ChrisWeigant.com

My 2019 "McLaughlin Awards" [Part 1]

[ Posted Friday, December 20th, 2019 – 19:05 UTC ]

Welcome back once again to our year-end "McLaughlin Awards," named for the awards categories we lifted from the McLaughlin Report years ago. We've added a category here and there over time, but it's still the same basic list.

Before we get to all of our awards, we have to thank everyone (both online and off) for their suggestions and nominations. I always try to get as many of these as possible, to cover all the stuff I forgot about, and it always helps.

Before we begin, though, allow me one moment to make a pitch to join in this site's pledge drive. Our fundraising seems to have stalled somewhat, and we're a long way from our goal, so we'd like to ask everyone who enjoys this site (or even just these Friday columns) to dig deep and send a few bucks our way so we can keep the lights on in 2020 (and keep the site ad-free). Do I have to bring up the kittens? Because I will, if I have to! Heh.

Enough shameless begging, though, let's just get on with the show.

 

Trophy
   Biggest Winner Of 2019

Um... the Baltimore Ravens? Heh.

We had a few entrants for Biggest Winner of the year, some rather generic ("Russia") and some very specific (the residents of Virginia, who will now enjoy Democratic rule in the governor's office and both houses of the legislature -- nominated by reader "italyrusty," I should mention).

We could have gone with Greta Thunberg, who was showered with prizes this year, most notably including Time magazine's "Person of the Year" (which drove Trump into an epic hissy fit over losing...). She is certainly deserving of every award she gets, that's for sure.

But instead we had to give Biggest Winner Of 2019 to "millionaires and billionaires." This was the first year that the new Paul Ryan tax cuts were implemented, and the wealthiest among us made out like bandits, once again. Hidden in all the mystifying changes to the tax code (let's change Form 1040 to seven separate forms, because why not?) were a number of huge giveaways to the wealthy. Added to this were the enormous tax giveaways to corporate America, who it is now reported paid a pathetically-low average of 11 percent income tax this year.

And, once again, the tax cuts didn't "pay for themselves," as promised. Instead, the federal deficit hit the trillion-dollar mark once again, giving the lie to all that weeping and wailing from Republicans about deficits (but only when a Democrat is in the White House, of course).

For sheer monetary volume, the millionaires and the billionaires were indeed the Biggest Winners of 2019.

 

Trophy
   Biggest Loser Of 2019

We also had a number of entrants for Biggest Loser of 2019. The new president of Ukraine? The National Rifle Association was also a possibility, because they went through a total meltdown all year long only to see money included in the year-end budget deal to study gun violence (something the N.R.A. had successfully fought against for two decades).

Italyrusty (whose name you'll get used to seeing here, as he made a whole bunch of nominations this year) had a great suggestion: "Snowflake Trump, for not making the cover of Time (I laugh my head off imagining his ass-kissers running around wildly, until they hit on the 'bright idea' of transplanting Trump's head on Greta's body)."

Instead, we're interpreting this one literally, and have to give Biggest Loser to the Republican Party. It was an off-off-year election cycle, but it was just as dismal a year for the GOP as 2018 at the ballot box. The mass exodus of suburban voters from the GOP continued apace, and it led to historic and sweeping victories for Democrats in all kinds of places.

Virginia was the biggest story, as the Democrats finally achieved the "trifecta" of holding not only the governor's office but flipping control of both of their legislative chambers as well. This is a monumental shift, and it has been a long time in the making (changing demographics had more to do with this than even Trump).

But the Old Dominion wasn't the only place Democrats won big. They won the governor's race in Kentucky -- a state Trump won by 30 points. They held onto the governor's office in Louisiana -- even though in both of these states, Trump personally rallied right before the election was held.

Democrats also absolutely swept local races in the Philadelphia suburbs, which bodes extremely well for the chances of a Democratic win in the presidential race next year.

The most satisfying win of all, though, from my own post-election article:

Last year, a woman was photographed "flipping the bird" to Donald Trump's motorcade as they were driving away from his Virginia golf club. Her name is Juli Briskman, and she paid a heavy price for that photo, since she lost her job as a direct result. But now she's got a new job: county supervisor. She ran for a seat on the county board and won. The best part? Trump's golf course is within her district. So the next time she feels the urge to flip Trump off, she will not be fired -- because the people who live next to Trump's golf course just voted her into office. The moral of this story is: Sometimes all it takes to flip the 'burbs is to blatantly flip Trump the bird. Because that's exactly how millions of suburban voters are feeling right now.

