ChrisWeigant.com

A Post-Debate Look At The Democratic Polling

[ Posted Wednesday, October 23rd, 2019 – 17:09 UTC ]

Today was one of those days when the inside-the-Beltway punditry drew way too many conclusions from a single poll. So I thought it be a good time to once again provide a little more context to the state of the Democratic presidential race. Because, generally, one outlier poll does not a trend make.

As usual, the polling we see now is really reflective of what was going on last week. What was going on last week in the Democratic race, of course, was the fourth debate. We're just now beginning to see any post-debate movement in the polls, which always lags reality by roughly a week. An event (such as a debate) happens, then it takes a day or so for reactions to really sink in, then polls take another couple of days to run, then the data must be crunched. We've now had time for that to happen, post-debate, but the real trends won't become obvious until at least next week, when we get enough data points from individual polls to show any real sustained movement in the electorate.

The poll that caught the punditry's attention today came from CNN, and it showed Joe Biden with a commanding 15-point lead. Biden was at 34 percent, Warren was way down at 19 percent, and Bernie Sanders pulled in 16 percent. All the other candidates were in single digits.

So has Biden trounced the recent surge from Warren? Well, maybe, but then again maybe not. A poll also released this week (by The Economist/YouGov) put Biden at only 24 percent with Warren close behind at 23 percent (while Bernie scored exactly the same 16 percent). That's only a one-point difference, which is inconsistent with all the storylines being told at the Beltway cocktail parties right now.

Biden's range, from 24 to 34 percent in a single week, shows that any single poll shouldn't be given too much weight. Biden has recovered to some extent, but his numbers are probably not quite as strong as that CNN poll reported. In the previous week, Biden's range in the polls was similar (from 25 to 32 percent), but instead of being anywhere from 1 to 15 points up, Biden ranged from being up 11 points to being down 4 points to Warren.

Now, before I "go to the chart" here, a technical note is necessary. For whatever reason, Real Clear Politics (whose data I've always used) has seen fit to reduce the window of their rolling "poll of polls" averages on the Democratic candidates. Rather than using two weeks of data, they're now only using roughly one. What this does to the lines on the chart is make them livelier. They bounce around more, because there is less "poll of polls" smoothing taking place. This means you can see trends develop a lot faster, but it also means that a few outlier polls in the same week can create trends that don't actually exist.

Having said all of that, when you look at the Real Clear Politics polling average page, Joe Biden's line shows a spike downward and then a return almost to where it previously was. This downward movement happened before the debate happened, and it was almost certainly due to his delayed reaction to all the dirt Donald Trump was flinging at his son Hunter. Biden took too long to respond, but when he did (and after Hunter himself gave an interview), things started to turn around for Joe. The debate seems to have helped this movement, but this is likely due to the fact that Warren was the principal target in the debate for all those polling far below the frontrunners.

Biden started his slide at just over 30 percent (30.2 percent on September 22), then fell for a week down to 26.3 percent on October 3. Since then, he has rebounded back up to just under 30 percent (he registers today at 28.7 percent). That's an impressive turnaround, but not nearly as dramatic as that one CNN poll would have it.

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, saw the most dramatic movement of any candidate over the past two weeks. She rocketed from being in a tight race with Bernie Sanders for second place all the way up to besting Biden in the averages (only for one day, but even so...). Two weeks ago, Warren was still struggling to reach the elusive 20-percent mark, but then her climb really gained steam. One week ago, she topped Biden (her rise perfectly coincided with Biden's slump, which is probably no coincidence) and hit the high point for her entire campaign of 26.8 percent. Over the course of the past week, however, she has fallen back a bit. Today she's sitting at 22.1 percent, or 6.6 points behind Biden.

This trendline is not really complete, however, and won't be for at least another week or so. Right now, Warren is falling, but the question is whether she'll arrest this decline and hold onto some of the gains she's made or whether she falls all the way back to duking it out with Bernie for second place again. At this point, things could really go either way. But she has now become only the third candidate to register above 20 percent during the entire race. If she can manage to hold on to the low-to-middle 20s, she will have accomplished a lot.

Last week, Warren's polls weren't as good as the previous week. Her spread was from 19 to 23 percent, which was down from the previous week's 21-30 percent. The best poll she got last week put her only one point behind Biden, but the week before that she had multiple polls putting her in first place (up by 4 points). And the week before that, her polls were even better versus Biden. This is the first time any candidate has shown greater support in multiple polls over Biden since he entered the race, so it is indeed noteworthy.

The conventional wisdom might be right this time, because it is undeniable that Warren took almost all of the incoming shots at last week's debate. All of the candidates desperate for attention had honed and practiced their Warren slams, and they all unloaded at once. So this is likely the reason for Warren's numbers going through a correction period. What remains to be seen is whether she can turn this around and get her previous momentum back or not.

Bernie Sanders has had a remarkably stable few weeks in the polls. This isn't really a surprise, because for all the convention "Bernie's numbers are slipping" wisdom that the pundits love to repeatedly and incessantly utter, Bernie's numbers have been remarkably stable for pretty much the entire race. He's got a hard floor of just under 15 percent and what seems to be a ceiling of around 19 or 20 percent, and he keeps within that range almost no matter what happens.

Bernie actually had a pretty impressive week. He has fully bounced back from his heart attack, which did cause his numbers to sag for a few days. Any other presidential candidate would likely have been absolutely doomed by such a health scare, but not Bernie. He was as feisty as ever during last week's debate, and he capped this off by holding a rally in New York City that drew the largest crowd any Democratic candidate has to date -- 26,000 people. He picked up the endorsement of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and he turned in a whoppingly-large fundraising total for last quarter. In other words, Bernie's not going anywhere any time soon, folks.

Throughout this period, Bernie's numbers went from 17.8 percent down to 14.3 percent (right after his heart attack), but have since recovered back up to 16.7 percent -- right in the middle of the range he's occupied for several months now. So, no, Bernie's numbers are not in some sort of perpetual slide, as the punditocracy would have you believe. In one poll this week (from Emerson), Bernie actually topped Elizabeth Warren and nipped at Biden's heels (Sanders was at 25 percent to Biden's 27 percent and Warren's 21 percent).

I feel obliged to mention here that there are still others in the race. But they're all pretty far back and essentially fighting for the scraps the top three candidates are leaving behind. Both Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris seem to have had a good debate, as both have risen above the 5-percent mark once again (Mayor Pete is now at 6.4 percent while Harris is right behind at 5.4 percent). There has also been the usual jockeying in the under-3.0 crowd, with Andrew Yang currently leading this pack at 2.6 percent, followed by: Beto O'Rourke (2.4 percent), Cory Booker (2.1), Amy Klobuchar (1.9), and Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer, who are tied at 1.1 percent. All the other candidates still in the race (and there are still plenty of them) are below 1.0 percent.

Right now the favored pipe dream of the pundits is that one of the lesser candidates will spring into the front ranks, but that's really been their fantasy all along. I mean, it might happen, but as Wayne and Garth might have sagely pointed out, monkeys might also fly out of my butt. Currently the favorite candidates for pundits to dream about are Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. Next week, maybe it'll be Steyer and Yang, who knows?

