Republican Senator Says Trump Is Guilty, But "So What?"

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  8 months ago  •  362 comments

Republican Senator Says Trump Is Guilty, But "So What?"

Statement of Lamar Alexander

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. 

There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. 

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’

There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers. 

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    8 months ago

So, Trump is guilty as hell, but there is no punishment. 

Alexander could have gone down in history as a hero, but he choked. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago
So, Trump is guilty as hell, but there is no punishment

There could very well be punishment. It just won't come in the form of the Senate removing him from office. However, you don't have to rely on that because we have regular elections. There could also be more subtle political consequences.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @1.1    8 months ago

You are on record as saying he has done nothing wrong. 

I guess Lamar Alexander doesnt agree with you. 

 the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this 

We need to rid this nation of Trumpism, asap. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    8 months ago

Only in your limited,slanted, and narrow minded opinion. You will get your chance to vote; just like everyone else.

Just look to all of your polls to comfort you between now and the election. They worked out so well in 2016.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago
7NorOQHB_normal.jpg
Chris Murphy
@ChrisMurphyCT

It’s simple really.

If the trial is rigged to keep hidden the most damming, most important, most relevant evidence, then it’s not a trial.

Nor is it an acquittal.

It’s a coverup.

If this is what happens tomorrow, the Senate will be disgraced.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.1  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    8 months ago

I will give you one thing you can parrot a democrat talking point as well as CNN.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    8 months ago

Ask the ever helpful Biden:

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    8 months ago
It’s a coverup.

That's what the lefties will be proclaiming from now until election day, to no avail.

Bolton and the rest would not provided any new or relevant "evidence".

But hey, the Dems can try again to impeach him again in his second term, if they manage to hang onto the House.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.2    8 months ago

Where have the House managers demanded that the Senate hear live witnesses? Hint: They haven't. In fact multiple times they've requested a week to depose witnesses and gather documents. NONE of that would be in an open hearing. JUST LIKE Clinton's. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.3    8 months ago
Bolton and the rest would not provided any new or relevant "evidence".

Prove it!

But hey, the Dems can try again to impeach him again in his second term, if they manage to hang onto the House.

Why wait?  Bolton's book comes out in March, early talk indicates it will outline numerous other impeachable offenses.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.2    8 months ago
Ask the ever helpful Biden:

Who has literally NOTHING to do with trump's impeachment. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.7  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @1.2.4    8 months ago
Where have the House managers demanded that the Senate hear live witnesses?

Hint listen to the damn Democrats in the Senate. The House Democrats don't get a say in the matter. Unless you count Nancy Pelosi- who thinks she gets a say in everything.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/pelosi-trump-cannot-be-acquitted-unless-senate-votes-to-call-witnesses/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Trump “cannot be acquitted” in his Senate impeachment trial unless senators vote to introduce more evidence and call on witnesses to testify because the trial will otherwise be invalid. “He will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial,” Pelosi said at her weekly press briefing. “And you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation.”

So that blows your argument out of the water.

In fact multiple times they've requested a week to depose witnesses and gather documents.

You mean the shit they should have done during their damn investigation in the House? That is their damn job! It is no one's fault but their own they came to court unprepared.

NONE of that would be in an open hearing. JUST LIKE Clinton's. 

So how were the Trumps defense council allowed to show the parts of the House witness interviews that were omitted by the prosecution? They already have all of the Democrat's "information" in the Articles of Impeachment. So nothing new is going to get presented. Oh, and the Clinton trial had no new witnesses- they heard taped testimony from the House investigation. That is it.

Try bitching at the Democrats for fucking up their own impeachment efforts for a change.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.7    8 months ago

Try bitching at the Democrats for fucking up their own impeachment efforts for a change.

In case you haven't heard, the Trump defense is that, sure he did it, but he shouldn't be punished for it.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.7    8 months ago
So that blows your argument out of the water.

Actually, no, NO it doesn't. The key term here is 'live witness testimony'. The Clinton Impeachment HAD 3 witnesses, it did NOT have 'live witness testimony'. 

That is their damn job!

Really? Then please explain why the Senate Impeachment rules include processes and procedures for subpoenaing witnesses and documents? 

So how were the Trumps defense council allowed to show the parts of the House witness interviews that were omitted by the prosecution? 

Are you unaware that there CLOSED depositions and then there were OPEN hearings on LIVE TV? I mean you couldn't have missed the House morons busting into the SCIF trying to pretend that the GOP was locked out of the depositions. 

BTW those deposition transcripts are online and PROVE that the Minority counsel and GOP Congressmen got the same amount of time as the Majority did. In short, Trump's lawyers lied. 

They already have all of the Democrat's "information" in the Articles of Impeachment.

Point? 

So nothing new is going to get presented.

Why not? 

Oh, and the Clinton trial had no new witnesses-

That's because there was YEARS of investigations by a Special Counsel. Barr refused to even open an investigation. 

they heard taped testimony from the House investigation. That is it.

False. The 3 witnesses were deposed, in CLOSED session, by a committee chosen by the Senate. Clips of those SENATE depositions were shown during the trial.

Get educated...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.8    8 months ago
In case you haven't heard, the Trump defense is that, sure he did it, but he shouldn't be punished for it.

In case you haven't heard, the Trump defense doesn't have anything to do with the case put on by the House managers. The case is theirs, and theirs alone.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.8    8 months ago

It is pretty amazing how the Trump defense devolved into technicalities. They totally gave up on trying to show he didnt do what he was accused of, but rather the defense became that the House didnt follow procedures properly (which seems to be a matter of opinion).  I wonder how happy Trump will be that he might get off on technicalities. 

It seems to me that this is all setting up an extended period of time when much of America is going to be talking about how a guilty defendant got off.  Sort of like OJ redux. 

Hard to imagine how this will play well for Trump getting re-elected. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.2.9    8 months ago
BTW those deposition transcripts are online and PROVE that the Minority counsel and GOP Congressmen got the same amount of time as the Majority did. In short, Trump's lawyers lied. 

From ALL of the witnesses or just those Schiff wants to share.  If they're online, that would be great.  We can see everything including the IG whistleblower report and even those that testified essentially in favor of Trump.

So, as you say they're online, do you have a link to all of them for all 18 witnesses Schiff called and interrogated?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.13  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.4    8 months ago
a week to depose witnesses and gather documents.

Why...…..they have stated over and over an over and over again that they have an air tight case, beyond a reasonable doubt. that the President committed a crime, why the need for any witnesses.

 
Tell me with all of your legal knowledge, can you site a trial where the prosecution has presented it's case, handed it over to the defense then, demand that the defense call a witness. Hint: Has never happened :{

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.2.14  dennis smith  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.5    8 months ago

It is nothing more than a book from a disgruntled former government employee. The timing of its release is not a coincidence but rather another sad Dem effort to influence the Nov election.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.2.15  dennis smith  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.5    8 months ago

Bolton will accept however much money he can from writing a book. Are the dems ready to try again after 3 + years of failing to get Trump out of office?

IMO they will try to use the book to influence the 2020 election and will fail again. 

America is tired of this sham and want Congress to work together and get back to the work of the people instead of being partisan hacks (That goes for both parties)

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.2.16  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @1.2.9    8 months ago

Really? Then please explain why the Senate Impeachment rules include processes and procedures for subpoenaing witnesses and documents? 

The procedures and procedures were followed. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.2.17  pat wilson  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.14    8 months ago
The timing of its release is not a coincidence but rather another sad Dem effort to influence the Nov election.

Dems have no control over the timing of Bolton's book release. Unless you're suggesting that Bolton is a Dem ? jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.18  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.12    8 months ago
From ALL of the witnesses or just those Schiff wants to share.  If they're online, that would be great. 

The ONLY testimony that is NOT online is the Jennifer Williams supplemental that Pence classified. 

We can see everything including the IG whistleblower report and even those that testified essentially in favor of Trump.

Trump could release the IG report anytime his corrupt little heart desires. 

So, as you say they're online, do you have a link to all of them for all 18 witnesses Schiff called and interrogated?

https://intelligence.house.gov/defendourdemocracy/

You're welcome. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.19  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.16    8 months ago
The procedures and procedures were followed. 

That wasn't the question. Why deflect? 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.20  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @1.2.18    8 months ago
The ONLY testimony that is NOT online is the Jennifer Williams supplemental that Pence classified.

try again....

Rep.    Adam B. Schiff  , California Democrat, and other impeachment managers repeatedly talk about the 17 witnesses interviewed during the    House  ’s secretive depositions. But they do not mention an 18th witness,    Michael Atkinson  , the intelligence community’s inspector general who has firsthand knowledge of the origins of the whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/23/michael-atkinson-testimony-concealed-adam-schiff/

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.21  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.12    8 months ago

BTW XD, if they were 'interrogated', GOP Congressman were doing it for the same amount of time as the Democrats. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.22  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.13    8 months ago
Why...…..they have stated over and over an over and over again that they have an air tight case, beyond a reasonable doubt. that the President committed a crime, why the need for any witnesses.

When did they say 'beyond a reasonable doubt' goose? You know that isn't a standard in Impeachment right? 

One of the witnesses that refused to testify came forward and is now willing to testify. Bolton is a FACT witness. Trump's lawyers claim that they need evidence that Trump connected the aid with the investigations. Bolton can testify to that fact. 

The reason why the Senate should call at LEAST Bolton is that they took an oath to do 'impartial justice'. 

Tell me with all of your legal knowledge, can you site a trial where the prosecution has presented it's case, handed it over to the defense then, demand that the defense call a witness. Hint: Has never happened :{

You're comparing apples and ardvarks.

Trials subpoena witnesses who then testify and documents which are admitted as evidence. The presiding JUDGE decides what is admissible, NOT the Jury. 

The Senate Impeachment rules and the Resolution governs how the trial is conducted. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.23  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.20    8 months ago

Give me a fucking break. Save that bullshit conspiracy crap for the more gullible. 

Michael Atkinson wasn't deposed, he participated in a closed door hearing. IF the GOP thought that the transcript of that HEARING was so fucking important, they would have encouraged Trump's defense to request it's release or if needed, subpoenaed it. Since that didn't happen, it's pretty clear that it isn't exculpatory. 

BTFW, Ratcliff is a dick and he proves it every one of the hearings he participates in. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.24  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.20    8 months ago

Oh and BTFW, Trump can release the IG's report on the whistleblower anytime his corrupt little heart desires. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.25  Ozzwald  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.14    8 months ago

It is nothing more than a book from a disgruntled former government employee. The timing of its release is not a coincidence but rather another sad Dem effort to influence the Nov election.

Then he should have been called before the Senate and shown to the world that being true.  Instead you have Senate Republicans, and the Whitehouse, in an absolute panic that he "might" have to testify under oath.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.26  Ozzwald  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.15    8 months ago
Bolton will accept however much money he can from writing a book.

Doesn't mean anything in the bookis untrue.

Are the dems ready to try again after 3 + years of failing to get Trump out of office?

Is Trump going to violate the Constitution and law again?

IMO they will try to use the book to influence the 2020 election and will fail again. 

Nothing in the yet unreleased book has been proven false.  It will fail with the Trumpettes, who could witness him shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still vote for him.

America is tired of this sham and want Congress to work together and get back to the work of the people instead of being partisan hacks (That goes for both parties)

Sham of a Presidency?  I agree.  As for Congress, why don't you ask McConnell about the 300+ bills sitting on his desk, most of which are bipartisan from the House?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.27  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.22    8 months ago
One of the witnesses that refused to testify came forward and is now willing to testify.

The House didn't conduct a complete investigation, they didn't want to litigate to have witnesses appear, that is their fault.  They refused witnesses Republicans wanted to call but, I guess you're OK with that.  They don't control the Senate so they have no say how it is conducted.  Elections have consequences.  

Trials subpoena witnesses who then testify and documents which are admitted as evidence

True, but you can't "make" Prosecutors or Defense attorneys call witnesses. 

The presiding JUDGE decides what is admissible

 A Judge doesn't call witnesses in any trail. 

The Senate Impeachment rules and the Resolution governs how the trial is conducted

True, but the party in control makes the rules, same as the House. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.28  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.27    8 months ago
The House didn't conduct a complete investigation, they didn't want to litigate to have witnesses appear, that is their fault. 

Thousands of indictments are filed in the US every day that are derived from incomplete investigations. The investigation doesn't end the day the indictment [Articles of Impeachment] are filed. 

They refused witnesses Republicans wanted to call but, I guess you're OK with that. 

The witnesses that were refused were NOT, repeat NOT fact witnesses. The House Intel Committee DID call the fact witnesses that the Republicans asked for. 

They don't control the Senate so they have no say how it is conducted.  Elections have consequences.  

Yet Senators, Trump's lawyers and YOU are whining about how the House Majority is conducting their proceedings even though they are following the rules passed by a GOP House Majority. I guess those consequences only hold in the Senate right?  

It drips with hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.29  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.28    8 months ago
The investigation doesn't end the day the indictment [Articles of Impeachment] are filed. 

Great......start ANOTHER investigation that's a fantastic idea (you won't win an election till 2032).

The witnesses that were refused were NOT, repeat NOT fact witnesses.

I know they needed to be hearsay witnesses ha ha ha !

I guess those consequences only hold in the Senate right?

Talk about hypocrisy, no rules have been broken by either House or Senate, but you think you have somehow been silghted, tuff shit!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.30  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.29    8 months ago
Great......start ANOTHER investigation that's a fantastic idea (you won't win an election till 2032).

Remind me, how many Benghazi investigations were there?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.31  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.30    8 months ago

There were three that wouldn’t have taken as long if the Obama administration wouldn’t have lied and Hillary would have turned over her emails.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.32  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.30    8 months ago
Remind me, how many Benghazi investigations were there?

Not enough.  They were looking in the wrong direction and target to find who was responsible for that disaster.

They should have looked at the CIA and the very probable FLASH CABLE that came out of the CIA ANNEX which sets off all sorts of bells and lights and HAS to be in the hands of the National Security Adviser (NSA) within ten minutes.  The NSA in this case was none other than Susan Rice.

Hmmmm....   I wonder who she reported to?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.33  Ozzwald  replied to  MUVA @1.2.31    8 months ago

There were three that wouldn’t have taken as long if the Obama administration wouldn’t have lied and Hillary would have turned over her emails.