Which is why we've got to give the Biggest Loser of 2019 to the Republican Party.

 

Trophy
   Best Politician

Hands-down, the Best Politician of 2019 was, once again, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. It wasn't even really close, in fact.

Pelosi is the best leader the Democrats in Congress have seen since possibly Tip O'Neal. She has kept her caucus remarkably united all year long -- so much so that Trump now regularly complains about how the Democrats "stick together" while begging Republicans to do the same. She has gotten an incredible amount of legislation passed, most of which is gathering dust on Mitch McConnell's desk right now.

Pelosi's political instincts are finely-honed, as evidenced by how long she resisted the calls to impeach Trump. She wanted a scandal that was simple, obvious, and impossible to defend, and that's precisely what she got in the Ukrainian quid pro quo. She has run the impeachment process on her own schedule, as she has run the House all year long. She has eaten Trump's lunch in multiple negotiations this year as well -- starting with the government shutdown which began the year -- and quite obviously gets under his skin in a way that no other Democrat can boast. The photo of her standing and shaking her finger at Trump was priceless, in fact, because it truly showed who was in charge.

This year, Pelosi also picked up a "Profiles In Courage" award, which was also entirely fitting. She has indeed showed courage and stamina and grit. And she knows how to count votes in her chamber better than anyone in decades has managed -- in either party.

Nancy Pelosi won the right to take on Trump back in the 2018 midterms. Since she's picked up the gavel once again -- all year long -- she's shown that she was the best possible person to be given such a task. For this reason and many others Nancy Pelosi was indeed the Best Politician of the year.

 

Trophy
   Worst Politician

Once again, this one is also obvious. Donald Trump wins Worst Politician, tiny hands down.

Let's just run down a quick list of all of the face-plant moments Trump has had over the past year, shall we?

Trump declares a national emergency down at the southern border, and then spends the weekend playing golf.

Trump tells everyone to "hold the date" of the fourth of July because he had the great idea to hold a party that day.

This spring, the White House welcomed the "World Cup Series" champions to the White House. You know (you simply cannot make this stuff up, folks), those "Boston Red Socks."

In June, Trump insisted that the moon was a part of Mars. No, really -- here's his tweet: "For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon -- We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!"

The Washington Post ran an article to explain "Fact Check: What Is The Moon?"

One week later, Trump referred in writing to "the Prince of Whales."

The most hilarious face-plant of the year for Trump came in July, though, when he was attempting to read the TelePrompTer while appearing during the Independence Day on the Mall. It was raining, so perhaps the words were blurred or something, but Trump was left to his own devices in the middle of the speech. He didn't score well:

In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified army out of the revolutionary forces encamped around Boston and New York and named after the great George Washington, commander-in-chief. The Continental Army suffered a bitter winter of Valley Forge, found glory across the waters of the Delaware and seized victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown. Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do. And at Fort McHendry, under "the rockets red glare," it had nothing but victory. And when dawn came, their star-spangled banner waved defiant.

Here was my response:

Let's see if we can count up all the mistakes in just that one paragraph alone, shall we? Most glaring, of course, was the fantastic claim that the Revolutionary forces "took over the airports," since this would have happened more than 125 years before the first airplane flew at Kitty Hawk. But, of course, there were other mistakes as well, since it was Trump "winging it," as it were (pun intended). The Continental Army was never "named after the great George Washington" (unless his secret middle name was "Continental"); they suffered a bitter winter at (not "of") Valley Forge; the ultimate victory was in Yorktown, Virginia, not New Jersey ("across the waters of the Delaware"); Cornwallis was not "of" Yorktown, that's just where his army got beat; Fort McHenry (not "McHendry") was instrumental in the War of 1812, not the Revolution; not even sure what "rammed the ramparts" is supposed to mean; and, of course, the "air" was not "manned" by the non-existent pilots flying their non-existent airplanes from the non-existent airports.

Humor aside, though, Trump is the Worst Politician in more serious ways as well. This is why so many of his aides and confidants are now in prison, in fact. His own sister had to step down as a federal judge because of all the fraud the Trump family has been involved with for decades. America is running trillion-dollar deficits again. Iran is enriching uranium again, because Trump pulled out of the agreement with them and replacing it with absolutely nothing. Even Kim Jong Un doesn't want to meet with Trump anymore, because he has learned how pointless doing so would be.