That may be overly snarky and I might have to eat those words in a few months, but up to this point the only breakout candidate has been Kamala Harris, who rocketed above 10 percent only to almost immediately fall back again. So far the only sustained movement has come from Elizabeth Warren, who very slowly rose from the pack to fight for second place with Bernie, and then rose again to briefly top Joe Biden in the standings. Her numbers right now are in a rather critical phase, because she could either match Harris in a spike that ultimately falls back again, or she could continue to challenge Biden's dominance in the polls -- something that nobody else (including Bernie) has yet been able to effectively do. So the next few weeks will be interesting to watch, to see which of these storylines turns out to be more accurate.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

134 Comments on “A Post-Debate Look At The Democratic Polling”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Yeah, speaking of Dem polling, I seem to recall one that had Hillary beating Trump be 24 points.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    As usual, the polling we see now is really reflective of what was going on last week. What was going on last week in the Democratic race, of course, was the fourth debate.

    Is it possible that the polling we are seeing now which reflects what was going on last week and what was going on last week is the realization setting in that Trump has done great damage to America's standing in the world?

    Could voters be coming to the conclusion that the next POTUS will have to be ready on day one to begin to repair the US reputation around the world and he or she had better have a solid background and full knowledge of what that task will require?

  3. [3] 
    dsws wrote:

    Could voters be coming to the conclusion that ...

    #NotAllVoters

    I think the persuadable segment is pretty narrow. Of course, so are the causes of movement in these polls: they're looking at Democratic primary voters, and the changes are only a few percentage points within that minority-of-a-minority.

    I think a president needs expertise in far more areas than one human being can be proficient in, let alone expert. Anyone smart enough to be a U of Chicago law professor / successful mayor / effective senator or governor at least ought to be able to digest the briefings of expert advisors, and distinguish experts from quacks. If a candidate I initially liked were to seem utterly clueless about foreign affairs, that would be a major red flag, possibly an outright disqualification. But if they seem like a well-informed layperson, I'm not going to switch my support to a candidate who's more focused on foreign affairs just because that's what was in the headlines lately.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You make good points, Dan, and I agree with all of them.

    In the case of Senator Biden, his expertise ranges far wider than my personal interest in US foreign policy.

    However, I think you dismiss too easily the importance of US foreign policy to the future of your country, especially in a post-Trump world.

    When choosing the best candidate to be the Democratic nominee, it is very important to assess that persons ability to surround herself with top-notch advisors and cabinet members. Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I’d love to see every candidate that is under 5% in the polls go ahead and throw the towel in — you have no chance this election, and there is always 2024 to start prepping for.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'm hopeful about the robustness of bidens numbers. It seems every time he takes a hit his numbers rebound from it.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am beginning to doubt that this so-called "whistle-blower" even exists..

    Anyone remember that old Al Pacino movie S1m0ne. Al Pacino created a virtual leading lady and dubbed it into scenes to make a movie??

    This feels like that.. Schiff-head is Al Pacino and he has created a virtual "whistle-blower" and is dubbing it into an impeachment...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm hopeful about the robustness of bidens numbers. It seems every time he takes a hit his numbers rebound from it.

    The numbers that tell Biden's tale are not the poll numbers, but rather cash on hand and donor numbers..

    Biden's campaign is living hand to mouth at the moment and it's steadily getting worse...

    Even in the General, President Trump has command of over 125 million in cash and NO DEBT..

    Compare that to Biden's command (if he wins the nomination) of about 7 million and at least that much in debt...

    One of ya'all (Stig I think) said that it's safer to ignore the polls and look at the betting numbers..

    In the Dem Primary, Biden's odds are less than 50/50 whereas Warren's are up above 60/40...

    Biden is not likely to be the nominee.. But even if he is, money is going to be a problem.

    Even more so than it already is...

  9. [9] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    Listen [5]
    At this point, those polling in the <5% range aren't really vying for the 2020 presidency anymore, but rather a shot at being a VP pick or to set the stage for a future presidential run. By staying in, they hope to get enough popular recognition to either get the eventual nominee to tap them as a running mate or to be remembered by the public/media when the next democratic primary cycle begins.

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bleyd (9)-
    And to get a better book deal.

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Comparing Trump's cash numbers to Buyden's at this point is not relevant. If Buyden becomes the nominee he will be able to go back to the big money donors he already has for the general campaign as well as the big money donors currently giving to the many other Democratic candidates.

    Very few people know or care about a campaign's debt.

    And Trump is not debt free.

    Trump has the same debt as Buyden, Warren and even Bernie will have as the nominee, a debt to the big money donors.

    Also, what do you think of the Weigentia Town Hall on One Demand idea?

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many of ya'all have scoffed at the idea of a civil war whenever I mention it..

    Battleground: 7 in 10 say US ‘on the edge of civil war’

    Partisan political division and the resulting incivility has reached a low in America, with 67% believing that the nation is nearing civil war, according to a new national survey.

    “The majority of Americans believe that we are two-thirds of the way to being on the edge of civil war. That to me is a very pessimistic place,” said Mo Elleithee, the executive director of Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/battleground-7-in-10-say-us-on-the-edge-of-civil-war

    Apparently, the polls show that the vast majority of Americans agree with me rather than ya'all...

    That is, if you put faith in polls.. :D

    So, this begs the question..

    Is it wise for the group who are all but disarmed and who are afraid of guns to piss off the group that has 98% of it's members well-armed and well-trained??

    The logic of that somehow escapes me..

  13. [13] 
    dsws wrote:

    I’d love to see every candidate that is under 5% in the polls go ahead and throw the towel in

    Then, if Biden turns out to be too damaged by the dirt that the Rs have been digging up and making up, our only options are Warren and Sanders. Sanders has enthusiastic support, but I don't see any potential to broaden it. So that would leave us with Warren as the only available prospective nominee. I think she's the strongest general-election candidate anyway, so I don't have a problem with nominating her. But at this point in the campaign, I think there ought to still be an alternative for the centrist / center-right wing of the party if their first choice runs into trouble.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Comparing Trump's cash numbers to Buyden's at this point is not relevant. If Buyden becomes the nominee he will be able to go back to the big money donors he already has for the general campaign as well as the big money donors currently giving to the many other Democratic candidates.

    I disagree...If Biden can't attract donors in the primary, there is no reason to believe he can attract donors in the general...

    Especially since the majority of donors are Party Purity donors..

    Donors aren't going to give any $$$ to a candidate who doesn't espouse their beliefs...

    And, ironically enough, if Biden DOES espouse those beliefs, then he loses the general..

    It's a lose-lose and donors know that it's a lose-lose.

    They'll hold onto their money rather than throw it at a lost cause..

    Even IF Biden the nominee were to attract SOME donors, there is simply no way that he can match the kind of $$$ that President Trump has at his fingertips..

    Very few people know or care about a campaign's debt.

    Except for the vendors who the campaign must contract with for troops and treasure...

    Vendors, like donors, won't be willing to support a campaign that has proven it can't manage money...

    Trump has the same debt as Buyden, Warren and even Bernie will have as the nominee, a debt to the big money donors.

    Actually, Warren's and Sander's fundraising is much MUCH better than Biden's... (Buyden??? That's cute.. I like that.. :D)

    While Warren will have a surplus at this moment, if she is the nominee, she will immediately be saddled with the DNC's debt of approx 7-12 million dollars..

