 - 1/23/2020 at 02:12 AM

seems pretty evident that the Founding Father's system of democracy can be compromised by corruption. it was never a fullproof plan. the only way the system can crumble is if bad corrupt people occupy the seats of power, and brainwash the masses to go along with it. and this is exactly what happened. i pray the deep state has Trump and McConnell under control.


cyclone88 - 1/23/2020 at 12:21 PM

I'm looking forward to today's session when the prosecutors present the constitutional history/meaning of impeachment. They've already given a preview w/Hamilton's fear that a man like Trump could get into office, abuse it, & have to be removed. Others were adamant that waiting for voters every 4 years didn't work because if the occupant won by corruption, he'd use corrupt methods for re-election. They all seemed to agree that mere incompetence or laziness wasn't enough to remove a president so they debated exactly what the standard would be.

The primary point the prosecution has made so far is to remind us that the Founders used British terminology. They wanted a mechanism that focused on the obvious - crimes like treason - as well as misuse of the office for personal gain (as kings enriched themselves). It will be interesting to hear the HR take on how that happened & why the impeachment mechanism was included as written. Franklin believed a president would welcome this method because the alternative was that a corrupt president was likely to be assassinated - guns & duels being popular in the late 18th century. [Hamilton was eventually killed by Burr in a duel after serving as VP.]

Today, it seems the miscalculation of the Founders was to put the impeachment trial in the hands of the Senate because they believed it to be the most prestigious & honorable body who would find it insulting to have a corrupt jerk be their co-equal branch of government. The judiciary was never really considered. Who could possibly have foreseen 230 years later a partisan Senate so spellbound or bewitched by or fearful of an unstable man that they would completely shirk their constitutional duties & loyalties to protect him? Apparently, their notions of a senator being a man of high intellect & honor has diminished over the centuries.

It's a free history lesson for anyone who wants to watch & of course, they repeat their arguments to drive home the point & let viewers tune in/out & still get the point.




Jerry - 1/24/2020 at 04:28 AM

quote:
quote:
Wow that 1792 Hamilton quote is dead on. I wonder who he was thinking of at the time? Maybe a lot of people surfing the revolution wave.


Well, he & Jefferson strongly disliked Burr....


This guy?
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aaron-Burr


cyclone88 - 1/24/2020 at 02:28 PM

quote:
Well, he & Jefferson strongly disliked Burr....

This guy?
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aaron-Burr

Yes. Quite a colorful guy, womanizer, cocky, loved soldiering, stole some of the LA Purchase, tried to give FL back to Spain, got entangled in corrupt NY politics, made & lost money & of course, killed Hamilton in a duel.

These Founders had remarkable minds, but they were a lively bunch. Washington was perceived by all of them to be not the smartest, but a gentleman, great soldier, likeable, and popular w/The People. They're not the stuffy pompous guys we remember from elementary history lessons. Almost all of them were atheists w/a few exceptions but went to the Anglican church to keep up appearances.

Their biographies are interesting. Gore Vidal wrote a fictional bio of Burr in 1973. It was the first mass market "bio" to suggest the Founders weren't pious wel-behaved intellectuals who sat around discussing theories of law.

I was joking that he was the man Hamilton had in mind in that quote - although Hamilton cast the deciding vote that kept Burr from becoming president. It could've been anyone, especially some Delaware politicians he clashed with, or an imagined combination of traits. The point was that between the British royals and some corrupt moneyed men in the Colonies/States, Hamilton knew spoiled rich guys w/military training who were womanizers, drinkers, & out for themselves & didn't mind whether things were legal or not. Burr just came to mind.


Skydog32103 - 1/24/2020 at 03:19 PM

quote:
Today, it seems the miscalculation of the Founders was to put the impeachment trial in the hands of the Senate because they believed it to be the most prestigious & honorable body who would find it insulting to have a corrupt jerk be their co-equal branch of government. The judiciary was never really considered. Who could possibly have foreseen 230 years later a partisan Senate so spellbound or bewitched by or fearful of an unstable man that they would completely shirk their constitutional duties & loyalties to protect him? Apparently, their notions of a senator being a man of high intellect & honor has diminished over the centuries.

It's a free history lesson for anyone who wants to watch & of course, they repeat their arguments to drive home the point & let viewers tune in/out & still get the point.


Lindsey Graham already admitted that he's siding with Trump, despite opposing everything about it, because, in his words, "it's smart politics". in other words, he believes it's a way to keep his job. these Senators were faced with a choice: protect the integrity and safety of the United States, but then have to start a new career at a late state in their lives.....or hope Trump doesn't cause the downfall of the U.S., and then get to keep their careers. they chose the latter.

i'd completely understand that position of wanting to keep your job, if the only threat was a pissed off left. but Trump has demonstrated over and over and over again, a desire to fight our allies and praise our adversaries. he's likely to give up classified information to foreign dictators simply because they flattered him. his deranged temper could cause him to fly off the handle and make a pact with a foreign adversary, which could open the door for an unstoppable flow of foreign interference until they have infiltrated our government, and slowly taken over. Trump is more than willing to do this if he feels insulted in any way. A vote for Trump places the entire United States on a fragile house of cards. It's unfathomable that people are willing to put this country in such exterme risk, to the point of its potential downfall. the irresponsibility and lack of common sense is an extreme danger to us all. i never thought i'd experience a threat like this in my lifetime.

i understand there are millions of desperate families that feel as though their government has failed them. i understand their desire to "blow up the system". but there's simply no excuse for the priviledged Trump supporter, to want to "blow up the system". those people are nothing more than a band of domestic terrrorists enabling a terrorist as dangerous as Osama Bin Laden and ISIS. Half the f-ing country distrusts our FBI, our CIA, and our federal judges because of our own president.


cyclone88 - 1/24/2020 at 04:40 PM

quote:

Lindsey Graham already admitted that he's siding with Trump, despite opposing everything about it, because, in his words, "it's smart politics". in other words, he believes it's a way to keep his job. these Senators were faced with a choice: protect the integrity and safety of the United States, but then have to start a new career at a late state in their lives.....or hope Trump doesn't cause the downfall of the U.S., and then get to keep their careers. they chose the latter.

i'd completely understand that position of wanting to keep your job, if the only threat was a pissed off left. but Trump has demonstrated over and over and over again, a desire to fight our allies and praise our adversaries. he's likely to give up classified information to foreign dictators simply because they flattered him. his deranged temper could cause him to fly off the handle and make a pact with a foreign adversary, which could open the door for an unstoppable flow of foreign interference until they have infiltrated our government, and slowly taken over. Trump is more than willing to do this if he feels insulted in any way. A vote for Trump places the entire United States on a fragile house of cards. It's unfathomable that people are willing to put this country in such exterme risk, to the point of its potential downfall. the irresponsibility and lack of common sense is an extreme danger to us all. i never thought i'd experience a threat like this in my lifetime.


As you say, most of the leaders like McConnell & Graham are at the end of their careers w/substantial assets. McConnell is presumed to be worth $25mm & Graham $4mm. I don't think either are worried about losing a Senate salary. One would think they'd want to protect their reputations & legacy by standing up to an unhinged dictator-wannabe who encourages distrust of every national institution. By accepting that foreign interference influenced the outcome of the 2016 election & Trump's asking for help from Russia & China to win in 2020, the average American voter has no reason to go to the polls. Russia is pulling the levers.

