Another Republican Senator Says Trump Is Obviously Guilty But Nothing Should Be Done About It

  
By:  john-russell  •  2 months ago  •  100 comments

Another Republican Senator Says Trump Is Obviously Guilty But Nothing Should Be Done About It
I'll put it like this - if Trump is obviously guilty, as Rubio attests "my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true." is it that the Congresspeople who impeached Trump are the irrationally partisan ones, or are the Congresspeople who voted against impeachment, and the GOP senators like Rubio, who voted against witnesses on Friday and will vote against conviction in the next few days, the actual partisan ones?    Using logic and the facts, it would...

I assume that Marco Rubio will be endorsing William Weld, Joe Walsh, or some other candidate to be the Republican nominee for president. And/or he will vote for the Democratic candidate, or some other candidate for president , other than Trump, in November. 

After all, Rubio has said that Trump is guilty as charged of abuse of power. 

"my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true."

Absorb that for a second, in his "threshold analysis"  Rubio willingly concedes that the abuse of power allegations against Trump are true.  He says this in such a matter of fact way that one wonders if every member of the Senate doesnt secretly concede this truth. 

Rubio of course, goes on to say that nevertheless Trump should not receive any punishment because  "at least half of the country would view his removal as illegitimate — as nothing short of a coup d’état?"

Rubio also stresses that the impeachment was "partisan". 

This brings up a stark incongruity in his thinking. 

I'll put it like this - if Trump is obviously guilty, as Rubio attests

"my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true."

is it that the Congresspeople who impeached Trump are the irrationally partisan ones, or are the Congresspeople who voted against impeachment, and the GOP senators like Rubio, who voted against witnesses on Friday and will vote against conviction in the next few days, the actual partisan ones?    Using logic and the facts, it would seem to be the latter. 

He's guilty, and is obviously guilty at that, but the partisanship came with the impeachment, not the lockstep acquital ?    This makes no sense. 

Rubio's statement is below. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago
Of all the twisted, convoluted, cockamamie excuses being floated by Republican senators looking for ways out of convicting President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial, the one being used by Sen. Marco Rubio might be the most bizarre.

So far.

In a published statement Rubio twists himself into a pretzel   trying to concoct some version of a logical reason for not convicting Trump and concludes:

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

Best interest of the country?

Seriously?

So, in other words, Rubio is saying it is in the best interest of the country that we have a president who commits impeachable offenses?

Apply Marco Rubio's logic to real life

Imagine that.

Is there anywhere in life to which we could or should apply that kind of perverted reasoning?

Just because Mr. Smith was caught stealing the automobile does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to put him in jail.

Just because little Johnnie was caught cheating on his mathematics exam does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to give him an F.

Essentially, Rubio is saying that Trump is indispensable.

He's saying Trump should be allowed to get away with anything. 

We already know that the president himself believes this.

And now we have a U.S. senator saying, essentially, that Trump wasn't exaggerating, and it wasn't hyperbole, when he said back in 2016, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

And, apparently, he wouldn't lose the support of Republican senators.

And he wouldn't be punished. 
 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

AZCentral ?  The one who dotes on Jeff Flakes?  That's your source???

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Thankfully, we are a nation of laws with certain inalienable rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Among those rights are the presumption of innocence and due process, with the right to be tried by a jury of our peers. We do not have a Soviet style of justice in the US, although some seem to prefer a kangaroo court, trial by partisan mobs, and instant punishment. Since Trump has never been charged or convicted of an actual crime or misdemeanor, high or otherwise, means the system is working as the Founders envisioned.

The idea he should be punished because some radical leftists don't like him is simply and plainly ludicrous and stupid.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.3  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren have much to gain by thwarting Trump. Their voting had the potential to alter a USA election. They allowed their personal ambitions to interfere with the will of the electorate.

See how it works.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

https://medium.com/@SenatorMarcoRubio/my-statement-on-the-presidents-impeachment-trial-9669e82ccb43

V oting to find the President guilty would not just be a condemnation of his action. If I vote guilty, I will be voting to remove a President from office for the first time in the 243-year history of our Republic.