    I don't include Sanders in that because the odds of Sanders getting the nominee are Slim and none and Slim just logged off...

    Also, what do you think of the Weigentia Town Hall on One Demand idea?

    Honestly?? Thanx to your passionate efforts, I think we have one of those almost every day.. :D

    That's a compliment in case you are wondering.. :D Your passion is something I can understand completely regardless of any ideological differences..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, Warren's and Sander's fundraising is much MUCH better than Biden's... (Buyden??? That's cute.. I like that.. :D)

    I meant to also point out that even Buttigeg's fundraising is better than Biden's....

    That's pretty bad when you consider that Buttigeg has absolutely ZERO chance of getting the nomination..

    And yet, even with that 0 possibility, he still fund-raises better than Biden..

  16. [16] 
    dsws wrote:

    People always say they want shorter campaigns.

    But they also say that candidates with low polling numbers at the start of the campaign should drop out months before the voting starts. That means that people have to have been campaigning long before that. As far as I know, the only reason Governor Bullock was never considered a candidate is that he started too late.

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Unfortunately, our daily Town Hall on One Demand does not include CW.

    That is the reason for the real time Town Hall idea that starts with a direct back and forth between CW and me followed by questions and comments from others to be answered by CW and me.

    If CW were to participate in the daily Town Hall there would be no need for the real time Town Hall.

    I could be wrong, but I seem to remember sentiment around here condemning candidates/legislators that refused to do Town Halls.

    What's good for the goose.....

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "For whatever reason, Real Clear Politics (whose data I've always used) has seen fit to reduce the window of their rolling "poll of polls" averages on the Democratic candidates."

    RCP has always been a bit flexy about the two week rolling average....but this is a major discontinuity.
    They ought to put a break marker on the time axis to indicate this to the unwary.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then, if Biden turns out to be too damaged by the dirt that the Rs have been digging up and making up, our only options are Warren and Sanders.

    And that is why I always say that Democrats, by and large, put Party before reality...

    They refuse to accept the reality if it conflicts with Party purity and loyalty..

    I think she's the strongest general-election candidate anyway, so I don't have a problem with nominating her. But at this point in the campaign, I think there ought to still be an alternative for the centrist / center-right wing of the party if their first choice runs into trouble.

    The problem Warren faces is that she has tacked so far to the Left she can no longer even SEE the center, let alone tack her way back to it..

    Black Americans won't vote for her and Independents and NPAs won't vote for her...

    While I agree with you that Warren is the strongest General Election candidate, that more reflects the weakness of the Democrat offerings, as opposed to the weakness of President Trump's campaign..

    Facts to support??

    Glad you asked..

    Anxiety rises among Democrats worried about party’s prospects in 2020
    washingtonpost.com/politics/anxiety-rises-among-democrats-worried-about-partys-prospects-in-2020/2019/10/22/b9c015d4-f4d9-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

    The weakness of the Democratic field
    ft.com/content/16503442-d562-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77

    There are additional examples..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, our daily Town Hall on One Demand does not include CW.

    As much as it pains me to say it (mainly because I think it's my fault)....

    Much of what goes on here in the comments section doesn't include CW..

    If CW were to participate in the daily Town Hall there would be no need for the real time Town Hall.

    I am all but certain that CW has a real life outside Weigantia.. :D

    Unlike many poor schlepps here, myself included.. :D

    What's good for the goose.....

    "What's good for the goose is nobodies business but the gander!!"
    -Ralph Furley, THREES COMPANY

    :D

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I'm sure you are right that CW has a real life outside of Weigentia.

    But it doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask that CW spend an hour or two of that time in a discussion of One Demand here in his creation which is sorely lacking and in need of an injection of real life.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    If CW were to participate in the daily Town Hall there would be no need for the real time Town Hall.

    There you go again … turning a good idea - your own idea, even - into nonsense.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Michale! How have you been!?

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I am beginning to doubt that this so-called "whistle-blower" even exists..

    Well, that's because the whistleblower has become quite irrelevant after having provided a pretty clear roadmap to the principles of this case who have themselves provided the necessary evidence with even more yet to come.

    In other words, the whistleblower of this case is no longer needed.

    I'm thinking that this is exactly how the whistleblower planned it. It's how I hope I would have done it!

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    7

    I am beginning to doubt that this so-called "whistle-blower" even exists..

    That statement of yours indicates you're a prime candidate for being a sucker of right-wing propaganda BS... commonly known in current vernacular as a "rube."

    The whistleblower was required to follow procedure in order to legally "blow the whistle."

    dni.gov/ICIG-Whistleblower/

    The information provided by the whistleblower in accordance with procedure was then legally required to be investigated by the ICIG. That investigation took place wherein the ICIG spoke with multiple persons named by the whistleblower in the complaint and determined the information supplied was indeed factual.

    Doubt all you wish. Of course, none of your doubting will change the fact that it's a CIA officer who has legal representation that also represents a second whistleblower with firsthand knowledge of events who was named by the original whistleblower in the original complaint and was questioned by the ICIG as required by procedure to determined the validity of the legally filed complaint... real people being questioned by a real Trump appointee.

    This feels like that.. Schiff-head is Al Pacino and he has created a virtual "whistle-blower" and is dubbing it into an impeachment...

    So you're saying you're a virtual "rube"? :)

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick, let's try to eliminate the childish name-calling … please!

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey, Michale! How have you been!?

    Peachy Keen wonderful.. :D

    Well, that's because the whistleblower has become quite irrelevant

    Au contrair.. If the "whistle blower" is proven to be phony then any evidence that came from their "complaint" is rendered null and void..

    Fruit from the poison tree..

    Without the whistle-blower, the Democrats' entire case is rendered moot..

    In other words, the whistleblower of this case is no longer needed.

    Not factually accurate.. The complaint of the "whistle blower" is the linchpin...

    Without the "whistle blower" the Democrats have no case..

    I'm thinking that this is exactly how the whistleblower planned it.

    Yea.. Christine Blasey-Ford planned it that way to..

    Wanted to be able to make false accusations without having to take any responsibility for them.

    That's not how justice works.. In America at least..

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, is your use of "Mike" a sign of respect? If not, you probably shouldn't use it.

    Let's try to make this a place where the issues can be discussed and debated in a civil and mature manner.

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I didn't say 'phony' Michale just not needed anymore because she has done her job. She has led Congress to the people with first-hand knowledge of what the president was up to.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick, let's try to eliminate the childish name-calling … please!

    It's OK.. :D

    Victoria doesn't realize that it's the people who actually believe the alleged "whistle blower" are the ones who are the "virtual rubes"... :D

    Just like in S1m0ne.. :D

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Without the "whistle blower" the Democrats have no case..

    It sounds like you have missed what's been happening in Congress these last few weeks.

    We'll talk when you catch-up!

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    She has led Congress to the people with first-hand knowledge of what the president was up to.

    How do you know??

    Everything has been done in secret and the only tidbits of info come from Schiff-head.. A PROVEN liar..

    There has been no concrete FACTS of any wrong-doing established..

    That's what happens when there are secret Star-Chambers...

    No one knows the actual facts on the ground..

    EVERYTHING ya'all claim to "know" is nothing but hearsay..

    And that's not an insult, it's just the reality..

