Senate Rules

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  one month ago  •  186 comments


Senate Rules
"Under the impeachment rules of the Senate, we'll take the matter up. The chief justice will be in the chair ... We intend to do our constitutional responsibility

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

As the Articles of Impeachment are transferred from the House of Representatives to the US Senate, amid much fanfare, the trial will be much more somber and deliberate, in stark contrast to the inquiry conducted by the House. Yesterday Pelosi and co had their last moment of self-aggrandizement.

At 12PM the articles of impeachment will be delivered. The seven impeachment managers selected by Pelosi are: Reps Nadler, Schiff, Crow, Garcia, Demings, Jeffries and Lofgren. Six of the seven supported impeachment before the Ukrainian phone call.

EOZ3IYkX0AI6AbL?format=jpg&name=900x900
Pens given out by Pelosi to "commemorate" the impeachment of a duly elected President.


At 2PM Chief Justice Roberts will be sworn in. (The same Justice who once clashed with the President.)


The opening rules for the Senate shall be:


Senators will not be able to bring electronic devices on the floor, speak to others while on the floor or bring reading material unless it’s related to impeachment.


Senators are expected to be in their seats as they listen to House managers and Trump’s team make their respective cases. 

Video evidence is not allowed


The Senate will be in session six days a week


Yet to be decided:


After opening arguments from Senators a vote will be taken on whether to call witnesses (At least 4 Republican Senators are needed to vote YEA)

Senators are expected to be able to submit questions through Roberts, who will read them aloud.

The Senate sergeant-at-arms and the Senate Rules Committee are preparing new press restrictions 

Senate’s deliberations are expected to be televised, though senators could go into “closed session,” where they would turn off cameras and remove reporters for a private discussion.

Most important of all the Senate leader, Mitch McConnell may decide that the House needs to be finished with it's investigation before the trial can begin. It would undermine a trial to have an ongoing investigation going on, complete with media leaks and bombshell press reports. 



The verdict:

67 votes will be required to convict Trump and remove him from office. That means 20 Republicans and every democrat would have to vote for a conviction. About as likely as it is wrong! On the other hand a vote along party lines would more than exonerate the President. The Senate could even declare these two particular articles of impeachment to be frivolous! It would be a confirmation of everything the President has said about the impeachment. President Trump would then have the very possible unique distinction of being the only President to be impeached and then re-elected.



Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

We are moving to much different venue as these peculiar "Articles of Impeachment" move over to the US Senate for a trial.


Rules of civility apply

 
 
 
Kathleen
2  Kathleen    one month ago

I don’t think all 20 Republicans will vote to impeach.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @2    one month ago

I only wish I could get decent odds!  Schumer is working hard on one last "Hail Mary pass."

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Kathleen @2    one month ago
I don’t think all 20 Republicans will vote to impeach.

Unless enough GOP'ers break rank and allow witnesses in a simple majority vote, this 'trial' and it's outcome is already predetermined.  Should witnesses be allowed to testify, from both sides mind you, there may come a point where the dam finally breaks and a la Nixon, the Senate has no choice but to convict, or recommend resignation.

Don't see either happening and as ugly as it has been to get to this point, we should all be grateful we have Constitutional procedures in place to address these most serious of accusations, as long as those procedures are allowed adhered to. Chief Justice Roberts will be the key.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2    one month ago
Should witnesses be allowed to testify

Why?  The House was supposed to have done that. Don't bother telling us that the President withheld witnesses. That goes to Court for a decision. The democrats didn't want to take time to do that. It's there own fault isn't it?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    one month ago
Why?

Then don't call this a 'Trial'.

The House worked within their Constitutional boundaries to bring forth an impeachment (a fact, agree or disagree). It is now incumbent on the Senate to fulfill their Constitutional duty in adjudicating these most serious of charges.

If new and relevant facts come to light after the House has concluded their business, does that automatically dismiss those facts from becoming part of the record? I would hope not, for after all, shouldn't we all be seeking the incontrovertible truth?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.2    one month ago
The House worked within their Constitutional boundaries to bring forth an impeachment (a fact, agree or disagree). I

It was a sham!


If new and relevant facts come to light after the House has concluded their business, does that automatically dismiss those facts from becoming part of the record?

Come to light?  or are they actively digging? How many chances do dems get to make their case?



shouldn't we all be seeking the incontrovertible truth?

Oh, ya, truth has become like a rich old woman. Not sure weather the partisan dems seek her for her own sake or they want to marry the old girl to use her for a while.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.3    one month ago
Oh, ya, truth has become like a rich old woman.

Parse away, but ...

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~Winston Churchill

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.5  Kathleen  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2    one month ago

My biggest problem with this is all........ the time spent on this. What else is getting done? I guess we will see how this unfolds, but there has not been any significant breakthrough of anything yet. Not enough to do what the Democrats want. They hate him with a passion and to me, it getting to be more of a obsession.  I am more for voting a president out then putting everyone through all this and sacrificing the time when other issues can be taken care of.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.5    one month ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.7  katrix  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.5    one month ago

If we ignore the checks and balances that form the core of our government, then we have only ourselves to blame if our democracy fails.

While I think impeachment is futile due to the partisan nature of Congress, I think in this case the Dems had no choice. You just can't ignore it when our President asks a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election.

It's not like Congress is exactly taking care of most issues anyway. The House has passed a lot of bills that McConnell refuses to even put up for a vote - and his supporters are apparently dumb enough to blame the Dems for obstruction and completely ignore what McConnell is doing.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.8  Kathleen  replied to  katrix @2.2.7    one month ago

Did they prove that the president asked a foreign government to interfere? 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.9  r.t..b...  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.5    one month ago
for voting a president out

I respect your thoughts on this coming so close to an election.

For me, when it is alleged an incumbent uses the powers of his office to possibly influence an election, those allegations need to be addressed, regardless of the calendar. If we cannot protect the integrity of our electoral system, everything else is compromised. We cannot wait for an election that has in any way has been tainted by the incumbent, regardless of the eventual opposition candidate.

But again, just my thoughts on why these proceedings are warranted and need to go forward to conclusion...not that a single vote will be changed, but in seeing the 'checks and balances' crucial to our long-term health as a country be allowed to function as intended, lest the next infraction committed (by any future administration) be even more egregious.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.8    one month ago
Did they prove that the president asked a foreign government to interfere? 

The $80 Million question!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @2.2.7    one month ago

Yes, seriously, what work is it that the gop has been doing or even the 'president' for that matter?

At one of his 'rallies' the 'president' said 'I've got  nothing to do' - that's quite obvious.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.11    one month ago

And just what are the ramifications for everyday citizens because the House bills are just sitting in the Senate? Obviously not a damned thing of any consequence.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.12    one month ago

According to you.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.13    one month ago

Name a few "according to YOU. Should be easy enough. 

Now, hit that Google and find some...................good luck.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.14    one month ago

No need

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.16  katrix  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.8    one month ago
Did they prove that the president asked a foreign government to interfere? 

All the evidence I've seen shows that yes, he did.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.17  Kathleen  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.9    one month ago

Have any of these things against the President been proven according to a court of law? 

I am going to see how this unfolds.

Its going to be a very interesting election. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.18  Kathleen  replied to  katrix @2.2.16    one month ago

Where is the evidence?

