ChrisWeigant.com

Post-Debate Reactions

[ Posted Thursday, December 19th, 2019 – 23:12 UTC ]

Tonight we saw the sixth in the series of Democratic presidential debates, and my first and strongest impression is that I for one am glad the field is being narrowed. Seven on the stage was enough, in other words, for me.

Although we had three candidates who are polling way down in the single digits, there was much less desperation on display. Previously, all the candidates at the bottom of the polls all were striving for that big breakout moment, and it showed. This time around, there was a slight air of desperation about Amy Klobuchar, but none at all from either Tom Steyer or Andrew Yang. The lack of "I'm going to jump in and shout something out" which has been present from the less-popular candidates on stage was indeed welcome, because it left a lot more time for substantive discussions.

PBS and Politico did a fairly good job of moderating, although they tended to lose control at certain points, which left it mostly up to the candidates to calm the scene down after an especially heated exchange. But the questions were all pretty good, and there were a lot of subjects discussed tonight which have been missing from all the previous debates (mostly in the foreign policy realm).

The four frontrunners in the contest did not hold back in attacking each other at various times during the night, but this was more interesting than previous dustups mostly because they were never interrupted by a candidate desperate for one of those breakout moments. This left the principals more time to have back-and-forth arguments than before, in my opinion.

Overall, I found this to be the most watchable of all the debates so far. So let's break things down candidate by candidate (in the order of their current polling status). As always, all quotes were hastily jotted down and may not be word-for-word transcripts, but they all capture the essence of what was said, I think.

 

Tom Steyer

Tom Steyer was the only candidate who didn't really impress me much tonight. His delivery was pretty flat and unemotional, and he really didn't have a whole lot to say. His best moment was at the very beginning, when he reminded everyone that he has personally been pushing for the impeachment of Donald Trump for two years now, with his "Need To Impeach" organization.

His central theme was that Donald Trump must been exposed as a fraud as a businessman, and Steyer was the one to do it. However, I couldn't help thinking about one candidate who wasn't on the stage, because Michael Bloomberg would likely do a much better job of this than Steyer. Bloomberg is exactly what Trump pretends to be: a New York success story who built his empire from the ground up. I think that would get under Trump's skin a lot more than Steyer ever could. But I do have to give Steyer points for consistency, as he kept hitting this theme throughout the night.

Steyer did have another good moment on the immigration issue, where he plainly pointed out that Donald Trump wasn't against immigrants per se, he was in fact against non-white immigrants. Steyer called Trump out directly on his racism, and it was a potent moment for him.

 

Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang, unlike just about everyone else on the stage, always looks like he's having a good time up there. Perhaps it is because he has made it this far, which must have come as somewhat of a surprise even to him. Perhaps it's because he still refuses to wear a necktie. But for whatever reason, Yang brings an air of energy that's somehow lighter than everyone else because he refuses to take himself too seriously.

Yang probably got more speaking time than any of the previous debates, and he certainly was up to the challenge. He is kind of a one-note guy on his universal basic income idea (or "freedom dividend," as he calls it), but he's right that it is relevant to more than one issue facing people. More money means more options on all sorts of things.

Yang made several good points during the night, as when he pointed out that suicide and drug overdose deaths have surpassed fatalities from traffic accidents for the first time. On nuclear power, he started talking about the benefits of thorium reactors, which showed more knowledge than anyone else on the stage (the moderators included). When asked about being the only person of color on the stage, his answer was excellent: "I miss Kamala. I miss Cory -- but I think Cory will be back on stage soon." He spoke of his own family ties to people in Hong Kong, which none of the others was able to come close to, in terms of personal connection. He also spoke of being the son of an immigrant, and the father of a special needs child. This all added to a very personable performance, I thought.

Towards the end, Yang got a few great jokes in as well. When talking about the importance of women in politics, he said: "If you get too many men together for too long, we kind of become morons," which was well received by at least half the audience present. In the same answer, he had a mixed metaphor that worked well too, when he mentioned "shaking the money tree in a wine cave." More on the wine cave in a bit, though.

The final question was one of those screwy curveballs, about either asking for forgiveness or giving gifts. Yang got it first, and was visibly taken aback. "Wow," he started with, then paused for a while before laughing. The crowd appreciated the moment, and when he did recover he came up with a brilliant pivot, by offering to give everyone on stage a gift -- the book he wrote. This also went over well. His funniest moment may have come in his closing statement, though, when he started with: "I know what you are thinking, America: How am I still on this stage with them?"

Like him or not, Andrew Yang seems to be having the time of his life as a presidential candidate, which is pretty endearing.