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Victoria doesn't realize that it's the people who actually believe the alleged "whistle blower" are the ones who are the "virtual rubes"... :D

    If you could find it in yourself to just ignore the name-calling, then you might refrain from name-calling or even quoting name-calling yourself!

    It's been nice around here - help me keep it that way. :)

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you calling me a rube, Michale! :(

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How do you know??

    I can read!

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    It sounds like you have missed what's been happening in Congress these last few weeks.

    I am all caught up.

    Everything ya'all claim to "know" in the here and now has flowed from the alleged whistle-blower...

    If the "whistle-blower" is proven to be a fraud, then everything ya'all "know" is inadmissable..

    Research the legal term FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE and you'll see what I mean..

    As I said, it's what Christine Blasey-Ford tried to do before she was outed..

    Democrats learned the lesson well so they are hiding this "whistle blower".. If she even exists...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can read!

    Yes, you can read.. But you are only reading hearsay.. You are only reading what Schiff-head ALLOWS you to read..

    You are not reading the facts..

    You are reading Democrat Party "truth"..

    And ya know what's really funny??

    Schiff-head was all gung ho about having the "whistle blower" publicly testified..

    RIGHT up to the point where it was learned that Schiff-head and the "whistle-blower" had coordinated the release of this "complaint"..

    THEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN, the "whistle blower" was "in danger" and all sorts of nefarious claims..

    Schiff-head has lied about EVERYTHING to date..

    Funny how ya'all don't like liars with -Rs after their names..

    But you are perfectly accepting of liars who have a -D after their names and who say what you want to hear..

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm done with you on this issue, Michale.

    Because you can't discuss it without tapping out repetitive nonsense.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's been nice around here - help me keep it that way. :)

    Fair enough.. Let's just call it a shot across the bow.. :D

    And leave it at that.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Fine.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because you can't discuss it without tapping out repetitive nonsense.

    WHat you call "repitive nonsense" are nothing but FACTS..

    You DO realize that Schiff-head has lied on so many things, right?? Hell, even WaPoop awarded Schiff-Head the highest number of Pinocchios...

    So, what part of Schiff Lied is "nonsense"???

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

    While it can be argued that an impeachment is not a trial as is traditionally accepted...

    It can also be argued that, in a trial of Public Opinion, they public might not like being defrauded and the FOTPT doctrine would still apply..

    The Probable Cause is tainted as being nothing but 3rd Party hearsay..

    Ergo any evidence that flows from said tainted evidence is ALSO tainted..

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Probable Cause is tainted as being nothing but 3rd Party hearsay..

    Ergo any evidence that flows from said tainted evidence is ALSO tainted..

    And, considering the FACT that the nearly sole proponent of said tainted evidence has been caught in several blatant lies...

    Once again, in the court of Public Opinion, the public takes that into account.

    The Dem's faux impeachment coup is dependent on wining the hearts and minds of the American people.

    If the American people realize they have be defrauded and lied to??

    Well, it won't go good for Democrats...

    We got a little taste of HOW bad it will go with the Russia Collusion delusion..

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[42],

    Non-serious.

    Much of what the whistleblower wrote has been corroborated by witnesses with first-hand knowledge.

    If you can't see that reality, then there is nothing further for us to discuss on this issue, sadly.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Much of what the whistleblower wrote has been corroborated by witnesses with first-hand knowledge.

    Says who??

    Schiff....

    You see your problem.

    ALL you have to go on is what Schiff is telling you.

    There are NO FACTS to support the claim..

    If you can't see that reality, then there is nothing further for us to discuss on this issue, sadly.

    I am the only here (sans a few) who DOES see the reality..

    And the reality is, there are NO FACTS to support what you are claiming..

    Their is only Schiff's word and anonymous sources..

    And Schiff has been PROVEN to be a liar so his word is worse than nothing..

    Why won't Democrats have an OPEN and transparent investigation??

    Because they know they have no facts..

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I owe Kick an apology.

    Sorry for jumping on your comment. There was nothing wrong with it. In fact, it was merely an attempt to set the record straight and God knows there is s need for that around here!

    I freely admit that I am hyper-sensitive about making this a great place for discussion

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ALL you have to go on is what Schiff is telling you. There are NO FACTS to support the claim..

    This asinine statement flagrantly ignores the 15-page written statement by the US Ambassador to Ukraine, one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case and Rep. Schiff had nothing to do with its compilation.

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well

    Arguing process? You do realize that the process is only in question when new developments beg the question of whether the original has any merit.

    But in the present case, the transcript was provided by the White House - and it absolutely shows that the President tried to manipulate the Ukrainian President. In fact, the fact that the military aid was being withheld as well is just a bonus multiplier.

    Further, all of the witnesses that we've heard to date move that forward, to the point that we now don't even need the original complaint to make the case.

    If process is all you've got, Mike, you lose.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    This asinine statement flagrantly ignores the 15-page written statement by the US Ambassador to Ukraine, one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case and Rep. Schiff had nothing to do with its compilation.

    And Schiff said he had nothing to do with the so-called "whistle blowers" complaint.

    And we now know that THAT was a lie...

    But, OK.. Let's take the US Ambassador's written statement at face value..

    Could you link me to statement and point out the part that is incriminating to President Trump??

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is the US Thanksgiving Day late this year?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Arguing process? You do realize that the process is only in question when new developments beg the question of whether the original has any merit.

    Not factually accurate...

    But in the present case, the transcript was provided by the White House - and it absolutely shows that the President tried to manipulate the Ukrainian President. In fact, the fact that the military aid was being withheld as well is just a bonus multiplier.

    Not factually accurate for several reasons..

    1. Checking out Biden issues wasn't even mentioned in the part you are referring to.

    2. The current aid package did not even come up in the entire conversation.

    3. Any "favor" that President Trump asked President Zelensky for was in the context of the 2016 election..

    Further, all of the witnesses that we've heard to date move that forward, to the point that we now don't even need the original complaint to make the case.

    And how do you know that??

    Because Schiff said it was so..

    You have no facts to support your claim..

    If process is all you've got, Mike, you lose.

    Yea, funny thing that..

    Ya'all said nearly the exact same thing with regards to ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion.. :D

    It was ya'all who turned out to be wrong then.. :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is the US Thanksgiving Day late this year?

    Nope.. Fourth Thursday in Nov, same as always..

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hmmm ...

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Isn't it usually the third Thursday?

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    But in the present case, the transcript was provided by the White House - and it absolutely shows that the President tried to manipulate the Ukrainian President.

    If you truly believe this, then you also MUST believe that VP Biden also committed an impeachable offense by trying to "manipulate" the Ukrainian government by extorting said government with the 1 billion dollar aid package..

    And I am sure you DON'T believe that..

    Ergo, your claim is solely based on your Party slavery and has little to nothing to do with facts or reality.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Isn't it usually the third Thursday?

    Don't think it has ever been.. Although to be fair I had to look it up as I thought it was the 3rd Thu as well.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you have any hard proof of the date?

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's probably the third Thursday if the 1st of the month happens to fall on a Sunday.

    Has Thanksgiving ever been held in early December?

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    1. Checking out Biden issues wasn't even mentioned in the part you are referring to.