When they decided to include impeachment in the Constitution, the Framers understood how disruptive and traumatic it would be. As Alexander Hamilton warned, impeachment will “agitate the passions of the whole community.”

This is why they decided to require the support of two thirds of the Senate to remove a President — we serve as a guardrail against partisan impeachment and against removal of a President without broad public support.

Leaders in both parties previously recognized that impeachment must be bipartisan and must enjoy broad public support. In fact, as recently as March of last year, Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) said there would be “little to be gained by putting the country through” the “wrenching experience” of a partisan impeachment.

And yet, only a few months later, a partisan impeachment is exactly what the House produced.

This meant two Articles of Impeachment whose true purpose was not to protect the nation but rather to, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, stain the President’s record because “he has been impeached forever” and “they can never erase that.”

It now falls upon this Senate to take up what the House produced and faithfully execute our duties under the Constitution of the United States.

Why does impeachment exist?

As Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminded us Wednesday night, removal is not a punishment for a crime. Nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for.

The sole purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the one person entrusted with all of the powers of an entire branch of government is to provide a last-resort remedy to protect the country. That is why Hamilton wrote that in these trials our decisions should be pursuing “the public good.”

That is why six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable.

The two are not the same.  Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether it would serve the public good to remove the President, even if I assumed the President did everything the House alleges.

It was not difficult to answer that question on the charge of “Obstruction of Congress.” The President availed himself of legal defenses and constitutional privileges on the advice of his legal counsel. That is not an impeachable offense, much less a removable one.

Negotiations with Congress and enforcement in the courts, not impeachment, should be the front-line recourse when Congress and the President disagree on the separation of powers. But here, the House failed to go to court because, as Manager Schiff admitted, they did not want to go through a yearlong exercise to get the information they wanted. Ironically, they now demand that the Senate go through this very long exercise they themselves decided to avoid.

On the first Article of Impeachment, I reject the argument that “Abuse of Power” can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.

However, for purposes of answering my threshold question I assumed what is alleged is true. And then I sought to answer the question of whether under these assumptions it would be in the interest of the nation to remove the President.

Determining which outcome is in the best interests requires a political judgment — one that takes into account both the severity of the wrongdoing alleged but also the impact removal would have on the nation.

I disagree with the House Managers’ argument that, if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the President leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future Presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the President accountable in an election, including the one just nine months from now.

I also considered removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces. The removal of the President — especially one based on a narrowly voted impeachment, supported by one political party and opposed by another, and without broad public support — would, as Manager Nadler warned over two decades ago, “produce divisiveness and bitterness” that will threaten our nation for decades.

Can anyone doubt that at least half of the country would view his removal as illegitimate — as nothing short of a coup d’état? It is difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin could undertake that would undermine confidence in our democracy more than removal would.

I also reject the argument that unless we call new witnesses this is not a fair trial. They cannot argue that fairness demands we seek witnesses they did little to pursue.

Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.

This high bar I have set is not new for me. In 2014, I rejected calls to pursue impeachment of President Obama, noting that he “has two years left in his term,” and, instead of pursuing impeachment, we should use existing tools at our disposal to “limit the amount of damage he’s doing to our economy and our national security.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the President Pro Tempore Emeritus, once warned, “[A] partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election.”

His words are more true today than when he said them two decades ago. We should heed his advice. I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago
Why does impeachment exist?

Certainly not to exact revenge on political enemies.


Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations 

The allegations are "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress". Asking a foreign leader being granted US aid to look into corruption simply doesn't measure up to a crime. Thus, the obtuse wording of the allegations. The House case is not only flimsy...it's frivolous! 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 months ago

The POTUS asking a foreign president to frivolously investigate his political opponent is obvious abuse of power. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 months ago

So, because Joe Biden is a possible Trump opponent (he hasn't won the primary yet), neither he, his son or Burisma can be investigated. I see, how about CrowdStrike? Didn't Trump mention that?