 

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar seemed like the candidate with the most to prove tonight. Or maybe "the most to lose and the most to gain" would be more accurate. Klobuchar is way down in the single digits in the national polls, and her whole campaign is now hoping for a better-than-expected finish in Iowa which propels her into the front ranks. Her big problem is that while she thinks she really should be doing better with the voters (based on all sorts of things -- her moderation, her ability to win in the Midwest, etc.), she has never really caught fire at all.

Klobuchar did a little better than previous debates with her canned and over-rehearsed one-liners, and she got several of them off without sounding like she was reading them off a crib sheet. In general, she seemed a little more comfortable on the stage this time than earlier debates as well. But as I previously mentioned, she also was the only one on stage tonight who at times sounded rather desperate for attention.

Her first canned line went over fairly well. In her answer about impeachment, she quoted James Madison and then pointed out that he was only "five-foot-four," which she thought was the right size for a president. She named-dropped Sherrod Brown when asked about the new North American free trade deal before Congress, although I'm going to have to check a stat she cited, that "95 percent of customers [for American businesses] are outside the country." That seems a bit high to me, but I don't know a whole lot about it, I fully admit.

Klobuchar's best moment may have come on the subject of foreign relations, when she pointed out that people at the recent NATO meeting were caught laughing at our president, and that he was so thin-skinned that he immediately left the conference. She referenced her own website and her "five Rs" of foreign policy, but boiled it down to "One R -- Returning to sanity." This got her a big hand from the audience.

There was a strange delayed dustup between her and Pete Buttigieg over the First Amendment that I have to admit I really didn't understand or see the point of. When has Mayor Pete been against the First Amendment? Klobuchar seemed to be taking him to task, and he responded forcefully later on (citing his military experience), but I was left wondering what it was all about, personally.

Klobuchar did a pretty good job of staying on her message, which boils down to her being the best candidate because she: (1) is a moderate, not "an extremist," (2) knows how to get things done, like the 100 bills she passed, (3) can win the Midwest, and (4) would "have the longest coattails" for other Democrats down the ballot. At times, she appeared almost defensive over these points, some of which are certainly debatable.

The most notable segment for Klobuchar was an extended one-on-one match with Pete Buttigieg, which makes all kinds of sense since taking him down a peg would be crucial to her hopes of rising in the polls. She hit him over not "respecting experience" in other Democratic candidates and for some reason his attempt to run for the chair of the Democratic National Committee. Klobuchar repeated "I want to be president," which didn't make much sense to her earlier point about experience -- if all that was important was becoming president, then Klobuchar never would have become a senator and wouldn't have all the experience she brags about. It was a little disjointed, and Buttigieg seemed to get the better of the exchange.

To her credit, she was the only candidate who really took up the offer in the final question to ask the others for a little forgiveness for at times getting a little heated. To me, this was a much more honest answer than any of the others gave.

 

Pete Buttigieg

Mayor Pete had a fairly good night, even though he took more incoming flak than anyone else. This is likely due to the rise in the polls he's seen since the previous debate, especially in Iowa.

Buttigieg's main theme was, as always, what a wonderful thing it is to be a centrist. He's arguing the same thing Joe Biden argues, and the same thing Hillary Clinton ran on last time, really -- "dream small, and maybe tinker with a few things around the edges." But at times this leaves him having to argue very strange things, as when he tried to paint Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as somehow friends of millionaires due to their "tuition-free college for all" stance. Pete uses a rightwing talking point here, as he always has -- those at the top should pay full fare for college. This sounds reasonable, but any means-tested government program is limited because conservative politicians can easily justify it as "taking your money and giving it to poor people who don't deserve it." Pete falls into this trap, and he doesn't even seem to realize it. When a benefit is universal, it is a lot harder to politically attack, which Buttigieg doesn't seem to understand or admit.

Pete did do better than I expected during the foreign policy questions, I have to admit. He had good answers on China and Hong Kong, and ripped into Trump for uttering "not a peep" in support of those protesting for democracy. He also made a great point about the press not being the "enemy of the people," and how Trump saying this is dangerous for journalists and democracy all over the world.

Buttigieg was at his weakest when attempting to defend his fundraising, especially how bad that dinner in a wine cave truly looked. Buttigieg seems to think that playing the "I'm worth less than everyone else on the stage" card is his magic answer to criticisms over his fundraising, but it didn't really go over that well. He decried "purity tests that not even you can pass" to Elizabeth Warren, pointing out that she transferred a bunch of campaign cash from her Senate campaigns that had been raised at high-dollar fundraisers. Buttigieg tried to make the point that he wasn't going to turn down money from anyone, even if they had a lot of it, because that would "tie one hand behind our backs" in taking on Trump. But throughout it all, he was definitely on the defensive, as he should have been (seriously, that wine cave photo was pretty bad).