    Don't know what you're reading, but look at the part that begins with Trump saying, "but I'd like you to do us a favor, though,...

    2. The current aid package did not even come up in the entire conversation.

    Didn't have to. Several people have confirmed that the issue was hot at the time.

    3. Any "favor" that President Trump asked President Zelensky for was in the context of the 2016 election..

    Do we look like rubes to you? Sure, Trump was just trying to set the record straight for posterity...

    Because Schiff said it was so..

    As did several of his colleagues who were in the room.

  60. [60] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You seem to forget that all this time, no hearing has been held without Republicans attending and asking questions. And they have what we have.

    So what's all of this "Schiff says" nonsense?

    Sounds more like a publicity stunt than an excuse to me.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't know what you're reading, but look at the part that begins with Trump saying, "but I'd like you to do us a favor, though,...

    Yep.. But you don't continue.

    I would like you to do us a favor though
    because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ...

    CrowdStrike has to do with the 2016 Election..

    NOTHING is mentioned about Biden til the very end of the conversation and NOTHING in the context of the "favor"..

    As I said.. Your claim is not factually accurate..

    Didn't have to. Several people have confirmed that the issue was hot at the time.

    Says who??

    Schiff?? A proven liar.. But, of course, you believe that because you WANT to believe it.

    Do we look like rubes to you? Sure, Trump was just trying to set the record straight for posterity...

    I don't presume to read President Trump's mind, but his statements are pretty clear..

    Your problem is you believe all the hysterical hype and don't check things out for yourself..

    As did several of his colleagues who were in the room.

    All Democrats..

    Funny how NO ONE else was allowed in the room BUT Democrats.

    Irregardless, it's STILL nothing but hearsay..

    NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS...

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Funny how NO ONE else was allowed in the room BUT Democrats.

    False. Demonstrably false.

  63. [63] 
    dsws wrote:

    [28] Elizabeth Miller (addressing Balthasar)
    And, is your use of "Mike" a sign of respect? If not, you probably shouldn't use it.

    That reminds me: I sometimes label text I quote from you with "LizM" instead of your full name. I hope you don't find it disrespectful. I certainly have never intended it to be.

    --

    Thanksgiving in the US has been either the last Thursday in November, or the fourth one. (If, for example, the third day of November is a Thursday, then we would have 3, 10, 17, 24, and 30, making the last day of November its fifth Thursday.)

  64. [64] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    NOTHING is mentioned about Biden til the very end of the conversation and NOTHING in the context of the "favor"..

    Funny, I see it as the next paragraph that the President speaks. No long pause.

  65. [65] 
    dsws wrote:

    [62] Balthasar
    Demonstrably false.

    I suppose that depends on how far down the rabbit hole you're willing to go. There certainly are news stories reporting that the Republican members of the relevant committees were allowed in the room (duh). But when the obvious is rejected out of hand, the entire news media is declared to be an enemy of the people, and presumably the evidence of the believers' own senses is subordinated to the assertions of the Leader and his defenders, what then can constitute a demonstration of anything?

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [65] dsws: I suppose that depends on how far down the rabbit hole you're willing to go.

    Yeah, I avoid rabbit holes.

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CrowdStrike has to do with the 2016 Election..

    And it's a big nothing-burger. Right wing talking points. So are issues related to Hunter Biden and Burisma. Formed solely out of the clear blue sky.

    But having Ukraine investigate would be a win for Trump in the 2020 election...

  68. [68] 
    Paula wrote:

    FWIW: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-trump-administration-says-it-has-violated-its-own-ethics-pledge

    A governmentwide review has acknowledged for the first time that at least several Trump political appointees violated the administration’s ethics pledge, which was put in place to try to “drain the swamp” by imposing lobbying restrictions and penalties.

    The details are tucked away in the Office of Government Ethics’ latest annual report, which attracted little notice when it was released this summer.

    While President Donald Trump’s ethics pledge was weaker than previous rules, the government ethics office still found violations in 2018 at three federal agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior and the National Labor Relations Board.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    This asinine statement flagrantly ignores the 15-page written statement by the US Ambassador to Ukraine, one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case and Rep. Schiff had nothing to do with its compilation.

    And word is, Rep Ratcliffe totally destroyed and decimated Taylor's claims..

    But we aren't allowed to see that because Schiff-head controls the flow of information.

    We can only see what Schiff-head ALLOWS us to see..

    So we can see how Rep Ratcliffe totally destroyed Taylor's testimony..

    Do you see why I tell you that you have no facts?

    Because you don't.. All you have is what Schiff-head says and allows you to know..

    Pure unadulterated hearsay..

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it's a big nothing-burger. Right wing talking points. So are issues related to Hunter Biden and Burisma. Formed solely out of the clear blue sky.

    Then you have no problem with Trump asking Zelensky to investigate it, do you?

    Irregardless of that, it WASN'T about Biden at all..

    False. Demonstrably false.

    Your right.. I misspoke..

    GOP'ers can be in the room but are not allowed to report what they have seen and heard..

    Yet, Dems are free to reveal anything they want..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, I have to ask.

    What are Democrats afraid of??

    Why can't they provide an open and transparent forum??

    If Democrats are so sure of their FACTS, they shouldn't be afraid to open up the claims to public scrutiny..

    And yet, Democrats are TERRIFIED...

    "In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan … Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice."
    -Joe Biden

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden

    This faux impeachment is NOT legitimate...

    So says Joe Biden..

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dan,

    [28] Elizabeth Miller (addressing Balthasar)
    And, is your use of "Mike" a sign of respect? If not, you probably shouldn't use it.

    I wasn't addressing Balthasar but rather Kick. I think you'll agree that that makes a difference.

    You can call me LizM (my old moniker from the lost days of the Huffington Post blog, rip) because I don't believe you have ever used it disrespectfully, have you? :)

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MIchale,

    Why can't they provide an open and transparent forum??

    I think they will and it seems we may have to until the investigation aspect of this is over.

    There's nothing wrong with that approach but I think it would be better if, as they went through the private investigation, they would release as much as they can to the public, including all opening statements. They could also bring back the witnesses for a sort of replay of what happened in camera.

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    just to be clear, "may have to WAIT … "

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    And word is, Rep Ratcliffe totally destroyed and decimated Taylor's claims..

    If that is true, it will come out in public when the Rep. Ratcliffe can reveal it.

    Patience is a virtue …

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think they will and it seems we may have to until the investigation aspect of this is over.

    And if they don't??

    There is simply NO REASON for this secrecy other than it allows Democrats to control the flow of information..

    This is a BIG BROTHER move pure and simple..

    If the facts are as Democrats claim they are, there is NO REASON not to be open and transparent..

    Don't believe me??

    Maybe you'll believe Joe Biden.

    "Bipartisanship should not wait until the matter reaches the Senate chamber"

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, Michale, must you always refer to the chairman of the House Intel committee the way you do.

    Is it really too much to ask to refer to him as Chairman Schiff.

    I mean if we can't even be THAT respectful on this blog, then what's the point of commenting here?

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe you'll believe Jerrold Nadler

    "The president’s accusers must go beyond hearsay and innuendo and beyond demands that the president prove his innocence of vague and changing charges. They must provide clear and convincing evidence of specific impeachable conduct."

    Democrats are doing EXACTLY this.. Hearsay... Innuendo.. Vague... Changing Charges..