Keep counting....

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.34  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.32    8 months ago
Not enough.  They were looking in the wrong direction and target to find who was responsible for that disaster.

Yup, those damn Republicans couldn't spot a guilty person if the Democrats shoved all the evidence and witnesses in their face. 

See we agree on something...jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.35  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.29    8 months ago
Great......start ANOTHER investigation that's a fantastic idea (you won't win an election till 2032).

Nope, only talking about ONE investigation goose but you knew that.

I know they needed to be hearsay witnesses ha ha ha !

Some day maybe one of you will acknowledge that under American jurisprudence, hearsay testimony is admissible when principle witnesses are prohibited or refuse to testify. 

Talk about hypocrisy,

Yes, I was pointing out your hypocritical comment. 

no rules have been broken by either House or Senate,

I never said they were. Strawman. 

but you think you have somehow been silghted, tuff shit!

What lead you to that ridiculous conclusion? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.36  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.32    8 months ago
Not enough.  

Would you care to at least put a cap on how many more millions you want to spend? 

They were looking in the wrong direction and target to find who was responsible for that disaster.

I wonder if you realize the level of incompetence by the Republican leadership that would require. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.37  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @1.2.31    8 months ago

There were 8 investigations and over 30 Congressional hearings. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.38  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.30    8 months ago
Remind me, how many Benghazi investigations were there?

Enough for us to lose the house in 2018 !

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.39  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.35    8 months ago
.Nope, only talking about ONE investigation goose but you knew that.

Except for this one.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/5/john-bolton-likely-be-subpoenaed-house-democrats-j/

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.40  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.39    8 months ago
Except for this one.

Were we talking about that goose? Hint: NO. 

Would you like to ADD that prospective investigation? 

 
 
 
sixpick
1.2.41  sixpick  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    8 months ago

How many people did the Republicans get to call to testify in the House? Zero.  That's where the witnesses are set up for the Senators, not in the Senate.  Bug Eye controlled the impeachment like a Stalinist trial.  No witnesses for the accused and no representation for the accused.

Can't you see how a judge would react if the prosecutors came to court and told him even though we have overwhelming evidence for a conviction, we're not prepared for the trial after not even giving the accused a chance to defend himself with his lawyers.  The Communists and Fascists are both included in the Totalitarian Pie and they showed us just how they did it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in this case.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.42  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.35    8 months ago
Some day maybe one of you will acknowledge that under American jurisprudence, hearsay testimony is admissible when principle witnesses are prohibited or refuse to testify. 

There is a premise of facing your accuser, if the accuser has never met you, never heard you or seen you, only heard about it from someone else, that's going to be difficult.  To make the statement that there is somebody out there that hasn't testified or won't testify but knows the truth so therefore you are guilty is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.43  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.42    8 months ago
There is a premise of facing your accuser, if the accuser has never met you, never heard you or seen you, only heard about it from someone else, that's going to be difficult.  To make the statement that there is somebody out there that hasn't testified or won't testify but knows the truth so therefore you are guilty is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. 

Yet Trump and his cult did everything in their power to keep people with first hand knowledge from testifying and we all know why. 

Now, Bolton's book will come out and his cult will have to explain why they didn't want the truth to be told when it mattered. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.44  Dulay  replied to  sixpick @1.2.41    8 months ago
How many people did the Republicans get to call to testify in the House? Zero. 

That is false. Volker, Morrison and Hall testified at the GOP's request. 

That's where the witnesses are set up for the Senators, not in the Senate.  Bug Eye controlled the impeachment like a Stalinist trial.  No witnesses for the accused and no representation for the accused.

Trump chose not to participate in the Judiciary Committee hearings. Neither he or you can whine since he made that choice. 

Can't you see how a judge would react if the prosecutors came to court and told him even though we have overwhelming evidence for a conviction, we're not prepared for the trial after not even giving the accused a chance to defend himself with his lawyers. 

Again, Trump had a chance, he chose NOT to take it. 

The Communists and Fascists are both included in the Totalitarian Pie and they showed us just how they did it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in this case.

Ridiculous hyperbole. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.45  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.43    8 months ago
Yet Trump and his cult did everything in their power to keep people with first hand knowledge from testifying and we all know why.

Yes....its called Executive Privilege.  If Democrats weren't in such a hurry they should have referred it to the courts, but they didn't so don't whine to me about it. 

Now, Bolton's book will come out

Please tell me where I can get a copy.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.46  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.45    8 months ago
Yes....its called Executive Privilege. 

No it's called a cover up. 

If Democrats weren't in such a hurry they should have referred it to the courts, but they didn't so don't whine to me about it. 

Hey you were the one whining about Trump facing his accuser. He could have done so, he CHOSE not to. Now he'll face him without the ability to cross examine him. But hey, it's Trump so he'll just sling shit. No worries. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.47  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.46    8 months ago
Trump facing his accuser. He could have done so, he CHOSE not to

You really don't understand the legal system, its NOT the accused job to bring his accuser to trial. Please point our my "whining" I knew how this was going to end when it started.

 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.48  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.47    8 months ago
You really don't understand the legal system, its NOT the accused job to bring his accuser to trial.

YOU really don't understand that in our legal system the prosecution subpoenas witnesses and documents and that neither the defense or the jury get to decide whether those witnesses testify. The Senate 'trial' isn't and wasn't conducted under our 'legal system', it was conducted by the Trump cult. 

Please point our my "whining" I knew how this was going to end when it started.

In your uninformed comment:

To make the statement that there is somebody out there that hasn't testified or won't testify but knows the truth so therefore you are guilty is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. 

It shouldn't be 'one of the most ridiculous things' you've ever heard since your vast knowledge of our legal system should have lead you to acknowledge that the evidence code includes "adverse inference'. 

https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/adverse+Inference

Note that adverse inference not only covers destroyed evidence, but also covers  withholding documents AND witnesses. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.49  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.2.48    8 months ago

"In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. "

The "Prosecutors" (House Managers) brought their evidence to the "High Court" (Senate). The High Court" (Senate) made their ruling after hearing the "Prosecutors" (House Managers) EVIDENCE.

Which "High Court Judge " calls their own witness's anyway ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.50  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.49    8 months ago

Just sour grapes and something new to bitch about after the impeachment failed miserably to do what Democrats wanted.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.51  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.50    8 months ago

Hell. They're blaming the High Court Senate for not becoming "Prosecutors" instead of remaining Judges (Like they're supposed to remain).

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.52  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.51    8 months ago

The House shouldn't have been in such a rush to impeach.

They should never have relied on the Senate to put their case on for them.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.53  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.52    8 months ago
The House shouldn't have been in such a rush to impeach.

Or in a rush to only use "Witness's" that Used "I Feel" as proof of a guilt.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.54  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.48    8 months ago

dulay, stop whining about the democrats rush to judgement, if they wanted Bolton they should have subpoenaed him.  He didn't want to give a sworn statement to Nadler, so you are back to hearsay again. Start another Impeachment inquiry and subpoena him quit bitchin about Republicans.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.55  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.54    7 months ago
dulay, stop whining about the democrats rush to judgement,

Not whining goose. Just correcting your mistaken posit. 

if they wanted Bolton they should have subpoenaed him. 

Where did I say anything about Bolton? Why deflect? 

He didn't want to give a sworn statement to Nadler, so you are back to hearsay again.

The Intel Committee requested that he testify, NOT the Judiciary committee. 

Start another Impeachment inquiry and subpoena him quit bitchin about Republicans.

Why? His book will be released long before any court ruling would happen. The difference is that with the book, Trump's lawyers won't be able to cross examine him. All they'll be able to do now is follow Trump's MO and attack him. 

 
 
 
squiggy
1.3  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago

"...but there is no punishment."

Nancy, in her condescending way, said that her purpose wasn't to punish Trump, but to remove him. Not even the queen wants to punish him. She's just another who doesn't trust the voting peon.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago

There are plenty of idiots in both parties! Lamar just happens to be one that belongs to the GOP.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago

Just for the time he has been in office, nobody has proved Trump is guilty of anything impeachable, thus what will he be punished for other than just being Trump?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.5    8 months ago

The point of this seed is that a republican senator admitted that the House managers overwhelmingly proved Trump's guilt. 

Why should we accept Trump being Trump?  He's a fricking slimeball.  [deleted]

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.5.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.1    8 months ago

John - do you even read what you write????  "House managers overwhelmingly proved Trump's guilt."

What he said was "has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense."  The House proved that they have no friggin' idea what they were doing other than GET TRUMP!!!!!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.5.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.1    8 months ago
The point of this seed is that a republican senator admitted that the House managers overwhelmingly proved Trump's guilt. 

No they did not prove anything. If they had, they would not have demanded more witnesses and documents.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.5.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5.2    8 months ago

Bingo!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.5.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.1    8 months ago

Sorry to disappoint you, but hearsay and innuendo are still not admissible evidence in court no matter how much you insist and wish they were.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.6  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.5.5    8 months ago
Sorry to disappoint you, but hearsay and innuendo are still not admissible evidence in court no matter how much you insist and wish they were.

False. There are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay admissibility rule and one of them it for testimony about prohibited witnesses or witnesses that refuse to testify. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.5.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @1.5.6    8 months ago

I disagree, and certainly not in the case of the farcical circus being played out by the Democrats in the Senate currently.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.8  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.5.7    8 months ago

Your disagreement doesn't make it less of a fact Ed. I'm not talking about what I feel or believe, I'm talking about documented American jurisprudence. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.5.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @1.5.8    8 months ago

To each their own.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.10  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.5.9    8 months ago

If you're an American, it's your own too Ed. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.5.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @1.5.10    8 months ago

So are you implying that if I do not agree with you, that makes me less of a American?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.12  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.5.11    8 months ago
So are you implying that if I do not agree with you, that makes me less of a American?

No, I am STATING that as an American you have ownership of the exact same jurisprudence as I. 

If you were sincerely interested in the FACTS, you would have used the last 2 days to review the LAW. Since you continue to argue that hearsay is inadmissible, it's obvious to me that you couldn't be bothered, so it would be a waste of my time to cite links in an attempt to dissuade you from your unfounded beliefs. 

Carry on...

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.5.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @1.5.12    8 months ago

Perhaps if you were not so condescending to those you feel do not live up to your lofty standards and political ideals, it would be possible to have a meaningful discussion. But that's not going to happen, so in your words, carry on....

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.14  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.5.13    8 months ago
Perhaps if you were not so condescending to those you feel do not live up to your lofty standards and political ideals, it would be possible to have a meaningful discussion. But that's not going to happen, so in your words, carry on....

Tissue? 

You don't want a 'meaningful discussion' Ed. You make your proclamations and then get pissed off when you get called out for them.

This is an adult forum and I post comments to be READ by adults. 

Continuing to argue about an issue that you haven't researched and don't even seem really curious about is juvenile. Don't diss me because I've actually devoted the time necessary to UNDERSTAND WTF I'm talking about and am capable of articulating what I've learned.

If you come on here and make ridiculous statements about the LAW, expect me to call you out and post facts. If you don't want to feel condescended to, you can either avoid making ridiculous comments about the law or do some research and educate yourself so you can hang...

Your choice. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.5.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @1.5.14    8 months ago

Thanks for proving my point. Have a good evening.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.16  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.5.15    8 months ago

Thanks for proving mine. Good morning. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago

It was inappropriate, but certainly not impeachable, so no punishment is warranted. The upcoming election was not influenced in any way, and the military aid was only delayed, not denied. If I remember correctly, Trump's predecessor refused to send any aid at all. All the Democrats has proven, is that they are unfit and unable to govern

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.1  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.6    8 months ago
If I remember correctly, Trump's predecessor refused to send any aid at all.

You remember wrong. 

 
 
 
CB
1.6.2  CB   replied to  Greg Jones @1.6    8 months ago
All the Democrats has proven, is that they are unfit and unable to govern.

That's totally untrue. Are you intentionally ignoring or are you completely unaware that President Trump violated several U. S laws:

  1. The Impoundment Act of 1974.
  2. Campaign Finance Law.

Moreover, Trump intentionally established an ongoing conspiracy to fraud Ukraine, by asking the nation to take improper responsibility to announce what we now know to be a fake, phony, investigation scheme. Thus, carrying the near-potential of making that nation complicit.

And now, republicans senators have acted in bad faith to collude with this president in getting an acquittal judgement without a properly carried out trial.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.6.3  gooseisgone  replied to  CB @1.6.2    8 months ago
what we now know to be a fake, phony, investigation

There hasn't been an investigation, so you can't call it fake.

 
 
 
CB
1.6.4  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @1.6.3    8 months ago
Moreover, Trump intentionally established an ongoing conspiracy to fraud Ukraine, by asking the nation to take improper responsibility to announce what we now know to be a fake, phony, investigation scheme.

Don't split 'the baby': Either agree or disagree with the sentence, but do not disperse it!

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.6.5  gooseisgone  replied to  CB @1.6.4    8 months ago
 Either agree or disagree with the sentence, but do not disperse it!

What do you think I was doing, there has been no investigation so it can't be fake. So you statement is false.  That would be a "disagree" just for the record 

 
 
 
CB
1.6.6  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @1.6.5    8 months ago

Goose, actually I like your interest in this. But, you are missing the point . Here is what I wrote yet again:

Moreover, Trump intentionally established an ongoing conspiracy to fraud Ukraine, by asking the nation to take improper responsibility to announce what we now know to be a fake, phony, investigation scheme .
  1. Scheme:
    make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong.
    "he schemed to bring about the collapse of the government"
    synonyms:
    plot · hatch a plot · conspire · take part in a conspiracy · intrigue · connive · maneuver · plan · lay plans · machinate · cabal · complot

Now do you understand the "words coming out of my mouth"? We know it was fake, because it (the scheme) was busted open by a whisteblower to Congress.

In other words, no real investigation need take place over days or months - the Ukrainian President, himself on demand , was to go to a microphone before world media - and lie about starting an investigation ("Pull a Trump.").

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago
So, Trump is guilty as hell, but there is no punishment. 

Did you read Sen Alexander's position?

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate."

Inappropriate does not equal an impeachable offense.