I have to say, if the GOP defense is going to be that "sure, he invited foreign influence for his personal political gain, no question, but since it's technically not a crime, he shouldn't be removed from office." Dershowitz, their key constitutional scholar (who has taught criminal law but not con law) has done a 180 from his position re Clinton's impeachment that there doesn't have to be a crime.

What's really scary, he said this:
“Assume Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea,” Dershowitz wrote in a 2018 book. “Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to ‘its’ original territory.” Even that would not merit impeachment and removal by Dershowitz’s standards.

Is that what we're supposed to believe? I guess we can give FL back to Spain & Texas/California to Mexico & Louisiana back to the French. It's beyond ludicrous! People don't think Trump is dangerous because he's a republican or conservative or whatever his brand is; it's because he's dangerous.


[Edited on 1/24/2020 by cyclone88]


gina - 1/24/2020 at 11:11 PM

I no longer view the whole impeachment process as a witch hunt. Not with the slides, testimonies taken during the closed door sessions. They have went day by day, shown the emails, phone call logs.

What is disturbing is the untruthfulness. Trump knew Parnas.

Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached.

"Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/her-recording-appears-capture-trump-private-dinne r-saying-160928391.html

https://hillreporter.com/lev-parnas-worked-for-the-trump-organization-in-th e-1980s-55935
He worked for Trump’s Father Fred in the 1980’s in Florida, his son worked on Trump’s campaign.

Parnas named Guiliani his son’s Godfather. Just a few weeks before the final farewell for the nation's 41st president, Giuliani invited Parnas to join him at Shelly's Back Room, a clubby Washington retreat for cigar and whiskey aficionados.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/01/24/lev-parnas-ex-giuliani-al ly-could-key-figure-trump-impeachment/4531125002/

Trying to keep Parnas quiet.
https://www.salon.com/2020/01/17/lev-parnas-implicates-rick-perry-in-ukrain e-scandal-as-he-clears-joe-biden-of-wrongdoing/

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/10/16/lev-paranas-had-a-remarkable-start-on -his-path-to-fraud-guarantee/


Why can't he just admit that he was acquainted with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml5K4BgrcaQ



[Edited on 1/24/2020 by gina]


MartinD28 - 1/24/2020 at 11:24 PM

quote:
I no longer view the whole impeachment process as a witch hunt. Not with the slides, testimonies taken during the closed door sessions. They have went day by day, shown the emails, phone call logs.

What is disturbing is the untruthfulness. Trump knew Parnas.

Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached.

"Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/her-recording-appears-capture-trump-private-dinne r-saying-160928391.html

https://hillreporter.com/lev-parnas-worked-for-the-trump-organization-in-th e-1980s-55935
He worked for Trump’s Father Fred in the 1980’s in Florida, his son worked on Trump’s campaign.

Parnas named Guiliani his son’s Godfather. Just a few weeks before the final farewell for the nation's 41st president, Giuliani invited Parnas to join him at Shelly's Back Room, a clubby Washington retreat for cigar and whiskey aficionados.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/01/24/lev-parnas-ex-giuliani-al ly-could-key-figure-trump-impeachment/4531125002/

Trying to keep Parnas quiet.
https://www.salon.com/2020/01/17/lev-parnas-implicates-rick-perry-in-ukrain e-scandal-as-he-clears-joe-biden-of-wrongdoing/

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/10/16/lev-paranas-had-a-remarkable-start-on -his-path-to-fraud-guarantee/


Why can't he just admit that he was acquainted with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml5K4BgrcaQ



[Edited on 1/24/2020 by gina]


So Gina, as of late you have seemed to flip from your devoted loyalty to Comrade Trump. Does that mean you've hit the smelling sauce, entered the world of Trump reality, and will vote against him later this year? Or will you still vote for this traitor and self serving zealot? If you've been watching the hearings, it is evident that he and his band of lackeys have been working for his personal benefit and against what is good for America.


goldtop - 1/24/2020 at 11:41 PM

quote:
quote:
I no longer view the whole impeachment process as a witch hunt. Not with the slides, testimonies taken during the closed door sessions. They have went day by day, shown the emails, phone call logs.

What is disturbing is the untruthfulness. Trump knew Parnas.

Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached.

"Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/her-recording-appears-capture-trump-private-dinne r-saying-160928391.html

https://hillreporter.com/lev-parnas-worked-for-the-trump-organization-in-th e-1980s-55935
He worked for Trump’s Father Fred in the 1980’s in Florida, his son worked on Trump’s campaign.

Parnas named Guiliani his son’s Godfather. Just a few weeks before the final farewell for the nation's 41st president, Giuliani invited Parnas to join him at Shelly's Back Room, a clubby Washington retreat for cigar and whiskey aficionados.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/01/24/lev-parnas-ex-giuliani-al ly-could-key-figure-trump-impeachment/4531125002/

Trying to keep Parnas quiet.
https://www.salon.com/2020/01/17/lev-parnas-implicates-rick-perry-in-ukrain e-scandal-as-he-clears-joe-biden-of-wrongdoing/

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/10/16/lev-paranas-had-a-remarkable-start-on -his-path-to-fraud-guarantee/


Why can't he just admit that he was acquainted with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml5K4BgrcaQ



[Edited on 1/24/2020 by gina]


So Gina, as of late you have seemed to flip from your devoted loyalty to Comrade Trump. Does that mean you've hit the smelling sauce, entered the world of Trump reality, and will vote against him later this year? Or will you still vote for this traitor and self serving zealot? If you've been watching the hearings, it is evident that he and his band of lackeys have been working for his personal benefit and against what is good for America.


Anytime I see a post by gina the outer limits theme just runs through my head...do do de da do do de da do do de da


gina - 1/25/2020 at 04:36 AM

quote:
quote:
I no longer view the whole impeachment process as a witch hunt. Not with the slides, testimonies taken during the closed door sessions. They have went day by day, shown the emails, phone call logs.

What is disturbing is the untruthfulness. Trump knew Parnas.

Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached.

"Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/her-recording-appears-capture-trump-private-dinne r-saying-160928391.html

https://hillreporter.com/lev-parnas-worked-for-the-trump-organization-in-th e-1980s-55935
He worked for Trump’s Father Fred in the 1980’s in Florida, his son worked on Trump’s campaign.

Parnas named Guiliani his son’s Godfather. Just a few weeks before the final farewell for the nation's 41st president, Giuliani invited Parnas to join him at Shelly's Back Room, a clubby Washington retreat for cigar and whiskey aficionados.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/01/24/lev-parnas-ex-giuliani-al ly-could-key-figure-trump-impeachment/4531125002/

Trying to keep Parnas quiet.
https://www.salon.com/2020/01/17/lev-parnas-implicates-rick-perry-in-ukrain e-scandal-as-he-clears-joe-biden-of-wrongdoing/

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/10/16/lev-paranas-had-a-remarkable-start-on -his-path-to-fraud-guarantee/


Why can't he just admit that he was acquainted with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml5K4BgrcaQ



[Edited on 1/24/2020 by gina]


So Gina, as of late you have seemed to flip from your devoted loyalty to Comrade Trump. Does that mean you've hit the smelling sauce, entered the world of Trump reality, and will vote against him later this year? Or will you still vote for this traitor and self serving zealot? If you've been watching the hearings, it is evident that he and his band of lackeys have been working for his personal benefit and against what is good for America.