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.19  katrix  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.12    one month ago
And just what are the ramifications for everyday citizens because the House bills are just sitting in the Senate? Obviously not a damned thing of any consequence

I suppose if you don't give a shit about insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions (which Trump lied and claimed he had "saved"), or anything else (clearly you don't care enough to look up what these BIPARTISAN bills actually do), then ... well, I will avoid a ticket and not finish this sentence.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.20  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @2.2.19    one month ago

Funny how people are asking for evidence when tRump obstructs justice.  

If he was innocent, he would let them testify.  

Plus every bit of evidence up to now shows that he is guilty.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.20    one month ago
Funny how people are asking for evidence when tRump obstructs justice.  

Ya, Who needs evidence/s ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.21    one month ago

That makes no sense Vic.  

All the evidence so far points to GUILTY.

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.2.23  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.21    one month ago

Da comrade, didn't you get memo...  Dis is not United States America, Dis is Union of Socialist States America...  In dis land you guilty until proven innocent. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.24  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.22    one month ago
All the evidence so far points to GUILTY.

That's what they told Pontius Pilate

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.23    one month ago
In dis land you guilty until proven innocent. 

I believe at least one democrat congressman said just that - Trump should prove his innocence!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.26  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.2    one month ago

shouldn't we all be seeking the incontrovertible truth?

So...what's the truth, in your opinion. Should Trump be allowed to have a defense?

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.27  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.24    one month ago
The Office of Management and Budget told the GAO it "withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent 'in a manner that could conflict with the President's foreign policy,'" said Thomas Armstrong, the GAO's general counsel.
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the GAO wrote. "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."
So .. what he did was illegal even if it wasn't for his personal gain (which it was). Trump thinks he's a dictator and is above the law. Too bad the GOP Senators seem to love dictators.
 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.28  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.24    one month ago
'All the evidence so far points to GUILTY.'

'That's what they told Pontius Pilate'

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif Pfffffft.  

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.29  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.26    one month ago
Should Trump be allowed to have a defense

Yes, but it's not the Senate which should be providing it, or the AG.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.30  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @2.2.7    one month ago
If we ignore the checks and balances that form the core of our government, then we have only ourselves to blame if our democracy fails.
This isn't about checks and balances, it's about the party out of power trying to nullify an open and honest election.
I suspect the Dems will continue this even after Trump wins reelection, and they lose control of the House.
The
 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.31  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.25    one month ago

If he was innocent he wouldn't block witnesses from testifying.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.32  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @2.2.27    one month ago
Trump thinks he's a dictator and is above the law. Too bad the GOP Senators seem to love dictators.
Is this what you actually believe?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.33  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @2.2.27    one month ago

Unfortunately, the GAO is wrong and BIASED. The President had to at least Sep 30th to release the money. He released it on Sep 11th.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.32    one month ago

Just a little more histrionics and hair-on-fire nonsense.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.35  r.t..b...  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.12    one month ago
because the House bills are just sitting in the Senate?

As to why they are sitting in the Senate may be the more important question.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.36  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.33    one month ago
The President had to at least Sep 30th to release the money. He released it on Sep 11th

Wrong. If he didn't release it until then, it wouldn't have been disbursed in time. As it is, $35 million of it couldn't have been disbursed before it expired without a special bill that was passed on Sept 27 to cover his ass.

One of Trump's many problems is that he either never bothered to learn about laws and policies, or doesn't think they apply to him.

Not everyone who understands that Trump committed wrongdoing is biased, as much as Trump tries to convince everything that it's all so unfair when he's not allowed to do whatever he wants.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.37  r.t..b...  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.26    one month ago
Should Trump be allowed to have a defense?

By all means, but with that defense comes the opportunity to call witnesses to either corroborate or contradict what is placed before the final arbiters...why is that such a difficult hurdle to negotiate? The answer lies in ignoring the premise of getting to the truth on the grounds of procedure.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.38  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @2.2.36    one month ago
If he didn't release it until then, it wouldn't have been disbursed in time. As it is, $35 million of it couldn't have been disbursed before it expired without a special bill that was passed on Sept 27 to cover his ass.

Then if you know that why are you buying into the GAO claim?

One of Trump's many problems is that he either never bothered to learn about laws and policies, or doesn't think they apply to him.

I think he simply underestimated the left, which is something I never do!  He must be forgiven, he was a democrat for a long time.


Not everyone who understands that Trump committed wrongdoing is biased

Oh yes they are! This man was impeached without reason, spied on and smeared. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.39  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.37    one month ago
the opportunity to call witnesses

But you don't believe in everyone having that right!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.40  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.35    one month ago

I think it is merely a talking point. No one, especially here, knows why they should be outraged over them sitting. They just know but Trump. Dems would be shouting on the rooftops if there was anything of any circumstance. It's passing bills to pass bills and exclaim "See we are doing something" and the something is of no immediate consequence.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.41  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.3    one month ago
It was a sham!

In what way? How did it differ from the process conducted during the Clinton impeachment inquiry, other than the FACT that ALL of the witnesses had been deposed and ALL of the documents had been released that is? Be specific.

Come to light?  or are they actively digging? How many chances do dems get to make their case?

Did you support the 8 Benghazi investigations? How about the YEARS of the Star investigation that bounced from one allegation that he couldn't prove to the next and the next? 

Should the Oversight Committees just shut down and ignore any and all of the crap coming out to the WH? 

Oh, ya, truth has become like a rich old woman. Not sure weather the partisan dems seek her for her own sake or they want to marry the old girl to use her for a while.

Well it's pretty clear that the GOP doesn't seek the truth at all. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.42  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.39    one month ago
But you don't believe in everyone having that right!

But I do and have stated that with every post today. The House did what the House was allowed under the Constitution, and again, whether you agree or disagree.

The ultimate outcome lies with the Senate. Piss and moan about how we got to this point as you will, but it has been Constitutionally sound...where we go from here has yet to be determined, unless you are a GOP Senator it seems...and to ignore their Constitutional responsibility is a greater indictment than what faces their president.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.2.43  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @2.2.27    one month ago

So what Biden/Obama did threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine was as well then?

Crank up the Joe Biden impeachment train.  Might as well get it warmed up just in case.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.44  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.43    one month ago
So what Biden/Obama did threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine was as well then?

Have you seriously not bothered to read the facts about that? You're smarter than to just believe what Fox tells you to think.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
2.2.45  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.33    one month ago
The President had to at least Sep 30th to release the money. He released it on Sep 11th.

This needs to be repeated ... and often. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.46  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.33    one month ago

Just like he released the Veterans Fundraiser funds from January 28 2016 in May after several newspapers discovered that many of the charities had not yet  received any donations?

The Trump campaign and Mr Trump repeatedly said he had dispersed all of the funds in March when in fact The checks were not cut and mailed until May 24, including the personal check for $1 million from Mr Trump to the MC-LEF on top of the March donation of $100, 000.  Then on May 31  everyone acted like it was all taken care of months ago...

A lawsuit about campaign  funding violations revealed that the funds were co mingled with the campaign funds and the courts found against the Trump campaign in November 2019 for $2 million which is to be distributed to the same 30 charities involved in the fund raiser.

And while public pressure may have been a contributing factor to the "last minute" Sept 11 release of the Ukrainian funds, not all of the funds were dispersed in time.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/military-aid-quid-pro-quo-pentagon-adam-schiff-report/2019/12/05/id/944751/

Technically Newsmax still has it wrong as $35 million not dispersed just wrong as Rep Jim Jordan claiming it was dispersed. 