 
 
 
MrFrost
1.7.1  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7    8 months ago
Inappropriate does not equal an impeachable offense.

Abuse of power is outlined as an impeachable offense, and that's what he was impeached for. 

Put it another way Vic:

The mayor of the town in which you live comes to your house and says, "If you don't vote for me, I will make sure that all EMS will never come to your house if you call 911". 

Is that abuse of power? 

Obviously. You wouldn't excuse that mayor for doing it to you yet you want to excuse trump for doing the exact same thing. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.7.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  MrFrost @1.7.1    8 months ago

Lev Parnas attorney has offered his testimony to the impeachment. 

EPoqfslXUAAXuAy?format=png&name=900x900

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @1.7.1    8 months ago
Abuse of power is outlined as an impeachable offense

Please show us where.  "Abuse of power" is nothing more than an open ended criteria and not an impeachable offense.


The mayor of the town in which you live comes to your house and says, "If you don't vote for me, I will make sure that all EMS will never come to your house if you call 911". 

The explicit "I will make sure that all EMS will never come to your house if you call 911" would make it extortion, which IS an impeachable offense. You notice that the House and all their legal experts didn't charge "bribery" or "extortion".  Then they would have lost on the merits immediately!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.7.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.3    8 months ago

The explicit "I will make sure that all EMS will never come to your house if you call 911" would make it extortion, which IS an impeachable offense. You notice that the House and all their legal experts didn't charge "bribery" or "extortion".  Then they would have lost on the merits immediately!

Are bribery and extortion not

Abuses of power ?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.3    8 months ago
Please show us where. 

As you've been told many times, Federalist 65, which your hero Dershowitz lied about multiple times. 

"Abuse of power" is nothing more than an open ended criteria and not an impeachable offense.

Except Hamilton specifically said that it IS. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.7.5    8 months ago
which your hero Dershowitz lied about multiple times. 

I'm kind of partial to the professor's version.

Except Hamilton specifically said that it IS. 

Regardless of what was said, there was a Constitutional Convention and the writing of the Constitution. There was at the Constitutional Convention a proposal to include simple maladministration as a ground for impeachment. It was rejected on the ground that it would make it too easy for Congress to have the president serve at the will of Congress and would turn us into a parliamentary democracy where a vote of no confidence is enough.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.7.4    8 months ago
Are bribery and extortion not Abuses of power ?

AGAIN....If the democrats had a clear case of bribery and/or extortion they would have charged the President with that and believe me, Pelosi wouldn't have been waving it around for weeks - she would have ran it over to the Senate!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.6    8 months ago
Regardless of what was said, there was a Constitutional Convention and the writing of the Constitution.

Bullshit. The Federalist Papers have been cited as underlying intentions of the Founders in hundreds of court rulings since the ratification of the Constitution. 

There was at the Constitutional Convention a proposal to include simple maladministration as a ground for impeachment. It was rejected on the ground that it would make it too easy for Congress to have the president serve at the will of Congress and would turn us into a parliamentary democracy where a vote of no confidence is enough.

You are just regurgitating Dershowitz's bullshit. 

The actual reason that 'maladministration' was rejected is that they found it to be 'too vague a term' and substituted it with 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.

James Madison: So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

Madison didn't like the idea of the Senate being elevated over the House and actually preferred to have the Supreme Court or a 'tribunal' to conduct the impeachment trial instead of the Senate. He was voted down. 

Other founders argued that ANY impeachment clause would make the Executive  'dependent on the legislature' and they were also voted down. 

It's clear that those debating the impeachment clause had a clear understanding of what the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' meant, they were well versed in Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England published in 1765. Instead of allowing yourself to be gaslighted by Dershowitz, I suggest you review Chapter 9 of that treatise in which he describes the meaning of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' as the founders understood it. 

Dershowitz is full of shit and documented history proves it. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.7.8    8 months ago

Let me try and respond amid all the Bullshiting, gaslighting and regurgitation.

The House of Representatives, under Pelosi's leadership, rushed to deliver a vote of impeachment, before Christmas (almost as a Christmas hate gift to the man they hate). She submitted the shortest impeachment investigation in American history, as well as the narrowest grounds (broad open ended allegations) and with the thinnest record (because they wouldn't wait for more testimony and info) to ever go to the Senate for trial. As flimsy as the case was democrats managed to hang "impeachment" on the President, delay what should have been an easy dismissal so that they have the President giving his State of the Union Speech without his acquittal and even managed to use the whole process as a political campaign against the President using taxpayer money. And you want to debate the Federalist Papers?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7.10  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.9    8 months ago
Let me try and respond amid all the Bullshiting, gaslighting and regurgitation.

You could have done so prior to posting the bullshiting, gaslighting and regurgitation in your comments. 

And you want to debate the Federalist Papers?

As were you until confronted with unequivocal facts about them and the debate in the Constitutional Convention. [deleted]

You said you're 'partial to the professor's version'. It's up to you if you want to accept a 'version' from a self serving hack verses the AUTHORS themselves. 

I prefer to READ historical documents for myself and come to my own conclusions. It is also my practice to READ legal and scholarly articles about the subject to inform my decisions. 

Because I have actually reviewed historical, legal and scholarly documents on this issue, I KNOW that Dershowitz's 'version' is a lie, PERIOD full stop.

But hey, far be it from me to dissuade you or Senators from swilling the koolaid. Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.7.10    8 months ago
Because I have actually reviewed historical, legal and scholarly documents on this issue, I KNOW that Dershowitz's 'version' is a lie, PERIOD full stop.

I have an idea.!..Why not assume that Professor Dershowitz simply has a different point of view, which may be right or wrong, rather than calling it a lie? That would be what the affluent, suburban, progressive gals on twitter do. Wouldn't it?   Allow for a different perspective.


Now you've devolved to blathering and deflecting, per your MO.
 
Well, I guess you'd be the one to know.


I prefer to READ historical documents for myself and come to my own conclusions. It is also my practice to READ legal and scholarly articles about the subject to inform my decisions.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.11    8 months ago
I have an idea.!..Why not assume that Professor Dershowitz simply has a different point of view, which may be right or wrong, rather than calling it a lie?

Because he profits from putting himself out as an expert Constitutional Scholar and he's merely a hack sell out. 

That would be what the affluent, suburban, progressive gals on twitter do. Wouldn't it?   

How the fuck would I know? 

Allow for a different perspective.

Yet Dershowitz doesn't do so. He insists that his vast research has caused him to do a 180 on his opinion while giving little to no REASON for that 180. Dershowitz LIED about Federalist 65 AND the statements made during the debate in the Constitutional Convention. That isn't a 'different perspective', it's intentional gaslighting and Senators are too fucking lazy to READ the documents for themselves and may be too stupid to understand them even if they did. This, after they bitched and whined about waiting for the Article to come from the House. Perhaps a review of what our founders ACTUALLY said would have been a better use of their time and yours. 

Well, I guess you'd be the one to know.

Why yes Vic, sadly I've witnessed your comments devolve to blathering and deflecting all too often. 

[deleted]
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.7.12    8 months ago
So never. 

You bet!   AS IN NEVER EVER!

BTW when you have to call every opposing argument "Bullshit" it means you haven't got much.[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7.14  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.13    8 months ago
BTW when you have to call every opposing argument "Bullshit" it means you haven't got much.

Actually what it means it that it's bullshit.

BTW Vic, you haven't posted an 'opposing argument', you've merely regurgitated Dershowitz's bullshit. I stated WHY Dershowitz's lies are bullshit. You haven't refuted any of it.[Insulting]

comment removed for context [ph]

[Meta]

Your only issue with me calling your 'opposing arguments' bullshit is that I PROVE they're bullshit.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.7.14    8 months ago
Actually what it means it that it's bullshit.

Actually what it means is that your argument wasn't strong enough.

comment removed for context [ph]

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
1.7.16  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.15    8 months ago

Can I draw your attention to something? John Durham's face as 'yours,' it's association at-length is disconcerting. Do you agree at all? I am not sure how many of us are using the face of another living individual. Am I wrong? Exception: Trump's face does not count! No one here can be confused about that mug 'abuse.'

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.7.17  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.15    8 months ago

I am putting this comment here because it is the end of the thread for now. Both of you (in alphabetical order, Dulay and Vic) will stop with the personal jabs. Discuss the topic and not each other. Only warning. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7.18  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.15    8 months ago
Actually what it means is that your argument wasn't strong enough.

Yet all you've done is proclaim that to be so.

Make an argument of your own Vic.

Post a link to the Constitutional Convention debates that refutes what I posted. Support Dershowitz's posit on Federalist 65 or at least express one of your own.

But please do spare me your unsubstantiated proclamations. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.7.18    8 months ago
Post a link to the Constitutional Convention debates that refutes what I posted.

"The greatest danger is that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." -- Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) Federalist No. 65, regarding impeachment of the President

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7.20  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.7.19    8 months ago

Truncating the quote takes it out of context. 

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. 

I have posted this same paragraph multiple times to refute Dershowitz's bullshit. Neither  you or anyone else has tried to argue that Dershowitz's interpretation of that paragraph is accurate. 

I find it sadly ironic that you are unwilling to acknowledge that in the Party of Trump is guilty of what you're pretending to decry. I have lost count of how many Senators have said that Trump is guilty but they are voting to acquit him anyway. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.9  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago

The President of the United States asked Ukraine to look into the corruption of the Bidens and possibly other misdeeds swirling around foreign interference in the 2016 and the Democrats of course consider that a crime but anybody with any knowledge of the law knows that that’s exactly what he should’ve been doing.   

This point has been made a million times over yet for some reason we have Democrats blindly thinking and accusing the American people of wholesale stupidity while wishing they could manufacture something to alleviate their pain and disgrace of a nominee for the president and more than likely another embarrassment that they will suffer later this year.

 
 
 
CB
2  CB     8 months ago

Typical. Alexander or whatever his name is, passes the senate 'buck' to the citizenry. The old boy don't want THAT kind of fame on his record at the end. Moral of this story. Do not undertake anything - anymore with faith in Trump republicans and conservatives.

From now on democrats and others need to go it alone or do not undertake an effort at all! Republicans can come; but as an accessory only.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @2    8 months ago

It will be interesting to see how many other Republicans have the "courage" to say Trump is guilty, even though they dont want to remove him. 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.1  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    8 months ago

I don't even care if they call it courage or whatever anymore. This long ridiculous experience has demonstrated to me 'just going along to get along' will not do against a phalanx of Trump 'troops' who are steamrolling and tossing everybody off their island who dare confront him.

The Rule of Law is dead.  We are just about on our own now. Oddly familiar: We have been >here< before in the 60's.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @2.1.1    8 months ago

I was alive in the 60's and old enough to know what was going on. Things are far worse today. 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.3  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    8 months ago

Humph. You mean a new consciousness movement and songs won't do?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    8 months ago

They're all spineless, gutless, ball-less.  They won't say he's guilty if they're complicit.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  CB @2    8 months ago

Screw that.

The Democrats have no room to talk after they voted against removing Bill Clinton from office. Perjury and Obstruction of Justice (witness tampering) are real damn crimes. Not like the made up BS against Trump.

If Trump had a D behind his name the Democrats would be stone walling just like the Republicans.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    8 months ago
_zaisxGL_normal.jpg
Donald J. Drumpf @RealDonalDrumpf

I WILL DEDICATE MY LIFE TO FINDING THE REAL KILLERS! # LamarsLegacy

 
 
 
squiggy
2.2.2  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    8 months ago
I WILL DEDICATE MY LIFE

Those words usually follow the decision of a jury box of simpletons. Fortunately, we're past that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    8 months ago

About a fucking blow job.  

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.4  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.3    8 months ago

About witness tampering and lying in a deposition and exposing himself to a women then lying about it .Getting a blow job at work wasn't part of the impeachment. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2.2.4    8 months ago

No.

It was all about a blow job.  Nothing else.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    8 months ago

Bill Clinton doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with this.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.7  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.6    8 months ago

His impeachment set a precedent. Do you know what a precedent is?

 
 
 
CB
2.2.8  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    8 months ago

I am not responsible for what Clinton senators did back in the 90's. So miss me with that. If you think it fair to base one impeachment on one or a set of other impeachments in some game of revenge—that is a sick game and perversion of justice and has nothing to do with me or the facts of today's impeachment.

Moreover, I have not intention of trying to help you get 'well' of your state. Screw that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.7    8 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.7    8 months ago

jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.11  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @2.2.4    8 months ago

About witness tampering and lying in a deposition and exposing himself to a women then lying about it .Getting a blow job at work wasn't part of the impeachment. 

So when does trump testify under oath like Clinton did? 

Never. He wouldn't last 5 minutes. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.2.12  dennis smith  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.11    8 months ago

Why should he testify, the impeachment failed the smell test.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.13  MrFrost  replied to  dennis smith @2.2.12    8 months ago

Why should he testify, the impeachment failed the smell test.

That's an opinion, not a fact. He was IMPEACHED. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.13    8 months ago
He was IMPEACHED. 

So what? What difference will it make in your life?

 
 
 
CB
2.2.15  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.14    8 months ago

What difference does holding to fair principles and not double standards make in any life?

 
 
 
CB
2.2.16  CB   replied to  MrFrost @2.2.13    8 months ago

My friend, a verb change. Trump IS impeached.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    8 months ago

Is it possible that we have entered the realm of Trump invincibility?  And, is it also possible that Doctor Ronny Jackson was correct when he said Trump was the healthiest person he'd

ever examined and could live to be two hundred years old?  And this too;  Is it possible that Trump really was sent by God? 

As far as Alexander, there it is.  There you have it.  It is done and done.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bbl-1 @3    8 months ago

No, no, no, no and no. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    8 months ago

I agree.  Trump and Trumpism thrives under The Sword of Damocles.  He is a marked man.  He has marked himself.  The enthrallment of the 'christian right' will crash upon his unworthy head.  America will never allow christian sharia.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.1    8 months ago

The most likely result of the November elections will be that Trump and his crowd are crushed. 

If he gets re-elected it will be the end of the U.S. as we have known it all our lives. 

I just don't believe the downfall of our country is that close, at least I hope not. 