I am seeing a side I have not seen. If he is using the FBI to try to screw people behind their backs, no I will not vote for him. The end of the Mueller/Comey days should have ended the witch hunts for people who want peace for the Afghans. Two months ago I got a message. Me not happy.


gina - 1/25/2020 at 04:39 AM

This just in, Lev Parnas gave a tape of that meeting where he was with Trump when he was told to get Yovanovich fired to his lawyer. Parnas gave it to his lawyer. His lawyer gave it to the Intelligence Committee of the Impeachment hearings. Schiff etal.

This happened tonight.


MartinD28 - 1/25/2020 at 01:37 PM

quote:
This just in, Lev Parnas gave a tape of that meeting where he was with Trump when he was told to get Yovanovich fired to his lawyer. Parnas gave it to his lawyer. His lawyer gave it to the Intelligence Committee of the Impeachment hearings. Schiff etal.

This happened tonight.


This is the same honest prez we have who says he doesn't know Parnas. There have been lots & lots of pictures shown with Trump in multiple settings with Trump & Parnas, Trump's kids and Parnas, and Rudy & Parnas. But ever wonder why Trump disavows knowing Parnas?

IN addition to the dirty work Lev did for Trump & Rudy, there's lots of money he directed to Trump & the RNC.

"Three years later, down to the same month, the Justice Department on Oct. 10 unsealed an indictment of Parnas for using a straw donor and laundering foreign money into U.S. elections. Federal prosecutors claim he and his Fraud Guarantee co-owner, Igor Fruman, used the shell company Global Energy Producers to funnel $325,000 in foreign cash into America First Action, a Trump super-PAC.

Federal records show that the total donations from Parnas, Fruman, Global Energy Producers and an alter ego identified by prosecutors exceeded $620,000."

It's a good thing that Trump doesn't know Parnas. Bet the GOP senators won't vote to allow to have Parnas speak to that body & the American public to tell his story during the impeachment hearings. No need for witnesses even though 70+ pct of the public wants to hear from witnesses. Guess the GOP senators are fair in the hearings and not protecting Trump.


cyclone88 - 1/25/2020 at 02:43 PM

quote:
It's a good thing that Trump doesn't know Parnas.

And yet there's that tape of Trump telling Parnas about then-Ambassador Yavanovich: “Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. O.K.? Do it.”

TAKE HER OUT????? This is what POTUS tells hired thugs? DO IT.




cyclone88 - 1/25/2020 at 02:51 PM

quote:
I no longer view the whole impeachment process as a witch hunt. Not with the slides, testimonies taken during the closed door sessions. They have went day by day, shown the emails, phone call logs. What is disturbing is the untruthfulness.

And this is why impeachment - to hold the president accountable - is important. Ardent Trump supporters who actually listen to the facts in chronological order bolstered by under oath testimony & video w/o interruption see the truth. They look at DJT in a new way. They change the way they plan to vote.

GOP senators may not have the guts to put an end to the reign of this man who believes himself to be above the law, but the American people at least learn exactly who he is.


cyclone88 - 1/25/2020 at 03:24 PM

Impeachment DOES NOT OVERTURN THE 2016 ELECTION RESULTS. Trump was sworn in & has been prez since Jan. 2017 during which time he conducted himself in a way that is contrary to the constitution re Ukraine. Trump will ALWAYS be the 45th president of the US.

Impeachment DOESN'T RIP UP 2020 BALLOTS. There are no ballots as of today. Trump isn't even the GOP nominee yet.

Impeachment DOESN'T LEAVE A VOID in the Executive branch. There is a succession plan in the constitution. Pence would become president should Trump be removed from office just as Ford became president when Nixon resigned from office. There will still be a 2020 election. The GOP nominee will be determined by the GOP just as it has since the GOP existed.

If the defense is lying in its first statement to the senate & Americans, more lies will be sure to follow.





[Edited on 1/25/2020 by cyclone88]


MartinD28 - 1/25/2020 at 08:20 PM

quote:
Impeachment DOES NOT OVERTURN THE 2016 ELECTION RESULTS. Trump was sworn in & has been prez since Jan. 2017 during which time he conducted himself in a way that is contrary to the constitution re Ukraine. Trump will ALWAYS be the 45th president of the US.

If the defense is lying in its first statement to the senate & Americans, more lies will be sure to follow.


[Edited on 1/25/2020 by cyclone88]


This is one of the Trump go to strategies for the media as he talks to the sheep. Nothing could be further from the truth. He won the election...great. Now, what has he done since the election?That is what is being examined. The case full of facts and chronologically laid out detail after detail after detail has been presented in spite of Trump refusing to turn over yet additional evidence and allowing additional corroborating witnesses to testify. If he is so innocent he would not be afraid of evidence and witnesses.

70% + of the American public wants witnesses. Mitch & the enablers are not listening nor do they care.


Chain - 1/25/2020 at 11:09 PM

More and more info. coming out daily about Trump's amateur syndicate in action...How the Senators on the Republican side of the aisle continue to bury their heads in the sand is pretty telling just how afraid they are of Trump and his base.....F*cking cowards is what they are and only worried about their own self interests. So much for the party of "National Security."

It seems the stable genius never bothered to check to see if his co-conspirators were taping his conversations with them. Truly a stable genius....For all his experience hanging with the mafia types back in the day he seems way over confident that the rats won't jump ship when the ship begins to sink...

Lastly, while little Caligula may escape impeachment, good ole Rudy may be indicted any day now as he's entwined in this illegal act up to his neck. I relish the day his self-serving traitor @ss is disbarred and escorted into the federal pen....


goldtop - 1/25/2020 at 11:59 PM

quote:
More and more info. coming out daily about Trump's amateur syndicate in action...How the Senators on the Republican side of the aisle continue to bury their heads in the sand is pretty telling just how afraid they are of Trump and his base.....F*cking cowards is what they are and only worried about their own self interests. So much for the party of "National Security."

It seems the stable genius never bothered to check to see if his co-conspirators were taping his conversations with them. Truly a stable genius....For all his experience hanging with the mafia types back in the day he seems way over confident that the rats won't jump ship when the ship begins to sink...

Lastly, while little Caligula may escape impeachment, good ole Rudy may be indicted any day now as he's entwined in this illegal act up to his neck. I relish the day his self-serving traitor @ss is disbarred and escorted into the federal pen....


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...


cyclone88 - 1/26/2020 at 01:16 AM

quote:
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.


goldtop - 1/26/2020 at 02:22 AM

quote:
quote:
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


Skydog32103 - 1/26/2020 at 02:22 AM

it's ok to identify with Trump, but that shouldn't be the only requirement for the most powerful position in the world, obviously.

[Edited on 1/26/2020 by Skydog32103]


gina - 1/26/2020 at 05:50 PM

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/24/saudi-arabia-planned-to-spy-o n-jamal-khashoggi-fiancee-hatice-cengiz-in-uk

"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.


cyclone88 - 1/26/2020 at 09:26 PM

quote:
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.