According to the LA Times the figure is now down to $20.2 million.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-12/millions-in-military-aid-at-center-of-impeachment-hasnt-reached-ukraine

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    one month ago

I think you live in an alternate universe Vic. 

 
 
 
charger 383
4  charger 383    one month ago

They should declare the whole thing frivolous 

 
 
 
katrix
5  katrix    one month ago
Senators will not be able to bring electronic devices on the floor, speak to others while on the floor or bring reading material unless it’s related to impeachment.

I'm trying to picture the people in the chamber reading Mad Magazine while someone is droning on and on ... lol. Unfortunate that they had to be banned from doing something like this - if they can't give it their full attention without being ordered to, they need to quit. Reminds me of some of the meetings I'm in, where everyone is on their damn phone.

On the other hand a vote along party lines would more than exonerate the President

No, it wouldn't, any more than a vote along party lines exonerated Clinton. All it would mean is that our elected officials are too damn partisan to do their jobs and put our country above their political party. Clinton is STILL impeached and so is Trump. The lack of the Senate members to have the balls to go against their party leadership doesn't change that.

Trump could even get re-elected and then impeached again. With, presumably, the exact same outcome. Impeachment just seems silly to me since we know that virtually nobody in Congress really gives a shit about their oaths to serve the country. Party first, country second. I don't really think we'll ever see a president removed from office after impeachment.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5    one month ago
No, it wouldn't, any more than a vote along party lines exonerated Clinton.

The Republican controlled House of Representatives decided with a  bipartisan vote  of 258–176 (31 Democrats joined Republicans) to commence impeachment proceedings against Clinton on October 8, 1998.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton


There was no such bipartisanship on the vote to impeach Trump!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    one month ago

31 Democrats voted to impeach Clinton, and the media's  repeatedly emphasized how partisan the process was. When it's 0 Republicans voting to impeach, the media gets real quiet about Democratic partisanship.

And when the Senate's vote is the same as it was for Clinton, they media will blame the Republicans for sticking together and acting in a partisan manner. In the Clinton trial, the media blamed the Republicans for a vote that split along partisan lines.

The media will always blame Republicans and protect Democrats.  Its as certain as death and taxes. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    one month ago

Correct on all counts. The media will continue it's war against this President. Watch for all the leaks.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.3  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    one month ago
When it's 0 Republicans voting to impeach, the media gets real quiet about Democratic partisanship.

What about the GOP partisanship? The Dems had some honor. The current GOP crop does not. When you have McConnell saying he will not be an impartial juror, Graham saying he refuses to even read the evidence because he won't convict Trump no matter what ... you can't pretend that's anything but a partisan sham trial.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.4  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    one month ago
The media will continue it's war against this President

Anytime the media prints facts - direct quotes, videos, etc. - Trump supporters whine about media bias. Maybe if Trump stopped doing so much fucked up stuff, the media wouldn't have anything bad to report about him.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5.1.4    one month ago
the media prints facts

Like falsely claiming that Trump removed the MLK bust?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @5.1.4    one month ago

In his Wisconsin 'rally' the other night the moron said:  'Anything I say that's even slightly false, it makes headlines'

Again, like katrix said, ' Anytime the media prints facts - direct quotes, videos, etc. - Trump supporters whine about media bias.'

Here's the link to the video:

https://www.facebook.com/colbertlateshow/videos/2668184746603290/

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @5.1.3    one month ago
you can't pretend that's anything but a partisan sham trial.

As if the Clinton impeachment trial was anything different.  

Chuck Schumer literally campaigned to be elected to the Senate so he could vote no in the trial, and then promised to work to stop a trial from even happening.

How many Democratic Senators have said Trump should be removed before the trial even begins? Warren was even calling for his removal in the middle of impeachment hearings. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.5    one month ago
So you have one alleged false claim against the over 15,000 lies the 'president' has told?
 
 
 
katrix
5.1.9  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.7    one month ago

When did I say the Clinton impeachment was different? I specifically said that the Senate refused to put the country over their party in that trial, as they are doing here. That's why impeachment is such a joke, sadly.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Too bad you don't expect better things from your party. I don't really expect them from either party, which is why I'm an independent, but that doesn't mean I can't call for them to do their damn jobs. Neither party gives a shit about the country, it's all about getting and keeping power. Every single Speaker I can think of acted the same damn way.

I care more about my country, and ethics, than I do about political parties. I want them to do what's right, as their oaths require them to do. Trump claimed he would drain the swamp, so one might think this time around would be different .. but nah, he's just made the swamp even dirtier.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5.1.9    one month ago
When did I say the Clinton impeachment was different? I specifically said that the Senate refused to put the country over their party in that trial, as they are doing here.

Are you saying that you thought Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.8    one month ago

And how do you respond to the one I provided?

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.12  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    one month ago
Are you saying that you thought Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached?

Absolutely. He was an arrogant fool and lied to Congress. He knew what the law said. He doesn't even have Trump's excuse of being an ignorant asshole who thinks he knows it all - Clinton had a legal background.

Too bad Trump's sexual harassment never got taken seriously as Clinton's did. And of course Trump's too chicken shit to actually testify, as Clinton did.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5.1.12    one month ago
Absolutely. He was an arrogant fool and lied to Congress.

That never should have happened. The investigation was supposed to be about Whitewater. The problem with an independent prosecutor is that he he has tremendous power to roam around into other things. It morphed into Clinton's personal affairs and only then did Clinton feel the need to lie and obstruct. It never would have happened if the investigation didn't drift into all things Clinton. Is that what you favor?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.11    one month ago

I already responded.

The ONE instance you provided, against the over 15,000 lies the 'president' has spewed.  

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.15  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.13    one month ago
That never should have happened. The investigation was supposed to be about Whitewater.

You make a good point there. Reno shouldn't have done that. But the end result was that Clinton DID lie to Congress under oath, so he brought that on himself. I don't know what the answer is - I see the need for independent prosecutors, but there seems to be a need for a more guided and controlled process.

In this case, the investigation seems to be staying more on topic. Trump's sexual harassment hasn't been brought into it. Yes, the Mueller report dug into finances ... but finances played a part in the whole thing so I can see why.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @5    one month ago
No, it wouldn't,

Then since Democrats voted AGAINST impeachment, that by your logic means that the House did not impeach President Trump.  

After all, the only bipartisan vote was in fact against impeachment.

 
 
 
katrix
5.2.1  katrix  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2    one month ago

Nope, Trump was impeached in the House. Just as Clinton was. That means they were impeached regardless of what the Senate did.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.3  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @5    one month ago

That phone call that suggested that the Biden's activities should be scrutinized, does not rise to the level of impeachability.

You're assuming Trump is guilty.

 
 
 
katrix
5.3.1  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @5.3    one month ago
You're assuming Trump is guilty

All the evidence I've seen shows that he is. And more keeps coming out every day which further supports his guilt.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.3.2  1stwarrior  replied to  katrix @5.3.1    one month ago

Get over it Kat - you nor any of us have seen any EVIDENCE.  All we've seen and heard is "I think", "I believe", "I heard", "My feelings are" - pure BS.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.3.3  It Is ME  replied to  1stwarrior @5.3.2    one month ago
All we've seen and heard is "I think", "I believe", "I heard", "My feelings are" - pure BS.

You do know you're posting that, with a "Doesn't matter" person....don't you ? jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
5.3.4  katrix  replied to  1stwarrior @5.3.2    one month ago
All we've seen and heard is "I think", "I believe", "I heard", "My feelings are" - pure BS.

