The White House doubles down on its dumbest impeachment defense

  
Via:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  54 comments

The White House doubles down on its dumbest impeachment defense
The trouble, as any historian or constitutional scholar will tell you, is that just as there are crimes the president could commit that would not be impeachable (say, shoplifting a candy bar), there has never been any requirement that impeachment can only be used for violations of criminal law. Not only were the Framers deeply concerned about the potential of the president abusing his office, at the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as a federal criminal code.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The White House doubles down on its dumbest impeachment defense


JANUARY 20, 2020

AZPGTLR3CYI6VL7CBEHLG63AWE.jpg&w=150 (Ana Ramirez/Austin American-Statesman via AP)

Watching the White House put together its defense of President Trump in the impeachment trial that begins this week, one has to ask: Are they even trying?

After the Democratic House managers released   a 111-page indictment   providing copious detail on the events that led to impeachment, the nature of Trump’s misconduct and the constitutional basis for his removal, Trump’s attorneys responded with a   six-page document   that would have been shocking were it not just the kind of thing we’ve come to expect from this White House.

Indeed, it reads as though it was written by a ninth-grader who saw an episode of “Law & Order” and learned just enough legal terms to throw them around incorrectly. It makes no attempt to contest the facts, instead just asserting over and over that the president is innocent and the entire impeachment is illegitimate, calling it “unlawful” and “constitutionally invalid,” with no apparent understanding of what those terms mean. The articles of impeachment, Trump’s lawyers say, “fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the Constitution.” They then repeat this argument multiple times throughout a screed seemingly pitched to the Fox News hosts who will spend the coming days repeating its absurd claims.

The trouble, as any historian or constitutional scholar   will tell you , is that just as there are crimes the president could commit that would not be impeachable (say, shoplifting a candy bar), there has   never   been any requirement that impeachment can only be used for violations of criminal law. Not only were the Framers deeply concerned about the potential of the president abusing his office, at the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as a federal criminal code.

Trump has found the one constitutional “expert” who will take such a position, however: Harvard professor emeritus and frequent Fox News guest Alan Dershowitz, whom Trump added to his defense team last week. “Criminal-like conduct is required” in order for a president to be impeached, Dershowitz now   claims , to the puzzlement of pretty much everyone who knows anything about this topic.

Since hypocrisy is something of a job requirement for working for Trump, Dershowitz is naturally   on video   making exactly the opposite argument in 1998. “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,” he said at the time.

To illustrate how foolish the White House’s argument is, let me suggest a few things the president could do that would not violate any criminal statute but that pretty much everyone in both parties would consider grounds for impeachment:

  • The president states in a news conference that if Russia wants to invade Alaska, that would be fine with him. Taking the opportunity, Vladimir Putin sends a force across the Bering Sea to occupy the state; the president refuses to deploy U.S. forces to repel them, then says, “To be honest, if anyone’s got their eye on Hawaii, I’m not going to stand in your way.”

  • With a   legal advisory   in hand from the Department of Justice saying that anti-nepotism laws do not apply to the White House staff, the president fires every last member of that staff and replaces them with members of his extended family, including making his 18-year-old nephew, whose only work experience is manning the soft-serve machine at a Dairy Queen, the national security adviser.

  • The president declares that his job has become tedious and says he’ll be spending the rest of his term in the White House residence getting drunk and playing “Grand Theft Auto.”

So why is the White House falling back on this argument when it’s so plainly wrong as a matter of both law and logic? There are a number of explanations. The most obvious is that they know the president is guilty of the central charge driving the impeachment, that he abused his power by trying to coerce a foreign government to help his reelection campaign by discrediting a potential opponent. So the last thing they want to do is argue about the facts of the case, except in the most perfunctory way (“I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL!” the president   tweeted   last week)

Another reason they might have seized on the “no crime” defense is that despite being completely wrong, it has an intuitive appeal to it. If we’re calling this phase of impeachment a “trial” and the entire process bears some resemblance to a criminal proceeding, then there ought to be a criminal violation, right?

That makes sense as long as you don’t understand the facts or the law — or are willing yourself desperately to ignore them. That describes well Trump’s allies on Fox News and the audience they speak to, which is where his entire strategy is pitched. It’s why he   assembled his legal team   from people he sees frequently on Fox News and why running through all his arguments about impeachment is the false claim that the entire process is illegitimate and can therefore be dismissed out of hand, with as much indignation and whining about unfair treatment as possible.