I feel sorry for kids that are 10 or 11 years old now. The only president they have really known is this clown and they have to be indoctrinated with the idea that this idiot represents normalcy.  If he gets 4 more years he will be the president for every teenager in the country.  It is a travesty beyond description. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    8 months ago
If he gets 4 more years he will be the president for every teenager in the country. 

Oh, no, not at all. Those future teens can learn from today's "adults" and merely pretend Trump isn't their President.

Should work out fine for them.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    8 months ago
Those future teens can learn from today's "adults" and merely pretend Trump isn't their President.

I don't know of anyone pretending Trump isn't the President, just the vast majority of Americans who refuse to pretend he's not an inept moron.

 
 
 
squiggy
3.1.5  squiggy  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.1    8 months ago
He is a marked man. 

Yea, and the left will continue to impeach the mothafucka for some arcane reason.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @3.1.5    8 months ago
ar·cane
/ärˈkān/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
  1. understood by few; mysterious or secret.
    Those who don't kiss his big fat stinky ass and believe every goddamned lie spewing out of his shithole of a mouth know why he should be impeached.  
 
 
 
CB
3.1.7  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    8 months ago

Be careful of what you write regarding Trump. If nothing else, he is a survivor who has demonstrated he knows how to manipulate those under his authority. If democrats are going to win this fall, then they need a new standard, a new format, and they need to get on with it every day. I'd imagine Donald Trump has started his next project already to undermining a leading democrat candidate against him. That's the smart thing to do!

Democrats get your heads in the damn game!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  CB @3.1.7    8 months ago

I can't believe you mentioned smart and this 'president' in the same paragraph.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.4    8 months ago
I don't know of anyone pretending Trump isn't the President, just the vast majority of Americans who refuse to pretend he's not an inept moron.

And now we all know who pretends that many have claimed he isn't their President--as if there is another President that might be theirs.

Surely you remember the sky-screaming idiots who bravely shouted that out?

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.9    8 months ago

512

 
 
 
CB
3.1.11  CB   replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    8 months ago

Yes! There are smart diabolical masterminds (and mob bosses) in our land.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.9    8 months ago
Surely you remember the sky-screaming idiots who bravely shouted that out?

That was nothing but a bullshit straw man created by Trump acolytes. Were there those who said he "wasn't 'their' President"? I heard a few say that, but that's different than claiming he's not 'the' President and just indicated what the vast majority of Americans felt after the election which was that a vile sexual predator piece of shit didn't represent them or their values regardless of the fact that he was "the President". Dishonest Donald only represents those who have abandoned their values, abandoned their morals and drunk recklessly from the sewer of lies that is Donald Trump.

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.13  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    8 months ago

The sky if falling, the sky if falling as it has been for 3 + years.  

The travesty is that dems are unable/unwilling to accept Senate findings but accept what the House did.

That is the worst type of partisanship and is what is destroying America. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.12    8 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  CB @3.1.11    8 months ago

Which does not include tRump.

He's a moron.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    8 months ago

Unfortunately, the only bottom line with Trump is the, "So What." 

And once the senate acquits, Americans ought to brace themselves for a horrible barrage of revenge led by Trump and carried out by the unleashed MAGA base.  It could become ugly. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bbl-1 @4    8 months ago

Personally, I'm more concerned with revenge from the progressive leftist liberal Democrats that did not get their own way against Trump.

 
 
 
squiggy
4.1.1  squiggy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1    8 months ago

Revenge from the Democrats?  How so?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @4.1.1    8 months ago

removed for context

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.4  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.2    8 months ago

Some democrats on this very site say people will pay a price for supporting Trump what do they mean?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @4.1.4    8 months ago

Why are you asking me?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @4.1.4    8 months ago

Usually such a price is self-recrimination. 

 
 
 
squiggy
4.1.7  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.3    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @4.1.7    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
5  TᵢG    8 months ago
There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’

I think that was obvious from the start.   Trump never offered a reason for why the funds were released after initially ordering the delay.   (One could argue, as Trump attorneys did, that the delay was to ensure Ukraine made good on its promise to investigate corruption in general.   The release is the issue.)  The lack of a clear event precipitating the release is the problem because such a decision would not be arbitrary — there should be a clear reason for it (e.g. point to something that happened that satisfied the reason for the delay).   Since the Trump defense never posited what precipitated the release of the funds, people will speculate on the reason for the delay in the first place.   If people speculate, they will take into consideration Trump's character and style.   Would Trump put a hold on funds to encourage Ukraine to announce an investigation of Hunter Biden?   Bush, Obama likely would not; Trump is a different story.   His character and style bites him in the butt on this one.

The question, really, is if this is an impeachable act.   I think Pelosi misfired and shot the D side of the House in the foot.   My guess is that she (and her team of advisers) figured an impeachment (the indictment itself) would harm Trump in his reelection bid.    The success of that gambit will depend upon how the Senate votes.   If none of the Rs vote to remove Trump from office then Trump will use that to campaign for electing R supporters in the House (arguing an irresponsible partisan witch hunt instead of doing the work of the people) and declare himself innocent.   Repeatedly.   If at least one D does not vote to remove Trump, then Trump will boast of a bipartisan acquittal.  

Pelosi's gambit, seems to me, requires at least one R vote for conviction (bi-partisan label) and 100% support from the D,I senators.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5    8 months ago

The issue is, is Donald Trump fit to serve in the office of president of the United States?  Obviously he is not, unless we as Americans are going to trash all our history, all our traditional beliefs about right and wrong, and all our desire for our children and future generations to revere and seek to emulate our national leaders.  A good part of the reason we have always taught schoolchildren about Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt is as much about their character and the way they presented themselves as it is about policies they pursued. 

Now we live in a "cynical" age. People want a slimeball like Trump to be a sufficient "anti-hero" who makes it "ok" for them to hate the other. 

Nancy Pelosi did what she needed to do. Of course what Trump did is an impeachable offense. He tried to cheat on his next election by preventing US aid from reaching a beleaguered foreign country that needs it, unless that foreign country played along with Trump smearing his main political opponent. If that isnt a "high crime" nothing is. 

There is no blame on Democrats in this. I find it more likely that Trump will suffer, in November, especially as more facts about his criminal behavior unfold. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    8 months ago
The issue is, is Donald Trump fit to serve in the office of president of the United States? 

Are you saying that the impeachment trial is supposed to be a vote of confidence in Trump (as in the British system)?

Seems to me the trial exists for the Senators to decide on whether the articles of impeachment are factually supported and that they are sufficient to remove a sitting president.

Nancy Pelosi did what she needed to do.

She should have insisted on a case for removal that would satisfy an R-majority senate since this requires a 2/3 majority vote of the quorum.   The impeachment articles should clearly fall under 'high crimes and misdemeanors' so that both the public and 2/3 of the senators would agree.   Falling short of that, and failing to secure a single R House vote, the impeachment will be viewed now and historically as a partisan gambit.   If it were me, I would have worked on subpoenas to get those in the know to testify to the House and also ensure the articles would clearly rise to the level of impeachable offenses.   No impeachment until I knew that the charges had a decent chance of prevailing in the Senate (and that there was at least respectable bipartisan support in the House).

Of course what Trump did is an impeachable offense. He tried to cheat on his next election by preventing US aid from reaching a beleaguered foreign country that needs it, unless that foreign country played along with Trump smearing his main political opponent. If that isnt a "high crime" nothing is. 

There are the facts and then there is the House managers' story.   The House is asking the Senate to believe their story (which contains emotion, speculation and exaggeration in case you have not paid attention) and to deem this not only truth but worthy of the last possible resort for a rogue president.

There is no blame on Democrats in this. I find it more likely that Trump will suffer, in November, especially as more facts about his criminal behavior unfold. 

Well, John, like I said, Pelosi better get at least one R voting to remove Trump from office and no Ds voting to acquit.   If not, then I see this as a net political liability for House Ds.

Trump will suffer if credible evidence emerges.   For example, if Bolton's book convinces people that Trump tried to hold up Ukraine funds primarily until they announced an investigation into Hunter Biden, then there will be fallout.   The Trump-driven smear campaign is already afoot on this one.   Thing is, Bolton's claims are not nearly as effective now as they would have been if the House had worked harder to get him to testify under oath before taking the impeachment step.   Back to Pelosi's gambit.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    8 months ago
Falling short of that, and failing to secure a single R House vote, the impeachment will be viewed now and historically as a partisan gambit. 

I totally disagree.  The impeachment will be seen as a necessity and a duty by the House of Representatives.  After a government whistleblower revealed that Trump had abused the power of his office, and the details in the phone call and other evidence showed conclusively that he was guilty, Pelosi had no choice. 

I wish you would turn your considerable intellectual power on Trump for a change, and stop looking for ways to blame "partisanship".   The Democrats were duty bound to impeach Trump, because he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.  Everyone knows it. More people should acknowledge it without needing to criticize "both sides". 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    8 months ago
I wish you would turn your considerable intellectual power on Trump for a change, and stop looking for ways to blame "partisanship".   

I was waiting for when you made this personal.    You are presuming my motives and your presumption is negative on my character.

My comments are what independent, non-partisan, unemotional analysis looks like John.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    8 months ago
Well, John, like I said, Pelosi better get at least one R voting to remove Trump from office and no Ds voting to acquit.   If not, then I see this as a net political liability for House Ds.

I read in a MSN.com article yesterday that Senator Diana Feinstein will not vote to convict.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.3    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.3    8 months ago
My comments are what independent, non-partisan analysis looks like John.

I have my doubts.  Your analysis of this impeachment is premised on Pelosi making a mistake. 

Where is the line in your post where you say Trump committed an impeachable offense?

The fact is, he could have shot someone on fifth avenue, instead of simply have made a phone call, and the Republicans in Congress would say it didnt rise to a level requiring removal. 

You talk about Trump bragging he was "acquitted". So ? , he's a pathological liar, what do you expect him to say?  This trial was rigged, and we can know that because no witnesses or documents were produced . In a trial both sides can call witnesses and warrants are obtained for documents. 

My commentary on your post stands. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.5    8 months ago

I am asking the moderators to delete Greg Jones trolling of me.  It is habitual on his part. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.6    8 months ago
My commentary on your post stands. 

Your response was predictable.   

 
 
 
CB
5.1.9  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    8 months ago
I find it more likely that Trump will suffer, in November, especially as more facts about his criminal behavior unfold. 

Trump will not suffer sufficiently, and not if he keeps getting (accepting) cover from every convenient (usable) oddball out there who wants to block him from the experiences he is properly due! Dershowitz is a foolish man who apparently wants time basking in the light of recorded history. Alas! There are more men and women out there like him willing to play the joker for history sake. Trump will utilize them as needed. Watch this space.

 
 
 
CB
5.1.10  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    8 months ago
There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ — L. Alexander

There is your credible, convinced, republican senator. There will be no fallout, nevertheless. Because this retiring senator and man does not (and I can't blame him) want his golden years to be troubled and tainted by a last major act of party 'jeopardy' owing to himself.

Democrats were faced with a 'doomsday' scenario from the start. Everything about this president's matter of functioning (his life-long proclivity/experiences with lawyers and tying matters up in protracted court cases included) has led to this being an unmanageable term of events for folks who like order.

Trump profits off of chaos management.

 
 
 
CB
5.1.11  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.1.3    8 months ago

I have given you and John both my vote. Because I see John's point and I am looking to see yours as a proven non-partisan.

One point of clarification. I don't believe John or myself have treated Donald Trump unfairly in making our case. Trump, in part, stated he wished to be impeached, if only because he would be let go in the senate by his supporters. Thus, he applied hindrances unabated. He mocked the House's authority to impeach. He offered no apology. He 'locked' down every avenue to compromise.

For instance, the democrats delivered a credible and well-reasoned case against Trump. The circumstance exists that - there is no one in control of the senate to deliver unbiased arguments to. McConnell announce ahead of the senate proceeding that he was not an impartial judge/juror. This president has this republican senate enthralled and behaving as a phalanx barreling ahead into a weaker democratic senate 'front.'

What this senate has called on democrats house lawyers to do is near impossible:  Persuade republican senators the constitution is in danger of losing its potency disproportionate to letting this president escape its justice.

 
 
 
bccrane
5.2  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @5    8 months ago
 I think Pelosi misfired

I don't believe this was Pelosi's doing, she was forced into this.  She was waiting until Trump was reelected and using the constant we need to impeach him to keep her party as the majority after the next election and therefore the Speaker again.  That's when she would push for impeachment and drag Pence in with it.  For her pulling the trigger now on impeachment was a wasted shot at her chance to become president.  A tell in this theory was her holding onto the articles of impeachment, she was trying to come up with a way to keep them until after Trump won reelection, but the optics of doing that starting working the other way and she gave in.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bccrane @5.2    8 months ago
For her pulling the trigger now on impeachment was a wasted shot at her chance to become president.

Nancy Pelosi will be 80 years old in a few weeks .  Her interest in being president is zero. 

 
 
 
bccrane
5.2.2  bccrane  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.1    8 months ago
Her interest in being president is zero. 

Really?  Age is a determining factor into wanting to become president?  So, removing the POTUS, VPOTUS, and the next in line is you (the first woman to be POTUS) without even having to run an exhausting campaign, you don't think that would be of any interest to her?  She just needs to win in her district where a cup with a "D" will win and she can become POTUS.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bccrane @5.2.2    8 months ago

Oh, you are saying she would become president by default? I thought you meant she would run. 

I think the Democrats already said at the start of the impeachment that if both Trump and Pence were somehow removed, another republican would be installed as president.  In other words, Pelosi would decline her place in the line of succession. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.3    8 months ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.3    8 months ago
I think the Democrats already said at the start of the impeachment that if both Trump and Pence were somehow removed, another republican would be installed as president. 

So--you actually believe that Nancy would let Chuck Grassley become President?

What won't you fall for?

 
 
 
CB
5.3  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5    8 months ago

Speaker Pelosi had no choice but to proceed. She was up against a political clock counting down to campaigns and elections this year. Trump forced this issue by lying, following up by hiding behind a system of lawyers who would shroud him in a room of smoke and mirror legalese and a republican senate majority. As to what missteps, if any, in the process the House added to the Trump lawyers' argument we can not be sure of.