Skydog32103 - 1/26/2020 at 10:05 PM

a vote for Trump is a statement that hostile verbal tantrums are an appropriate way to behave as Americans, which is shameful. the only people being attacked and victimized by Trump are his own supporters. he's convinced them to abandon morals and principles that are vital to Christianity and the Founding Fathers' vision of democracy. may God have mercy on their souls.

it's not illegal to be a terrible person. this is why Republicans call the impeachment a sham.....because the charges pale in comparison to the horrible lessons he's trying to teach to our people. That's what they mean when they call the Mueller investigation and this trial a hoax....because his rhetoric is a poison, but it's not illegal, so they went on a "hunt" for a crime. like he said in his own words, he's a witch that is being hunted. they never denied being witches....they only criticized the hunt. "it's unfair that the left won't allow us to be witches".

but it's not a crime to be a wicked witch, nor is it a crime to convince the American people to act like wicked witches, because of the first amendment. he should be impeached for exploiting the first amendment, and being the only person in American history willing to urge the country to become witches to intentionally cause destruction, simply because it was legal to do so.

[Edited on 1/26/2020 by Skydog32103]


BrerRabbit - 1/27/2020 at 07:10 PM

quote:
I am so done.


Me too. Keep calling it though.


Skydog32103 - 1/27/2020 at 09:31 PM

in light of Bolton’s testimony, looks like we may get a witness. probably won’t affect anything though. remember, the beacon of truth for the right is Donald Trump, not the FBI, the CIA, or our judges. the ONLY source of truth is Donald.


gina - 1/27/2020 at 09:36 PM

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]


gina - 1/27/2020 at 11:11 PM

Dinner break 6 pm to 645 pm at the not so peachy Impeachment Trial in D.C.


cyclone88 - 1/28/2020 at 12:08 AM

quote:
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.


cyclone88 - 1/28/2020 at 12:25 AM

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]


BrerRabbit - 1/28/2020 at 12:27 AM


It is a nightmare.


2112 - 1/28/2020 at 01:34 AM

quote:
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.


Skydog32103 - 1/28/2020 at 03:22 AM

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?


BIGV - 1/28/2020 at 05:11 AM

quote:
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.


Skydog32103 - 1/28/2020 at 12:39 PM

quote:
The question the left continues to ignore is "How in the Hell did Hillary lose to this guy"?


The scarecrow strikes again. the left chose Hillary and the right chose Antonio Brown....I’m very happy with my choice. Sounds like you and I agree that the right can’t be proud of their choice.

[Edited on 1/28/2020 by Skydog32103]


MartinD28 - 1/28/2020 at 12:41 PM

quote:
quote:
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-bol ton-claims/


Skydog32103 - 1/28/2020 at 01:03 PM

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.


MartinD28 - 1/28/2020 at 02:05 PM

quote:
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.


cyclone88 - 1/28/2020 at 02:17 PM

quote:
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-bol ton-claims/


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.


cyclone88 - 1/28/2020 at 02:23 PM

quote:
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.


cyclone88 - 1/28/2020 at 02:32 PM

quote:

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.


MartinD28 - 1/28/2020 at 02:47 PM

quote:
quote:

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".


goldtop - 1/28/2020 at 04:38 PM

quote:
quote:

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


Jerry - 1/28/2020 at 05:11 PM

quote:
quote:
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.


Skydog32103 - 1/28/2020 at 05:15 PM

quote:
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.


we all knew it because he said “Russia if you are listening, I hope you find those emails. You’ll be rewarded.” Case closed.


cyclone88 - 1/28/2020 at 05:34 PM

quote:
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.


2112 - 1/28/2020 at 05:51 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
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?


Jerry - 1/28/2020 at 07:07 PM


2112 posted the following question

quote:

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.


Skydog32103 - 1/28/2020 at 09:13 PM

quote:
1) Doesn't answer my request you show where I have posted anything against the impeachment.


Do you believe Trump should be impeached?


BrerRabbit - 1/28/2020 at 09:28 PM

quote:
Do you believe Trump should be impeached?


I believe he was impeached.


goldtop - 1/28/2020 at 09:56 PM

quote:
quote:
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.


Jerry - 1/28/2020 at 10:03 PM

quote:
quote:
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.


Skydog32103 - 1/29/2020 at 12:12 AM

quote:
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.


Jerry - 1/29/2020 at 01:02 AM

quote:
quote:
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.


Skydog32103 - 1/29/2020 at 02:20 AM

quote:
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?


Jerry - 1/29/2020 at 06:20 AM

quote:
quote:
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.


cyclone88 - 1/29/2020 at 12:49 PM

quote:
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...


Skydog32103 - 1/29/2020 at 02:13 PM

quote:
When you quote any post I made saying anything against the impeachment, I'll answer your question.
Until then quit wasting peoples' time.


Lol, ok little boy. I’ll go discuss things with grown men who don’t get so emotional. Peace!


nebish - 1/29/2020 at 07:05 PM

quote:
quote:


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.


quote:

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.


cyclone88 - 1/29/2020 at 07:43 PM

quote:
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.


cyclone88 - 1/30/2020 at 12:17 AM

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 - 1/30/2020 at 09:35 PM

quote:

2112 posted the following question
quote:

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.


gina - 1/30/2020 at 10:32 PM

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.htm l

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-hi deous-men.html




[Edited on 1/30/2020 by gina]


cyclone88 - 1/30/2020 at 10:50 PM

quote:
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. [Edited on 1/30/2020 by gina]


This is an old story. E. Jean Caroll, the alleged victim, wrote for SNL and now writes for Elle magazine. She raised the issue as part of the #metoo movement in 2019 & when Trump tweeted he'd never heard of her & had, of course, unpleasant things to say about her, she filed a defamation suit in November. In the course of that trial, there would be a demand for DNA evidence because she kept the dress & a DNA comparison could be evidence that Trump, indeed, knew her. This has nothing to do w/impeachment. It's merely a case working thru the system.


gina - 1/31/2020 at 01:00 AM

The account of the event seems strange and untimely. We'll see what happens.


MartinD28 - 1/31/2020 at 01:05 AM

quote:
The account of the event seems strange and untimely. We'll see what happens.


This is off topic, Gina but seems right up his alley. Remember, all the women who claim he groped them. They are all liars, but we know that Trump, being the honest, ethical, and moral guy that he is would be the only one speaking the truth.


gina - 1/31/2020 at 01:20 AM

She may be speaking the truth but it seems a little out there that she is going through the store with him when she does not know him and willingly helps him find the lingerie department on another floor and puts up with him wanting her to try on a bodysuit. Then she does not even know if he climaxed, if he did some of it would have come out. That would be noticable. Then she keeps the dress all these years. Why would you want that in your home as a memory? As an act of self empowerment I would think someone would get it away from themselves by throwing it out. Designer clothing or not.

Her book will probably sell.

If Bolton gets his book published that will sell also.


cyclone88 - 1/31/2020 at 01:23 AM

quote:
The account of the event seems strange and untimely.

The allegations are certainly old, but she told 2 people immediately after it allegedly happened. She didn't raise the issue until the time when women in all kinds of fields - entertainment, TV news, publishing - told their #metoo stories & those men, like Matt Lauer & Charlie Rose, were fired & like Weinstein, are currently being tried.