From the start of the year right up to that insane letter he just sent to Nancy Pelosi, Trump has been the Worst Politician imaginable. OK, we saved one funny one for last. Remember that time when Trump wanted to buy Greenland? Yeah, that actually happened. No wonder the entire rest of the world is laughing at Donald Trump. the Worst Politician ever.

 

Trophy
   Most Defining Political Moment

This one was pretty easy, and was nominated by many. The Most Defining Political Moment of the year was the whistleblower blowing the whistle. The report was held in secret, which caused Adam Schiff to complain, which caused the news media to get interested, which caused Trump to release the transcript of the call and eventually the whistleblower's report itself. And the rest is history.

When first writing about the scandal (which still thankfully doesn't have a "-gate" name), I came across an apt quote from Trump's favorite president, Andrew Jackson. Jackson rode into office after being denied the victory he should have won the four years earlier. His campaign centered on what he called the "Corrupt Bargain," which he described in a way that certainly fits the mess Trump caused with Ukraine: "There was cheating and corruption and bribery too!"

 

Trophy
   Turncoat Of The Year

Some years we interpret this one in a positive light. If we were going to do that this year, we'd probably pick Michael Cohen, for flipping on Trump in spectacular fashion. Or maybe Gordon Sondland (suggested by reader "nypoet22").

Instead, however, we're going negative this year.

The Turncoat Of The Year was without doubt Donald Trump, for his disgraceful and shameless abandonment of the Syrian Kurds. To say he "threw them under a bus" actually understates what happened, because getting hit by a bus is minor compared to getting killed on a battlefield after your strongest ally betrays you.

There really aren't enough negative words in a thesaurus to condemn what Donald Trump did, not only to the Kurds but also to the word of the United States of America on a global scale. Why should anyone ally themselves with us ever again, when this is how we treat our friends?

Over 10,000 Kurdish fighters died in the struggle to eradicate the Islamic State. Americans did not have to fight and die because the Kurds did so for us. This is pretty easy to understand. And then Trump allowed Turkey to execute what was essentially a gigantic land-grab, at the expense of the Kurds. It was ethnic cleansing, as Turkey is planning to relocate non-Kurdish Syrian refugees to this area.

The whole thing was disgusting and disgraceful, and caught even the Pentagon by surprise. Trump's legacy will mostly (hopefully) be quickly forgotten, but his betrayal of the Kurds will be remembered in the Middle East -- and beyond -- for decades to come. Trump is a turncoat, plain and simple, and he deserves the strongest condemnation possible.

 

Trophy
   Most Boring

The Most Boring award goes to none other than Bob Mueller. His investigation was boring, because it was the only one I've ever seen in Washington with absolutely no leaks at all. His report -- all two volumes of it -- was pretty boring, even though it outlined ten instances of Trump actively obstructing justice. His statement after the report came out was boring, and his testimony before Congress was even more boring.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying his conclusions were boring. But Bob Muller himself was pretty boring, you've got to admit. Stack his testimony up against pretty much anyone from the impeachment hearings, if you need further proof.

 

Trophy
   Most Charismatic

For the first time in many years, we are not going to give Most Charismatic to Donald Trump. To us, "charismatic" is a neutral term, since it can be good charisma or bad charisma, but it is still the quality of being the center of attention of every room you step into. Which Trump undoubtedly is, for obvious reasons.

But this year, we think that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez topped Trump in this regard (thanks again to italyrusty for pointing this one out). The vitality and presence of "A.O.C." cannot be denied even by her detractors. In fact, her detractors are a big reason why she won, because this year no other Democrat -- not Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, or anyone -- got under the skin of people on Fox News more than A.O.C. somehow managed to do.

Mere mention of her name drives Fox hosts into an immediate tizzy. She's been one of the few Democrats who not only can keep up with Trump on Twitter, but actually get the better of him each and every time. She became the face not only of the Green New Deal but also of the progressive freshman class in the House this year. She is refreshingly honest and obviously not very impressed at all the pomp and circumstance of Washington. She is candid and sharp as a tack. But mostly, she commands attention in any room. She becomes the focus just by her presence. She is, in a word, charismatic.