Buttigieg did get the better of a later heated argument, with Amy Klobuchar, though. When Klobuchar tried to demean Buttigieg for not being as good in the Midwest as she thinks she is, he shot back: "I won with 80 percent of the vote as a gay guy in Mike Pence's Indiana," which was pretty devastating to her argument.

Buttigieg came out not only for slavery reparations (although he was careful to identify the specific bill he supported in that regard), but also for financial compensation for the kids separated from their families at the border. This didn't seem overly moderate, in contrast to some of his other positions, I will admit.

Overall, I wasn't that impressed with Pete's performance tonight, but then I said that last time and he wound up getting a serious polling bump right afterwards, so what do I know? It is extraordinary that a small-city mayor has gotten this far in a presidential contest, and he's definitely punching very well, even above his weight. Buttigieg took a lot of heat tonight and it never totally threw him off his stride, but I just have to wonder if "dream small" is really where the voters want to go this time around.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren seemed the most focused tonight, when measured by how well she stayed on message. Her central campaign theme is the evil of money in politics, how it is nothing short of corruption, and how we have to fight that to solve any of the other big problems. This is an incredibly popular position, and she kept returning to it on answer after answer.

Warren's biggest big idea is her wealth tax, of course, and she was asked directly about the economists who think that raising taxes so much will tank the economy. "They're just wrong," Warren answered back, and went on to defend her position. She's right about one thing -- the wealth tax is overwhelmingly popular, even among Republican voters. This is something the media absolutely refuses to admit, which is why she keeps bringing it up over and over.

Warren seemed as feisty as ever tonight, and even almost choked up a couple of times during emotional answers (she wasn't the only one, in all fairness). I thought she came across as personable and yet dedicated to the fight for average people. This isn't really a change from any of the other debates, she's always positioned herself as a fighter for the little guy.

She raked Pete Buttigieg over the coals for his big-dollar donors, and was the first to bring up the wine cave dinner, complete with "$900 bottles of wine." She hit Mayor Pete for closed-door fundraisers, charging $5,000 to take a photo with the candidate, and generally giving rich donors better access to him. She ended by decrying "billionaires in wine caves," and then when Pete tried the "no purity tests that even you can't pass" line, shot back: "I do not sell access to my time."

Warren also got into it with Pete over free tuition for all, and had a great comeback to his "billionaires should pay for their kids' tuition" argument: "I want billionaires to pay tuition for all kids."

Warren's best moment came at the end of a heated exchange between Bernie and Joe Biden (and to a lesser extent Amy Klobuchar) over health care, when she calmed things down by standing for "the most good for the most people as soon as possible," which is a pretty hard thing to argue against.

Her funniest moment came when she was asked about being "the oldest woman ever inaugurated," should she win the presidency. Her answer began with: "I'd also be the youngest woman ever to be inaugurated," which the crowd loved.

All in all, it was a good night for Warren with no missteps at all.

 

Bernie Sanders

Bernie was Bernie, once again. His whole persona changes so little, which is his biggest selling point. He's where he is politically, that's where he's been for his entire political career, and he's just glad everyone else has finally caught up to him. This was on full display, once again tonight.

Bernie seemed to have fewer angry moments tonight, although that's a subjective thing to say -- perhaps I'm just so used to them that I don't even notice them anymore. Could be, I'll admit.

Bernie's best moments came when he went at Trump directly, because he certainly minces no words in describing what is wrong with the current president. Bernie came out against the new North American free trade agreement that was hammered out between the House and the White House, even though prominent Labor leaders are on board with it. But this is pretty consistent for Bernie, who has never met a trade deal he really has liked.

Bernie did well on the foreign policy questions too, including stating that he "had lived in Israel as a kid," which I wasn't aware of (Bernie shies away from talking about his personal story, which has always been somewhat of a mystery, because he's got a breadth of experience to draw upon). He called for an American policy that was "pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian."

During the dustup between Buttigieg and Warren over the wine cave, Bernie pointed out that he was the only one on stage without any donations from billionaires, pointing out that Biden had 44 billionaire donors while Pete had 39.

Bernie's strongest point came when Klobuchar and Buttigieg were squabbling over how best to be elected president in the Midwest, when he jumped in to say that the best way to win was to have massive turnout, and the best way to ensure massive turnout was to give the voters something exciting to vote for. This was the best counterargument to Klobuchar's centrism I've heard yet.

Bernie also fully admitted that, on Afghanistan: "I was wrong. Barbara Lee was right. She was the only one who was right."

Bernie got into one prominent dustup with Biden, when healthcare came up. Biden, as always, pointed out the total cost of Bernie's plan, and Bernie answered by accusing Biden of being "for the status quo." Biden: "That's not true!" Bernie: "It is!" Watching Biden and Bernie go at it is actually a big positive for me, because it shows how either one of them would approach taking on Donald Trump on a debate stage. They both seem up to the task, I have to admit.