No sexual assault charges were brought against Trump. It was his tweets that said he didn't know her & made derogatory comments about her that led to her defamation case filed in November in Manhattan. That is about the pace ANY case would take going thru the system to request DNA for comparison w/the dress she was wearing & kept. The only reason it's getting any press at all is because she's well-known in NYC, a published author (4+ books) & has had a monthly column in a "woman's magazine" for more than 10 years. It's more of a #metoo story than anything about impeachment.



[Edited on 1/31/2020 by cyclone88]


MartinD28 - 1/31/2020 at 01:26 AM

quote:
She may be speaking the truth but it seems a little out there that she is going through the store with him when she does not know him and willingly helps him find the lingerie department on another floor and puts up with him wanting her to try on a bodysuit. Then she does not even know if he climaxed, if he did some of it would have come out. That would be noticable. Then she keeps the dress all these years. Why would you want that in your home as a memory? As an act of self empowerment I would think someone would get it away from themselves by throwing it out. Designer clothing or not.

Her book will probably sell.

If Bolton gets his book published that will sell also.



It looks like prezy iis doing what he can to stop or delay Bolton's book under the guise of national security exposure. Ironic isn't it. Trump is a walking talking national security risk. Look at the examples of national security he has exposed as well as info from Israel.


cyclone88 - 1/31/2020 at 01:32 AM

quote:
It looks like prezy iis doing what he can to stop or delay Bolton's book under the guise of national security exposure. Ironic isn't it. Trump is a walking talking national security risk. Look at the examples of national security he has exposed as well as info from Israel.


But, wait, Trump WANTS Bolton to testify and talk to the American people.


nebish - 1/31/2020 at 02:56 AM

Cyclone has tried very hard to keep this on topic. Gina, the Jean Carroll accusation is old. It's back in the news with the potential dna test, but it isn't really related if anything should be somewhere else.

Who wants to block Bolton's book? Trump? That could be as much to spite Bolton and ruin his capitalization and day in the sun as much as really trying to hide anything. After all, don't we essentially know what it says on the only topic people would want to buy it for? Trump is very vindictive, if he can keep Bolton's book from being published that alone surely would be a win in the mind of Trump even absent immpeachmrnt/Ukraine.

Ok, Friyay will have votes for witnesses?


cyclone88 - 1/31/2020 at 04:24 AM

quote:
Trump is very vindictive, if he can keep Bolton's book from being published that alone surely would be a win in the mind of Trump even absent immpeachmrnt/Ukraine.

Ok, Friyay will have votes for witnesses?


You're right. In typical fashion, Trump is being vindictive about anyone who crosses him so he's using the theory that the book is "classified" & can't be published as is. A letter was sent to Bolton's publisher threatening litigation. Apparently, Bolton has political aspirations & Trump is likely to do anything to quash his chances.

His comment about Schiff being "unable to sleep at night, sweating like a dog, what a sick guy he is" because Trump is getting away w/his actions while the trial is ongoing is abhorrent. DJT has lost the final ounce of self-restraint he had.

Tomorrow's schedule is 4 hours of debate, a vote for/against witnesses, & vote re acquittal.


adhill58 - 1/31/2020 at 04:48 AM

I can’t believe that this is the point where the Republicans are going to abandon the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution and throw their entire party’s lot in with a total charlatan, but it is apparently going to happen. Remember when people were saying, “Trump would be surrounded by responsible people, how much damage can he really do?”? We are witnessing an all-time low in the politics of cynicism. The GOP knows that demographics have made their policies unsustainable, and have decided to burn the place down on their way out.


MartinD28 - 1/31/2020 at 12:42 PM

quote:
quote:
Trump is very vindictive, if he can keep Bolton's book from being published that alone surely would be a win in the mind of Trump even absent immpeachmrnt/Ukraine.

Ok, Friyay will have votes for witnesses?


You're right. In typical fashion, Trump is being vindictive about anyone who crosses him so he's using the theory that the book is "classified" & can't be published as is. A letter was sent to Bolton's publisher threatening litigation. Apparently, Bolton has political aspirations & Trump is likely to do anything to quash his chances.

His comment about Schiff being "unable to sleep at night, sweating like a dog, what a sick guy he is" because Trump is getting away w/his actions while the trial is ongoing is abhorrent. DJT has lost the final ounce of self-restraint he had.

Tomorrow's schedule is 4 hours of debate, a vote for/against witnesses, & vote re acquittal.



The fix was in before the Senate took up this matter. Mitch made sure of this. Final score: Sheep 50 or more and American public + the Constitution 0.


cyclone88 - 1/31/2020 at 01:29 PM

quote:
The fix was in before the Senate took up this matter. Mitch made sure of this. Final score: Sheep 50 or more and American public + the Constitution 0.


The score is more like Sheep 50+ & Americans/Constitution a -100.

I expected Trump to be acquitted. I watched because I think it's important for us to see such rare occurrences in our history (although there've been 3 in my lifetime counting Nixon) and I fully expected a Motion to Dismiss to be made & granted after the House Managers stated their case. A sham trial.

What has made things far worse is the winning defense theory that the prez can do anything he wants if it believes it to be in the public interest - ignore congress, ignore the constitution, invite foreign governments to investigate US citizens, ask foreign governments to "fix" out elections, call executive privilege on anything, use executive powers to do anything (remember his 1st weekend in office & worldwide travel was shut down because of his ban on Muslims entering the US - citizens or not), pardon himself, and whatever else he wants. The Senate GOP just committed suicide.

Trump's lawyers didn't defend him. They created districtations like "call the Bidens as witnesses" knowing that neither Biden would've known what Trump said to his WH staff & advisers so their testimony would've been a waste of time. They used scare tactics like votes cast in 2016 will be overturned knowing perfectly well that Trump was elected, sworn into office, & remains president; Hillary Clinton isn't waiting in the wings to take over. They couldn't defend on the merits so they created tangents & brush fires.

What even THEY didn't seem to expect was the insanity of Alan Dershowitz proclaiming that a prez who believes his remaining in office is in the public interest can do ANYTHING HE WANTS based on no reasoning whatsoever. Dershowitz made it up. Even Trump's lawyers have distanced themselves from him. The author of the single law journal article that analyzed Johnson's 1868 impeachment proclaimed Dershowitz's mistaken reading of that article. He wasn't even allowed to show up & sit w/the president's counsel on Thursday. They know he's gone off the rails & taken the senate GOP w/him.

Before the impeachment & trial, I thought Trump's acquittal would be nothing more than partisan politics & 4 more years of Trump. Now, I think it's absolutely emboldened Trump, eliminated any power of Congress to oversee much less stop his worst impulses, and we have an autocrat in office. The courts remain the only resort for any rational check on the Exec.

So what there's an election in November? It will not be fair or untainted or represent the will of the people. Why bother to walk around the corner to vote?






cyclone88 - 1/31/2020 at 01:33 PM

quote:
I can’t believe that this is the point where the Republicans are going to abandon the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution and throw their entire party’s lot in with a total charlatan, but it is apparently going to happen. Remember when people were saying, “Trump would be surrounded by responsible people, how much damage can he really do?”? We are witnessing an all-time low in the politics of cynicism. The GOP knows that demographics have made their policies unsustainable, and have decided to burn the place down on their way out.


100%. And the other safeguard "There will always be an adult in the room to mind him."