Speaker Pelosi was faced with not letting the 'sound' of impeachment continue to drone on weakly for several more months indecisively. It can be noted that during the Obama healthcare two years of debate and activity - the tea-party mounted a negative offensive which culminated with rallies on the steps of the Capitol Building and congress persons being railed and spit upon as they exited the building (according to media reports).

The impeachment charge should harm a guilty president and this one is of violations of the constitution and stated law.  However, soon it seems it will be the people who have to act and that is always an iffy state to be in. This president is cheating through his office-in plain sight-and republicans in their capacity won't do anything to stop it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.3    8 months ago
Speaker Pelosi had no choice but to proceed. She was up against a political clock counting down to campaigns and elections this year

Nancy herself said that Dems worked on impeachment for over 2 years, but, magically, only impeached Trump on charges related to something that happened in the last 6 months.

Any "pressure" on Nancy came from the misfits in her very own party.

She should learn to herd them better.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.3    8 months ago
She was up against a political clock counting down to campaigns and elections this year.

I do not see the logic.   Do you think that Pelosi thought that this impeachment would result in a conviction?   

 
 
 
CB
5.3.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @5.3.1    8 months ago

You are entitled to your opinion. Have at it.

 
 
 
CB
5.3.4  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.3.2    8 months ago

‘No choice but to act’ on impeachment, Pelosi says

No, she did not think it would result in a conviction in this senate 'running formation.' However, the 'buck' was squarely on the House (Speaker) to act or forever hold its peace.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.3.4    8 months ago

Impeachment is the tool of last resort and requires a solid case (by design).

If she did not believe there was a chance at conviction then why not pursue the case until it had a chance at conviction?   For example, go through the process to secure testimony of Bolton, et. al. with the full power of the House.   If that case cannot be made then pursue other measures which hold a lower bar (e.g. censure) and would have a chance at a bi-partisan result.   If the case can be made but it would take more time and effort, then put forth the time and effort.   Something as important as impeachment should be done properly and seriously.   

Pelosi called for a vote on impeachment before the House had a sufficient case to secure a 2/3 vote for conviction in the Senate.    Impeachment that could only be secured via the force of a strict party-line vote should have been a major red flag.   If one does not have at least bi-partisan support in the House (and they know the votes before bringing the question to the floor) then work until one at-the-very-least achieves it before impeaching and going to trial.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.3.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.5    8 months ago
Pelosi called for a vote on impeachment before the House had a sufficient case to secure a 2/3 vote for conviction in the Senate.    Impeachment that could only be secured via the force of a strict party-line vote should have been a major red flag. 

Under what circumstances do you think the Republicans in the Senate would help to constitute that 2/3?

I dont know of anyone who closely follows politics in DC today that believed there was any level of wrongdoing by Trump that would lead to conviction in the Senate. 

Pelosi impeached him because it was her duty. 

Maybe if people would stop opining that this "failed" impeachment represents a victory for Trump , it wouldnt be seen that way by anyone. 

This impeachment is not a failure, they proved that he is guilty. 

 
 
 
CB
5.3.7  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.3.5    8 months ago

Well I can not speak to any particulars which resulted in Ms. Pelosi deciding to take the last resort of impeachment. As we well know, Ms. Pelosi is an informed, intelligent, and capable leader, nevertheless. We, some of us, see her acting in good faith with her party and its constituents.

Sometimes you need higher than normal participation in a worse case scenario. As an onlooker, I like others, am seeing that such needed participation from irreconcilable republicans has not been impacted by fact and importance. Trump needed impeaching. The Senate has offered little to nothing, by announcing ahead of time that it was in lock step with the administration. How can the House Leader be wrong for being right?

Granted, I duly note that impeachment was intended to be a bi-partisan exercise. However, remember the senate takes an oath of impartiality. That should mean something to everybody involved. There personal and professional reputation is called upon.

This a senate majority, from the outset looking for a way out of its obligation to try their party president. And yet, an impeachable act defacto occurred. In the words of former republican party leader Michael Steele, 'If what this president has done in this instance is not impeachable—what is?'

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.3.8  r.t..b...  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.5    8 months ago
If the case can be made but it would take more time and effort, then put forth the time and effort.

Agreed. I believe they have a sound case, but they should have pushed for first-hand testimony and corroborating documents to bolster that case. They should have allowed the Courts to ultimately decide their admissability. If done, the GOP would have had no leg to stand on. As it is, their current stance is still embarrassingly wobbly.

 
 
 
CB
5.3.9  CB   replied to  r.t..b... @5.3.8    8 months ago

There was no time remaining. Courts do not take account of the House's timelines. It has been remarked upon. And as Trump was interfering with this upcoming election and possibly endangering Ukraine's, a friendly nation, ability to negotiate an ongoing war with Russia, options were and remain limited.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.3.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @5.3.8    8 months ago
They should have allowed the Courts to ultimately decide their admissability. If done, the GOP would have had no leg to stand on. As it is, their current stance is still embarrassingly wobbly.

It wouldnt have bothered me at all if they had stretched it out into the spring. This is all damaging to Trump no matter when it comes out. 

The House leaders chose to do it the way they did, and I dont fault them for that either. The White House was stalling through the courts, and could have stalled it out into the summer or later. 

The facts are what matter , not what form or timeline the prosecution took.  Trump is guilty, everyone who knows the issue knows that, and the question now is what will be done? In the end he needs to be voted out. No matter who the opposition candidate is, Trump should be voted out.  That is what is needed now. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.3.9    8 months ago

So after 2+ years of impeachment, thay couldn't find anything to impeach Trump LONG before the call to Ukraine?

Really?

Schiff said he had all the evidence he needed to impeach Trump, long before Nancy finally agreed to it. Was he lying, or was Nancy?

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.10    8 months ago
 No matter who the opposition candidate is, Trump should be voted out.  That is what is needed now.

The election is but months away.

Have at it!

Perhaps the polls will tell you Trump is sure to lose against anyone.

Maybe you'll have better luck than you did in 2016.

Or maybe you'll wake up in November and have to face the fact that Trump is still your President.

 
 
 
CB
5.3.13  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @5.3.11    8 months ago

Please hug those right-wing talking points for me. And, I will speak with you later.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.6    8 months ago
Under what circumstances do you think the Republicans in the Senate would help to constitute that 2/3?

Clear and convincing case that Trump was guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' per the CotUS.   Especially if the public opinion was clearly against Trump.  Remember John that impeachment is the big gun.  That big gun has a high threshold (purposely).   This is not new information.   If one is going to use the big gun then one should do so properly.   If not, go for a lesser gun that has a better chance of being successful.

I dont know of anyone who closely follows politics in DC today that believed there was any level of wrongdoing by Trump that would lead to conviction in the Senate. 

Any level of wrongdoing?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.15  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.3.9    8 months ago
And as Trump was interfering with this upcoming election and possibly endangering Ukraine's, a friendly nation, ability to negotiate an ongoing war with Russia, options were and remain limited.

Unless Pelosi, et. al. believed that Trump would be removed from office, going for impeachment does not accomplish what you just stated.   It would have been more effective to use the resources of the House to block Trump.   One way to block Trump, by the way, is to make allegations.   Indeed, Schiff has argued that the reason Trump released the funds was because he was being investigated.   So that is one measure right there.

Boils down to what Pelosi wanted to accomplish.   If she truly wanted to stop Trump in the short term then her chosen route was foolish.   If she wanted to stain Trump with the mark of impeachment then she accomplished her goal.   If she wanted to stop Trump in the long term then she should have worked on a case that had a chance of conviction and then (and only then) deliver it to the Senate.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.3.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.3.13    8 months ago
You are entitled to your opinion. Have at it.

Oh, thank you so very much. I am ecstatic that I have your permission to have my own opinion. How nice of you!!

Please hug those right-wing talking points for me. 

Please save me from any more left-wing babble.

And, I will speak with you later.

There is no need for threats here.

 
 
 
CB
5.3.17  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.3.15    8 months ago

Again, I can not speak to any motivations or driving force behind Speaker Pelosi's spoken words. We are where we are today, because of her choices and the case combined. So, I will make a principled argument for what is before us. Did President Donald Trump violate the law by withholding funds to Ukraine? Did Donald Trump conspire to handicap Joe Biden, his political opponent, by manipulating and drawing in a foreign country into a conspiracy (against their wishes I might add)?

My principled judgement says: Yes. Yes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.19  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.3.17    8 months ago
Did President Donald Trump violate the law by withholding funds to Ukraine?

Which law?

Did Donald Trump conspire to handicap Joe Biden, his political opponent, by manipulating and drawing in a foreign country into a conspiracy (against their wishes I might add)?

Probably.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.3.20  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.14    8 months ago
Clear and convincing case that Trump was guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' per the CotUS.   Especially if the public opinion was clearly against Trump.  Remember John that impeachment is the big gun.  That big gun has a high threshold (purposely).   This is not new information.   If one is going to use the big gun then one should do so properly.   If not, go for a lesser gun that has a better chance of being successful.
I dont know of anyone who closely follows politics in DC today that believed there was any level of wrongdoing by Trump that would lead to conviction in the Senate. 
Any level of wrongdoing?   

Tig, they cant even get a majority (which requires Republicans) to agree to allow first hand witnesses, something which would seem to be the bare minimum for a fair trial. I honestly dont know where you are deriving the idea that a good number of Republicans would vote to remove Trump if the procedure had been held at a more deliberate pace in the House.  There is absolutely no evidence or indication of that. 

I have followed this fairly closely and I am pretty confident in what I am saying. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.21  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.20    8 months ago

My take is that the voting down for witnesses is based on what I said before.   Without a clear case made by the House and without clear support by the public, the Senate Rs are not willing to spend further time.

Naturally they will be reluctant to impeach a PotUS of their party so there must be significant momentum (of the impeachment articles) to overcome that reluctance.   The lack of momentum is what I brought up this morning.   Pelosi's logic to bring this case to the Senate escapes me.

I honestly dont know where you are deriving the idea that a good number of Republicans would vote to remove Trump if the procedure had been held at a more deliberate pace in the House

Don't put words in my mouth John.   You said that you see no way the Rs would convict Trump for any level of wrongdoing.   My response was that any is pretty wide open.   My implication is that you need some qualification on your view.

The pace is not what I have discussed in my comments;  it is the quality of the content that matters.   

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.3.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.21    8 months ago
Without a clear case made by the House

I think the House made a very clear case and in any other courtroom it would be a unanimous vote to convict and we'd already be in the sentencing phase of this trial by now. Only those legislators with no spines believe key witnesses are necessary to prove this inept Presidents obvious guilt. So now the problem is that because of the ridiculous blanket executive privilege claimed by the President, the house would have had to go fight the subpoenas for key witnesses in court and they wouldn't have gotten them to show up till later this year. And then, when the key witnesses did show up, they would just claim "executive privilege" anytime they are asked any direct questions about what the President asked them to do. And with them refusing to answer specific questions we would end up having to rely on the honest civil servants testimony we already have to reach the same conclusion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.23  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.3.22    8 months ago

Let's see what the public opinion is on this.   I am sure polls will ensue and that will be a read on the strength of the case.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.3.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.23    8 months ago
 I am sure polls will ensue and that will be a read on the strength of the case.

If the polls show low support for removal the Republicans will scream victory, if the polls show high support for removal they'll scream polls don't matter. There's simply no reason to pretend any Republican legislator or Trump supporter will honestly weigh the evidence or care about having an executive that obeys the law and follows the constitution. I had often wondered how Jim Jones got so many people to willingly drink the poison, but after watching many Trump supporters throw whatever sense or logic they used to have on the pyre of a populist personality it's no longer much of a mystery.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.25  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.3.24    8 months ago

The polls, however, will offer a read on the quality of the case.

 
 
 
CB
5.3.26  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @5.3.16    8 months ago

"Radical."

 
 
 
CB
5.3.27  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.3.19    8 months ago

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 ~ The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office

Deferrals

The ICA defines a “deferral” as withholding, delaying, or – through other Executive action or inaction – effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law.

The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.

https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter

And, this nation's campaign finance law of 2002 thereabouts:

Trump asked Ukraine to make an expenditure of its own capital to investigate his political opponent Joe Biden. This is not allowed under the Campaign Finance Law (2002) thereabouts.

 
 
 
CB
5.3.28  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.3.25    8 months ago

Where are you on principle involved in this impeachment trial? Please observe I have been in and out of this discussion and reading rapidly if I missed a mention of it in a comment above, by all means direct me to it. This is this accusatory. I just want to get a bead on your principles related to this.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.29  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.3.28    8 months ago

In principle, impeachment of the PotUS (regardless of how much of an asshole he is) is a constitutional matter that should be taken deadly serious.   It is the final remedy for a rogue PotUS and has a very high bar - as evidenced by the 2/3 quorum requirement.  These are actions that establish precedent and thus affect (positively or negatively) future related actions.   It goes beyond Trump.  

Pelosi, et. al. jumped directly to impeachment, missing opportunities that are much easier to effect with success, and failed to properly develop articles and a case that would meet that high bar.   One wonders what they thought they would accomplish (other than labeling Trump as the 3rd impeached PotUS).

I remain intrigued by their reasoning.   I wish I could read the closed-room discussions wherein they decided that this was their best course of action.

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.30  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.29    8 months ago

I heard some pundits today that made me think.

We all know this is going nowhere in the senate. They said what the republicans and Democrats should do is come to a consensus that he is going to not be impeached yet he should be censured for his actions. That way he is not emboldened with any further actions he may try to undertake.

I don't even know if that is possible though.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.3.31  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @5.3.30    8 months ago

It is entirely possible and was/is possible for the House to do on its own.

 
 
 
CB
5.3.32  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.3.29    8 months ago

I am compelled to resist the statement that the democratic house did not take this impeachment "gravely" serious. Admittedly, I did not get why after one day in the House Judiciary Committee it was decided by the Speaker to file impeachment charges straightway. She must have had reason/s.

As stated prior, this violation of law by this president affected this country's national security. It is a grave offense. That 51republican senators can not be stirred beyond two republican votes to investigate this offense further is not a miscalculation made by the House Speaker or house managers, in my opinion. Not sure a democratic house can whip republican senate votes!

 
 
 
dennis smith
5.3.33  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @5.3.11    8 months ago

Both are guilty of not telling the truth/lying. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.4  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @5    8 months ago
The question, really, is if this is an impeachable act. 