Bernie had his amusing moments, as when he demanded an answer segment on health care to Amy Klobuchar: "But she took my name in vain!" Then, amusingly, he sarcastically said: "She hurt my feelings!" It worked -- he got another chance to get the last word in.

The best line Sanders had all night came during his closing statement, when he pointed out -- in a direct rebuke to the moderates -- "Real change always takes place from the bottom up, never from the top down."

 

Joe Biden

Joe Biden had a pretty strong night as well. He had far fewer shaky moments, he seemed well prepared for the questions, and he only occasionally got off track in his answers. He looked and sounded tough enough, which is probably the main reason he's been doing so well at the polls. You can picture him beating Trump. You can't say that about everyone on that stage, either.

He still does seem out of touch on his firm belief that the country will magically somehow go through a reset after Trump's gone and everyone in Washington will start working together again. I mean, he was right there to see what the Republicans did to Barack Obama, so he should know full well what they'll be like after Trump's gone.

He also sounded a little in denial about a quote read from Barack Obama, that it'd be better if women ran things everywhere in the world and how it always seems to be "old men in the way." Biden responded: "He wasn't talking about me," which might or might not have been the case. He then tried to reference how old Winston Churchill was, which he then had to explain "that was a joke" to the moderator, but it kind of fell flat.

Biden sounded the most comfortable of anyone on the stage when it came to foreign affairs, which makes sense because he does indeed have a lot of personal experience in this regard. It's a vice president's job to do a lot of world traveling, and Biden could say things like "I know Bibi well" when talking about Israel -- something nobody else on the stage could say. But he didn't have much of an answer for the surge in Afghanistan, when he was Obama's veep. He then contradicted himself by promising to bring all the troops home, but then admitted he'd leave special forces in the country.

Biden did push back on the whole billionaire-donors critique, asserting that his average donations were only $43. But it was Buttigieg who took most of the heat on this one, while Biden was on the periphery of the argument (until Bernie pointed out how many billionaire donors he had).

Biden, at times, comes off as more than a little condescending, as when he interrupted himself to say: "Put your hand down for a second, Bernie" to Sanders. The "That's not true" "It is!" followed, after which Biden claimed that "60 percent of the country is on Medicare," which sounds a little high to me (perhaps he meant "on Medicare or Medicaid"?).

Biden's campaign theme is kind of a circular one, which was on display throughout the night and during his closing statement: "I've got the best chance of beating Trump because all the voters think I have the best chance of beating Trump." It's true, when you look at the polls, but it's an awfully pedestrian reason for wanting to be the nominee, or at least it seems so to me.

 

Conclusions

Once again, I thoroughly enjoyed not seeing people like Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, and Marianne Williamson on the stage tonight. Smaller was better.

I thought just about everyone had a pretty good night, and would be hard-pressed to pick "a winner" of tonight's debate. I would also be hard-pressed to pick "who lost" the debate, because I don't think anyone turned in a truly terrible performance. This is the sixth time these people have debated, after all, and they've all gotten markedly better at it.

I did enjoy hearing some different subjects discussed, and some attention paid to foreign policy. I also enjoyed seeing the dustups between individual candidates, because I think this is very valuable practice for whichever candidate wins the prize of taking on Trump on a debate stage. You just know Trump is going to be as petulant and nasty as ever, which is why we've got to know in advance how each candidate can handle as much heat as possible. All the Democrats, after all, know which lines not to cross even in the fiercest of exchanges, but Trump isn't going to play by anyone's rules at all.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

38 Comments on “Post-Debate Reactions”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am betting that CW is thanking his stars that he has other subjects that he can commentary about that allows him to avoid the complete and utterly comical debacle that is the House Dumbocrat's laughable attempt at impeachment..

    The solution for President Trump and the GOP and the American people (who are getting sick and tired of Dumbocrat antics and shit-throwing)......

    "You know, if you give food to monkeys all they do is throw their shit at each other.."
    -Pagan Min, FAR CRY 4

    ...... is really quite elegantly simple..

    While the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) states that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”.... Section 3 states that the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

    Unfortunately, the actual procedure is left vague and undefined..

    Words like "unprecedented" are bandied about a lot, but Pelosi's actions are truly unprecedented and her actions shows the half-assed, slap-dashed, used-car salesman Democrat approach to this "solemn duty" they claim they have undertaken "reluctantly".. 'Reluctantly', my left arse cheek.. Dumbocrats have been chomping at the bit to do this every since President Trump wiped the floor with Hillary Clinton...

    However, since the US Constitution is vague on procedure, we turn to Senate Rules..