That logic is also why Republicans will do everything they can to prevent witnesses from testifying in the trial. If you’ve convinced yourself that the process is illegitimate in every way, then at the stage when Republicans have control of it, what’s wrong with turning it into a sham, then shutting it down as quickly as possible?

To return to the question with which I began, it’s not quite that the White House isn’t trying to defend Trump in a serious way. It’s that they’ve decided they don’t really have to.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago
So why is the White House falling back on this argument when it’s so plainly wrong as a matter of both law and logic? There are a number of explanations. The most obvious is that they know the president is guilty of the central charge driving the impeachment, that he abused his power by trying to coerce a foreign government to help his reelection campaign by discrediting a potential opponent. So the last thing they want to do is argue about the facts of the case,
 
 
 
Larry Hampton
1.1  Larry Hampton  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

Yup. ...and think about it...why would they want to have facts or the truth viewed? It would just blow their case to smithereens. Besides, his core could care less if something is true or not.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Larry Hampton @1.1    one month ago

Pretty much. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Larry Hampton @1.1    one month ago

I wonder what Trump has on Alan Dershowitz  that compels Dershowitz to make a fool out of himself on Trump's behalf? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Larry Hampton @1.1    one month ago

Yup. ...and think about it...why would they want to have facts or the truth viewed? It would just blow their case to smithereens. Besides, his core could care less if something is true or not.

Which is why they are trying to block and witnesses or evidence in the Senate. 

There are no witnesses that can exonerate him.

There is no evidence that shows anything but thr truth.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
1.1.4  Larry Hampton  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago

Dershowitz has managed to Have himself involved in some of the most high profile cases. Perhaps he sees this as his largest and most prominent case yet.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Larry Hampton @1.1.4    one month ago

In 1998 on Larry King Live, Dershowitz said:

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime"

I guess the Constitution has changed somehow from 1998 Dershowitz and 2020 Dershowitz. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.6  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Dulay @1.1.5    one month ago
I guess the Constitution has changed somehow from 1998 Dershowitz and 2020 Dershowitz.

Lots of things must have changed.

During the 2008 Democratic Party primaries, Dershowitz endorsed Hillary Clinton, calling her "a progressive on social issues, a realist on foreign policy, a pragmatist on the economy".[56] In 2012, he strongly supported Barack Obama's re-election, writing, "President Obama has earned my vote on the basis of his excellent judicial appointments, his consensus-building foreign policy, and the improvements he has brought about in the disastrous economy he inherited."

Of particular interest:

During the 2020 Democratic Party primaries, Dershowitz endorsed Joe Biden. He said: "I'm a strong supporter of Joe Biden. I like Joe Biden. I've liked him for a long time, and I could enthusiastically support Joe Biden."   source

 Ain't that a kick in the pants?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.6    one month ago
Ain't that a kick in the pants.

Not really. Dershowitz is a known avowed Democrat. Always has been. He endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2008 against Mr. Obama but changed to Mr. Obama after he was the nominee. For him to support a Democrat isn't anything new. He is also a strict proponent of the rule of law and while "liking" the Democrat candidates, he often points out the error of ways on both sides. He doesn't like frivolous abuse of the law.......

384

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dershowitz-appalled-at-pelosi/

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dulay @1.1.5    one month ago
"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime"

When cornered by his own words, here is his hilarious defense:

“I am much more correct right now, having done more research,” Dershowitz told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday. “I didn’t do the research back then. I wasn’t wrong. I am just far more correct now than I was then.”

The facts in the case are indisputable. Dishonest Donald did abuse the power of the Presidency for his own personal political gain and got caught. Even if the senate refuses to convict (aka remove him from office) everyone will have seen the trial just like they did in one of Dershowitz's other defendants case, OJ Simpson. And, much like that case, even if Trump is let off by the biased Republican senate, the majority of American people know he's guilty and these sad defense arguments like "abuse of power doesn't meet the standard for impeachment" and "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" nonsense will be seen through. The Republican Senate risks knowingly, willfully siding with an obviously guilty President with only weak process excuses to defend their blatantly obsequious decision. I trust the majority of Americans will see this and punish them for it and will end up handing the Democrats back the majority just like they did in the House in 2018. This is their last hurrah, the old Republican party no longer exists, it has fractured into a fetid pile of disparate parts serving one and only master, dirty dishonest Donald.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.8    one month ago

Dershowitz is an egomaniac along the lines of Trump. They probably deserve each other. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.7    one month ago

Yet and still he is a fucking hypocrite. Anything he says in the Impeachment hearing should be taken with a grain of salt. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.8    one month ago
“I am much more correct right now, having done more research,” Dershowitz told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday. “I didn’t do the research back then. I wasn’t wrong. I am just far more correct now than I was then.”