The question right now is: Will the Senate choose to HEAR relevant evidence to answer that question.

The GAO ruled that Trump ordered the OMB to intentionally violate the Impoundment Control Act. That, at minimum is a violation of his oath of office and as the ruling states, is a crime. 

No evidence has been presented by the defense that Trump had anything but a corrupt intent for withholding both the aid and the WH meeting. By evidence, I don't mean statements by his lawyers, I mean statements by witnesses or supporting documents. 

IMHO, the use of words like 'inappropriate' for Trump's actions are obsequious. It as if they are talking about the equivalent of a toddler having a tantrum at the grocery store. 

The irony is that Alexander hangs his hat on the 'Dershowitz defense' yet the fact that Dershowitz disappeared from the trial makes it pretty clear what Trump's defense thought about his 'argument'. 

Trying to imbed their sycophancy in the ridiculous argument made by Dershowitz is just pure cowardice. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @5.4    8 months ago
Will the Senate choose to HEAR relevant evidence to answer that question.

Does not look like they will call witnesses.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.4.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.1    8 months ago
Does not look like they will call witnesses.

It does appear that Bill Clintons only real mistake was ever showing up to testify or allowing any witnesses to testify. If he'd just issued blanket executive privilege I'm sure the Republicans would have just accepted it as his prerogative and just shut down any investigation. They would have proclaimed their case was based on hearsay and just called it a day... /s

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.4.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.4.2    8 months ago
appear that Bill Clintons only real mistake was ever showing up to testif

He tried to avoid testifying and lost a Supreme Court case.  18 witnesses testified in the Trump impeachment. How many did in the Clinton?

They would have proclaimed their case was based on hearsay 

It wasn't. 

 
 
 
CB
5.4.4  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.4.1    8 months ago

The senate is not allowing the calling of witnesses, or a single witness, or permitting any "revelatory" documents into the proceeding? There is a plethora of witnesses and relevant documents relating to this case. In your view are such activities in-keeping with an oath of impartiality taken by everyone involved in this trial?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.4.5  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.4.4    8 months ago

The Senate Rs (and I think this was also true of the House Rs) have made the political calculation that favoring impeachment / conviction of Trump given these charges and this case would adversely affect them with the electorate.   The quality of the case is likely insufficient to move the Senators from putting their reelections and their party's priorities as their top priority and instead engage in pure objective, honest judgment.

 
 
 
CB
5.4.6  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.4.5    8 months ago

With all due respect, the remedy for lack of quality in the senate proceeding is to request witnesses and documents - if only to find whether or not the administration would stifle the senate (and Chief Justice)!

No impartiality, then? In your opinion, did/are these senators violate both oaths to date and should be charged ethically with conflicts of interest?

Moreover, if the House is considered to have rushed into impeachment, what is the senate's excuse for rushing through its duties to hold a complete trial?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.4.7  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.4.6    8 months ago

The oaths are almost certainly a lower priority than their political careers and the success of their party.    The oaths are, today, merely a formality.   I did not expect them to take their oaths seriously.   Would be nice, but I think we are well past that point in our national politics for the majority of our politicians.

The bullshit 'working on behalf of the American people' is a cruel joke IMO.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.4.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.7    8 months ago
The bullshit 'working on behalf of the American people' is a cruel joke IMO.

The BullShit '   working to behalf this country has Be

Haved for  Half the people far over half the time while not getting time and a 1/2    as it half to be concerning,

at least

all the time ,  cause over time, some see sums

working and getting paid   overtime.

We have so many not concerning,

over the ignorance discerning interest in realizing where real 

real lies  Lie. 

Man and Womanipulators have  shown us where threats can be real real

for peoples working supposedly 

on and to  behalf

this country,

all of the time .

 
 
 
CB
5.4.9  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.4.7    8 months ago

I expect them to take their solemn oaths seriously. Else why bother with it? There is no such thing as a "wink-wink lie" on its face in the Constitution.

No matter, I can not and will not hold you to explain the cruel joke of faithless senators! I will throw it up in Trump's NT supporters faces accordingly, nevertheless.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.4.10  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.7    8 months ago

If one of us 'little people' violated an oath taken to do 'impartial justice' we would end up behind bars. If our lawyer violated just about every ethics standard, as some of Trump's lawyers have, they'd be behind bars too. 

 
 
 
CB
5.4.11  CB   replied to  Dulay @5.4.10    8 months ago

Moreover, what ordinary rank and file citizen gets to orchestrate and steer his or her own trial up to and touching programming a brief delay next week until after the State of the Union speech to announce a triumphant victory?

We're saps out here. We have all become Mitch's, Graham's, and Donald's runts. It's all our fault! We pay these 'freak' politicians to let us serve them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.4.12  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @5.4.10    8 months ago

Yes.   We have an unwritten class system.

 
 
 
dennis smith
5.4.13  dennis smith  replied to  CB @5.4.11    8 months ago

Add Schiff, Nadler, Schumer and Pelosi to your list of repubs and you have a much more complete list.

Our political system is broken due to extreme partisanship and only a concerted effort by both parties to play together in the sandbox will fix that. It appears that is not going to happen though. 

When the current career politicians are no longer in office, hopefully that will provide a chance for change. 

 
 
 
CB
5.4.14  CB   replied to  dennis smith @5.4.13    8 months ago

Dennis Smith house members are by definition not senators. House members do not take an oath detailed in the Constitution for impeachment trials exclusively, house members do not have a vote in a senate trial on procedures or outcomes.For the record, the president has no authority in the senate trial: He is not a senator, he did not speak the oath detailed in the Constitution for impeachment trial, and by definition, he is the defendant-wielding no proper control over senate procedures or outcomes.

Do you have any explanation for why Senate Majority Leader McConnell would allow the defendant in an impeachment trial to shadow supervise its proceedings and stagecraft?

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.4.15  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.4.3    8 months ago
18 witnesses testified in the Trump impeachment.

In the house, yes. But that wasn't a trial, it was an investigation. How many witnesses did trumps defense team have? None. How much evidence? None. How many documents? None. 

That is not a trial. 

Put it another way. How would the OJ trial have looked to the American public if there were no witnesses, no evidence, no proof? Would YOU have been ok with it? No. 

 
 
 
Cathar
6  Cathar    8 months ago

You can not have it both ways. Alexander lacks the moral authority to say the election will determine tRump's fate. When tRump will continue to take action to rig the election how can that de fair? Alexander and the GOP are in a cult of personality and greed. They like their jobs and the perks they get. The problem is it is not a job. They chose to run to represent ALL Americans not their benefactors.

They will pay price for this show trial and regretfully we are paying for it now.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Cathar @6    8 months ago

If anyone is going to pay and be punished for and weakened by this travesty of the House Democrats misuse and abuse of the Constitution, it will be the Democrats.

And we have no idea what AG Barr and Durham will turn up against the Dems between now and November.

 
 
 
Cathar
6.1.1  Cathar  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    8 months ago

"Turn Up" is a good comment for this sham of a trial. They will have to make up charges on any Democrat. Barr shuttered the Iran Contra Scandal and he is doing the bidding of the this Grifter in Chief. Even Alexander stated tRump was guilty but he wants the election to determine his fate. Meaning rig it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    8 months ago
abuse of the Constitution

Where was the abuse? Abuse of power? OH! You are meaning trump, got it. Last I checked, the dems have followed the constitution to the letter regarding this impeachment. And it's for life, it will never go away. 

Have a good weekend. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.3  dennis smith  replied to  Cathar @6.1.1    8 months ago

Is that the same as the made up charges for impeachment?

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.3    8 months ago

Is that the same as the made up charges for impeachment?

How many documents and witness did trumps side make available during the impeachment phase in the house? None, despite subpoenas. That is what constitutes obstruction of congress.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
7  Kathleen    8 months ago

The Democrats are getting desperate. They will use the ‘cover up’ tactic now. So it looks like Trump will be exonerated and the Democrats will act like the whole thing is unfair. 

Did we really think that it would be any other way?

Maybe it’s time to move on, yeah... right...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @7    8 months ago

You believe a pathological liar?  Say it aint so. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    8 months ago

I believe what I think.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.1    8 months ago

Let's hope so. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.2    8 months ago

Yep, confident in my posts as well.  

 
 
 
Cathar
7.1.4  Cathar  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.1    8 months ago

Then comprehend what you know not simply think it. If you did you would know tRump used foreign influence to rig the 2020 election. He did so by denying Congressional aid to Ukraine and did so in violation of the law.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @7    8 months ago
They will use the ‘cover up’ tactic now.

But you don't think the Republicans have been using that tactic from the start? Trump is guilty of abusing his power, even the Republicans are admitting as much, they're just trying to use the defense that it doesn't matter if he's guilty, it doesn't matter if he abused his power, he was elected by Republicans so impeaching him would overturn their choice and that's somehow unacceptable.

Has there ever been a President who was impeached that hadn't been elected to their position? Has there ever been an impeachment that didn't "overturn the will" of those who voted them into office? Of course not, but the framers put impeachment in the constitution anyway.

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2    8 months ago

Evidently, not everyone feels the same way you do. Some truly believe he did not do anything impeachable. Also some felt there was not enough evidence either. It all depends what side of the fence you are on. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @7.2.1    8 months ago
Some truly believe he did not do anything impeachable

I find that hard to believe. Are there some who just don't care or don't know enough about civics to understand how vile his actions are? Sure, there are no doubt many like that in Trumps base.

It all depends what side of the fence you are on

While I agree that there are those on different sides of a fence, I don't believe it's purely a partisan one. There is a logical, reasonable, legal understanding of the constitution side which recognizes Trumps actions as obviously wrong and an abuse of power thus impeachable, and then there is the "I don't give a fuck about what Trump did, I just hate liberals, progressives, gays, minorities and immigrants just like our Dear Leader" side of the fence.

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.2.4  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.2    8 months ago

I hope you are not referring to me with all that hatred. Perhaps you need to reflect some.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.2    8 months ago

[Please refrain from attempting to work around no-contact restrictions.  Final warning before points are issued.]

 
 
 
dennis smith
7.2.6  dennis smith  replied to  Kathleen @7.2.1    8 months ago

The refusal of some dems to accept the impeachment results is and was expected. Beating their heads into a wall is all they have left. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
7.2.7  dennis smith  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.2    8 months ago

Certainly the dems are purely partisan. They voted 100% along their party line.

Certainly the repubs are not purely partisan. They did not vote 100% along their party line. 

 

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.2.8  Kathleen  replied to  dennis smith @7.2.7    8 months ago

You are right, 2 votes were Republicans that voted for witnesses. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.2.9  XDm9mm  replied to  dennis smith @7.2.6    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.2.10  Kathleen  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.9    8 months ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Cathar
7.2.11  Cathar  replied to  Kathleen @7.2.1    8 months ago

And yet they ignored evidence and witnesses at a TRIAL. Anyone with the knowledge of Law knows no witnesses no documents mean a sham trial. Add to this tRump denied access to both witnesses and documents.

 
 
 
MrFrost
8  MrFrost    8 months ago

Much of this trial has been trump's lawyers arguing that this is all about overturning an election, (which is impossible), ripping up ballots, and ignoring the will of the people...

<cough>

Will of the people? 

At least 75% of the PEOPLE want witnesses, (I have seen polls between 75% and 84%), apparently THAT will of the people is being ignored by trump's lawyer team. Hypocrisy, 100%. 

I have also noticed that trump's surrogates are tripping over themselves to silence Bolton. I wonder why that is? Hell, let him testify and if trump refutes what he has to say? Put trump under oath and let him say so. 

We all know that will never happen because trump wouldn't last 5 minutes under oath before he lied and would be impeached for lying, (which the right would no doubt defend to the ends of the earth..)

 
 
 
dennis smith
8.2  dennis smith  replied to  MrFrost @8    8 months ago
The verdict is in. Time to move on.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10  Paula Bartholomew    8 months ago

This schmuck's voters need to take heed.  If someone they voted in could say "So what" could be his death noll the next time he is up for election.  You come out and declare Guilty, but so fucking refuse to indict, f you and your voters.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11  Kathleen    8 months ago

You guys are getting to personal about this in here. You should look at the person for who they are, not their politics. What a shame.

 
 
 
Cathar
11.1  Cathar  replied to  Kathleen @11    8 months ago

And tRump is a grifter, liar and not worthy of being President. Nothing personal just the facts.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Cathar @11.1    8 months ago

There is a lot more facts to this. It’s even more a shame that some can’t even see it.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.1    8 months ago
There is a lot more facts to this. It’s even more a shame that some can’t even see it.

Yes there are and the shame is that the Senate has refused to allow the American people to see and hear them. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @11.1.2    8 months ago
Yes there are and the shame is that the Senate has refused to allow the American people to see and hear them. 

The House had ample opportunity to present its entire case, such as it was.

Were Americans kept in the dark about what the House did? Did America not get to see what the House did?

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.3    8 months ago

It would behoove you to review what I was replying to Tex. The operative words are 'a lot MORE facts'. Are you denying that there are 'a lot more facts' and that Trump and the Senate are denying the American people's right to know those facts? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  Cathar @11.1    8 months ago

That is your opinion. Like I said, it all depends what side of the fence you are on. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @11.1.4    8 months ago

I read every little word you wrote.

My statement stands. The Senate's job isn't to put on the House's case FOR them. That was the House's job, and looks like they failed, even by your standards, if there was more to hear and see. Where is it?

Did the House not have a chance to call any and all witnesses in the House?

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.7  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @11.1.2    8 months ago

Was the House entirely fair? No.  

If I were you... I would be more concerned about who will be the Democratic nominee instead of a time wasting impeachment trail...... The choices are poor, and if Burnie is the one... GOD HELP YOU. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
11.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.7    8 months ago
Was the House entirely fair?

Yes. The lie about it not being a fair process is just a bullshit strawman narrative used by desperate Republicans. The Republicans in the house had all the same access during the investigation as Republicans gave Democrats during the Clinton impeachment. The claim that the hearing wasn't fair is pure unadulterated horse shit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @11.1.2    8 months ago

If there "are a lot more facts", then wasn't it the House's job to reveal them? Why are they hiding them?

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.10  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.9    8 months ago

It wasn't the House who blocked all that testimony.