Maybe you could first tell everyone what "CrowdStrike" is?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    2 months ago

Trump should be grateful that no one is investigating his kids.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.3    2 months ago

Didn't his son-in-law count?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 months ago
The POTUS asking a foreign president to frivolously investigate his political opponent is obvious abuse of power

When did Hunter Biden become a political opponent?  Exactly when did he say he would run for President?  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago
Leaders in both parties previously recognized that impeachment must be bipartisan and must enjoy broad public support. In fact, as recently as March of last year, Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) said there would be “little to be gained by putting the country through” the “wrenching experience” of a partisan impeachment.
Yep, and yet in spite of being duly warned the Democrats took us through the whole miserable and pathetic sham of an impeachment which was totally partisan from the very beginning, and was destined to fail with a distinct and loud
THUD!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago
We should heed his advice. I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation

What you failing to do is look at the whole point of his opinion, instead of worrying about the meaning of one word.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3    2 months ago

I read his entire statement, and have described it quite accurately, thank you. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago
Leaders in both parties previously recognized that impeachment must be bipartisan

Still waiting for that to happen.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

These weasels see no personal gain in going against Trump, so they don't go. 

Rubio has to endorse another candidate for president other than Trump. If he endorses Trump, which everyone fully expects, he will just be proving that he is the sack of shit many perceive him to be. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago

Trump has extremely high approval with Republicans resistance is futile. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.1    2 months ago
Trump has extremely high approval with Republicans resistance is futile.

What they absolutely refuse to acknowledge is that Trump had an "approval rating" in the high 30's when he was elected.   It's now in the high 40's and going up.  Hell, I believe it's actually even higher than Obama was when he was going into his second election.  And we know how that election turned out!!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.1    2 months ago
Trump has extremely high approval with Republicans

Thanks, Captain.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago
Rubio has to endorse another candidate for president other than Trump

Rubio doesn't have to do squat to make some folks happy.

If he endorses Trump, which everyone fully expects, he will just be proving that he is the sack of shit many perceive him to be. 

And what Rubio doesn't do won't change anyone's minds about him. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4  XDm9mm    2 months ago
"my threshold analysis, which already assumed

There's that great word again.  "ASSUMED".   It goes along with supposition, conjecture, innuendo, rumor, and a plethora of other adjectives to describe what President Trump was charged using.

I'll assume President Trump will remain President until he leaves office in January 2025 when his replacement is sworn in and after another four and a half years of the haters in the Democrat party continually nipping at his heels like little puppies looking for attention.  Which in reality, is the only way they will get any.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @4    2 months ago

This is what Rubio said

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

Trump is guilty. Get that through your heads Trumpsters. 

Another sham (that he is innocent) is being perpetrated by Trump supporters. 

It is pure craziness to read through Trumpster replies to all this. Standing reality on its head. 

He is being let off due to partisanship. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 months ago
This is what Rubio said "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

EXACTLY where in that sentence you provided and put in BOLD characters does it say President Trump, or even this President...  it only notes "a" president with no specificity as to who he is referring.

So, JR, you are ASSUMING you know what Rubio specifically meant.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 months ago

Marc Rubio is your idol now?  The Marc Rubio who got his azz handed to him in the 2016 candidate debates?

Get a handle on it John - your disdain for Trump is really turning into a black eye.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.1.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.1    2 months ago
EXACTLY where in that sentence you provided and put in BOLD characters does it say President Trump, or even this President...  it only notes "a" president with no specificity as to who he is referring.

Spank yourself...and then keep spanking yourself until you can't sit down for a week.  Surely you can recognize a man who is kissing ass-cheeks dangling on both sides of his constituent fence.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.3    2 months ago
a man who is kissing ass-cheeks dangling on both sides

Hot Cross Buns. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.3    2 months ago
Surely you can recognize a man who is kissing ass-cheeks dangling on both sides of his constituent fence.

True, one CAN assume that, and it is likely very true.  But, still not factually accurate.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @4.1.4    2 months ago
Hot Cross Buns. 

Isn't it a little early for the Easter reference?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.6    2 months ago
Isn't it a little early for the Easter reference?

Never too early for reflection and repentance...Two Corinthians.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 months ago
He is being let off due to partisanship

He was impeached due to extreme partisanship!!! The lefts entire case was lame, weak, and politically inspired.

All this clown show did was to assure Trump's reelection.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.8    2 months ago
The lefts entire case was lame, weak, and politically inspired.