    There is NO "clear and convincing evidence of specific impeachable conduct"...

    If you say Quid Pro Quo is impeachable, then you have to explain WHY it wasn't impeachable when Joe Biden did it??

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, Michale, must you always refer to the chairman of the House Intel committee the way you do.

    Is it really too much to ask to refer to him as Chairman Schiff.

    It is.. He is a PROVEN liar...

    I mean if we can't even be THAT respectful on this blog, then what's the point of commenting here?

    Blotus?? Orange DICK-tator??

    :D

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There is simply NO REASON for this secrecy other than it allows Democrats to control the flow of information..

    I know you know that all investigations, including in the Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes, are done in secret.

    The problem here is that there is no judicial investigation by a special prosecutor or an independent counsel. In this case it is Congress that is conducting the investigation.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, I'm well aware that you are not the only one around here who has a tendency toward showing respect to public officials.

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … make that "DISRESPECT" … though I do wish the former were true. :(

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know you know that all investigations, including in the Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes, are done in secret.

    Actually, that is not factually accurate..

    I am not sure about Nixon, but I know Clinton's impeachment was handled thru the Judiciary committee and all meetings were public and publicized..

    There was no secrecy on the part of the GOP during the Clinton impeachment..

    The problem here is that there is no judicial investigation by a special prosecutor or an independent counsel. In this case it is Congress that is conducting the investigation.

    But an impeachment is usually handled by the Judiciary Committee... Pelosi tasked Schiff-Head and his Intelligence Committee so that they could do it all in secret..

    These are all undeniable facts..

    Yes, I'm well aware that you are not the only one around here who has a tendency toward showing {dis}respect to public officials.

    "Well, OK.. Just so you know.."
    -Vicky Vaughn, BILLY MADISON

    :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    }}}}But in the present case, the transcript was provided by the White House - and it absolutely shows that the President tried to manipulate the Ukrainian President.{{{{{

    If you truly believe this, then you also MUST believe that VP Biden also committed an impeachable offense by trying to "manipulate" the Ukrainian government by extorting said government with the 1 billion dollar aid package..

    I noticed you ignored this..

    How come???

    Does the blatant hypocrisy you exhibit stick in yer craw???

    Regardless...

    The fact is, if what President Trump did is quid pro quo and impeachable, then what Biden did is AT LEAST as bad...

    It's actually worse, because what Biden did was blatant extortion... And, since Obama hasn't stepped up, it was clearly self-serving extortion and NOT sanctioned by Obama..

    Balthy??? Cat got yer fingers? :D

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    12

    So, this begs the question..

    Is it wise for the group who are all but disarmed and who are afraid of guns to piss off the group that has 98% of it's members well-armed and well-trained??

    Your premise is again flawed. How is it that you can prattle on and on endlessly about gun violence and killing via firearm happening predominantly in cities run by Democrats -- and every time there is a mass killing blame a Democrat for it -- and then come to the conclusion that Democrats are "all but disarmed" and "afraid of guns"? Two words: Cognitive dissonance.

    The logic of that somehow escapes me..

    As "logic" does for those who prattle on repetitively that those urban dwellers committing the most gun violence are somehow doing it without firearms. :)

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It doesn't matter which committee is doing the investigating for this impeachment process because it wouldn't change the fact that investigations are done in private or secret.

    The investigator in the Nixon impeachment process was a special prosecutor who conducted the investigation in private - witnesses were then brought back for the public hearings.

    The investigator for the Clinton impeachment process was an independent counsel who conducted his investigation in private or secret.

    The investigator for the Trump impeachment process is Congress and their investigation is being done in private or secret.

    There is nothing wrong with this approach but I think Chairman Schiff and the House leadership could be releasing more to the public or having witnesses return for public hearings etc.

    But, I can also be patient for a while longer for the public release of what the investigation has found.

    Of course, it goes without saying that there was a problem with leaks in all three of these impeachment proceedings.

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    5

    I’d love to see every candidate that is under 5% in the polls go ahead and throw the towel in — you have no chance this election, and there is always 2024 to start prepping for.

    Your wish is partially granted. ;)

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I found Ambassador Taylor to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions about Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy.
    But again, the mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him directly on that. And under Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said, but I can tell you what he didn’t say. And neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo."

    Representative John Ratcliffe - Texas

    There ya go Liz..

    As "factual" as your claim is...

    Why won't Schiff let Ratcliffe tell what REALLY happened in that appearence???

    Because Schiff is afraid that the American people will learn that this is not an impeachment, it is a coup..

    And if Democrats continue this course of action, it is going to end badly... And bloody..

    Again, you don't have to take my word for it..

    Listen to Benjamin Franklin

    "Anyone who wishes to be president should support an impeachment clause, because the alternative is assassination."

    Impeachment is the legal form of assassination..

    And, if Democrats succeed in assassinating President Trump thru impeachment..

    It will go very bad for Democrats..

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    It doesn't matter which committee is doing the investigating for this impeachment process because it wouldn't change the fact that investigations are done in private or secret.

    Clinton's wasn't..

    The investigator for the Clinton impeachment process was an independent counsel who conducted his investigation in private or secret.

    Oh com'on, Liz.. Ken Starr's investigation?? Private?? Secret??? Shirley, you jest... :D

    The Democrats' actions in this impeachment has no precedent... Period.. Full Stop..

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nixon's impeachment was thru the Judiciary committee..

    So was Clinton's...

    It's unheard of to have the Intelligence Committee process an impeachment..

    UN..... HEARD..... OF....

    The **ONLY** reason to choose the Intelligence Committee is because they have more secure facilities that can house secret hearings..

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, you're a fan of precedent. I'm going to tuck that into my pocket for future reference. :)

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's exactly why CIA created Black Sites and Rendition Safe Houses..

    So they can conduct nefarious activities out of the public/government eye..

    Democrats are following the same gameplan..

    Which is hilarious since Democrats *CLAIM* that they are against Black Sites and Rendition Safe Houses..

    :D

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    19

    Black Americans won't vote for her and Independents and NPAs won't vote for her...

    If you really believe ^^this^^ then you've just described a scenario wherein Warren cannot win the Democratic primary.

    Anxiety rises among Democrats worried about party’s prospects in 2020

    Happens every 4 years... means absolutely nothing. :)

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you're a fan of precedent. I'm going to tuck that into my pocket for future reference. :)

    When we're talking the legal equivalent of an assassination of a freely, fairly, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected President Of The United States??

    You can bet your bippy I am a fan of precedent... :D

  96. [96] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The Democrats' actions in this impeachment has no precedent...

    It actually doesn't have to. There is no "process" delineated by law to be followed. Liz is correct, however, in that Democrats believe themselves to be in the phase of the investigation, when depositions are held secretly to establish the parameters of it. When it reaches the 'public' stage, you'll see all of it, I'm sure.

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    21

    But it doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask that CW spend an hour or two of that time in a discussion of One Demand here in his creation which is sorely lacking and in need of an injection of real life.

    I'd rather discuss pie for a couple hours... no nuts... and definitely chocolate pie with some kind of white frothy topping, be it meringue or whipped topping. :p *yum*

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    you'll see all of it, I'm sure.