Why are Trump fans so allergic to facts?

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @11.1.10    8 months ago
It wasn't the House who blocked all that testimony.

Exactly my fucking point.  No one stopped the House from calling whoever to testify. If there are` "more facts" then the House apparently did a shitty job of preparing its case.

Why are Trump fans so allergic to facts?

Why do Trump-haters ask stupid questions?

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.11    8 months ago
No one stopped the House from calling whoever to testify.

The House DID call witnesses, Trump refused to allow them to testify and the Senate refused to allow witnesses to be called. 

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.13  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.11    8 months ago
Why do Trump-haters ask stupid questions?

Says the one who just asked the most idiotic question of the day - did Fox not bother to tell you that the House did call people to testify, and your corrupt god blocked them from testifying? Then the GOP idiots in the Senate refused to do their jobs.

Willful ignorance can be cured with facts. You should give them a try sometime.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.9    8 months ago
If there "are a lot more facts", then wasn't it the House's job to reveal them? Why are they hiding them?

No Tex and the proof of that is that the Senate Impeachment rules prove that fact because they include subpoenaing witnesses and documents. If the House was the last word on submitting evidence to the record, there would no need for such a rule, would there? 

 
 
 
lady in black
11.1.15  lady in black  replied to  Dulay @11.1.12    8 months ago

Those darn pesky facts.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.7    8 months ago
Was the House entirely fair? No.  

Why yes, YES it was. Despite the LIE told by the Trump party's House members and his legal counsel, they had the SAME amount of time to question witnesses during deposition. They Judiciary committee invited Trump and/or his lawyers to participate in their hearings, Trump refused. That is EXACTLY how the Judiciary committed proceeded with Nixon and Clinton.

If I were you... I would be more concerned about who will be the Democratic nominee instead of a time wasting impeachment trail...... The choices are poor, and if Burnie is the one... GOD HELP YOU.

For one thing, I'm perfectly capable of being 'concerned' about more than one thing at a time. 

Secondly, you're deflecting. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
11.1.17  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @11.1.4    8 months ago
Trump and the Senate are denying the American people's right to know those facts? 

That didn't seem to bother you when Schiff denied every witness Republicans called for during the impeachment hearings now did it Dulay? 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.18  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @11.1.17    8 months ago
That didn't seem to bother you when Schiff denied every witness Republicans called for during the impeachment hearings now did it Dulay? 

No it didn't and I will tell you why.

Schiff didn't deny 'every witness Republicans' wanted to call KD. Republicans gave Schiff a list of who they wanted to call that included Tim Morrison, David Hale and Kurt Volker, ALL of whom Schiff allowed to testify in open hearings. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @11.1.12    8 months ago

rump refused to allow them to testify a

Gee, if only there was some third branch of government that resolves disputes between the executive and legislative branch.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @11.1.16    8 months ago
That is EXACTLY how the Judiciary committed proceeded with Nixon and Clinton.

But of course, the impeachment process mainly  occurred outside of the judicial committee, where  Trumps counsel was not allowed to participate. 

And Schiff did deny multiple  Republican requested  witnesses from testifying. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.19    8 months ago
Gee, if only there was some third branch of government that resolves disputes between the executive and legislative branch.

Gee if only Trump's DOJ wasn't arguing that resolving those disputes would call into question the credibility of the court and when asked what avenue would then be appropriate they stated 'Impeachment'. 

 
 
 
PJ
11.1.22  PJ  replied to  Dulay @11.1.18    8 months ago

Why do you waste your time trying to counter lies with facts.  

I don't engage them because they aren't worth my time and I'm not going to give their falsehoods any appearance of legitimacy by addressing them.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.20    8 months ago
But of course, the impeachment process mainly  occurred outside of the judicial committee, where  Trumps counsel was not allowed to participate. 

So did the Nixon and Clinton investigation. Neither Nixon's or Clinton's lawyers were allowed in the Grand Jury or in depositions taken by Starr or Jaworski. 

Starr wrote the Articles of Impeachment against Clinton, the Judiciary committee didn't really conduct an investigation, they had Starr's documents and the Grand Jury transcripts. They had Starr regurgitate his 'findings'. 

And Schiff did deny multiple  Republican requested  witnesses from testifying. 

That's what happens when you want to call people that are not fact witnesses. I find it sad that you'd decry not being able to hear from Hunter Biden, who has NO knowledge about what Trump did, but don't seem to have any issue with Bolton, a FACT witness, being withheld.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @11.1.21    8 months ago
ng that resolving those disputes would call into question the credibility of the court and when asked what avenue would then be appropriate they stated 'Impeachment'. 

Here's a hint, the DOJ is not the third branch of government, and what the DOJ argues is not binding. Ask Obama. How many times did the Court unanimously reject what the DOJ argued?

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.25  Dulay  replied to  PJ @11.1.22    8 months ago

Firstly, because IMHO there are some people here that don't KNOW the facts and can be educated about them. 

Secondly, I am of the belief that silence is consent. When I see something that I know to be wrong, I say something and act when necessary. Got the scars to prove it. 

When I read something here on NT that I know to be wrong, I speak up and challenge it. I do my best to do so with facts and links. I really couldn't care less if the person who I am replying to alters their position, in fact I doubt they will. But I have hopes that there are people on NT that look for the facts and appreciate when they are presented here. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @11.1.23    8 months ago

Neither Nixon's or Clinton's lawyers were allowed in the Grand Jury or in depositions taken by Starr or Jaworski. 

You don't seem to understand what happened. The work of Starr and Jaworski was not under the direction of the House of Representatives. Don't  conflate their work with the impeachment investigation, which is what the topic is. 

In those impeachments, the judiciary committee did the House's work.

udiciary committee didn't really conduct an investigation,

But it did. And the intelligence committee, nor any other committees, did not depose witnesses in those impeachments. 

ud what happens when you want to call people that are not fact witnesses. 

Of course they were fact witnesses. The Democrats didn't want to hear that line of defense, so they shut down the Republicans' request for witnesses.  They would be relevant witnesses  in any criminal trial in America.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.24    8 months ago
Here's a hint, the DOJ is not the third branch of government, and what the DOJ argues is not binding.

The DOJ is representing the Executive branch which sure as hell IS one of the 3 branches of government. 

Ask Obama. How many times did the Court unanimously reject what the DOJ argued?

Obtuse. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @11.1.27    8 months ago

representing the Executive branch which sure as hell IS one of the 3 branches of government. 

Back to the first point. If only there was some third branch of government that resolves disputes between the executive and legislative branch.

Talk about obtuse. sheesh. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.26    8 months ago
You don't seem to understand what happened. The work of Starr and Jaworski was not under the direction of the House of Representatives. Don't  conflate their work with the impeachment investigation, which is what the topic is. 

That's pretty funny since that is what Trump's lawyers have been doing for this whole time. 

In those impeachments, the judiciary committee did the House's work.

That's because the DOJ did IT'S work Sean. Clinton's and Nixon's AGs assigned a Special Counsel to investigate. Jaworski's investigation caused him to impaneled a Grand Jury. Starr investigated for YEARS. ALL of their findings were delivered on a silver platter to the Judiciary Committee. 

AG Barr REFUSED to even open an investigation after 2 separate criminal referrals were made to him after the whistleblower complaint was filed. Instead, they tried to cover up the whistleblower complaint.

Because the whistleblower complaint was of necessity through the Intelligence Communities Inspector General, the Intelligence Committee did the investigation and presented their findings to the Judiciary Committee. 

But you're right that they can't be conflated in that neither Nixon or Clinton denied the House or the Senate every witness and document.

 
 
 
CB
11.1.30  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.8    8 months ago

It's even convenient that McConnell who messes with everything good chose to follow a so-called Bill Clinton "model." Now then, had it not been opportune to his wishes he would have come up with some other BS method. 

There is a great deal of BS in the impeachment marketplace. I see it in and out of my television / news anchors / and even here on NTs.

The Elephant in the Room:

How the heaven is Donald Trump an 'executive producer' of his trial in the Senate?

Where is the public outrage?

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.28    8 months ago
Back to the first point. If only there was some third branch of government that resolves disputes between the executive and legislative branch.

I know you didn't miss my reply to you Sean. Here it is again:

Gee if only Trump's DOJ wasn't arguing that resolving those disputes would call into question the credibility of the court and when asked what avenue would then be appropriate they stated 'Impeachment'. 

So why the circular argument? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.32  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @11.1.16    8 months ago

I have always been diplomatic Dulay, so I try to look at all points of view about a person or subject matter.,

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.33  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @11.1.25    8 months ago

I understand what you are saying, but there has not been any facts yet. If that were the case, Trump would have been out of office. 

There are a lot of things about Trump I don’t like. If this man truly did what he was accused of, then I would agree with taking him out of office. Now, in all fairness, what about Bidens son? Something sounds fishy with all that too. Although that seemed to be brushed under the rug...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @11.1.31    8 months ago
So why the circular argument? 

Why are you making the circular argument?

Again, you've still failed to address what prevented the House from litigating the matter of witnesses. Again, do you not understand the DOJ and House are separate branches of government?

[deleted] but you refuse to argue in good faith.

 
 
 
CB
11.1.35  CB   replied to  katrix @11.1.10    8 months ago

Because Trump is allergic to anything he can not take complete control over - like facts! This causes Trump supporters to be as dangerously undependable and unreliable as 'the master copy.'

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.36  katrix  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.33    8 months ago
Now, in all fairness, what about Bidens son? Something sounds fishy with all that too. Although that seemed to be brushed under the rug...

It's been debunked and the information is easy to find. It's just gaslighting by Trump and his supporters. Look, a squirrel!

If this man truly did what he was accused of, then I would agree with taking him out of office

It's been proven that he did what he was accused of. The point of this article is that the GOP senators recognize that he did it, and they simply don't care. They said they would violate their oaths to be impartial jurors, and they did exactly that.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.37  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @11.1.29    8 months ago
aworski's investigation caused him to impaneled a Grand Jury. Starr investigated for YEARS.

The Judiciary committee oversaw the impeachments of Clinton and Nixon.  For Trump, the intelligence committee did almost all the work, yet you cited the Nadler judicial committee to show how fair the democrats are supposedly being, while ignoring the Schiff intelligence committee where the actual  fact investigation occurred. That's dishonest. And once you got caught you tried to obfuscate by bringing up the work of the outside investigators in prior impeachments, as if they bear some relevance to how the judicial committee operated during those impeachments.  

You claimed, and I quote, "neither Nixon's or Clinton's lawyers were allowed in the Grand Jury or in depositions taken by Starr or Jaworski. " in a discussion about process in the House of Representatives.  That's simply pathetic. Either you don't know the difference between  criminal proceedings and a House impeachment investigation, or you don't care and want to mislead gullible people into thinking they are the same thing.  

G Barr REFUSED to even open an investigation after 2 separate criminal referrals were made to him after the whistleblower complaint was file

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You got caught misrepresenting the process afforded Trump and now are desperately trying to deflect rather then admit, you posted misleading (to be charitable) information. Barr's actions have nothing to do with the fact that the intelligence committee oversaw the majority of this impeachment rather than the judiciary committee. 

an't be conflated in that neither Nixon or Clinton denied the House or the Senate every witness and document.

Neither did Trump. Plenty of executive branch employees testified despite possible claims of executive privilege.  But again, this is you deflecting from being caught. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.38  Kathleen  replied to  katrix @11.1.36    8 months ago

Can you prove what you said is correct? How do you know that the senators know that he is guilty and ‘ does not care’ is it every republican senator? 

Can you justify what is right about the Vice President of the United States getting a company in the country of Ukraine to hire his son for a million dollars a year to a business that he knows nothing about. Then trying to get a prosecutor in that country fired from his job who was investigating that company. 

 
 
 
CB
11.1.39  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.37    8 months ago

What the heaven are you getting after? The House runs its impeachment process. The Senate runs its trial process. In both circumstances, the public should demand that both 'organizations' follow the spirit of impeachment and trial, as well as regarding its unique oaths!

You were not addressing anything to me, but I read and was compelled to 'speak up.'

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
11.1.40  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  CB @11.1.35    8 months ago
Because Trump is allergic to anything he can not take complete control over

Kind of like the Dems and the fact that he won the election and they cannot control him...........without the constant bullshit of the impeachment. They have already said there will be ongoing investigations if he holds on to the office. It's all about control for all politicians................as evidenced the last three plus years. they have concentrated for the last three years and beyond just looking for something, ANYTHING that can remove him from office. Not gonna happen this year..............and quite possibly, much to you and other's chagrin here at NT, you may have four more years to look forward to.

[deleted]

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.41  katrix  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.38    8 months ago
Can you justify what is right about the Vice President of the United States getting a company in the country of Ukraine to hire his son for a million dollars a year to a business that he knows nothing about. Then trying to get a prosecutor in that country fired from his job who was investigating that company

Please go research it. That's not how it happened. The prosecutor got fired because he wasn't tough enough on corruption - and Biden was supporting official U.S. policy, not doing it for personal gain as Trump did.

Can you prove what you said is correct?

Did you even read the article? That's what it is all about. And of course I don't know if every republican senator, but many of them have changed their tune from "he did nothing wrong" to "he did something wrong and we don't care." Graham and McConnell both came right out and stated that they would not be impartial jurors - then they took an oath swearing to be impartial jurors - then they violated that oath. Maybe you don't consider betraying the Constitution to be a big deal, but I do.

 
 
 
lib50
11.1.42  lib50  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.1.40    8 months ago

I'm pretty sure that is Trump waiting for Putin.

 
 
 
CB
11.1.43  CB   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.1.40    8 months ago

If there are four more years of this dirtiest player in the game to come, what does that make the bulk (not all) of Trump's supporters?

BTW, how is that North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons 'thang' coming? Indeed, Chairman Kim Jung Un (May His Name Be Full of Stuff) would be a first level fool to trust the dirtiest liar in the game to keep his word to Kim - and Kim alone.

Rosie O'Donnell? You just pick something draped across a rock and call it whatever you wish? Bad form, 'old boy.' I could do the same, but no. My parents didn't raise me that way. I have good home-training.