    It would take a simple majority vote for McConnell to create a new Senate Rule..

    Once the House has impeached the president, the Senate shall set a date for trial and shall set a deadline for the House to present its managers to the Senate. If the House fails to meet that deadline, the Senate will either dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution or, better yet, vote on the articles immediately in light of the evidence presented to it — in this case, no evidence.

    And all Dumbocrats will be able to do is whine and cry and stamp their feet and hold their breath til they pass out..

    President Trump is exonerated and vindicated and completely INNOCENT and this country moves on..

    As an added bonus, Dumbocrats are left wallowing in their own shit of their own creation..

    Life is, indeed... Good.. :D

    Once again... Fault? Logic? All Ears?? Perot...

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    Well, until the Senate receives the AOI, they cannot “simply dismiss the charges out of hand”.

    Wanna bet??? :D

    No matter HOW ya wanna shake this out, my friend..

    You and your fellow Democrats will LOSE... :D

    Ya'all KNEW ya'all would lose at the outset..

    Ya'all losing is the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE this whole thing could go..

    But ya'all's hate and bigotry blinded ya'all to everything except your fanatical desire to nullify a free, fair, legal and Constitutional election..

    And now ya'all will pay the price.. President Trump til Jan 2025...

    It really is THAT simple.....

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ

    And do you keep repeating that “Trump is INNOCENT of all charges..” to fool yourself?

    President Trump **IS** innocent of all charges..

    This is an undeniable fact..

    INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW..

    President Trump is completely and utterly INNOCENT of all charges...

    And, considering how badly Pelosi has frak'ed things up, it's looking like President Trump will REMAIN innocent of all charges in perpetuity... :D

    Isn't America grand!!!??? :D

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump **IS** innocent of all charges..

    This is an undeniable fact..

    And that's the difference between myself and most of ya'all..

    I almost always traffic in undeniable objective FACT...

    With most of ya'all it's subjective "truth" and "wish-casting" etc etc...

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It almost seems that you would have given me a passing grade if I were in the debate.

    You seem impressed with Warren's central theme of the corrupting influence of big money in politics and how we have to fight that to to solve ANY other big problems and how it is an incredibly popular position.

    You also pointed out Bernie's consistency.

    My central theme is the corruption of big money in politics and how we have to fight that to solve ANY other big problems.

    Unlike Bernie and Warren, I have been consistent on this issue as both are running small contribution campaigns and trying to pass them off as small donor campaigns while I have consistently promoted small donor campaigns since long before I started commenting here in 2015.

    Imagine how big a moment it would have been when Bernie said he was the only candidate on stage to not have any billionaire donors to have a candidate on stage that could say he/she was the only candidate on stage not to take more than 200 dollars total from ANYBODY.

    Imagine a candidate that saying just 3% of the 130 million or so presidential election voters contributing 100 dollars to their primary campaign would total over 500 million dollars so there is no need to take any more than 200 dollars from any single donor.

    Imagine that candidate encouraging those that can afford to give more than 200 dollars to instead make 200 dollar contributions to many candidates that make the small donor commitment to increase the number of competitive small donor candidates and their chances to get elected.

    Now that would a different subject to discuss.

    We have to imagine such a candidate in the Democratic primary debates, but we don't have to imagine it as part of the overall debate on our political process and the current election.

    And it could start right here, right now with you.

    All you have to do is Get Real and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

    And be a little more consistent on discussion of different subjects. :D

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the real winner of the debate was pie.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, when all is said and done......

    Pelosi’s problem: Dems' own witness says Trump not truly impeached unless articles go to Senate

    Consider it a twist on the old question about a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it: If the House adopts articles of impeachment but never sends them to the Senate, is a president truly impeached?

    A Harvard law professor, who also served as a Democrat-called impeachment witness, answered with a resounding “no” in a column that speaks to the deep dilemma House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces as she sits on two articles of impeachment against President Trump.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosis-problem-dems-own-witness-says-trump-not-truly-impeached-unless-articles-go-to-senate

    ....Democrats FAIL to impeach President Trump..

    BBBBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So much for the claim that impeachment is a "sure thing"... :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution. The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

    If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”
    -Democrat Impeachment Witness Noah Feldman

    I swear, Democrats could screw up an iron football!!! :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats....

    Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

    According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

    Stoopid to the last brain cell!! :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    What would make that trial fair is a separate question, one that deserves its own discussion. But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means.

    Constitutionally speaking, what is a "fair" trial in the Senate??

    Whatever the Senate says is "fair" is "fair"...

    House Dumbocrats have absolutely NO SAY in the matter...

    The more facts that come out the stoopider Democrats look... :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to defend himself before the Senate. That’s built into the constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.

    To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there can be no trial there. That’s what the “sole power to impeach” means.