The only big regret in watching the dozens of Democrats get in the presidential nomination race was the fact that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez can't even contemplate jumping in. This is because she is still too young to be president. In fact, she'll only barely be old enough in 2024 to run. If Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar fail this time around, there's a good chance that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez could indeed become our first woman president -- she's that good. For now, she'll have to settle for Most Charismatic.

 

Trophy
   Bummest Rap

Donald Trump began the year by (as we put it) "assmenting" himself. Trump accused House Democrats of "PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT" just by beginning investigations into his wrongdoings. This is in February, mind you, before the ball even got rolling. The Washington Post responded with a comprehensive list of the eighteen times Trump himself had called for investigations into Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, which began with "(1.) Birtherism; (2.) Benghazi..." and didn't even include any of the calls Trump has made this year to investigate other Democrats (such as Joe Biden, to give the most obvious example).

But Trump's idiocy in this regard was surpassed by his idiocy in another regard. All year long -- from the State Of The Union until today -- Trump has railed at Democrats for "foolish political wars and ridiculous partisan investigations" while falsely claiming: "There cannot be war and investigations. It just doesn't work that way." Later, he latched onto a snappier label for his perception that all Democrats were doing was impeaching him: the "Do-Nothing Democrats." This, although I'd bet the farm that Trump is unaware of it, is actually a historical term used by a previous president ("do-nothing Congress") to great political benefit.

But it is a bum rap, plain and simple. House Democrats have been getting all kinds of things done, all year long. The best evidence of this was when we had three horrific mass shootings in a row (Gilroy, California; El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio) while Congress was on vacation, and House Democrats rightly pointed out that they had already passed two universal background check bills that Mitch McConnell was sitting on. House Democrats, in other words, had already acted.

More proof, from an article I wrote right after the Michael Cohen hearing, back when those two measures passed in March:

In the same week as the Cohen hearings, Democrats also did the following: passed two gun safety measures, the first to pass in decades; introduced a measure to restore the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court gutted it; held hearings on the Trump administration "zero tolerance" child-separation policy as well as prescription drug prices; and, for good measure, introduced a bill to legalize marijuana at the federal level that almost all the Democratic candidates for president have signed on with.

To state this another way, House Democrats did more in that one week than the Senate has done all year long. And that was just one week out of many productive ones for Pelosi's House. One Republican senator (John Kennedy of Louisiana) even admitted this, halfway through the year: "The U.S. Senate isn't doing a damn thing... The Senate hasn't done a damn thing except sit on its ice-cold lazy butt." Ouch.

An incomplete list of what else House Democrats have gotten done: the Equality Act to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination on the federal level, a bill to force drug companies to lower their obscene prices on prescription drugs, For The People Act to reform ethics and fix voting problems, Paycheck Fairness Act, Violence Against Women Act, a bill to legalize the "Dreamers," the first-ever $15-an-hour minimum wage bill, Save the Internet Act, bills to protect people with pre-existing conditions, infrastructure bills, pension protection bills, and too many hundreds of others to list here.

One chamber of Congress has been doing a whole bunch of good things. The other is called a "Legislative Graveyard" by the guy who runs it. It is painfully obvious which party is the "do-nothing" party on Capitol Hill, which is why "Do-Nothing Democrats" is the Bummest Rap of the year.

 

Trophy
   Fairest Rap

We have a few of these to choose from. I wrote an article last January making a strong case that Donald Trump should be banned from Twitter, for so regularly breaking its acceptable-use rules. Nothing has changed my opinion since.

I could have set a record for shortest category with just one word here: "impeachment."

Or how about just: "tax cuts don't pay for themselves"?

But instead I think the fairest rap was also one of the most righteous. Representative Elijah Cummings, during a hearing where Kevin McAleenan was trying to justify the Trump administration's border policies, pointed out how very wrong it all was. In doing so, he laid down the fairest rap against Trump I've heard to date:

"I'm talking about human beings," Cummings said. "I'm not talking about people that come from, as the president said, shitholes. These are human beings. Human beings. Just trying to live a better life."

. . .

"And therefore, I guess -- you feel like you're doing a great job right?" Cummings asked.

McAleenan responded his department was "doing our level best," before being cut off again.

"What does that mean? What does that mean? When a child is sitting in their own feces, can't take a shower?" Cummings said, his voice shaking. "Come on man. What's that about? None of us would have our children in that position."