    Yea?? You were also "sure" of the outcome of the Mueller Report, eh? :D

    Yer "sure" always seems to be wrong.. :D

    The simple fact is, this is all going to blow up in the Democrat's face when they hold the Impeachment vote..

    They'll lose..

    And I will laugh my ass off for DAYS!! :D

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    26

    Kick, let's try to eliminate the childish name-calling … please!

    I believe you missed my point that the whistleblower is no more "virtual" than anyone posting on this board. The process of whistleblowing to the ICIG is only available to real persons who do indeed work in the "intelligence community."

    Our whistleblower works for the CIA, and that's why the complaint was filed with the ICIG: Intelligence Community Inspector General. :)

  100. [100] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Of course the Democrats will lose the impeachment vote eventually. Then we'll make ads saying, "Is this the America you want?" with lots of flags. And Republicans will be well paid for their efforts.

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Actually, Republicans will look like schmucks.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    And under Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said, but I can tell you what he didn’t say. And neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo."

    So, where are ya'all's FACTS of quid pro quo???

    Non-existent...

    The ONLY thing ya'all have is much MUCH less serious than what Biden did with the Ukrainians when he was Obama's VP...

    And if that wasn't quid pro quo, then President Trump's actions were DEFINITELY not quid pro quo..

    It's really that simple.. :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Quid pro quo in Ukraine? No, not yet

    Quid pro no.

    The current impeachment debate is being framed in terms of whether or not there was a “quid pro quo”— as if that is the bar that will determine whether or not President Trump did something egregious.

    There are big flaws with this framing, as well as with the use of the term.

    Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. “Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.”

    The notion that there’s something inherently wrong with this sort of foreign-aid diplomacy is raising concern among some career diplomats. A former Obama administration State Department official told me that, by controversializing this common practice, “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment.”
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/467079-quid-pro-quo-in-ukraine-no-not-yet

    Leave it to the Democrats to screw over future Presidents.. :eyeroll:

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    28

    And, is your use of "Mike" a sign of respect?

    It's something I picked up from Balthasar so you will have to ask him if it is a sign of our respect. I am thinking it's just his name rather than overthinking like "some people."

    If not, you probably shouldn't use it.

    If Balthasar indeed informs us that it is a sign of our respect, then I definitely probably shouldn't use it.

    Let's try to make this a place where the issues can be discussed and debated in a civil and mature manner.

    I'm sorry if your nitpicking about Balthasar's name choices got in the way of me discussing political issues. :)

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected."
    -Rep Al Green, DEMOCRAT

    And there it is...

    The REAL reason for this faux impeachment coup..

  106. [106] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [104] You just wanted to use the word 'Balthasar' as many times as you could in a post. I'm honored.

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    I believe you missed my point that the whistleblower is no more "virtual" than anyone posting on this board.

    And, you missed [46]. :(

  108. [108] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Predictwise is an interesting site that aggregates
    mutiple prediction markets to estimate the probability of each of the announced candidates getting the Democrat Presidential nomination.

    https://markets.predictwise.com/politics/2020-us-presidential-election

    Predictwise still gives Warren the best odds, but she has dropped about 15% in the last 2 weeks. Biden , Bernie and Buti all made substantial gains in this interval at her expense. The chance of any of the dark horses getting the nod is less than 8% split 10 ways.

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What about somebody else getting into the race?

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And winning? Slim to none.

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    44

    Much of what the whistleblower wrote has been corroborated by witnesses with first-hand knowledge.

    Not to mention the transcript of the phone call and the fact that Trump admitted asking Zelensky for help and then publicly asked China for help to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. Trump did this because he had already asked China and multiple other countries to investigate Joe Biden. Indeed, the Attorney General of the United States is travelling around to multiple foreign countries seeking foreign nations to investigate Joe Biden in the service of Trump who is attempting to absolve Russia, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, etc... just in case you wanted to know the next shoe to drop.

    Trump is scared as shit of having to run against Joe Biden and eager to rewrite the Mueller report. These issues aren't seperate, they're intertwined, and Trump will be impeached for his abuse of power. He's not acting in the interests of the United States; Trump is acting in his own interests while simultaneously doing Putin's bidding; it's a common theme with the turncoat, and he's being played like an ignorant fool... on multiple levels in multiple parts of the world.

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I was set to impeach and remove after the Helsinki presser with Putin.

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And winning? Slim to none.

    I'd rather it be non-existent, Joshua. Can it be non-existent, please.

    And, pass the pie.

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    45

    ALL you have to go on is what Schiff is telling you.

    There are NO FACTS to support the claim..

    BS. The witnesses are supplying their statements, and we know their names.

    Their is only Schiff's word and anonymous sources..

    Wrong. Those who have been testifying have all been identified by subpoena by name, and they have supplied statements. Then we have Donald Trump saying he withheld money and would do it again and asking China to investigate Joe Biden... on camera. Not complicated.

    Please now argue that the POTUS can investigate whomever he pleases for whatever reason; it sounds ridiculous and undercuts all your equally ridiculous arguments that the Obama administration and the intelligence community shouldn't have been investigating the now 150+ discovered and/or admitted meetings that occurred between the Trump campaign and multiple representatives of Russia.

    And Schiff has been PROVEN to be a liar so his word is worse than nothing..

    So then Trump's word is worse than the nothingness of nothing?

    Why won't Democrats have an OPEN and transparent investigation??

    The majority of the "I lost count I'm guessing eight Benghazi hearings" were held in the exact same manner. Unless you were whining incessantly that those multiple hearings held over 4+ years were unfair, then no one here need take you seriously.

    Because they know they have no facts..

    Those cameras Trump keeps standing in front of and that readily available footage produced therefrom and the transcript Trump released are pretty much all the facts needed to impeach him. :)

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    46

    I owe Kick an apology.

    Nah. :)

    Sorry for jumping on your comment. There was nothing wrong with it. In fact, it was merely an attempt to set the record straight and God knows there is s need for that around here!

    Now you're making me feel bad for my other comments I posted before I just now saw this, and for the record, I was just trying to set the record straight in those too. :)

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I was set to impeach and remove after the Helsinki presser with Putin.

    The problem is Democrats on the whole, were set to impeach on 10 Nov 2016...

    Which proves that Democrats really don't care about having any facts or reason.

    They just want to impeach and to hell with anything else..

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    48

    Nice post... sums it up very nicely.

    If process is all you've got, Mike, you lose.

    Well, you just came along and proved a point I just made. I readily confess I am pleased by this turn of events, but whatever do we mean by "Mike"? Is that our sign of respect. If it is, I must seriously rethink its usage. :)

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    60

    You seem to forget that all this time, no hearing has been held without Republicans attending and asking questions. And they have what we have.

    Another excellent point because one of the dipshits who complained about "not being in the room" has actually been in the room the whole time... that dipshit from the midwest named Dennis Hastert... oops... I mean Jim Jordan... I get them confused because they have practically the same back story. :)

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    61

    I would like you to do us a favor though
    because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ...

    CrowdStrike has to do with the 2016 Election..

    It's a Russian conspiracy theory that Trump spoke about in Helsinki right after he consulted with Vladimir Putin. Am I making myself clear? Trump is advancing Putin's conspiracy theories wherein Ukraine is blamed for Russia's actions while attempting to kneecap Joe Biden at the same time. It's my definition of turncoat to try to prove Russian conspiracy theories over the conclusions of 15+ of United States' intelligence agencies.