We must not be reading the same evidence. But I'm all for those people Trump kept from testifying to provide more firsthand testimony. Seems like you are asking for more firsthand testimony as well, that's awesome.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.3.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @5.3.4    one month ago
But I'm all for those people Trump kept from testifying to provide more firsthand testimony

First hand testimony of ????...........oh and almost forgot .......FEELINGS

 
 
 
Dulay
5.3.6  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @5.3.2    one month ago
Get over it Kat - you nor any of us have seen any EVIDENCE.  

I have. 

All we've seen and heard is "I think", "I believe", "I heard", "My feelings are" - pure BS.

That comment illustrates ignorance of the documented evidence to date. 

TODAY, the GAO released a report and decision on Trump withholding the Ukraine Security Assistance: 

Press statement regarding GAO Decision B-331564, Office of Management and Budget--Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance The following is a statement from Thomas H. Armstrong, Esq., General Counsel, U.S. Government Accountability Office, regarding a legal decision issued on January 16, 2020:
“Today, GAO issued a legal decision concluding that the Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld approximately $214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine.  The President has narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.  OMB told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent “in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.”  The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons.” The full decision can be found here: https://www.gao.gov/products/B-331564

Here's the bottom line of the decision:

We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason. 

FYI, the ICA is the Impoundment Control Act.

Trump ordered the OMB to violate the law.

THAT is another fact that has come out in the last 2 weeks though the emails between the OMB and the DOD. Yet to KNOW that, one would have to be curious enough to review the evidence as it becomes available, instead of imitating all three of the monkeys simultaneously. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  Tessylo    one month ago

How is it a war on the 'president' when the media just reports/shows with video/exactly what he says?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7    one month ago
How is it a war on the 'president' when the media just reports/shows with video/exactly what he says?

Let's just look at year 1 of the Trump Presidency:

As we approach the first anniversary of Donald Trump's inauguration, it is painfully obvious that our "news" providers are a highly agitated brigade of the "Resistance." A new Media Research Center study finds that from Jan. 20, 2017, through Dec. 31, 2017, the evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC were overwhelmingly hostile in both content and tone.

The study, co-authored by Rich Noyes and Mike Ciandella, comes with a jarring headline: "2017: The Year the Media Went to War Against a President." It is indisputable that no president in the history of the republic has been visited by such vitriol from the press. It is not to say that some of the negative coverage hasn't been deserved. But no man this side of Rep. Maxine Waters can defend their overwhelming hostility as fairness.

Journalists often talk about President Trump's "war on the media" and can't possibly discuss the media's war on President Trump. When the president attacks the media, that's an attack on democracy. When the media undermine the president, that's the full flowering of democracy.

Removing the statements made by Trump and other politicians, 90% of evening-news Trump evaluations were negative, and only 10% were positive. (Neutral statements were not counted.) There were only three months in 2017 during which the negative coverage dipped below 90%. For instance, it was 85% negative in December, when Trump succeeded in getting his tax-cut bill passed.

The numbers don't tell the whole story. The qualitative measurement is just as awful. Trump news isn't mildly negative, like "the president's message failed to resonate today." The network anchors have felt compelled to signal that Trump is so undesirable he should be removed from office. Just over a month into the presidency, then-CBS anchorman Scott Pelley pressured Democrat Leon Panetta, former CIA director and secretary of defense, by saying, "Is it appropriate to ask whether the president is having difficulty with rationality?"

The Clinton die-hards couldn't stop reporting on their suspicion that the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign to beat Hillary Clinton. The Russia probe was the networks' favorite topic last year, resulting in an astonishing 20 hours and 34 minutes of coverage, or more than one-fifth of all Trump coverage.

Nobody rooted for Trump to succeed and pass legislation as they did for former President Barack Obama. In 2009, then-NBC host Matt Lauer badgered Republican Party strategist Karl Rove on the stimulus-package vote. He complained: "If you add up the House and the Senate, we have what, 219 Republicans? All but three of them voted against ... this plan. ... Two hundred and sixteen Republicans seem to have placed a bet on failure."

That spin didn't happen when House Democrats unanimously voted no on the Trump tax cut. Instead, NBC anchor Lester Holt sounded like a Democratic National Committee press release when he said: "Unable to repeal and replace Obamacare, Republicans are instead trying to undermine it. Is this a body blow to Obamacare?"

To the press, repealing anything Obama installed isn't an "achievement." It's a disastrous setback. Some of the repeal happened without much media protest. Trump's attempts to deregulate the economy barely drew 11 minutes of coverage. Trump's approval of new oil pipelines drew just over seven minutes.

Oversight on their part? In a way, yes. They have other more pressing matters on their plates.

They prefer reporting their Gaffe of the Day. Here's another number that proves the media's aggression: When the Washington Post reported that Trump referred to some immigrants as coming from "s---hole countries," it became an intensely negative news story. CNN was the most intense of all. In the first full day after this story broke, it put decency aside and the word "s---hole" was said on air 195 times, according to Newsbusters staff. The cursing also appeared for days on screen.

Those screens, in turn, grace airport terminals, doctors' offices and even schools all across America. Millions upon millions of Americans were offended. But for CNN, the effort was worth the insult if it could also damage the president it despises.

https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/trump-media-bias-study/

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago
What does that have to do with 'Anytime the media prints facts - direct quotes, videos, etc. - Trump supporters whine about media bias. Maybe if Trump stopped doing so much fucked up stuff, the media wouldn't have anything bad to report about him.'
Most everything the 'president' says is overwhelmingly hostile in content and tone.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago

OF COURSE stories about Trump have been negative. He's not fit for office. 

This idea that for every negative story about Trump there should also be a positive one has only added to the absurdity of this era. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.2    one month ago
He's not fit for office

None of those idiotic extremists the dems have running are what I would call fit!


Should we simply impeach them if one of them wins?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.2    one month ago
He's not fit for office. 

Only in the minds of some.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.5  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    one month ago
Should we simply impeach them if one of them wins?

If they try to get foreign governments to interfere in a U.S. election, absolutely.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @7.1.5    one month ago
to interfere in a U.S. election

That narrative has to be carefully spun. You've got a good deal of the media all using the same words and phrases.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8  Tessylo    one month ago

Only in the minds of most.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8    one month ago

Democrats posed for pictures, smiled, and handed out gifts to one another as they celebrated a "solemn" and "serious" impeachment yesterday.

IMPEACHMENT.jpg

It's who they are!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    one month ago

They don't appear to believe in democracy, fair play, presumption of innocence, or due process.

It's all a political game for them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1.1    one month ago
They don't appear to believe in democracy, fair play, presumption of innocence, or due process.

Nope, It's there for all to see: The Kavanaugh smearing, the Russia collusion hoax and the lies about the Covington kids.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9  It Is ME    one month ago

It's funny listening to Pelosi, and all her minions on this. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

Apparently....The Dems (Prosecutors), didn't finish their jobs, so they want someone else (Senators) to finish it for them. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Like that's gonna happen. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

The Dems sound weaker than their "Clown Court ruling" WAS, when they keep speaking about it. jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

Oh....the Irony ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
9.1  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @9    one month ago
Apparently....The Dems (Prosecutors), didn't finish their jobs

Because Trump didn't let them, and Barr is a Trump toadie rather than working for us and being impartial as he's required to be.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @9.1    one month ago
Because Trump didn't let them

He didn't ?