Sorry Greg.   The entire case was nonexistent.  Hearsay, rumors, conjecture, concepts, theories, innuendo, suppositions, etc, etc., are not what Americans, well thinking Americans anyway, would consider to use to convict anyone of something.

 
 
 
CometRider
5  CometRider    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  CometRider @5    2 months ago

Either comment on the seed or your next comment will be reported as off topic and removed.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7  XDm9mm    2 months ago
"Just because actions

Maybe you should reread the first few words JR.  Rubio indicated "Just because actions..."   Exactly where in that missive is he specifically saying :  "Just because HIS actions.."?

Or are you ASSUMING that JR?  

It is pure craziness to read through Trumpster replies to all this. Standing reality on its head. 

The reality being twisted and perverted was accomplished by Schiff and his compatriots in the Hate Trump wing of the Democrat party.  Hell, JR, Schiff even went so far on the floor of the Senate to have ANOTHER fake Schiff made up story read into official records relating to a 'Putin Trump conversation.' as he conjured it in that twisted little congenital pathological liar mind of his.

And that's the man you pin your hopes on.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

How is this hard to understand?

Bill Clinton obviously committed felonies in office.  Democrats didn't think it was worthy of removal. No one who voted to acquit Clinton thought he was "innocent."

Rubio's point is that even if you believe Trump did everything the impeachment managers allege, it's not a removable offense, which is what the Senators are voting on.

It's a perfectly reasonable position, particularly given the precedent of recent presidential impeachments.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    2 months ago

Sean,  Rubio agrees that Trump committed impeachable offenses.  

Is it partisan to impeach someone who committed impeachable offenses, or is it partisan to acquit someone who committed impeachable offenses? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    2 months ago
Sean,  Rubio agrees that Trump committed impeachable offenses.  

No....he didn't !

"That is why six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable. The two are not the same."

"It was not difficult to answer that question on the charge of “Obstruction of Congress.” The President availed himself of legal defenses and constitutional privileges on the advice of his legal counsel. That is not an impeachable offense, much less a removable one."

"As Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminded us Wednesday night, removal is not a punishment for a crime. Nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    2 months ago

No, he's saying there's a difference between an impeachable offense, and a removable offense. He didn't say Trump committed an impeachable offense.

You don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word "assume," in Rubio's analysis. He's clear that he's assuming, for the sake of argument, that the allegations are true. That is not the same as saying the allegations are true.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.2    2 months ago
The sole purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the one person entrusted with all of the powers of an entire branch of government is to provide a last-resort remedy to protect the country. That is why Hamilton wrote that in these trials our decisions should be pursuing “the public good.”

That is why six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable.

The two are not the same.  Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether it would serve the public good to remove the President, even if I assumed the President did everything the House alleges.

Someone else up the thread said I was taking Rubios words out of context and he didnt mean the bolded part here to apply to Trump. 

That is nonsense. The comments before , and after, the bolded part refer to Trump. So does the bolded part. 

He explicitly acknowledges that the presidents actions were impeachable. 

He can also decide, if he chooses, that he will ignore the impeachable actions and acquit anyway, which he has done. 

What we see here is that the partisanship is on the part of the Republicans, not the House democrats. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    2 months ago

Who cares?

Trump will not be removed through a political p[loy.

You'll have to take him out via the ballot box.

Good luck with that, although I am sure you have polls saying he won't win and doesn't stand a chance--again.

Which lead me to wonder why Democrats rushed impeachment, knowing it could have dragged on past the election.

Why not two and a half years ago, when Democrats worked on it for so long?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    2 months ago

You keep ignoring that he said, "assuming the allegations are true" and in turn distort his words to claim that he said the allegations are true.

Rubio never said Trump committed an impeachable offense. To claim he did, is simply wrong.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.5    2 months ago
ou keep ignoring that he said, "assuming the allegations are true" and in turn distort his words to claim that he said the allegations are true.

Seems to be employing a favored tactic here--claim something was stated, and then argue like it is true that someone stated it.

Very weak tactic.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.5    2 months ago

When you assume something is true, you are agreeing that it is true. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.7    2 months ago
When you assume something is true, you are agreeing that it is true. 