"They are human beings," he said, beginning to raise his voice. He added that he didn't think Democrats' complaints were being taken seriously. "I get tired of folks saying, 'Oh they're just beating up on the Border Patrol.' 'Oh, they're just beating up on Homeland Security.' All I'm saying is, I want to concentrate on these children, and I want to make sure that they're OK. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not the deed you do to a child. It's the memory. It's the memory.

"We are the United States of America! We are the greatest country in the world," he said. "Come on. We're better than that. And I don't want us to lose sight of that."

Cummings is right. We should be better than that. And we should never lose sight of it, either.

 

Trophy
   Best Comeback

A case could be made for Nancy Pelosi in the Best Comeback category, since January was when she picked up the speaker's gavel for the second time -- a historic comeback if ever there was one. But we gave the award to her last year for the same feat, so we're going to take a pass this year.

If there were a "Worst Comeback Attempt" category, it would go to Sean Spicer, who appeared on Dancing With The Stars in a hideous costume. Here's how I described it at the time:

Not to be outdone by Rick Perry, Sean Spicer made his debut on Dancing With The Stars this week, in a lime green shirt complete with ruffles. No, seriously. His dancing was likened, by one judge, to "being attacked by a swarm of wasps." It is a sight that, once seen, can never be unseen. That's really about all you can say about such a demeaning spectacle.

Seriously, though, the Best Comeback award this year goes to Virginia Democrats. They started off the year with a triple scandal at the top, as the governor's medical school yearbook was revealed to have a photo with not only someone in blackface, but also someone wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood. The lieutenant governor was accused of sexual assault around the same time, and the attorney general also admitted he had dressed up in blackface for a party. The really astonishing thing was that none of them stepped down, instead choosing to stick it out and attempt to push forward through the scandal.

This appears to have largely worked, if measured by the fact that the voters didn't penalize the party in November. In fact, Democrats went on to make historic gains and flipped both houses of the legislature. That is a pretty spectacular comeback, you've got to admit.

There was even some tasty icing on this comeback cake, as we pointed out in the Biggest Loser category -- the woman who won a county board seat after losing her job for flipping the bird to the Trump motorcade. She deserves a Best Comeback award all on her own, in fact!

 

Trophy
   Most Original Thinker

This one was tough because it was pretty close between our two finalists. Our runner-up for Most Original Thinker was Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, for her Green New Deal. We examined this document closely when she released it, and while we had (and still have) a few reservations about it, it's impossible to deny the originality of the thinking. This is precisely the type of long-term thinking that will be necessary to combat climate change in any meaningful way, so we have to salute her for it.

But in the end we thought that Elizabeth Warren edged her out, for the idea of a "wealth tax." In the first place, it defines itself easily. Tax wealth. As opposed to taxing income. It's not at all hard to understand the concept, in fact.

What is most astonishing is how wildly popular the idea already is. Warren introduced the idea at the very beginning of this year, and by year's-end the concept is polling upwards of 70 percent among the general public. Not only does a huge majority instantly favor the concept, a majority of Republican voters support the idea. That is astonishing indeed when you consider how far right Republicans are in general on the subject of taxing the rich.

Elizabeth Warren has had a number of bold ideas as a presidential candidate, and has quietly staked out positions that show how committed she is to reforming the political system at its core. Her main campaign theme is fighting the corruption of money in politics, which also polls outrageously well with the public at large. We could have added all her other ideas together and she still would have been a strong contender for Most Original Thinker, but just on the basis of her wealth tax alone, Elizabeth Warren clearly deserves this year's prize.

 

Trophy
   Most Stagnant Thinker

We've got to give this one to the entire mainstream media (with a very few exceptions), for their continuing insistence that any idea that comes from progressives is "far left" or "extreme" -- when in fact overwhelming majorities of the public support them. The Overton Window has shifted on many issues, and the media just stubbornly refuses to catch up to the new reality.

For instance, people now strongly back the idea that "health care should be a right, not a privilege." Bernie Sanders deserves the lion's share of the credit for moving public opinion on this one, it should be noted. What was once considered a radical idea is now supported by the majority.

Taxing the rich is also overwhelmingly popular, although you sure wouldn't know it from reading or hearing anything from the media. Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax idea is popular even with Republicans, in fact, and the general concept of making the rich pay far more than they currently do is wildly popular.