So the guy who boasts about clerking for the Appeals and Supreme court and that he is a tenured professor at Harvard law excuses his hypocrisy by claiming that he didn't do the research.

I was mistaken when I thought that Dershowitz's credibility couldn't be more in question.

WOW!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

So basically what we have here is the Democrats crapping all over the constitution and then telling us their shit don’t stink.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2    one month ago
So basically what we have here is the Democrats crapping all over the constitution and then telling us their shit don’t stink.

Please detail how they have done that.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2    one month ago

Quite the opposite in fact. Democrats are using their constitutional powers in congress to hold a President, who has abused his power for personal political gain, to account.

Anyone with more than half a brain and any civics education who is watching the impeachment trial can easily see how guilty the President is abusing the power of the Presidency. That's why even his defense lawyers aren't trying to fight the facts, they're just whining and complaining that dishonest Donald's illicit abuse of power doesn't warrant impeachment which is total nonsense and would be laughed out of any court. Here, of course, the majority of jurors are nothing but partisan hacks, unable to express their true feelings toward the contemptable leader of their party, dirty Donald, for fear they'll anger some of their extremist constituents and lose their political power. Amoebas have more backbone than these partisan Republicans who literally came out before the trial and said they didn't care what Democrats found, they were already in Trumps pocket and will stick with him even if the king of slime sticks his tiny hand in there and starts playing pool with their balls. They have abandoned their oversight responsibility all to appease the rabid brainless tiki torch mob at their front gates.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.2    one month ago

I go on ad infinitum about this topic and why the Dems on capitol hill and a large number of their loony toon constituents HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS.  It's a lost cause and they're completely screwing this country in the process.

There is absolutely no argument in the phony Articles of Impeachment that be supported constitutionally.

They can call go berserk as they will since there is no stopping them at this point.  But there is no point this travesty of a mockery of sham of farcical mockery of an absurdly preposterous polemic.

Knock yourself out.  Damn glad I don't have to be associated with worst bunch of freaking losers in the history of the US.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.3    one month ago
There is absolutely no argument in the phony Articles of Impeachment that be supported constitutionally.

Wanna bet?

The day you are willing to actually have that argument, hit me up...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Dulay @1.2.4    one month ago
The day you are willing to actually have that argument, hit me up...

Looks like he bailed on all of our questions.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.3    one month ago
There is absolutely no argument in the phony Articles of Impeachment that be supported constitutionally.

Let's ask one of Trump's own lawyers about that, shall we?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.2.4    4 weeks ago

There is no argument to be had. Plus there’s no way I can lose.

That of course won’t stop partisan scumphucks in the DC swamp from conjuring up imaginary toilet remnants out of their alimentary excrement, that is their nature and continues to happen every day left-wing media.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.7    4 weeks ago
There is no argument to be had. Plus there’s no way I can lose.

Big hat, no cattle. 

That of course won’t stop partisan scumphucks in the DC swamp from conjuring up imaginary toilet remnants out of their alimentary excrement, that is their nature and continues to happen every day left-wing media.

Blah, blah, blah. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.6    4 weeks ago

Perhaps his views merely "evolved"? 
isn't that what Democrats claim when they flip-flop?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.10  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.2.8    4 weeks ago

You simply can’t win. Thanks!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.10    4 weeks ago

You simply can't compete.

You're welcome. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    one month ago
Indeed, it reads as though it was written by a ninth-grader who saw an episode of “Law & Order” and learned just enough legal terms to throw them around incorrectly.

Really? How would you know?

I don't normally go down this road, but since the author brought it up, I think this is a weird accusation for someone who didn't go to law school.

Paul Waldman

Washington, D.C.