I call bullshit on that!

Have you honestly never heard anyone say "Let's assume everything you say is true, for the sake of argument"????

Come on!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.7    2 months ago
When you assume something is true, you are agreeing that it is true. 

When you ASSUME, you assume.

When you AGREE, you agree.

ASSUME and AGREE both have distinct and differing definitions.  Please don't insult the intelligence of anyone and ask for proof of that.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.7    2 months ago

No, it’s the opposite. That’s why you add the word “assume.”  It creates a hypothetical situation.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.10    2 months ago

Sean, show us ONE SENTENCE in that long statement by Rubio that implies that Trump is innocent.  one word even. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.12  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.11    2 months ago
show us ONE SENTENCE in that long statement by Rubio that implies that Trump is innocent.

How about you provide one that actually implies Trump is not.   There's a whole bunch of words there JR, but in not one sentence does Rubio say that "I believe the President is guilty of "X"."  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.1.13  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.7    2 months ago

That goes against the laws of logic and argument. Do your homework.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.14  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1.13    2 months ago

If I assume that a package weighs five pounds, am I agreeing that it weighs five pounds, am I disagreeing that it weighs five pounds, or do I have no opinion?

Obviously the first.  If I assume the package on the table weighs five pounds, I am agreeing that it weighs five pounds.  It may not, but I have agreed that it does by accepting the assumption. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.15  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1.13    2 months ago
I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable. The two are not the same.  Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.14    2 months ago

So you are assuming facts not in evidence and declaring it to be a fact because you merely assume it is.

Illogical.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.17  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.14    2 months ago
If I assume that a package weighs five pounds,

You're guessing that a package weighs five pounds.   You could just as easily have said you guess is weighs ten pounds.  There is no basis in fact for the assumption, unless of course the package indicated X pounds

am I agreeing that it weighs five pounds, am I disagreeing that it weighs five pounds,

Neither.   You're assuming something.

or do I have no opinion?

Your opinion is that you are assuming something which you have neither proved nor disproved.   You just guessed.  That's all.

 
 
 
squiggy
8.1.18  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.15    2 months ago

You're trying awfully hard to put some green between impeachable and removable. Way back when, the battle cry was 'gonna impeach the mothafucka'. Are we to now believe the intent was just to slap Trump's hand for something, (at the time undetermined) and leave him in office?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.19  author  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.17    2 months ago

When you accept an assumption, you are agreeing with it. Sorry. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.20  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.16    2 months ago

So you are trolling this article because you assume it is a good idea. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.20    2 months ago
So you are trolling this article because you assume it is a good idea. 

Not at all.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is NOT trolling, no matter how many times you post it.

What I was attempting to do is explain how illogical it is to assume facts not in evidence, like you do.

if I am trolling, report me and have my fucking comments deleted.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.19    2 months ago
When you accept an assumption, you are agreeing with it.

Absurd.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.23  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.21    2 months ago

Why dont you try commenting on the seeded articles for once instead of playing from the peanut gallery all the time? 

How many articles have you seeded or written on this forum?  I doubt if it is even five. 

Comment on the articles and stop trying to provoke the people who do write and seed. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.1.24  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.20    2 months ago

Quit using that accusation of trolling excuse every time shows you to be wrong or disagrees with you.

To many, your comments lack substance and are often defensive and dismissive.

 
 
 
squiggy
8.1.25  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    2 months ago

83743193_2832856820107291_41174779142267

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.23    2 months ago
Why dont you try commenting on the seeded articles for once instead of playing from the peanut gallery all the time? 

If you don't want responses, then either don't post or lock your article.

How many articles have you seeded or written on this forum?  I doubt if it is even five. 

So now how many articles I have seeded is the topic?

Comment on the articles and stop trying to provoke the people who do write and seed. 

My very first comment to you was in response to what you wrote. Were you not commenting on the article, JR?

 
 
 
It Is ME
9  It Is ME    2 months ago

“It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses,”  
 “I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater and partisan politics”

Chuck Schumer Jan. 27, 1999.