It's been suggested that the GOP actually fear for their lives & there's no other reason that would cause ALL of them to vote in solidarity, especially Alexander who isn't even running for re-election.


Skydog32103 - 1/31/2020 at 02:03 PM

quote:
So what there's an election in November? It will not be fair or untainted or represent the will of the people. Why bother to walk around the corner to vote?


i understand the feeling, but i predict the largest voter turnout in U.S. history, especially with democrats doing everything they can to vote him out. it's their last resort and they know it. no way does the left lay down come election day. if he wins again via the electoral college, then we'll continue as we always have. use our courts to maintain a checks and balance. the largest threat we face is whether he arranges a way in which he doesn't have to leave, leading to the fall of the United States with a new oligarchy.


MartinD28 - 1/31/2020 at 02:25 PM

quote:
quote:
So what there's an election in November? It will not be fair or untainted or represent the will of the people. Why bother to walk around the corner to vote?


i understand the feeling, but i predict the largest voter turnout in U.S. history, especially with democrats doing everything they can to vote him out. it's their last resort and they know it. no way does the left lay down come election day. if he wins again via the electoral college, then we'll continue as we always have. use our courts to maintain a checks and balance. the largest threat we face is whether he arranges a way in which he doesn't have to leave, leading to the fall of the United States with a new oligarchy.


Agree.

What concerns me is that if the Dems end up with Bernie, he will be portrayed easily by Russian Don as the socialist he is, and I don't think the country is ready for that. Everything Trump has done in Ukraine was aimed at Biden and what Trumpy continues to tweet and say is to minimize Joe. Trump knows Joe is a formidable foe, and he's been trying to take Joe out now. Hopefully the Dems will have the sense to not put the party in the place of running Bernie.


cyclone88 - 1/31/2020 at 05:19 PM

i understand the feeling, but i predict the largest voter turnout in U.S. history, especially with democrats doing everything they can to vote him out. it's their last resort and they know it. no way does the left lay down come election day. if he wins again via the electoral college, then we'll continue as we always have. use our courts to maintain a checks and balance. the largest threat we face is whether he arranges a way in which he doesn't have to leave, leading to the fall of the United States with a new oligarchy.




Agree.

What concerns me is that if the Dems end up with Bernie, he will be portrayed easily by Russian Don as the socialist he is, and I don't think the country is ready for that. Everything Trump has done in Ukraine was aimed at Biden and what Trumpy continues to tweet and say is to minimize Joe. Trump knows Joe is a formidable foe, and he's been trying to take Joe out now. Hopefully the Dems will have the sense to not put the party in the place of running Bernie.


You're very optimistic. I'm not going to get into who is running because frankly, I don't know, but if the Dems had ANY hope of winning it means they pick a person, the rest drop out NOW, & every effort is made to put a winner in office. Bloomberg seems to me to be the only choice. Trump got exactly what he wanted in that Biden is tainted as "corrupt."

OR, CJ Rehnquist will inexplicably & unilaterally expand his own powers this afternoon & declare a mistrial so we can go back to pre-Impeachment days.


Rusty - 1/31/2020 at 05:38 PM

There's a yin and yang to politics. For me, Trump is just the furthest to the right conservative we've ever elected. So what if Bernie gets in? If he does, the more left-leaning liberals might finally see some of their issues and wishes addressed. If it takes a perceived "socialist" to get cannabis legalized on a national level - so be it. If we hate Bernie otherwise, we vote him out after one term. "Moderates" are "centralists". Biden and Bloomberg are pretty much kinder, more polite versions of Republicans. One thing to keep in mind about Bloomberg: he's another very wealthy media man. He has paid for that positive image that you have of him..


MartinD28 - 1/31/2020 at 07:01 PM

quote:
There's a yin and yang to politics. For me, Trump is just the furthest to the right conservative we've ever elected. So what if Bernie gets in? If he does, the more left-leaning liberals might finally see some of their issues and wishes addressed. If it takes a perceived "socialist" to get cannabis legalized on a national level - so be it. If we hate Bernie otherwise, we vote him out after one term. "Moderates" are "centralists". Biden and Bloomberg are pretty much kinder, more polite versions of Republicans. One thing to keep in mind about Bloomberg: he's another very wealthy media man. He has paid for that positive image that you have of him..


That's a good post, but I'll raise a couple points.

I don't think Trump is a conservative. He's more a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's an opportunist and has and will change his positions and say what needs to be said to benefit one person - himself. We can have an esoteric conversation on his postions and what does and doesn't constitute conservatism. Nationalism? Just because he appointed SC conservative judges does not make him a conservative. Are his fiscal policies reflective of conversative ways of classic & neoclassic economic theorists and the normal GOP stated beliefs? Are his crisiticms of monetary policies leveled at the Fed reflective of a conservative?

I'm all for legalizing cannabis. It is on the path to happening. Not sure it happens any faster with Bernie.


cyclone88 - 1/31/2020 at 07:38 PM

quote:
There's a yin and yang to politics. One thing to keep in mind about Bloomberg: he's another very wealthy media man. He has paid for that positive image that you have of him..


I don't have a positive image of him; he was mayor of NYC where I live. I think he's the only one w/national name recognition & $ to beat Trump.

Trump has no principles or ideals so there can't be a yin to his yang.


Jerry - 1/31/2020 at 08:21 PM

quote:
quote:

2112 posted the following question
quote:

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.


Thank you for the response.


nebish - 2/2/2020 at 04:48 AM

On some of the recent posts...I really do not believe Trump is a 'conservative'. I mean that definition itself is up for debate really. And part of the problem with labels all together.

Biden and Bloomberg do not represent the more left-wing ideals of the party, but neither does Klobuchar or Buttigieg really. Bernie and Warren give the liberals all their wish list items. Even if a more moderate Democrat candidate gets elected, I think most liberals should be happy with the choice. I know some people want to turnover the apple cart, but Biden or Bloomberg or Mayor Pete or Amy are going offer the Democrats much of what they are after. Doesn't mean they can actually get legislation passed matching what they want, but they will take that approach and push along those lines. Bernie's ideals might be the goal, but are they actually realistic? Most are not when you consider they have to pass through Congress and not every Democrat sees it the same way to begin with. If they did we'd have single payer health care already. Think Bernie can actually get that done what Obama couldn't? Obama said he preferred single payer, but it wasn't possible (paraphrasing). Industry lobbyists have their tentacles deep in Congress.

Sure Bloomberg is an old white billionaire and used to call himself a Republican. Take those labels off his candidacy and I think liberals will be pretty happy with his positions on big issues that matter to them. Not all the issues, granted. But most and a better alternative on the others. Same with Joe and all the other moderates.

Part of me feels the angst against Trump is so strong anyone can beat him. Then another part of me thinks that Bernie or Warren would have a hard time beating him.

I think the Democrats stand a better chance to nominate one of the moderates, bury their respective hatchets and if they unify behind the nominee they will take the White House. Within this line of thought, if they stay home and pout like last time rather than voting for Hillary, there is a chance, maybe a chance they lose. I echo the sentiment about record turnout to defeat Trump and the math might even be on their side. The closer we get to election time however, the more I think who the candidate is matters.

This is an impeachment thread, but they are adjourned for the weekend so we're left to ramble about whatever I suppose.