    But if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong justification that he was never actually impeached. And that’s probably not the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send.

    Once again... The FACTS show how badly Democrats have scrooed up... :D

    They can't even send a message properly... :D

    So much for impeachment being a "sure thing"... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all know I am not shy about proving how utterly STOOPID Democrats are..

    Democrats' Impeachment Report Exposes Weakness of Their Case
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/20/democrats_impeachment_report_exposes_weakness_of_their_case_142007.html

    But even I didn't realize that Democrats were THIS stoopid!!!

  13. [13] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW..

    Shouldn’t that be INNOCENT OF ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW, because I can think of plenty of things that Trump is guilty of that aren’t necessarily criminal???

    But if you truly believe what you are asking the rest of us to accept as true, then I know a great way for you to prove your sincerity.... just acknowledge the following as being FACTUAL and the TRUTH...

    Hillary Clinton was innocent AND exonerated for using her personal email server to send classified emails.

    Bill Clinton is innocent of all charges of rape and sexual assault brought against him.

    As an MP in the military, the woman you claimed charged at you “with the largest damn meat cleaver in the galaxy” that you shot/ killed was INNOCENT, as she was never given her day in court.

    You shot/killed* an innocent woman if we are to believe your use of semantics.

    This is why your insistence for playing these games with semantics in order to defend Trump are so obvious and laughable to everyone who has spent any time on here.

    * - Michale did not say that he killed the woman when he first told me this story on June 12, 2016, but he did so during a conversation some time later. Unfortunately, while I did copy the portions of our conversation where he claims she died, I did not include the time stamp for that conversation to offer as concrete evidence that the conversation actually occurred. That is why I chose to use “shot/killed” instead of just “killed”.

    If any of this ever occurred is questionable given Michale’s history on here, but I didn’t want to be guilty of claiming something that I could not provide evidence to defend my statements.

  14. [14] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    But if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong justification that he was never actually impeached. And that’s probably not the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send.

    The outcome of the Senate trial, or even if the trial occurs or not, has no impact on whether Trump was impeached...he was. Johnson and Clinton were both acquitted during their trials, but they are still remembered as being impeached by the House.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shouldn’t that be INNOCENT OF ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW, because I can think of plenty of things that Trump is guilty of that aren’t necessarily criminal???

    Of course you can..

    But it's based on NOTHING but your hatred of President Trump...

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Biden sounded the most comfortable of anyone on the stage when it came to foreign affairs, which makes sense because he does indeed have a lot of personal experience in this regard. It's a vice president's job to do a lot of world traveling, and Biden could say things like "I know Bibi well" when talking about Israel -- something nobody else on the stage could say. But he didn't have much of an answer for the surge in Afghanistan, when he was Obama's veep

    Actually, the bulk of Biden's foreign policy expertise and relationships with foreign leaders predate his vice presidency. In fact, Biden's foreign policy chops is why he was Obama's right hand man, after all.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But he didn't have much of an answer for the surge in Afghanistan, when he was Obama's veep

    This is puzzling … because Biden was right on Afghanistan opposing the surge but Obama didn't listen to him.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The reason he didn't have an answer to Obama's surge is because you will NEVER find Biden going against Obama.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden's campaign theme is kind of a circular one, which was on display throughout the night and during his closing statement: "I've got the best chance of beating Trump because all the voters think I have the best chance of beating Trump." It's true, when you look at the polls, but it's an awfully pedestrian reason for wanting to be the nominee, or at least it seems so to me.

    This nicely points up why fake debates - as we have seen so far - are not the best way to judge a Democratic presidential candidate. Not by a long shot.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You just know Trump is going to be as petulant and nasty as ever, which is why we've got to know in advance how each candidate can handle as much heat as possible.

    On the other hand, will anyone be surprised if Trump completely self-destructs before then?

  21. [21] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From your last day with us prior to your surgery...

    Wasn’t sure that you had seen this, so I wanted to make sure you didn’t miss an opportunity to apologize for being wrong when you said I was lying.

    [43] Michale wrote:
    You claimed to have been in law enforcement for over 25 years...

    Once again, a bullshit claim of something I said that I never did..

    Once again, you are a liar..

    Live with that, dipshit..

    I am the liar?

    God, you are easy to manipulate into proving that you are a liar!

    From the comments on CW’s June 8, 2016 article:

    [61] Michale wrote:
    ! You could not ask for a more textbook case of self-defense.

    Geeee... Where have I heard THAT before...

    Oh yea... I used those EXACT words myself within a day or so of the shooting, after talking to some of the responding officers...

    But, I don't have a '-D' after my name, so that means I have no credibility... Despite over 2 and a half decades in the field....