My how times can change people. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
10  Nerm_L    2 months ago

Sen. Chuck Schumer has been been repeating running the press during the impeachment trial which, BTW, is not a demonstration of impartiality by Schumer or the the press.  Following the Senate vote to hear witnesses (on Jan. 31, 2020) Sen. Schumer again ran to the press and spoke these words, “It’s a grand tragedy, one of the worst tragedies that the Senate has ever overcome.”

Yes it is, Sen. Schumer.   Yes it is.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
10.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Nerm_L @10    2 months ago

Schumer should get an honorary Oscar for bad acting.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Greg Jones @10.1    2 months ago
Schumer should get an honorary Oscar for bad acting.

Shouldn't that Oscar go to Schiff?  Or does he get the one for bad script writing?

 
 
 
PJ
11  PJ    2 months ago

What the republican senators have done will be a dark stain on America's history.

For those who love America, they need to focus on the Senate races and vote out the trump republicans.  The presidential election is secondary in my mind.  The bigger prize and power lie with taking back the Senate.

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1  It Is ME  replied to  PJ @11    2 months ago
What the republican senators have done will be a dark stain on America's history.

Wanting the House to do their "JOB" before they bring something before them ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.2  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @11    2 months ago

I remember some folks here saying that the Dems would win the Senate in 2016 because the GOP had too many seats to defend.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.3  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @11    2 months ago
What the republican senators have done will be a dark stain on America's history.

Nope.  That distinction goes entirely to the Democrats.  They weaponized the process and did so for purely political pandering to the rabid left wing of the party.

For those who love America, they need to focus on the Senate races and vote out the trump republicans. 

And have no fear, the Independents and Republicans will be working mightly against that and ensuring they win additional seats in the Senate as well as a potential majority in the House.  Americans have had it with the Schiff clown car show with the blessing of Pelosi.

The presidential election is secondary in my mind.  The bigger prize and power lie with taking back the Senate.

Trump will run and win reelection, the Senate will likely be a larger GOP presence and the house very possibly will shift to majority GOP.

 
 
 
squiggy
11.4  squiggy  replied to  PJ @11    2 months ago
dark stain on America's history.

As opposed to a white stain.

 
 
 
PJ
11.4.1  PJ  replied to  squiggy @11.4    2 months ago
As opposed to a white stain.

It can be a white stain if that's the color you prefer........ 

A stain is a stain.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.4.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @11.4.1    2 months ago

Trump and his worshipers are a shit stain on American history. 

 
 
 
PJ
11.4.3  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @11.4.2    2 months ago
Trump and his worshippers are a shit stain on American history. 

Maybe, but if you tell them the stain is white they seem more accepting of it for some reason.  (shrug)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.4.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @11.4.3    2 months ago

For some of them, white is their favorite color. 

 
 
 
PJ
11.4.5  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @11.4.4    2 months ago

I say it's more then "some".  hahahahahaha

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.4.6  Greg Jones  replied to  PJ @11.4.5    2 months ago

There goes the race card....again.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.4.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Greg Jones @11.4.6    2 months ago
There goes the race card....again.

When you have nothing else, it's always in the pocket of some.

 
 
 
PJ
11.4.8  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @11.4.7    2 months ago

Go back and read WHO made color a focus in the conversation.  It was your team.  I simply deferred to using whatever color the member preferred.   

You guys are projecting.  

 
 
 
squiggy
11.4.9  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.4.4    2 months ago
For some of them, white is their favorite color. 

I like blue, too. Blue dresses and white stains - for the more obtuse.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.4.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @11.4.8    2 months ago

It seems they are obsessed with the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress from 25 years ago. 

Weird. 

 
 
 
PJ
11.4.11  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @11.4.10    2 months ago

That's all they have.  It's pathetic.  Nothing a little soap and water won't handle.  But let's extort our allies for personal gain and that's okay.  Let's grab women by the pussy and that's just boys being boys.  Let's invite Russia into the Oval Office and reveal secrets that put our allies at risk and that's just trump being trump.  No harm, no foul.

 
 
 
squiggy
11.4.12  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.4.10    2 months ago

If you like your stain, you can keep your stain.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.5  Greg Jones  replied to  PJ @11    2 months ago

The Republican Senators upheld the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because of their love of America and its values.