Do explain. jrSmiley_75_smiley_image.gif

"Barr is a Trump toadie rather than working for us and being impartial as he's required to be"

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Eric was Barracks bestie "Wingman" ! Eric said as much. jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
9.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.1    one month ago

It's hard to believe they keep pushing that party line. Rather than follow the established precedent of negotiating with the Executive branch and when negotiations fail go to court, the House Democrats just stated "failure to provide what we ask for will be assumed to be evidence of obstruction". As if saying that will make it true. Then they pushed a narrative that the impeachment was so necessary that they just had to complete it and vote quickly, cuz after all the next elections were at stake. Of course we're just supposed to ignore that month where they sat on the impeachment rather than immediately march it over to the Senate,  cuz after all there's important and then there's important...   LOL

 
 
 
Jasper2529
9.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Snuffy @9.1.2    one month ago
Of course we're just supposed to ignore that month where they sat on the impeachment rather than immediately march it over to the Senate,  cuz after all there's important and then there's important...   LOL

Pelosi had to wait for the personalized engraving and delivery of her pens.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Snuffy @9.1.2    one month ago

Did you see these "House Managers" Pelosi gave themselves ?

Three Men....."Pencil Neck" (Schifty Schiff), "Oompa-Loompa" (Nadler), "Lurch" (Jeffries), 

AND ……… jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

......……. I'm gonna be blunt here (Turn away "Snowflakes", turn away jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif ) ... . only after Listening to Dems over the years, about how "Diverse" they force themselves to be, but hate Diversity from the other side...…….

.......They throw in 3 women ...…. ( Using the "Lefts" language against Republicans when they want to , which is AOK when they note it ) ….. one is a "Token" (Ex. Police Chief).... and the other two are just for "Gender Specifics" (Women).

AND if that wasn't "Diverse enough...….

They gave us a "Military Vet" for good measure ! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

This will probably be deleted, and a "Stern" rebuke will ensue. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
9.1.5  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.1    one month ago

It's a shame that you whine when liberals do the wrong thing, but don't give a shit when conservatives do. Did you support Holder's refusal to turn over documents and Obama's use of Executive Privilege the way you're supporting the Trump toadies' actions?

And for crying out loud, stop using those idiotic, juvenile emoticons. They really make people discount what you say; it's hard to take someone seriously when their comments appear to be written by a third grader.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @9.1.5    one month ago
Did you support Holder's refusal to turn over documents and Obama's use of Executive Privilege the way you're supporting the Trump toadies' actions?

To be honest...… It wasn't "Impeachment" worthy. I can bitch (Politics does that to one)....but to Clamor for "Impeachment" over it...… Would have been "Stupid" at best ! jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gif

I like "Voting". If you throw out whom I voted for, before their time is over, I just see you as petty ! jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

"And for crying out loud, stop using those idiotic, juvenile emoticons."

If you noticed....does that make me the "Stupid one.....or you for whining about them to be gone ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Are you Trying to tamp down my "FREEDOM to EMOJI" ? jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
9.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @9.1    one month ago
Because Trump didn't let them

Point remains, they didn't finish their jobs. Just had to rush it through because............Trump. Good thing I'm not Justice Roberts. I would throw this thing out as frivolous. Like a burglar suing a homeowner because he tripped over a bicycle on his way from the crime scene.

Throw it back in their faces and tell them to come back when they have COMPLETELY finished. The Dems remind me of those Ronco commercials..........BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.

Amusing to say the least......................................

 
 
 
katrix
9.1.8  katrix  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.7    one month ago
Good thing I'm not Justice Roberts

That is the understatement of the year.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @9.1.8    one month ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.7    one month ago
Good thing I'm not Justice Roberts.

He won't have much to say.....But I'd vote forya. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
9.1.11  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.6    one month ago
Are you Trying to tamp down my "FREEDOM to EMOJI"

Free the emojis!

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @9.1.11    one month ago
Free the emojis!

I'm Trying ! 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_43_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_41_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
9.1.13  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @9.1.5    one month ago
comments appear to be written by a third grader.

Wouldn't you want to include comments written by some here, who use

multiple and large fonts, bold, italic, and underlined words, with lots of color

What are conservatives doing wrong?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
9.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Greg Jones @9.1.13    one month ago
What are conservatives doing wrong?

Guilty of being conservatives.........period............to "some"

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10  Jasper2529    one month ago
Yesterday Pelosi and co had their last moment of self-aggrandizement.

It was such a somber day for Pelosi and her mob.

AP_20015813298203-impeachment-pens-640x4

Untitled-design-2020-01-16T102422.783-91

More:

https://www.westernjournal.com/pelosis-impeachment-pens-stunt-disgraces-dems-makes-somber-claims-laughable/

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.1  It Is ME  replied to  Jasper2529 @10    one month ago

The "Pelosi Pens" were " Made in China " ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  It Is ME @10.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
10.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @10.1    one month ago

I am really surprised the Dems would even touch those pens. When I saw the picture above that Vic posted in his article, at a quick glance I wondered why they had a tray of 30.06 shells........................

EOZ3IYkX0AI6AbL?format=jpg&name=900x900

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.2    one month ago

Those engraved pens are clear illustrations of Pelosi's arrogance and hubris.

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.2    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.1.3    one month ago
Pelosi's arrogance and hubris.

Ya gotta really watch Nancy's face when she's "Talking"..... AS SEEN ON TV ! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

You can tell when she's full of CRAP !

Watch her right eye. It goes "Limp and closes", when she's feeding the American People.....SHIT ! jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

OR

It could be "Botox" failure......but I've only heard that second and third hand though !

Look at the bright side. Second and third hand is "Impeachable", so ……. My comment MUST be worthy. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
10.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @10.1.4    one month ago

And that procession into the Senate delivering the articles...............looked like a lady delivering a pizza and training 7 prospective delivery people........jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.6    one month ago
looked like a lady delivering a pizza and training 7 prospective delivery people

That was great. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.1.8  Jasper2529  replied to  It Is ME @10.1.5    one month ago
Watch her right eye. It goes "Limp and closes", when she's feeding the American People.....SHIT !

I never noticed, but now that you mentioned it, I will watch. What I find disturbing are her incoherent ramblings, mumbles, Vulcan hand signals/hand flapping, and loose dentures.

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.1.8    one month ago

jrSmiley_46_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

She had a "Massive" .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................….

pause .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................…...................…….

at the "Media Mania" tell all today. I thought her eye was gonna fall out.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

The US Senate just past the USMCA trade agreement 89 - 10

rtx3w44l-e1515085057966.jpg?quality=75&s

A win for America!

Now on to the impeachment managers. Here they come. What an ugly crew!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    one month ago
A win for America!

Indeed it is! The President continues to improve the lives of all US citizens and legal immigrants.

Now on to the impeachment managers. Here they come.

Schiff is currently in front of a microphone. When that happens, he's a very happy man. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.1  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1    one month ago
Schiff is currently in front of a microphone. When that happens, he's a very happy man

Nowhere near as happy as Trump is in front of a microphone, though. Funny, it doesn't seem that it bothers you in Trump, yet you don't like it in Schiff.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1    one month ago
Schiff is currently in front of a microphone.

And he didn't simply read the articles, he made a dramatic declaration of their frivolous claims. Fortunately, that will be the last time he gets a captive audience to listen to his BS.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  katrix @11.1.1    one month ago
Funny, it doesn't seem that it bothers you in Trump, yet you don't like it in Schiff.