    NOTHING is mentioned about Biden til the very end of the conversation and NOTHING in the context of the "favor"..

    Well, Trump admitted withholding the funds already and said he'd do it again. Oh, sure, he gave different reasons for it, but nevertheless he admitted it in a tweet and also then asked for China's help on live television, and it's on camera too. Giuliani also admitted it on camera... so there's that too.

    Do we look like rubes to you?

    ISWYDT.

    All Democrats..

    So you are believing all the right-wing propaganda BS? And what have we determined that makes you a prime candidate for being?

    Funny how NO ONE else was allowed in the room BUT Democrats.

    Not funny how you're either a candidate for right-wingnut rube status or you're outright lying on this forum. The only question is which one is it?

    Irregardless, it's STILL nothing but hearsay..

    You and the spineless GOP politicians seem to be arguing over and over and whining incessantly that words have no meaning. Shitty defense of Trump, I might add.

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    69

    And word is, Rep Ratcliffe totally destroyed and decimated Taylor's claims..

    From outside the room?

  121. [121] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I think Pelosi really wanted not to impeach. But Donald just kept pushing the envelope to the point where she had no choice but to open the inquiry.

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    89

    Why won't Schiff let Ratcliffe tell what REALLY happened in that appearence???

    Prove that Schiff stopped him or that Schiff is controlling all the leaks. You can't. Your claims are as baseless as you are calling EM's.

    Because Schiff is afraid that the American people will learn that this is not an impeachment, it is a coup..

    Claims not to be able to read Trump's mind while claiming he can read Schiff's. Your arguments are as comical as they are asinine.

    And if Democrats continue this course of action, it is going to end badly... And bloody..

    Another threat of violence from Mike.

    Again, you don't have to take my word for it..

    Listen to Benjamin Franklin

    "Anyone who wishes to be president should support an impeachment clause, because the alternative is assassination."

    Impeachment is the legal form of assassination..

    You should check a dictionary for the meaning of the word "alternative" because you have missed Mr. Frankin's point entirely. Impeachment is neither a coup nor an assassination. What does the spineless GOP and their minions have against our Constitution?

    And, if Democrats succeed in assassinating President Trump thru impeachment..

    Assassinating Trump isn't possible according to you since Democrats are afraid of firearms and unarmed. Also, remember to look up the word "alternative" and note that it means "different" and not equivalent.

    It will go very bad for Democrats..

    If Elizabeth Miller would like to take issue with something notable, I think your continual and repeated use of the threat of violence against Democrats on this board is a nice place to start.

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    91

    It's unheard of to have the Intelligence Committee process an impeachment..

    The Constitution is clear regarding the impeachment process:

    The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers and shall
    have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    ~ Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution

    And to those who are whining incessantly regarding the manner in which the House is handling this particular impeachment... too bad because it's in their sole power to do it. Don't like it? Change the Constitution of the United States of America. Good luck with that. :)

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Elizabeth Miller ...

    You must be mad at me, Kick.

    Elizabeth Miller? Well, it's not quite as bad as Ms Miller but, geez ...

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    106

    Kick [104] You just wanted to use the word 'Balthasar' as many times as you could in a post. I'm honored.

    *laughs*

    Well, third time is a charm... so they say.

    I thought about going with "Beetlejuice," but I was afraid you'd erupt from the tiny little graveyard and commence to your usual shenanigans. ;)

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    107

    And, you missed [46]. :(

    I read them in order and respond when I can... in between TCB. :)

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    112

    Well, I was set to impeach and remove after the Helsinki presser with Putin.

    Good call and excellent point... because all this is just an extension of all that. And anyone who takes the time to read the transcript of the end of said presser in Helsinki -- immediately following Trump's consultation with Putin -- you will be rewarded with a potential "light bulb moment" wherein you cannot fail to see the similarities of the agenda of Putin and company (which unfortunately includes Trump) and how it mirrors Trump's phone call with Zelensky.

    The object of the exercise is and has always been money with these dipshits and the lifting of sanctions on Russia and setting them up wherein there is no impediment to their extraction of fuel from the ground is the primary goal. Everything Trump is doing on the world stage is in the service of Vladimir Putin and geared toward that end. Full stop.

  128. [128] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can hardly wait for the response to [124]. Heh.

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    121

    I think Pelosi really wanted not to impeach. But Donald just kept pushing the envelope to the point where she had no choice but to open the inquiry.

    I think you're exactly right, and I also think all the useful idiots who kept whining incessantly about how they welcomed Trump's impeachment didn't really want to see him impeached, but Trump's actions left them no choice.

    It's infinitely easy for all the facts of the matter to get lost in all the daily shenanigans and BS spewage from Trump and the right-wingnut chattering BS brigade, but they have enough to impeach Trump for abuse of power based on the transcript he released and Trump's impromptu pressers and ramblings outside the White House alone, and this argument of theirs that basically amounts to "words have no meaning" is ridiculous.

    They have no defense so they're pounding the table... loudly. The President of the United States used taxpayers' money and the Department of Justice to advance his own personal interests as well as those of Vladimir Putin over the conclusions of our own intelligence agencies and over the interests of our allies, and he didn't just do that in Ukraine either.

  130. [130] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The GOP’s propaganda machine is trying to get us to focus only on aspects of the case that we haven’t been given ALL of the facts on, even if that info has no relevance to the inquiry.

    “We don’t know if the whistleblower is of Hispanic or some other unwanted bloodline.”

    They are stuck screaming about what they claim is missing from the story, because they cannot discuss (or allow their base to focus on) the information that WE DO KNOW!

    They are whining that they aren’t allowed to hear every detail of the investigation being conducted while completely ignoring the information (opening statements of those testifying) that is being released.

    But the ULTIMATE irony has to be the Republicans complaining that the Democrats are the only ones who are allowed to call witnesses to testify! Their witnesses would not show up to testify and they know it....so why do they care if they aren’t getting to throw their names in the hat?!? They are complaining for the sake of complaining — nothing else!

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    124

    You must be mad at me, Kick.

    Not at all.

    Elizabeth Miller?

    Yep... and now I am really (not really) mad because I'm getting dinged for using short forms of names as well as long forms!

    Well, it's not quite as bad as Ms Miller but, geez ...

    Geez! Well, El, I hope you're using that term as a form of respect to the son of God since that is exactly where that short exclamation comes from, you know, Jesus.

    There's my "fun fact" for the day. :)

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    128

    I can hardly wait for the response to [124]. Heh.

    Wow. If only I had known, I could have included one of my "fun facts." ;)

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    FUN FACT

    It's snowing in Texas, y'all. :)

  134. [134] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [51]

    Further, all of the witnesses that we've heard to date move that forward, to the point that we now don't even need the original complaint to make the case.

    And how do you know that??

    Well, if you think that you need the whistleblower’s complaint to make this case, guess what??? YOU ALREADY HAVE IT! It’s been available for a while.

    Plus, it’s all been confirmed by Trump and his staff. Face it, it’s hard to argue Trump did nothing wrong when Trump’s campaign is still hawking “Get Over It” t-shirts defending “quid pro quo”.

Comments for this article are closed.