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.1.44  Split Personality  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.38    8 months ago
Can you justify what is right about the Vice President of the United States getting a company in the country of Ukraine to hire his son for a million dollars a year to a business that he knows nothing about

So the first inaccuracy is that Joe Biden suddenly and magically found a plum job for his son in a foreign war torn country.

The second inaccuracy is that Hunter Biden knew nothing about Burisma or it's industry.

Hunter Biden is a lawyer who since 2009 worked for Boise Schiller Flexner a NYC lawfirm that specializes in international law.  One of Biden's accounts at BSF was  Burisma Holdings, so he was already familiar with Burisma and the Burisma Board of Directors already contained one of Hunter's Rosemont Seneca partners, Devon Archer.

Firms hire lawyers all of the time because lawyers go to LAW SCHOOL.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.45  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @11.1.39    8 months ago

The House runs its impeachment process

Exactly, Which is why it's irrelevant to justify the denial of process by Adam Schiff by citing independent criminal investigations as precedent, which is what Dulay did. 

The correct comparison is the impeachment process in the House with  prior impeachments. Dulay ignored the process afforded Trump in the Intelligence Committee, where the overwhelming majority of the impeachment process occurred and instead only referenced Nadler's judiciary committee (who only heard three legal experts). 

While it may be in the weeds, I can't sit by and let people who don't know the facts get misled by bad information. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.46  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.44    8 months ago
who since 2009 worked for Boise Schiller Flexner a NYC lawfirm that specializes in international law.  One of Biden's accounts at BSF was  Burisma Holdings, so he was already familiar with Burisma and the Burisma Board of Directors already contained one of Hunter's Rosemont Seneca partners, Devon Arche

Imagine thinking Hunter Biden would have gotten that job if his last name wasn't Biden! Even Hunter Biden refused to say that. 

It's amazing watching the people who gnash their teeth over Trump fall all over themselves justifying the Bidens abusing the public trust to enrich themselves. 

One of Biden's accounts at BSF was  Burisma Holdings

Yes, and that relationship made him ineligible for a position as an independent board member. .  Yet he he took it anyway. 

ms hire lawyers all of the time because lawyers go to LAW SCHOOL.

How many other corporations hire coke addicted lawyers  who just got kicked out of the navy to their board?  If Biden's name was Smith, he'd be lucky to be handling divorce cases in Delaware with his addiction issues. . 

 
 
 
CB
11.1.47  CB   replied to  Split Personality @11.1.44    8 months ago

And just like every other father and son "combo" in society, it does not follow that because father loves son and vice-versa that father is unfaithful to his oaths /of office. That is a lie straight out of the pit that whoever tells it loves to promote.

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.1.48  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.46    8 months ago
It's amazing watching the people who gnash their teeth over Trump fall all over themselves justifying the Bidens abusing the public trust to enrich themselves. 

Wtf?  The Biden's abused the public trust? jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif How could Hunter Biden abuse the public trust?

How many other corporations hire coke addicted lawyers  who just got kicked out of the navy to their board?  If Biden's name was Smith, he'd be lucky to be handling divorce cases in Delaware with his addiction issues. . .

Was he addicted at the time ST? He certainly did get favorable treatment to get into the Reserves at all, along with a waiver for a failed drug test when applying!  Hunter lasted 4 weeks in the Naval Reserves, failing another urine test, just three weeks after Joe Biden swore him in. Hunter's CO said it was deliberate.

Is Hunter a candidate for son of the year? Father or husband of the year? Nope and he deserves all of the shit thrown his way for the mistakes he has made.  Not the partisan BS because he is related to someone famous.

 
 
 
CB
11.1.49  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.45    8 months ago
Because the whistleblower complaint was of necessity through the Intelligence Communities Inspector General, the Intelligence Committee did the investigation and presented their findings to the Judiciary Committee.  -Dulay
Dulay ignored the process afforded Trump in the Intelligence Committee, where the overwhelming majority of the impeachment process occurred and instead only referenced Nadler's judiciary committee (who only heard three legal experts).  -Sean Tracy

Speaker Pelosi in her role as 'House' started and ended the Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing, because in her perspective there was enough material to certify a proper impeachment-leading the senate to hold a proper trial.  Republican complaints about processes aside. What's the problem here?

Incidentally, are you properly comparing a domestic perjury and obstruction impeachment against an international abuse of power and obstruction? The two things are not the same in activities or degrees.

 
 
 
CB
11.1.50  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.46    8 months ago

Okay so if Hunter Biden was "ineligible" to take that specific membership riddle me this:

Who is accountable for not letting Hunter, and all relevant figures know?  And by extension, giving Fox News and this president its talking point?

Can you point to that 'agency' please? (Fox News/Trump/supporters must have a name certainly.)

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.51  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.32    8 months ago

Your #7 comment is hardly diplomatic Kathleen. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.52  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.37    8 months ago
The Judiciary committee oversaw the impeachments of Clinton and Nixon.

Yet as I have already stated, they did little to none of the INVESTIGATION, or 'work' as you call it.  

 For Trump, the intelligence committee did almost all the work, yet you cited the Nadler judicial committee to show how fair the democrats are supposedly being, while ignoring the Schiff intelligence committee where the actual  fact investigation occurred. That's dishonest.

For Trump the Intel Committee did the INVESTIGATION, the Judiciary oversaw the Impeachment in EXACTLY the same way as they did for Nixon and Clinton. 

You claimed, and I quote, "neither Nixon's or Clinton's lawyers were allowed in the Grand Jury or in depositions taken by Starr or Jaworski. " in a discussion about process in the House of Representatives.  That's simply pathetic. Either you don't know the difference between  criminal proceedings and a House impeachment investigation,

The findings of criminal proceedings were used by the House to Impeach both Nixon and Clinton.

or you don't care and want to mislead gullible people into thinking they are the same thing.  

I haven't said anything of the sort nor have I been misleading. 

Your inability to recognize that the House Intel Committee was acting as a Grand Jury is on you not I. They do so in EVERY Impeachment.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

You're mistaken. 

You got caught misrepresenting the process afforded Trump and now are desperately trying to deflect rather then admit, you posted misleading (to be charitable) information.

I have done no such thing. 

Barr's actions have nothing to do with the fact that the intelligence committee oversaw the majority of this impeachment rather than the judiciary committee. 

Barr's actions have EVERYTHING to do with the Intel Committee having to conduct their own investigation. 

Neither did Trump. Plenty of executive branch employees testified despite possible claims of executive privilege.  

Speaking of misleading. 

Trump ordered EVERY ONE OF THEM not to testify, those that did DEFIED Trump's orders. 

But again, this is you deflecting from being caught.

You seem to be having an issue with confusing relevant facts with deflection, but again, that's on you. As is your need to include personal comments in your posts. Knock it off. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.53  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @11.1.12    8 months ago

Then the dumbass Democrats should have gone to court.

That is what Congress is supposed to do, right, if someone doesn't respond to a subpoena?

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.54  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @11.1.13    8 months ago
Says the one who just asked the most idiotic question of the day - did Fox not bother to tell you that the House did call people to testify, and your corrupt god blocked them from testifying? Then the GOP idiots in the Senate refused to do their jobs.

IF the Democrats weren't in such a fucking hurry, they could have gone to court and let the court decide if executive privilege applied. They didn't bother to do that, and they wanted the Senate to do their job because they did it so fucking poorly.

Willful ignorance can be cured with facts. You should give them a try sometime.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.55  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.33    8 months ago
I understand what you are saying, but there has not been any facts yet. If that were the case, Trump would have been out of office. 
There are a lot of things about Trump I don’t like. If this man truly did what he was accused of, then I would agree with taking him out of office.

There are a TON of facts Kathleen but they require you to READ and research them for yourself.

Multiple Republican Senators have stated that the House Managers proved what the Articles of Impeachment accuse Trump of doing. You can go to the Intel Committee's website and read all of the transcripts, you can go to C-Span and watch the Impeachment trial for yourself. It's really on you to do your own due diligence and decide just how informed a citizen you what to be. 

Ultimately, the Senate, controlled by the Trump Party, KNOWS that Trump 'did it' the only question is if they will find him guilty. 

 Now, in all fairness, what about Bidens son? Something sounds fishy with all that too. Although that seemed to be brushed under the rug...

Interesting that the Senate Judiciary Committee, run by Lindsey Graham, hasn't investigated that in all this time isn't it? Hell the Republican Senators could have voted to subpoena Biden during the trial but they didn't. Wonder why Kathleen? I mean Graham could have subpoenaed Hunter Biden back in September, or June or whenever he wanted. Could it be that the accusations and innuendo work a hell of a lot better as a 'shinny object' for them than the facts would? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.56  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @11.1.51    8 months ago

That’s only your opinion. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.57  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.56    8 months ago

Is that your idea of 'diplomacy' Kathleen? 

BTW, your comment was 'only' your opinion too right? Should I disregard it as you do mine? 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.58  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.53    8 months ago
Then the dumbass Democrats should have gone to court.
That is what Congress is supposed to do, right, if someone doesn't respond to a subpoena?

Guess you haven't read the rest of the thread Tex. This is what I said right here 10 hours ago:

Gee if only Trump's DOJ wasn't arguing that resolving those disputes would call into question the credibility of the court and when asked what avenue would then be appropriate they stated 'Impeachment'. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.59  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @11.1.58    8 months ago
Guess you haven't read the rest of the thread Tex.

You seem like a really bad guesser. I would stop guessing if I were you, or at least until I got better at it.

This is what I said right here 10 hours ago:

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

If you bothered to understand my post you would understand  that I said for the court to decide.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.60  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @11.1.57    8 months ago

Go ahead, whatever floats your boat. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.61  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.60    8 months ago

Is that another example of your diplomacy and looking at different POV?

I hope you don't take this wrong but it could use some work...

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.62  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.59    8 months ago
You seem like a really bad guesser. I would stop guessing if I were you, or at least until I got better at it.

So you have no excuse for your comment being obtuse. Got ya. 

If you bothered to understand my post you would understand  that I said for the court to decide.

If you had bothered to understand mine you'd know that Trump's DOJ was in court on this past Friday arguing the opposite. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.63  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @11.1.61    8 months ago

I am always open to the fact that we all have our opinions, some true some not. You and I never agree with each other anyway, so it’s no use even continuing this any further.

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.64  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @11.1.62    8 months ago
So you have no excuse for your comment being obtuse. Got ya. 

Don't need any excuses. Nothing obtuse about it, excepting for someone's inability to understand it.

If you had bothered to understand mine you'd know that Trump's DOJ was in court on this past Friday arguing the opposite. 

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the House going to court to force witnesses to testify. What the Administration argues is irrelevant to the fact that the House should have gone to court if they were serious about wanting those folks to testify.

Like I fucking said--LET THE COURT DECIDE.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.65  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.64    8 months ago
Nothing obtuse about it, excepting for someone's inability to understand it.

Are you under the delusion that your comments are too deep to understand? 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the House going to court to force witnesses to testify. What the Administration argues is irrelevant to the fact that the House should have gone to court if they were serious about wanting those folks to testify.
Like I fucking said--LET THE COURT DECIDE.

Thanks for proving that you have no idea WFT you're talking about. 

The HOUSE is in litigation with Trump, who is being represented by the DOJ. They are trying to deny the right of the HOUSE to subpoena McGahn to testify. 

Pitiful. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.66  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.63    8 months ago
I am always open to the fact that we all have our opinions, some true some not.

Good for you. I wonder if you agree with the old saying:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. 

You and I never agree with each other anyway, so it’s no use even continuing this any further.

As expected, your usual game.

As I said, it's on you how informed a citizen you choose to be Kathleen, but it takes work. Do the work, don't, I couldn't care less which choice you make. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.67  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @11.1.66    8 months ago

Try not to get too frustrated. Night night.

 
 
 
CB
11.1.68  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.64    8 months ago

Why let the courts decide? The innocent don't need to hide in the dark. Light is their disinfectant! Shady characters wrap themselves in folds and hoods and stand back in the shadows. Trump is not fooling anyone, including the courts themselves. Including you. No one of a certain age can be that naive. On the other-hand if that. . . .

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.69  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.67    8 months ago

I have long given up being frustrated by those that expound on issues that they are utterly uninformed about. I've come to expect the bloviation. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.1.70  Split Personality  replied to  CB @11.1.50    8 months ago

Alan Apter is the chairman of the Board of Burisma, and a legend in investment banking.

He would have approved all Board members ( like the owner's daughter ) lol

https://www.eaglestone.eu/en/our-firm/our-people/Alan-Apter/90/

 
 
 
CB
11.1.71  CB   replied to  Split Personality @11.1.70    8 months ago

Hi SP! And what is the answer? I take it Hunter Biden was acceptable to the board for 'general' purpose? Or did Mr. Apter do something illegal?

 
 
 
PJ
12  PJ    8 months ago

All of this is irrelevant.  The anti american and anti Constitution republicans are not going to do the right thing and those who support this BS don't care as long as they are brainwashed to think they're "winning".  When trump is out of office the next Administration will declassify the documents.   Everything will be revealed to those Americans who actually give a shit about our republic more than jerking trump off. 

 
 
 
MAGA
12.1  MAGA  replied to  PJ @12    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
PJ
12.1.1  PJ  replied to  MAGA @12.1    8 months ago

X - I'm thinking about retiring to Redding so I can counter your republican vote.   Maybe we can even be neighbors!  That would be so cool.  

 
 
 
pat wilson
12.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  PJ @12.1.1    8 months ago

I considered that once but the crime rate in Redding is really high and the winters are cold.

It is a really beautiful part of the country though.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.3  Dulay  replied to  PJ @12.1.1    8 months ago

You could live much further south in Oroville or Chico. Much warmer and still in the 1st District of CA, which is freaking huge. 

 
 
 
PJ
12.1.4  PJ  replied to  Dulay @12.1.3    8 months ago

I'm not really interested in moving to California.  I may consider Washington State but I have a ways to go before I can retire.  

I was only try to scare X by suggesting he and I could be neighbors.  hahahahahaha

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.5  Dulay  replied to  PJ @12.1.4    8 months ago

Well depending on where in Washington, you could still be his neighbor in the State of Jefferson. /s

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.6  lib50  replied to  PJ @12.1.1    8 months ago

Moving up to Jeff?  Countering the votes?  I love it!  They live in an alternate reality up there.  Or down there since I'm up in Washington now.