[deleted]

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.4  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1.3    one month ago

How does that count as a personal attack? Your comment called out Schiff for liking to be in front of a microphone, but I don't recall you ever calling out Trump, who is much more of a publicity whore, for his rallies and such.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1.3    one month ago

Pointing out possible hypocrisy isn't a personal attack. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1.3    one month ago

This isn't Newsvine it's Newstalkers.  Plus, it was by no means personal.

Yours seems to be a personal attack though.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    one month ago

Ya, tRump and Moscow Bitch sure are an ugly crew.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
11.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    one month ago
Now on to the impeachment managers. Here they come. What an ugly crew!

After babbling Nancy's well orchestrated show yesterday and the gloating and outright celebrating before the "managers" walked the impeachment papers to the senate only to be told bring them back tomorrow was Hillaryious. I'm sure Nancy was pissed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12  Tessylo    one month ago

Indeed it is! The President continues to improve the lives of all US citizens and legal immigrants.'

How so?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
13  Nerm_L    one month ago

How is Rudy Giuliani different than FusionGPS?  What makes the activities of Parnas or any of the other political 'investigators' different than the activities of Christopher Steele?  Didn't FusionGPS and Christopher Steele engage in influencing our own intelligence agencies, most notably the FBI, to open an investigation of political opponents?  Democrats had their own political operatives in Ukraine digging for political dirt.

Clinton was under Federal investigation.  The Clinton campaign wanted their political opponent to be under Federal investigation, too.  The Clinton campaign was successful.  What role did partisanship of the Democratic administration play in initiating a Federal investigation of a political opponent?

That's why the articles of impeachment focus attention on the hold placed on tax money to be given to Ukraine as military aid.  But were Democrats blackmailed into authorizing tax money being given to Ukraine?  Yes, the impeachment by the House was purely political.  President Trump is being accused of doing what Democrats had already done.

Now the country must endure the political nonsense of a Senate trial.  Democrats obviously want to control the Senate proceedings for their own political benefit.  Sober faced journalists will lie to the public about the historical import of the moment.  What all of this should reveal to the public is that journalists are either stupid or they are biased.  How can a purely political impeachment provide objective justice in a Senate trial?  The glaring political hypocrisy of the situation requires the public to suspend our disbelief.

Congressional politicians know what this all about.  Even with partisan divisions they still talk to each other.  The Senate knows what all of this is really about.  And Republicans are not going to treat Democrats' political hypocrisy as anything more than what it is; naked dirty politics.

If Democrats succeed in coercing the Senate to call witnesses then hang on to your hats, folks; we ain't seen nothing yet.  The trial will be conducted in the court of public opinion, not the Senate.  And Democrats definitely will not emerge unscathed.

Mitch McConnell is correct to handle the Democrats' political impeachment in a political manner.  Let Democrats make their political speeches in the well of the Senate, hold a vote, and put the nonsense behind us.  I have a feeling that only the press and the beltway bubble views this political circus as 'historic'.  

What happens if an impeached President is reelected?  I think that would be quite a bit more than just a shellacking.  The precedent set by impeaching Andrew Johnson was that impeachment prevented his reelection.  But, in case no one has noticed, that status quo conventional wisdom is being tossed out by voters.  Democrats are gambling and the stakes is the status quo.  McConnell wanting to quickly dispose of Democrats' political nonsense is an attempt to protect the status quo.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
13.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @13    one month ago
But were Democrats blackmailed into authorizing tax money being given to Ukraine?

No.

President Trump is being accused of doing what Democrats had already done.

Nope. Your spurious accusations trying to claim the prior administration did anything wrong with zero evidence is noted. Trying to invent bullshit about your opponents so as to excuse the high crimes of your own chosen candidate is just sad. Please do make the claim again when there is actual evidence that democrats did anything close to what Trump has done. Until then, it's just your personal speculation and rather hilariously flawed opinions.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
13.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @13.1    one month ago
Nope. Your spurious accusations trying to claim the prior administration did anything wrong with zero evidence is noted. Trying to invent bullshit about your opponents so as to excuse the high crimes of your own chosen candidate is just sad. Please do make the claim again when there is actual evidence that democrats did anything close to what Trump has done. Until then, it's just your personal speculation and rather hilariously flawed opinions.

But there is evidence.  Inspector General Horowitz provided evidence.  The Steele Dossier, itself, is evidence.  The politically appointed directors of the intelligence agencies served the Obama administration.  Claiming that Obama's directors were objective truth seekers while claiming Trump's directors are partisan hacks doesn't pass the stink test.

And, brother, does the House impeachment stink.

 
 
 
katrix
14  katrix    one month ago
What happens if an impeached President is reelected?  I think that would be quite a bit more than just a shellacking

Nah. Clinton's popularity went up after he was impeached; I think he would have been re-elected even if the impeachment had occurred prior to the election.

Hell, look at how many idiotic voters re-elect people who have committed serious criminal acts. On both sides of the political fence. Partisan people only expect morality and lawfulness from the opposite party, it seems.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @14    one month ago
Nah. Clinton's popularity went up after he was impeached

That's right, dosen't that concern you?

As far as a President being re-elected after impeachment, it would be a complete rebuke of the partisans who brought the impeachment forward. They should be rebuked and soundly defeated at the polls. 

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.1  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @14.1    one month ago
That's right, dosen't that concern you?

Sure. Just as it concerns me that Trump's impeachment is only making his supporters double down on their support for him.

They should be rebuked and soundly defeated at the polls. 

Why? Just because Trump's supporters are idiots and will re-elect him no matter what he does, and Clinton's supporters were apparently the same way - it's the voters who should be rebuked. It doesn't mean the impeachment wasn't justified, just because partisan supporters don't give a shit what their elected officials have done.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @14.1.1    one month ago
it's the voters who should be rebuked.

"Voter ID" is needed ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @14.1.1    one month ago
Sure. Just as it concerns me that Trump's impeachment is only making his supporters double down on their support for him.

Should I make you feel better?  The difference for Bill Clinton was that the media was on his side. Today they are at the forefront of the resistance. That explains the polling.

Why?

Because, as Jonathan Turley said during the House inquiry "I can’t emphasize this enough, and I’ll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a “high crime and misdemeanor” out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches. And what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy."

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.4  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @14.1.3    one month ago
The difference for Bill Clinton was that the media was on his side. Today they are at the forefront of the resistance

I don't see that mattering in the least. Trump's approval ratings have gone up since the impeachment process began.

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.5  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @14.1.3    one month ago
If you impeach a president, if you make a “high crime and misdemeanor” out of going to the courts

Then why did our Founders outline an impeachment process in the first place? Take it up with them.

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.6  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.2    one month ago
"Voter ID" is needed ?

My state requires voter ID ... I have no problem with presenting it. Otherwise, nothing is keeping me from voting early at the courthouse and pretending to be someone who I know isn't going to vote, and then voting as myself on election day (small polling place where it's more likely someone would know if I pretended to be someone else).

But really, most voters are idiots and put their party over their country, and don't bother doing any actual research on candidates.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @14.1.4    one month ago

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @14.1.4    one month ago
Trump's approval ratings have gone up since the impeachment process began.

That should really, really, really, really, really ………. REALLY ……. Worry the "Left".

The Media isn't "Helping" his rise on this one. In Fact, they are doing whatever they can to make it worse for Trump, and it is having the opposite effect.