Opinion writer covering politicsEducation: Swarthmore College, BA in Political Science; University of Pennsylvania, PhD in CommunicationPaul Waldman is an opinion writer for the Plum Line blog. Before joining The Post, he worked at an advocacy group, edited an online magazine, taught at university and
worked on political campaigns. He has authored or co-authored four books on media and politics, and his work has appeared in dozens of newspapers and magazines. He is also a senior writer at the American Prospect.
I mean if you're going to publish an opinion and accuse someone who is a professional lawyer of misusing legal terms, and do it in a way that implies they lack a proper legal education, I think maybe you should either be a lawyer yourself or produce the definitions you think are being ignored or misused.
Again, I'm not normally someone who approves of demanding credentials before people present their opinions, but I make an exception here because of the way this was done.
Just sayin.
It makes no attempt to contest the facts, instead just asserting over and over that the president is innocent and the entire impeachment is illegitimate
It's pretty common in legal documents for an indictment (or a complaint, if it's a civil case) to be long-winded, and for the plea, defense, or answer, to be a brief and general denial of all or most of the accusations. As I think has been explained many times throughout this process, it is not up to the defense to prove their innocence. It is up to prosecutors and plantiffs to prove guilt. Then, we can start talking about defense.
The articles of impeachment, Trump’s lawyers say, “fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the Constitution.”
Also, very common language. Many cases are dismissed based on little more than the defense pointing out that the complaint fails to state a claim. It might sound nebulous if your legal education comes from Law n Order, but it often takes little more than that.
 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    one month ago
let me suggest a few things the president could do that would not violate any criminal statute but that pretty much everyone in both parties would consider grounds for impeachment:

So many people are so full of their own opinion that they just assume everyone else would agree with them. It's pretty arrogant, and it's usually untrue.

Looking at these three examples:

Taking the opportunity, Vladimir Putin sends a force across the Bering Sea to occupy the state; the president refuses to deploy U.S. forces to repel them, then says, “To be honest, if anyone’s got their eye on Hawaii, I’m not going to stand in your way.”

Wrong. That would actually be treason (in the form of giving aid and comfort to someone levying war against the United States) which is specifically impeachable by the Constitution.

the president fires every last member of that staff and replaces them with members of his extended family, including making his 18-year-old nephew, whose only work experience is manning the soft-serve machine at a Dairy Queen, the national security adviser

That might be a shitty idea, but as long as they go through the usual security background checks or senate approval (where required), it wouldn't be impeachable. I don't think there is a lot of support out there for the idea that any president should ever have been impeached for his choices of staff.

The president declares that his job has become tedious and says he’ll be spending the rest of his term in the White House residence getting drunk and playing “Grand Theft Auto.

Presidents already drink and play golf. No one (with any sense) ever says they should be impeached for it. What's the difference? The founders debated the inclusion of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment, but ultimately rejected it, substituting "other high crimes and misdemeanors." They decided that an election every four years would be a sufficient protection against this problem. This, according to Madison's notes on the proceedings .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3    one month ago
Taking the opportunity, Vladimir Putin sends a force across the Bering Sea to occupy the state; the president refuses to deploy U.S. forces to repel them, then says, “To be honest, if anyone’s got their eye on Hawaii, I’m not going to stand in your way.”

Where is the treason?  Where is the war? The hypothetical doesnt describe war, it describes a president giving Alaska to Russia. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago

The fact is , "abuse of power" does not necessarily need a crime.  Dershowitz and Trump are barking up the wrong tree. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago
it describes a president giving Alaska to Russia

No it doesn't. It's not his to "give." Instead, it describes an invasion and cooperation with that invasion. That's treason. Remember, that the premise is that these are impeachable things that aren't actually against the law. The scenario describes a violation of law.

Where is the war?

I can't believe I dignify such disingenuousness with a reply.

Vladimir Putin sends a force across the Bering Sea to occupy the state

US Code defines treason:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.2    one month ago

The hypothetical says the president does not order US troops to deploy.   I think the writer is trying to make a point, but if it makes you feel better to act as if your disagreement with the hypothetical renders the entire premise inoperative, knock yourself out. 

The truth is that abuse of power does not have to be based on a violation of law, period, end of story. 

If you want to go down with the ship on that one, thats your choice. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    one month ago
If you want to go down with the ship on that one

What one? Your change of subject? Your movement of goalposts? Delude yourself. It won't work on me.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.2    one month ago
No it doesn't. It's not his to "give."

Neither are the funds for the 2019 Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or the FMF. Nor is it his to TAKE. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @3.1.5    one month ago

Ah, someone else wants to change the subject. Ok.

Neither are the funds for the 2019 Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or the FMF.

Actually he does have broad discretion as to how and when precisely the assistance is distributed.

Nor is it his to TAKE. 

He hasn't taken anything. You may relax.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.6    one month ago

I didn't 'change the subject, I elaborated on an existing one. 

Actually he does have broad discretion as to how and when precisely the assistance is distributed.

Sure, as long as he informs the Congress and gets their okay. Other than that, no so much. 

The Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act to preclude the POTUS from using the 'broad discretion' you pretend exists. Perhaps you should READ the act and then READ the GAO decision stating that Trump unlawfully ordered the OMB to violate that law. 

