Senate Rules
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.
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.
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
I think you live in an alternate universe Vic.
They should declare the whole thing frivolous
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.
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.
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.
There was no such bipartisanship on the vote to impeach Trump!
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.
Correct on all counts. The media will continue it's war against this President. Watch for all the leaks.
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.
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.
Like falsely claiming that Trump removed the MLK bust?
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:
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.
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.
Are you saying that you thought Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached?
And how do you respond to the one I provided?
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.
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?
I already responded.
The ONE instance you provided, against the over 15,000 lies the 'president' has spewed.
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.
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.
All the evidence I've seen shows that he is. And more keeps coming out every day which further supports his guilt.
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.
You do know you're posting that, with a "Doesn't matter" person....don't you ?
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.
First hand testimony of ????...........oh and almost forgot .......FEELINGS
I have.
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:
Here's the bottom line of the decision:
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.
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.
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.
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?
If they try to get foreign governments to interfere in a U.S. election, absolutely.
That narrative has to be carefully spun. You've got a good deal of the media all using the same words and phrases.
Only in the minds of most.
Democrats posed for pictures, smiled, and handed out gifts to one another as they celebrated a "solemn" and "serious" impeachment yesterday.
It's who they are!
They don't appear to believe in democracy, fair play, presumption of innocence, or due process.
It's all a political game for them.
Nope, It's there for all to see: The Kavanaugh smearing, the Russia collusion hoax and the lies about the Covington kids.
It's funny listening to Pelosi, and all her minions on this.
Apparently....The Dems (Prosecutors), didn't finish their jobs, so they want someone else (Senators) to finish it for them.
Like that's gonna happen.
The Dems sound weaker than their "Clown Court ruling" WAS, when they keep speaking about it.
Oh....the Irony !
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.
He didn't ?
Do explain.
"Barr is a Trump toadie rather than working for us and being impartial as he's required to be"
Eric was Barracks bestie "Wingman" ! Eric said as much.
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
Pelosi had to wait for the personalized engraving and delivery of her pens.
Did you see these "House Managers" Pelosi gave themselves ?
Three Men....."Pencil Neck" (Schifty Schiff), "Oompa-Loompa" (Nadler), "Lurch" (Jeffries),
AND ………
......……. I'm gonna be blunt here (Turn away "Snowflakes", turn away ) ... . 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 !
This will probably be deleted, and a "Stern" rebuke will ensue.
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.
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 !
I like "Voting". If you throw out whom I voted for, before their time is over, I just see you as petty !
"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 ?
Are you Trying to tamp down my "FREEDOM to EMOJI" ?
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......................................
That is the understatement of the year.
He won't have much to say.....But I'd vote forya.
Free the emojis!
I'm Trying !
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?
Guilty of being conservatives.........period............to "some"
It was such a somber day for Pelosi and her mob.
More:
The "Pelosi Pens" were " Made in China " !
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........................
Those engraved pens are clear illustrations of Pelosi's arrogance and hubris.
Ya gotta really watch Nancy's face when she's "Talking"..... AS SEEN ON TV !
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 !
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.
And that procession into the Senate delivering the articles...............looked like a lady delivering a pizza and training 7 prospective delivery people........
That was great.
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.
She had a "Massive" .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................….
pause .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................…...................…….
at the "Media Mania" tell all today. I thought her eye was gonna fall out.
The US Senate just past the USMCA trade agreement 89 - 10
A win for America!
Now on to the impeachment managers. Here they come. What an ugly crew!
Indeed it is! The President continues to improve the lives of all US citizens and legal immigrants.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
Pointing out possible hypocrisy isn't a personal attack.
This isn't Newsvine it's Newstalkers. Plus, it was by no means personal.
Yours seems to be a personal attack though.
Ya, tRump and Moscow Bitch sure are 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.
Indeed it is! The President continues to improve the lives of all US citizens and legal immigrants.'
How so?
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.
No.
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.
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.
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.
Sure. Just as it concerns me that Trump's impeachment is only making his supporters double down on their support for him.
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.
"Voter ID" is needed ?
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."
I don't see that mattering in the least. Trump's approval ratings have gone up since the impeachment process began.
Then why did our Founders outline an impeachment process in the first place? Take it up with them.
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.
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 !
Reality TV sucks MOST times.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
I said the same thing when Trump was running for the "Republican" nomination.
The "Others" just "Bored" me.
"Especially when the President has turned the entire government into a reality TV show."
But "Reality TV" ratings are so "HIGH" !
"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.
EVERYONE....should be "WORKING" in this country !
That was true originally, but Trump has totally hijacked the GOP and it is now "party over country" for his supporters.
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.
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.
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?
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.
They can't admit that !
It's ….. "Well, what about the "Others", every time….all the time with them !
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.
That the democrat claim. It's weak and before that it was Russian collusion and before that it was because he won in 2016.
BTW, I stand corrected - Clinton lied to the Grand Jury, not to Congress.
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.”
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?
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!
Got it. Laws and ethics only apply to Democrats. Sorry to hear you admit so openly that you feel that way.
If that were only true
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?
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.
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.
What trade deal is that Xx?
How have the billions in tariffs and farm subsidies made Americans more prosperous? Be specific.
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.
Nothing but talking points...
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.
Some deep dark deep state conspiracy doncha' know...s/
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.
When one only sees one side as just and the other side as corrupt, one is not being honest.
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.
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?
No.
Right because Parnas is controled by progressives and the GAO is a partisan organization. /s
[Deleted]
No more so than the Kavanaugh hearings. Makes one wonder when the next one will show up with information on Trump...
Blackburn is a moron.
TN must be proud. /s
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CNN's Manu Raju in action:
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.