Hell.....even Bernie and Warren are feuding now. And they used to be the "Perfect " couple (I'm really having a hard time with that). Distraught doesn't say it enough !jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

Reality TV sucks MOST times. jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
14.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @14.1.1    one month ago

And we Trump supporters consider his detractors as idiots who can't understand why he got elected, and why he will be reelected by a comfortable margin.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @14.1.5    one month ago
Then why did our Founders outline an impeachment process in the first place?

It wasn't to impeach presidents who are disliked. The only credible impeachment was the one that didn't take place - Nixon's.  That was an impeachment that would have been bipartisan and justified. The three that actually took place were not.

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.11  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.8    one month ago
Hell.....even Bernie and Warren are feuding now

That always happens during the lead up to the primaries. Both sides do it, and neither of them seem to realize that they're just giving ammunition to the other party.

Bernie and Warren are both so far left that I really don't give a shit if they go at it, for that matter. I want the Dems to pick someone who can beat Trump, but they have a pretty crappy batch of candidates.

Reality TV sucks MOST times

Especially when the President has turned the entire government into a reality TV show. Watching him play his games with his administration and seeing how they suck up to him so they don't get fired is disturbing. Watching him play his games with the country and the world is far more than disturbing.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @14.1.6    one month ago
My state requires voter ID ... I have no problem with presenting it.

You must be in the "Rich" part of town. Anywhere else….it's a burden to get one.

"most voters are idiots and put their party over their country,"

I didn't see that when Trump won. "Fed up with the Party norm", isn't a political party.

Don't forget, Trump has no qualms about going after "Republicans"....the "Other Party".

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.13  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @14.1.9    one month ago
And we Trump supporters consider his detractors as idiots

Of course you do, dear. You don't believe that facts and honesty and ethics and morals and lawfulness matter, so you think those of us who do are idiots. That's what people who put their party over their country do.

And I understand exactly why you will vote for him again.

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.14  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @14.1.10    one month ago
It wasn't to impeach presidents who are disliked.

Trump wasn't impeached because he is disliked. He was impeached because he tried to get a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election.

And Clinton wasn't impeached because he was disliked. While you have a point about the Whitewater investigation going too far, at the end of the day - he DID lie to Congress. He always had the option to tell the truth, and then the investigation wouldn't have led to his impeachment.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.15  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @14.1.11    one month ago
Bernie and Warren are both so far left that I really don't give a shit if they go at it, for that matter. I want the Dems to pick someone who can beat Trump, but they have a pretty crappy batch of candidates.

I said the same thing when Trump was running for the "Republican" nomination.

The "Others" just "Bored" me. jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

"Especially when the President has turned the entire government into a reality TV show."

But "Reality TV" ratings are so "HIGH" ! jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

"Watching him play his games with the country and the world is far more than disturbing."

He's only "Playing" with the Politicians . He's been "DEAD SERIOUS" when it comes to what "America and it's citizens" should have ! "FREE" isn't on his radar. "Work" has been his focus.jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

EVERYONE....should be "WORKING" in this country !

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.16  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.12    one month ago
I didn't see that when Trump won. "Fed up with the Party norm", isn't a political party.

That was true originally, but Trump has totally hijacked the GOP and it is now "party over country" for his supporters.

Anywhere else….it's a burden to get one.

I've never understood that. You have to have an ID for just about anything. And if someone will help you get to the polls on election day, surely they can help you get an ID before election day. I can't even get a job or open a bank account without showing my ID.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.17  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @14.1.16    one month ago
but Trump has totally hijacked the GOP and it is now "party over country" for his supporters.

NO !

He's forced the Republican "Party" to put "America" over "Party" first. (thank goodness)

The "Democrat Party"...… hates that ideology ! That "Party" needs "Strife", in order to survive.

Did you listen to the Democrat debate this last time ?

They're telling us, "more Jobs than people available, less taxes required to be paid, and low unemployment for EVERYONE, is a "BAD" thing.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
14.1.18  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @14.1.11    one month ago
Watching him play his games with the country and the world is far more than disturbing.

You always seem to speak in ambiguous generalities...could you give us some concrete examples?

Isn't your personal situation better since he became president?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
14.1.19  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @14.1.13    one month ago

I understand what unethical and immoral Democrats and their low information supporters have been trying to do to Trump from the day he got elected.

It has not worked because it is dishonest and being done for political purposes only.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.20  It Is ME  replied to  Greg Jones @14.1.18    one month ago
Isn't your personal situation better since he became president?

They can't admit that !

It's ….. "Well, what about the "Others", every time….all the time with them !

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.21  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @14.1.18    one month ago
Isn't your personal situation better since he became president?

One person's personal situation doesn't count for shit, and you know that. And also, presidents get too much credit - and blame - for the economy.

But no, it isn't. The situation I had improved vastly during the Obama administration (since you think Presidents should get the credit) and under Trump, it's stayed about the same. The one thing that made a big difference for me was the ACA, when  I had to quit working for a while to take care of my mom. Without that, I would have been fucked.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.1.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @14.1.14    one month ago
He was impeached because he tried to get a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election.

That the democrat claim. It's weak and before that it was Russian collusion and before that it was because he won in 2016. 


 
 
 
katrix
14.1.23  katrix  replied to  katrix @14.1.14    one month ago
DID lie to Congress

BTW, I stand corrected - Clinton lied to the Grand Jury, not to Congress.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

And then there is this:

"A Republican senator has publicly called on the four Democrats in the Senate running for president to recuse themselves from President Trump’s impeachment trial — arguing that they “cannot sit in judgement of the very President they seek to replace.”

“Tomorrow, one hundred United States Senators will be sworn in to serve in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Four of those Senators must recuse themselves for their unparalleled political interest in seeing this President removed from office,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said in a statement Wednesday.

“To participate in this trial would be a failure of the oath they took to be an ‘impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws’. Their presidential ambitions prohibit their ability to view this trial through an objective lens.”

https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/blackburn-warren-sanders-klobuchar-should-recuse-themselves-from-trumps-impeachment-trial/

 
 
 
katrix
15.1  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    one month ago

But yet you couldn't care less about McConnell, Graham, and others' comments about how they absolutely will not be impartial jurors, and don't seem to expect them to recuse themselves.

Why doesn't Marsha Blackburn call on them to recuse themselves? Only one side is expected to be impartial - not a surprise from these GOP Senators.

Besides, these four won't be voting, will they?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @15.1    one month ago
But yet you couldn't care less about McConnell, Graham, and others' comments about how they absolutely will not be impartial jurors, and don't seem to expect them to recuse themselves.

Why should they? dems impeached the President over nothing...McConnell will use dems partisanship in the House to hold Senate democrats in check. It's reckoning time!


Besides, these four won't be voting, will they?

Oh, yes - what they won't be doing is campaigning for the next four weeks!

 
 
 
katrix
15.1.3  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.2    one month ago
Why should they?

Got it. Laws and ethics only apply to Democrats. Sorry to hear you admit so openly that you feel that way.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @15.1.3    one month ago
Laws and ethics only apply to Democrats.

If that were only true jrSmiley_11_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.4    one month ago

You responded to me one time about tRump saying 'You act like the laws apply to this 'president'

Is that what they call a Freudian slip?

 
 
 
Ender
15.1.6  Ender  replied to  katrix @15.1    one month ago

It amazes me that with all that has come out, some (most) republicans just dismiss it. Now we find out that the ambassador might have been under surveillance and I heard Ukraine is opening up investigations.