    DESPITE OVER 2 AND A HALF DECADES IN THE FIELD...sure looks like that is what you said to everyone here!

    “Once again, you are a liar... So live with that dipshit”??? Seriously, everyone here could start using this to end every conversation with you.

    One positive thing you can take away from this... the knowledge that your lack of credibility really has nothing to do with your party affiliation, after all.

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    1

    While the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) states that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”.... Section 3 states that the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

    Unfortunately, the actual procedure is left vague and undefined..

    Yes, it does say that. It's not complicated to understand.

    However, since the US Constitution is vague on procedure, we turn to Senate Rules..

    No, we don't turn to the Senate rules to de facto amend the United States Constitution just because the Trump Cult isn't happy with it. *laughs*

    Once the House has impeached the president, the Senate shall set a date for trial and shall set a deadline for the House to present its managers to the Senate. If the House fails to meet that deadline, the Senate will either dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution or, better yet, vote on the articles immediately in light of the evidence presented to it — in this case, no evidence.

    What part of the House having the sole power to impeach has confused you? The Senate can't just overrule a Resolution of the People's representatives in the House just because they're upset and pissy about the will of We the People. The Senate can consider the Resolution when it is presented to them and not before. Also: Why would the Senate dismiss a House Resolution for lack of prosecution when the Senate is the prosecutor? Duh!

    The Senate can't act on H. RES. 755 until it's received from the People's House. #SSDD

    https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17

    The link above contains procedural information that you might be able to understand since it's written for children.

    And all Dumbocrats will be able to do is whine and cry and stamp their feet and hold their breath til they pass out..

    Your proposal wherein the Senate dismisses a House Resolution before it's been presented to them is a laugh riot and says so much more about you than it does anyone else. I would wager it doesn't surprise anyone on this forum that you're "all in" for the Senate bowing down to Your Orange Worship and ceding their power by stating they'll work with the defendant's counsel during the trail, and you're additionally "all in" for the Senate who've ceded their power to the Executive Branch to be able to just dismiss the will of We the People's representatives in the House.

    So you seem fine with a monarchy wherein Donald Trump and those spineless GOP who've ceded their power to him make all the decisions.

    As an added bonus, Dumbocrats are left wallowing in their own shit of their own creation..

    Nah... you're just full of shit up to your eyeballs. :)

    Life is, indeed... Good.. :D

    Ignorance is indeed... Bliss.. :D *laughs*

    Once again... Fault? Logic? All Ears?? Perot...

    "All ears" and obviously no brain.

  23. [23] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [15]

    How very telling that you ignored what was at the real heart of my post!

    You KNOW that your arguments rely on you tiptoeing around the semantics in order to make your point... and that is because your points are complete horse dung!

    That’s why you ignore the majority of my post and go after the one part that you can attack as being just my opinion.

    It’s funny, you love throwing out the argument that if Obama had done what Trump did, that we would be defending him against being impeached like you are defending Trump. Oddly enough, you never claim that you would be defending Obama if the scenario was reversed. You do not argue that you think that the president asking a foreign government to claim that they will investigate their

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    7

    So much for the claim that impeachment is a "sure thing"... :D

    Oh, so you're back to your right-wingnut fantasy? Bless your heart, Bubba Trump; you are the living embodiment of ignorance being bliss. *laughs*

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    12

    Ya'all know I am not shy about proving how utterly STOOPID Democrats are..

    We know you are the forum fool and troll who lives in right-wingnut fantasy world wherein he believes everything he is spoon-fed and regurgitates back like a useful idiot. Yes, we do. :)

    Democrats' Impeachment Report Exposes Weakness of Their Case
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/20/democrats_impeachment_report_exposes_weakness_of_their_case_142007.html

    But even I didn't realize that Democrats were THIS stoopid!!!

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT [25]

    Ya'all know I am not shy about proving how utterly STOOPID Democrats are..

    We know you are the forum fool and troll who lives in right-wingnut fantasy world wherein he believes everything he is spoon-fed and regurgitates back like a useful idiot. Yes, we do. :)

    Democrats' Impeachment Report Exposes Weakness of Their Case
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/20/democrats_impeachment_report_exposes_weakness_of_their_case_142007.html

    But even I didn't realize that Democrats were THIS stoopid!!!

    You should read the bullshit you post. It almost never says what you claim it does. *laughs*

  27. [27] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Damn it! Please Santa, send us an EDIT button!!!

    You do not argue that you think that the president asking a foreign government to claim that they will investigate the President’s political opposition in an upcoming election is OK.

    You (falsely) claim that Trump did the same thing that Biden had done when it came to putting a stipulation on Ukraine receiving our foreign aid; yet if that was true then why did you oppose Trump being fully investigated while demanding that Biden be investigated? If they both did the same wrong thing, then they both deserve the investigations. If Hunter Biden’s company had been under investigation by the Ukrainians; then you might have a point.