The Democrats seem to favor Russia and its Soviet style tactics of governing.

 
 
 
Ronin2
11.6  Ronin2  replied to  PJ @11    2 months ago

Why so the next show impeachment can succeed? If you remove Trump you get Pence- how is that better for the left. Unless they impeach both at once and put the supposed Democrat Speaker of the House in the White House.

The country will tear itself apart, there will be revolts, riots, and maybe even a civil war. A military coup might be needed to save the country from itself.

Sounds like fun. When do we start?

 
 
 
PJ
11.6.1  PJ  replied to  Ronin2 @11.6    2 months ago

What are you talking about.  lol

I don't give two shits about trump.  let him finish his next 1 - 5 years.  When true Americans win back the Senate we can write new laws that will never allow this shit to happen again.  Enjoy the remainder of your twisted win.  It won't last forever.

 
 
 
WallyW
11.6.2  WallyW  replied to  PJ @11.6.1    2 months ago
.......win back the Senate we can write new laws that will never allow this shit to happen again. 
What kind of laws? The left wing agenda is scary enough as it is

 
 
 
1stwarrior
11.6.3  1stwarrior  replied to  PJ @11.6.1    2 months ago

So you're saying that "Democrats/Liberals" are the only "true Americans" and only THEIR laws should be followed?

Wow PJ - really into fixing the problems, eh?

 
 
 
PJ
11.6.4  PJ  replied to  1stwarrior @11.6.3    2 months ago

Who specified a party.  You did not me.   Don't hang your hang ups on me dude.  But I do find it curious that you think it can only be fixed by the democrats.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
11.6.5  1stwarrior  replied to  PJ @11.6.4    2 months ago

"true Americans win back the Senate" "we can write new laws "

Nice try PJ.

 
 
 
PJ
11.6.6  PJ  replied to  1stwarrior @11.6.5    2 months ago

Yeah, I'm a true American.  Are you? or are you a trump american which is an oxymoron in my opinion.  

 
 
 
PJ
11.6.7  PJ  replied to  1stwarrior @11.6.5    2 months ago

Your silence speaks volumes.  Just what I thought.  You still support trump which means you support EVERYTHING he does and says.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.6.8  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @11.6.7    2 months ago
 You still support trump which means you support EVERYTHING he does and says.  

Do you even realize how silly that statement is?

That is like saying that if you supported Hillary, then you supported EVERYTHING she has done and said, or any other politician, for that matter.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.6.9  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @11.6.3    2 months ago
Wow PJ - really into fixing the problems, eh?

While I personally had no problem detecting the sarcasm in that, apparently some have trouble recognizing it.

Maybe next time you should add "/s" so that those folks can tell when you use sarcasm!!

LMMFAO!

 
 
 
Tacos!
12  Tacos!    2 months ago
Rubio willingly concedes that the abuse of power allegations against Trump are true

No. That's not what it means to assume that the allegations are true.

 
 
 
freepress
13  freepress    2 months ago

When your child comes home in trouble for lying, don't punish them. Lies are now perfectly acceptable even if they get caught. That is the lesson. No consequences for lying. - OR - We now can teach our children that only white men who are billionaires and live in a golden tower with a golden toilet in NYC who are celebrity reality show hosts, and make it to the office of President get to lie and go without consequences.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
13.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  freepress @13    2 months ago

Where in the fuck have you been.  Lying has been around since the beginning of time. In fact, success in politics is essentially about being the best liar.

And by the way,  I don't recognize any truth in your comments.  So there you go.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @13.1    2 months ago
In fact, success in politics is essentially about being the best liar.

Trump is not the best liar, he's the worst liar. His hands are caught in the cookie jar every time. 

Which all the more makes dumbasses out of his supporters. They are easily bamboozled by a conman who tells thousands of lies in plain sight. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1.1    2 months ago

And here I thought we were talking about Sen Rubio.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
13.1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1.1    2 months ago

So you just contradicted yourself.   Meanwhile, I'm willing to bet you thought obummer was a better liar.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ronin2
arkpdx
JohnRussell


91 visitors