I guess what bugs me most of all the the sheer hypocrisy from some. If top Dem senate leaders or even (gasp) Pelosi said they would not be impartial in anything Obama, was running to the Whitehouse to tell him what was going on, working in complete coordination with him, the right would have gone nuts.

I am sick and tired of party over country.

Hell, now even some want an investigation that trump told people (stock investors) of his upcoming actions in Iraq.

Their whole actual defence is that nothing happened in the end and he didn't get away with it, so no crime...

Unreal.

 
 
 
katrix
15.1.7  katrix  replied to  Ender @15.1.6    one month ago
If top Dem senate leaders or even (gasp) Pelosi said they would not be impartial in anything Obama, was running to the Whitehouse to tell him what was going on, working in complete coordination with him, the right would have gone nuts.

As would I have.

I suppose these people think that attempted murder shouldn't be a crime - because it didn't actually end up resulting in anyone's death.

And yes, I've noticed - not a whit of outrage about illegal surveillance of the ambassador, just screeching about legal surveillance of Carter Page, who absolutely raised a ton of red flags.

 
 
 
Dulay
15.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @15.1.1    one month ago

What trade deal is that Xx? 

How have the billions in tariffs and farm subsidies made Americans more prosperous? Be specific. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
15.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @15.1.6    one month ago

 If top Dem senate leaders or even (gasp) Pelosi said they would not be impartial in anything Obama, was running to the Whitehouse to tell him what was going on, working in complete coordination with him, the right would have gone nuts.

The Dem's have not been impartial in anything political for a very long time. It appears that they are all in for overturning the will of the people by trying vainly to get rid of Trump.

 
 
 
Ender
15.1.10  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @15.1.9    one month ago

Nothing but talking points...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @15.1.6    one month ago
Now we find out that the ambassador might have been under surveillance and I heard Ukraine is opening up investigations.

Oh, ya and the GAO saying Trump broke the law, (just like they did with Obama) and then there is Lev Parnas, who is running to various cable news shows all day!  The timing is uncanny, don't you think?  I smell the foul oder of progressives at work.

 
 
 
Ender
15.1.13  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.11    one month ago

Some deep dark deep state conspiracy doncha' know...s/

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @15.1.13    one month ago

As if we haven't already exposed all that went on in the FBI & DOJ.  Liberals can not be trusted with power. No ethics, no honesty and no decency.

 
 
 
Ender
15.1.15  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.14    one month ago

When one only sees one side as just and the other side as corrupt, one is not being honest.

 
 
 
katrix
15.1.16  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.14    one month ago
Liberals can not be trusted with power. No ethics, no honesty and no decency.

Again, such hypocrisy. You don't seem to give a crap about the lack of ethics, the lack of decency, and the dishonesty of Trump and his toadies.

Why is it that you think your side can do whatever it wants, break laws, lie constantly, act totally unethically - but you somehow expect the other side to behave properly?

I will never understand ultra-partisan people. They only seem to expect these things from the other party, but never hold people from their own party to even the minimal standards.

 
 
 
Dulay
15.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.11    one month ago
Oh, ya and the GAO saying Trump broke the law, (just like they did with Obama)

The GAO RULED that Trump violated the ICA, for Bergdahl, they ruled that the DOD violated the Title VIII, § 8111 and the 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a). 

and then there is Lev Parnas, who is running to various cable news shows all day! 

And? 

The timing is uncanny, don't you think? 

No. 

I smell the foul oder of progressives at work.

Right because Parnas is controled by progressives and the GAO is a partisan organization. /s

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.11    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
15.1.19  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.11    one month ago
then there is Lev Parnas, who is running to various cable news shows all day!  The timing is uncanny, don't you think?  I smell the foul oder of progressives at work.

No more so than the Kavanaugh hearings. Makes one wonder when the next one will show up with information on Trump...

 
 
 
Dulay
15.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    one month ago

Blackburn is a moron.

TN must be proud. /s

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
15.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    one month ago

I'm fine with recusing the democrats running for President if the 23 Republican Senators running for re-election in 2020 also recuse themselves. Much like Republicans claim that Democrat Senators impeachment vote may be biased, so to of the Republican senators running for re-election who don't want to risk upsetting Trumps base and their own likely re-election bid.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @15.3    one month ago

You've done it again! It's not about people running for reelection - It's about people who are running against the man they are going to be judging!  I don't know how you missed it.

 
 
 
katrix
15.3.2  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.1    one month ago

It's about people who just took an oath to be impartial jurors - you're assuming these people can't be impartial, and want them to recuse themselves. Yet several of the GOP senators have CLEARLY STATED that they will not be impartial (no assumption required), and you're apparently just fine with that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @15.3.2    one month ago
you're assuming these people can't be impartial

I'm not assuming - I know they can't. I saw what they did to Kavanaugh and the partisan process in the House that led to this impeachment based on cliches. If I was the Senate leader I would dismiss the charges on Tuesday as frivolous and I would treat Senate democrats as House Republicans were treated.

You are getting much better from the Senate than is deserved.

 
 
 
katrix
15.3.4  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.3    one month ago

But again - you're just fine with people who OUTRIGHT said they wouldn't be impartial jurors, because they're on your side of the political fence.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 
 
 
Dulay
15.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.1    one month ago

Your fellow travelers have defended Trump going after Biden by saying that Biden isn't running against Trump, he's running against other Democrats. You must have missed the memo. 

 
 
 
GregTx
15.4  GregTx  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    one month ago

Interesting. I was wondering the other day if perhaps the real strategy behind Pelosi withholding the articles was maybe to take Warren and Sanders off the campaign trail, giving Biden some breathing room, with the added benefit of tweaking Republican Senators.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

CNN's Manu Raju in action:



 
 
 
Vic Eldred
17  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

A few final thoughts:

Today was a busy news day. The President had one of his major trade deals (USMCA) passed by the US Senate as the first step in another major trade agreement was reached with China. While the President was out making gains for America, House members, in stark contrast were delivering their Articles of Impeachment, with great fanfare, to the US Senate. With the Senate Trial set to begin next Tuesday, four democratic candidates for president will be stuck at their desks, 6 days a week until the trial is over. All courtesy of the 79 year old genius, who is currently Speaker of the House. 

On this very same day there was an incredible news dump involving the GAO making a surprise announcement that the President actually violated the law by withholding aid to the Ukraine. Another breaking story claimed that Ukrainian police were investigating the possible illegal surveillance of former US Ambassador Marie Yovanovich. Finally there was the startling saga of Lev Parnas, who was all over cable tv news making unbelievable claims about the President.

Coincidence? or was it all orchestrated? 

One thing is for sure - Lev Parnas would make an interesting witness - one whom both Republicans and democrats would fear. He burst upon the scene after making the false claim that he met Devin Nunes in Vienna and had proof!  Did he? No! The result - CNN is facing another law suit!

We (the decent citizens) are concerned about the Senate Trial being turned into a rolling investigation by the democrats. Fear not fellow citizens! I doubt McConnell will let it happen.

Tip of the night - For Bernie Sanders - If Liz WArren invites you in for a beer, tell her you can't make it!


Good night all.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Just Jim NC TttH
Wishful_thinkin
zuksam
Gordy327
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Ozzwald
Ender
jungkonservativ111
lady in black
KDMichigan




Kathleen
Dean Moriarty
Dismayed Patriot
r.t..b...


51 visitors