I used to think Biden was the Democrat's best hope to win in November. I don't think that any more. I sense some of the posters here are thinking that person is Bloomberg. And I agree. Who will his running mate be? A woman or a minority for damn sure.


BrerRabbit - 2/2/2020 at 05:36 AM

Moderates negotiate. Extremists stonewall.


cyclone88 - 2/2/2020 at 01:11 PM

quote:
Part of me feels the angst against Trump is so strong anyone can beat him. Then another part of me thinks that Bernie or Warren would have a hard time beating him.

I think the Democrats stand a better chance to nominate one of the moderates, bury their respective hatchets and if they unify behind the nominee they will take the White House. Within this line of thought, if they stay home and pout like last time rather than voting for Hillary, there is a chance, maybe a chance they lose. I echo the sentiment about record turnout to defeat Trump and the math might even be on their side. The closer we get to election time however, the more I think who the candidate is matters.

This is an impeachment thread, but they are adjourned for the weekend so we're left to ramble about whatever I suppose.

I used to think Biden was the Democrat's best hope to win in November. I don't think that any more. I sense some of the posters here are thinking that person is Bloomberg. And I agree. Who will his running mate be? A woman or a minority for damn sure.


After 2 weeks of trial, I feel the opposite - that Trump has a stronghold on the GOP & representatives up for re-election are terrified to go against him lest they lose this mysterious "base." Although the senators haven't each had their 10 minutes to state their position re the case against Trump, the GOP senators are expected to say either they believe the case presented against Trump is true but it doesn't warrant removing him from office ("get over it") or they think the 17 witnesses described to them were lying & the dems made the whole thing up. If their constituents were contacting them saying "vote to REMOVE him," the outcome wouldn't be a predictable acquittal. Trump really can shoot someone on 5th Ave & get away w/it.

I said earlier the dems need to act as a unit & get behind someone who has a chance of beating Trump - assuming there will be no Russian, Chinese or other interference in the election - & stop competing w/each other for the nomination. Trump got what he wanted w/impeachment in that he'll misrepresent his acquittal as proof that Biden is corrupt. Bloomberg is the only option w/the national name recognition & $$$ to beat Trump. No one is going to vote on policy in 2020. They're voting for/against Trump.

The vitriol against HRC is so deep that it extends to ANY woman for another 8 years.


cyclone88 - 2/4/2020 at 06:30 PM

quote:
quote:
So what there's an election in November? It will not be fair or untainted or represent the will of the people. Why bother to walk around the corner to vote?


i understand the feeling, but i predict the largest voter turnout in U.S. history, especially with democrats doing everything they can to vote him out. it's their last resort and they know it. no way does the left lay down come election day. if he wins again via the electoral college, then we'll continue as we always have. use our courts to maintain a checks and balance. the largest threat we face is whether he arranges a way in which he doesn't have to leave, leading to the fall of the United States with a new oligarchy.


Russia's practice run in Iowa - was it software? coding? hardware? data entry? - worked well. Think it'll be perfected by November. See even less reason to walk around the corner to vote after that little fiasco.


Jerry - 2/5/2020 at 12:10 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
So what there's an election in November? It will not be fair or untainted or represent the will of the people. Why bother to walk around the corner to vote?


i understand the feeling, but i predict the largest voter turnout in U.S. history, especially with democrats doing everything they can to vote him out. it's their last resort and they know it. no way does the left lay down come election day. if he wins again via the electoral college, then we'll continue as we always have. use our courts to maintain a checks and balance. the largest threat we face is whether he arranges a way in which he doesn't have to leave, leading to the fall of the United States with a new oligarchy.


Russia's practice run in Iowa - was it software? coding? hardware? data entry? - worked well. Think it'll be perfected by November. See even less reason to walk around the corner to vote after that little fiasco.


Seems there might be a little something "extra" in what happened in Iowa since the Buttigieg campaign paid the company for "software rights and subscriptions" (total found so far $42,500) in 2019.
I guess that means he is a Russian operative bound and determined to screw up the Iowa caucuses and he could have probably been found last night bowing and scraping while doing a video conference with Putin.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/buttigieg-campaign-paid-firm-that-d eveloped-voting-app-blamed-for-iowa-caucus-delays

I wonder if any recounts are in the future.


cyclone88 - 2/5/2020 at 12:48 AM

quote:
I wonder if any recounts are in the future.


If they have paper ballots why do they need anything more?

Between foreign interference, corruption, and just plain incompetence, I'm surprised anyone goes to the polls at all.


Jerry - 2/5/2020 at 01:58 AM

quote:
quote:
I wonder if any recounts are in the future.


If they have paper ballots why do they need anything more?

Between foreign interference, corruption, and just plain incompetence, I'm surprised anyone goes to the polls at all.


In one of the articles I read about the situation, I was directed to a Twitter accounts for some Dems. The big repeated was about the DNC was "manually changing votes from Bernie to Biden".


cyclone88 - 2/5/2020 at 04:18 PM

The only votes that count are those in the Senate today. Wonder if they'll be tallied correctly...


goldtop - 2/5/2020 at 04:28 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I wonder if any recounts are in the future.


If they have paper ballots why do they need anything more?

Between foreign interference, corruption, and just plain incompetence, I'm surprised anyone goes to the polls at all.


In one of the articles I read about the situation, I was directed to a Twitter accounts for some Dems. The big repeated was about the DNC was "manually changing votes from Bernie to Biden".


And exactly who is the source of this article? and obviously it didn't work out so well did it since Pete seems to be Iowa's choice and Biden is currently 4th...Why do you fall for conspiracy theories and why do so many republicans do the same. Maybe that was what was in HC emails all along the 2020 dem Iowa caucus results


goldtop - 2/5/2020 at 04:29 PM

quote:
The only votes that count are those in the Senate today. Wonder if they'll be tallied correctly...


Nadler has already said they are going to subpoena Bolton and that the investigations will continue....more articles may come soon. More truths will be told.


MartinD28 - 2/5/2020 at 05:17 PM

quote:
quote:
The only votes that count are those in the Senate today. Wonder if they'll be tallied correctly...


Nadler has already said they are going to subpoena Bolton and that the investigations will continue....more articles may come soon. More truths will be told.


Awaiting to see Bolton do the talk show circuit. He'll be labled just another disgruntled former Trump employee. He can't be trusted. The only one who speaks truth is Trump...oh and Kellyanne. Bolton needed to be drained like the rest of the swamp.


cyclone88 - 2/5/2020 at 05:18 PM

quote:
Nadler has already said they are going to subpoena Bolton and that the investigations will continue....more articles may come soon. More truths will be told.

Seems pointless. The HR planned to subpoena Bolton & his deputy & were blocked by their lawyers. Trump also asserted "absolute immunity" (which doesn't exist) & "executive privilege" which would be litigated. They punted to the Senate on the belief they had more influence & resources to obtain witness testimony (ha!).

Bolton said he'd be willing to testify IN THE SENATE during an IMPEACHMENT TRIAL if SUBPOENAED. He never offered to make blanket statements to anyone at any time. He can let his book & book tour do the talking.

The HR oversight committees will continue their duties, but they're toothless now.


MartinD28 - 2/5/2020 at 05:21 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I wonder if any recounts are in the future.