    If it had not been our allies and our position that the Prosecutor needed to go, then there is NO WAY that you would accept the Trump excuse that this is about fighting corruption had Biden said it...because it literally WAS our country’s position and you still refuse to accept it for Biden, yet you think it works for Trump!?!?

    Also, in your comments that the Senate decides what the trial

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Two...TWO editing screw up in a row!! (Taking a bow) Thank you!

  29. [29] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It would take a simple majority vote for McConnell to create a new Senate Rule..

    Once the House has impeached the president, the Senate shall set a date for trial and shall set a deadline for the House to present its managers to the Senate. If the House fails to meet that deadline, the Senate will either dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution or, better yet, vote on the articles immediately in light of the evidence presented to it — in this case, no evidence.

    You argue that the House does not have any say in the Senate’s rules for the trial, but you think that the Senate can dictate to the House what rules they must follow??? Seriously, how screwed up is this argument of yours!?!

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    The outcome of the Senate trial, or even if the trial occurs or not, has no impact on whether Trump was impeached...he was.

    Not according to Democrats' own impeachment expert..

    Johnson and Clinton were both acquitted during their trials, but they are still remembered as being impeached by the House.

    BECAUSE Democrats followed the Constitutional rules and transmitted House articles to the Senate..

    According to the Democrats' own impeachment witness, impeachment is an entire process, not a single vote..

    According to Democrats' OWN expert, President Trump has NOT been impeached until the House sends the AOI and the managers to the Senate..

    That's what the Democrats' OWN expert states...

    President Trump has NOT been impeached by House Democrats...

    Their case holds no facts. That is why they are afraid to send it to the Senate...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    You argue that the House does not have any say in the Senate’s rules for the trial, but you think that the Senate can dictate to the House what rules they must follow???

    Yes, the Senate dictates to the House what Senate rules the House must follow..

    Did you not pay attention in civics class in high school??

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    There has been no impeachment of President Trump until Pelosi sends the AOI and the House managers to the Senate..

    It's really THAT simple...

    It's not my claim..

    It's the factual position of Democrats' own impeachment expert...

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, what's your point, Michale, exactly?

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you think that the senate trial should hear from the Bidens? Well, I do, too! Especially the former vice president Joe Biden!

    But, only if the witnesses include Bolton, McVaney(sp) and/or the relevant OMB officials, okay?

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If Trump resigned tonight before Pelosi has sent the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, he’d still be the third President to have been impeached while in office.

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    30

    President Trump has NOT been impeached by House Democrats...

    Besides providing the continual proof that you possess none of the usual education that a so-called law enforcement officer would definitely have, you're proving without doubt that you'll grovel at the feet of any Democrat rep that agrees with your ridiculous right-wingnut fantasy drivel. *laughs*

    Here, let me dumb it down for you even further. Impeachment is like an indictment handed down by a grand jury. Many times for many reasons, indictments are sealed from public view... yet the perp is no less indicted. Perp Trump was indicted/impeached in full public view, and there is nothing that any of the talking heads or gullible rubes can say that changes that fact.

    Their case holds no facts. That is why they are afraid to send it to the Senate...

    The United States House of Representatives of "We the People" voted on two separate articles in full public view which both passed and are formally known as House Resolution 755, wherein the President of the United States is impeached in perpetuity. Nothing you or anyone else says will change the FACT that Donald Trump was impeached by the People's House in HR 755 while a large portion of the world watched. Full stop.

    Therefore, it would take a special kind of stupid that goes all the way down to the bone to believe the utterly nonsensical and ridiculous propaganda drivel that "they are afraid" to certify HR 755 by the Clerk of the House and deliver it to the U.S. Senate. That right-wingnut fantasy is just plain dumb... but not at all unlike the typical GOP wingnut bullshit regurgitated on cue daily. :)

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    32

    There has been no impeachment of President Trump until Pelosi sends the AOI and the House managers to the Senate..

    Wrong. HR 755 is passed in the House, and Donald Trump is impeached in perpetuity. Done and done.

    It's really THAT simple...

    It's not my claim..

    You've claimed it multiple times and claimed it is a fact... multiple times in multiple comment boxes. Are you so damn dumb that you're now going to claim that your claim is "not" your claim? That's pretty stupid. :)

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    35

    If Trump resigned tonight before Pelosi has sent the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, he’d still be the third President to have been impeached while in office.

    Yes, sir.

    And if he fell to the ground, lost consciousness, and stopped breathing because his arteries slammed shut from years of abuse by his own tiny hands?

    Still impeached... in perpetuity. :)

Comments for this article are closed.