Oh and Trump DID take over 30 million from Ukraine and only through an act of Congress was it allocated though it STILL hasn't reached Ukraine. 

FAIL. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @3.1.7    one month ago
I didn't 'change the subject, I elaborated on an existing one.

Before you happened by, the exchange was about an analysis of hypothetical examples of how a president could be impeached for things that aren't violations of statute.

Since neither John nor I had said anything about the distribution of aid, you were changing the subject.

I don't care. I just acknowledged it. It's not really necessary for you to be defensive or in denial about it. At least I responded to it. You're welcome.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4  XDm9mm    one month ago

OPINION

JR....   how many times do we need to go over this?   OPINIONS are not factual.

Now, does the writer have a right to his own OPINION?  Of course he does.   That the opinion is absolutely meaningless in the realm of reality is what really matters.

Just sayin.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @4    one month ago

So is it your reasoned conclusion that opinions are never factual, or just the ones you dont like are not factual?

I might have the opinion that LSU is the best team in college football. Are you seriously going to argue that it is just my opinion?

The truth is that opinions and facts often coincide. 

I have no idea what point it is you think you are making. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago
So is it your reasoned conclusion that opinions are never factual, or just the ones you dont like are not factual?

o·pin·ion

/əˈpinyən/

noun

  • 1.a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge:

And I quote:

providing copious detail on the events that led to impeachment

The "copious detail" they provided were the suppositions, conjecture, innuendo, hearsay, rumors and personal feelings of the witnesses.  

I might have the opinion that LSU is the best team in college football. Are you seriously going to argue that it is just my opinion?

Why would I argue?  I don't care about pro or college sports.

The truth is that opinions and facts often coincide. 

Only when the opinions are in fact based on facts.

I have no idea what point it is you think you are making. 

Then I'll leave you to ponder it for the rest of the day.  Good luck.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.1    one month ago

I have no idea why you want to argue the obvious - 

yes, the seed is an opinion piece.  That does not make it unfactual. 

If you think it does you are wrong. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    one month ago
If you think it does you are wrong.

So, conjecture, hearsay, innuendo, and feelings are now in your view factual?  About the only thing that could be construed as factual are a snowflakes feelings being hurt, or their believing they heard something they didn't.  

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.4  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.3    one month ago

I always see conservative everywhere talking about 'feelings' and snowflakes. The kicker is, the one who suffers from uncontrollable feelings is Trump, who happens to be the biggest snowflake!  Projection again!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @4.1.4    one month ago
I always see conservative everywhere talking about 'feelings' and snowflakes.

When feelings is all the snowflakes present as facts, it's oh so easy for conservatives to call it out.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.6  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.5    one month ago

Lol, sure, o believer of the Liar in Chief. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  XDm9mm @4    one month ago

One can usually tell an opinion piece by the title. Dumbest? Yeah that's a real journalistic adjective to hang your hat on...........................

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5  igknorantzrulz    one month ago

What a complete fckn embarrassing joke this has even further escalated into.

Who needs witnesses and evidence to determine if there is merit in a case as trivial as the IMPEACHMENT OF THE POTUS !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6  igknorantzrulz    one month ago

For once, i can watch Fox 'news' and get some truth for morev than a few seconds at a time

 
 
 
lib50
6.1  lib50  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6    one month ago

Not if you were watching 'The Five'.  They didn't have the balls to show the hearing at all except as a small box (no sound) in the corner.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @6.1    one month ago
They didn't have the balls to show the hearing at all except as a small box (no sound) in the corner.

Does it really take balls to show it? Sounds more like an entertainment decision for the audience. Most of these speeches are so boring, I wouldn't blame them for putting it in the corner.

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.2  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.1    one month ago

Of course republicans don't want their sheeple to hear anything but their lies and spin, the truth is just too much for them to handle.   They must have pretty short attention spans.  At least the Americans who do have a functioning brain are hearing the truth about Trumps abuses. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @6.1.2    one month ago

Nope. No one's afraid. It's just boring and stupid. Plus, there are other things happening in the world.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7  livefreeordie    one month ago

 What the facts demonstrate is that the president's defense team should move for dismissal immediately following opening arguments.  the Democrats continue to demonstrate that they are enemies of this Republic.

Not one Republican Senator including lefty Romney will vote for the impeachment.

 
 
 
lib50
7.1  lib50  replied to  livefreeordie @7    one month ago

And when Trump goes off the rails after he knows he has no check and balance, the entire gop will own every single word and action.  Buckle up.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ronin2


28 visitors