If they have paper ballots why do they need anything more?

Between foreign interference, corruption, and just plain incompetence, I'm surprised anyone goes to the polls at all.


In one of the articles I read about the situation, I was directed to a Twitter accounts for some Dems. The big repeated was about the DNC was "manually changing votes from Bernie to Biden".


And exactly who is the source of this article? and obviously it didn't work out so well did it since Pete seems to be Iowa's choice and Biden is currently 4th...Why do you fall for conspiracy theories and why do so many republicans do the same. Maybe that was what was in HC emails all along the 2020 dem Iowa caucus results


The GOP House & Senators are still peddling the Ukraine interference that Putin advanced & parroted by Trump even though our intel community / agencies have dispelled that. Wonder why they keep peddling conspiracies already proven wrong? No doubt these Congressmen are true American patriots.


MartinD28 - 2/5/2020 at 05:25 PM

quote:


The HR oversight committees will continue their duties, but they're toothless now.


Except in possibly impacting votes for November, and even that is doubtful if one's head is stuck in the sand. Facts & first hand accounts no longer matter.


cyclone88 - 2/5/2020 at 07:24 PM

quote:
Facts & first hand accounts no longer matter.


From now through November, lies & buffoonery will be SOP along w/a little help from Russia.


cyclone88 - 2/5/2020 at 10:00 PM

Acquitted and emboldened.


Bhawk - 2/5/2020 at 10:42 PM

Thank God this stupid fecking idea to begin with is over.


playallnite - 2/6/2020 at 12:56 AM

It is a stain that will foreverrrrrrr be with him, and Donny, who fears humiliation and being laughed at more than anything


OriginalGoober - 2/6/2020 at 01:30 AM

What a day. I dont know anyone in modern history who could survive an FBI/CIA covert operation, a Russia-hoax, a hostile-media,
and an Impeachment and still carry on with running the country and not having a nervous breakdown.

[Edited on 2/6/2020 by OriginalGoober]


Skydog32103 - 2/6/2020 at 02:51 AM

quote:
What a day. I dont know anyone in modern history who could survive an FBI/CIA covert operation, a Russia-hoax, a hostile-media,
and an Impeachment and still carry on with running the country and not having a nervous breakdown.


the enemies are the American FBI, the American CIA, the American media, and the source of truth is Putin....how Patriotic of you!


Jerry - 2/6/2020 at 05:07 AM

Folks, the impeachment process is over. He was voted not guilty and that is it.
As the rest of the nation was told by the Obama worshipers, get over it, move on, and get a life.

If you want to keep repeating vile remarks about the president, go start a new thread so others don't have to read trash anymore.

It is getting like you are acting like little school yard kids that neither will end the argument and want to be the last one to throw an insult.

I think I'll just go ahead and start the thread for you.


adhill58 - 2/6/2020 at 01:54 PM

quote:
...not having a nervous breakdown.




Goober, have you seen him speak? I am not so sure.


PattyG - 2/6/2020 at 05:51 PM

quote:
Folks, the impeachment process is over. He was voted not guilty and that is it.
As the rest of the nation was told by the Obama worshipers, get over it, move on, and get a life.

If you want to keep repeating vile remarks about the president, go start a new thread so others don't have to read trash anymore.

It is getting like you are acting like little school yard kids that neither will end the argument and want to be the last one to throw an insult.

I think I'll just go ahead and start the thread for you.


But creating your little thread is not considered insulting? Get over it! FYI, this is Mulvaney Speak!

[Edited on 2/6/2020 by PattyG]


Skydog32103 - 2/6/2020 at 06:54 PM

quote:
It is getting like you are acting like little school yard kids that neither will end the argument and want to be the last one to throw an insult.


now imagine choosing to vote for one of these types to be President of the United States.....now you understand our frustration.


Chain - 2/6/2020 at 09:57 PM

quote:
What a day. I dont know anyone in modern history who could survive an FBI/CIA covert operation, a Russia-hoax, a hostile-media,
and an Impeachment and still carry on with running the country and not having a nervous breakdown.

[Edited on 2/6/2020 by OriginalGoober]


That would be true except that Mitch McConnell made clear the moment the House passed the articles of Impeachment that those very same articles were as dead on arrival in the Senate as pretty much every bill the House had passed and sent to the Senate since 2018.

Anyone with half a brain knew the Senate would never remove Trump. But as predicted Trump made the very same proclamation you typed above and you bit it hook, line and sinker. You're either the biggest sucker in the world or a bot simply repeating the con line from dear leader.


Stephen - 2/16/2020 at 11:57 AM

“What did the president know, and when did he know it”
Sen Howard Baker (R-Tennessee) set the tone for the summer 1973 Watergate hearings by asking that question
& it resulted in Nixon’s ouster

To gain the same result moving forward, Democrats should take that approach in developing ways to impeach Trump - Indian wisdom holds that you can always learn from the enemy, in this case the Republicans

Baker was a fine American - ran for president in 1980 but the bids of both he & Senate colleague Ted Kennedy proved to be short
Was Reagan’s chief of staff for part of Dutch’s second term

Like another senator, Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), was an widely respected, published photographer

But on topic, my advice to the democrats would be, people have had enough of impeachment, For Now -
let’s try the election-process approach this year
Then, if he’s re-elected, return to impeachment efforts using the template set by Baker

Nixon was ousted in his second term by that approach, but maybe it wouldn’t be necessary with success now at the polls

Finally, why not make that their motto/slogan/mantra/MO for the 2020 Democratic campaign & candidate - “Success Now” - people are already burned out on the negativism, this would be a new approach - the last one didn’t work

[Edited on 2/16/2020 by Stephen]


cyclone88 - 2/16/2020 at 01:31 PM

quote:
But on topic, my advice to the democrats would be, people have had enough of impeachment, For Now - let’s try the election-process approach this year.


I think it's time to close the topic (& thread) of impeachment. It's not a process used lightly - it's reserved for abuses so egregious that there is danger to allowing the Exec to stay in office. The HR held hearings & had an airtight case that the Exec had invited a foreign government to investigate one of his political rivals for his personal advantage & used strong arm tactics to get them to do so. When they refused, he used the power of his office to strike fear in those subpoened to testify & ordered documents not to be produced. The trial verdict was he did it but we're not going to remove him from office. This acquittal has prompted retaliation & an even more righteous sense that the Exec answers to no one. Sure, Barr has agreed to testify to the HR Judiciary Committee after being called months ago but there's no reason to believe his testimony will be truthful or useful to a toothless congressional committee.

Nixon's WH counsel John Dean said under the 2020 wild defense theory, impeachment wouldn't even been a consideration for Nixon. That was a long time ago when senators and Execs acted w/a sense of respect for the process & reason. Nixon was a man capable of feeling long disappeared notions such as honor, humiliation, and decorum & chose resignation over impeachment. DJT isn't capable of that.

There's no doubt who Trump is, who he aspires to be & how far he'll go to get what he wants. He has successfully turned ideas about government & the constitution on their heads. Voters aren't going to the polls in 2020 blinded by his celebrity, empty promises, fraudulent persona, ignorance of his autocratic tactics, or searing hatred for his rival. If voters choose a man who is mentally unstable, personally corrupt, & dangerous to the US & its allies, it's on them.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
https://allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
https://allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=149003