Fighting climate change, free college tuition, universal health care -- they all now enjoy majority support. And when any issue enjoys majority support, it is -- by definition -- a "mainstream" idea. It is not a fringe issue, or extreme in any way. It may once have been, but once again the Overton Window has shifted, and now it is not. This is a basic truth obvious to anyone who can read any of the numerous polls that all say the same thing, but apparently no one in the media is able to do so. They see all these ideas through a lens that is at least 20 or 30 years old, in fact.

My biggest frustration with this over the course of the year was in the wake of the horrific mass shootings where universal background checks was spoken of as some sort of "lefty" idea. I responded with a talking point, with bolding added for the key phrase:

You know, the N.R.A. and their bought-and-paid-for Republicans always try to paint Democrats as somehow far outside the mainstream of American political beliefs. But the reality is that we're all in agreement over one basic fundamental change that absolutely needs to take place. Every time a gun changes hands, there should be a background check. Period. No exceptions. No loopholes. And you know what? An astounding ninety-three percent of the public agrees -- in a country where the two sides generally can't agree on much of anything. Over nine in ten Americans support universal background checks, including a majority of Republicans and a majority of gun owners. Our position is not just the mainstream position, it's the whole damn river. Democrats have been fighting to pass universal background checks for years, the people are behind us, and only the N.R.A. and the cravenness of the Republicans are standing in our way. That's just a fact.

Now, not all progressive ideas enjoy such near-universal support. Ninety-three percent is pretty tough to match. But almost all of the progressive agenda polls northwards of 60, 70, sometimes even 80 percent. That may not be "the whole damn river" but it certainly qualifies as mainstream. In fact, the opposition to these ideas can now accurately be called "fringe" or even "far-right."

But the mainstream media hasn't gotten the memo yet. Which is why they collectively deserve the Most Stagnant Thinker award this year.

 

Trophy
   Best Photo Op

If there was a historical subcategory to this award, the 50-year anniversary of the moon landing would surely have won it. Perhaps the best photo op of all time goes to the "Earthrise" photo, in fact.

Two presidential campaign announcement rallies were nominated: Kamala Harris holding a rally of 20,000 in Oakland, California; and Amy Klobuchar announcing in the middle of a blizzard (or, as more than one late-night comic put it: "from the ice planet Hoth").

Little-remembered, but definitely worthy was the entire assembled United States government breaking out in song to wish "Happy Birthday To You" to an 81-year-old survivor of both the Holocaust and the attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue during the State Of The Union speech.

Or, for that matter, Nancy Pelosi's "clapback" photo from the same speech. That one was worth a few thousand words, easily!

We even had the joy of seeing Mitch McConnell speaking to the media in front of a field of marijuana, which was certainly something we never thought we'd witness. OK, technically it was hemp, but the visual was exactly the same as if it'd been the smokable kind. Priceless!

But our Best Photo Op of the year goes to the guy who heckled Howard Schultz at a New York City book signing. Schultz, the head honcho of Starbucks, flirted with a presidential run this year, but the worrisome part was that he was thinking of launching an independent bid. Now, it's one thing for billionaires to run in the Democratic primary (and quite a few of them have), but it'd be another thing altogether for one to self-finance his own spoiler campaign. As one pundit put it, this would be like "Ralph Nader, but with money and coffee."

But back to the book signing. Schultz originally must have planned his book tour as the launch of his campaign, but the public had other ideas. During one of his appearances (in a Barnes and Noble in Manhattan) someone stood up and loudly said what millions must have been feeling: "Don't help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire asshole!... Go back to Davos with the other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the world!"

Ouch. Even worse, it was caught on video and immediately went viral. Later in the year, Schultz officially said he wasn't thinking about running anymore. What we wonder is how much that one heckler had to do with his decision. Whatever the answer to that is, the "egotistical billionaire asshole" heckler wins Best Photo Op of the year. Well done, Sir! You spoke for many of us, that's for sure.

 

Trophy
   Worst Photo Op

The Notre Dame cathedral on fire was certainly a pretty bad image, outside the world of politics.

If it had happened, Trump's planned meeting with the Taliban at Camp David during the same week as 9/11 would surely have won this category. But he was talked out of it at the last minute.

If he let photographers join him on the golf course, then a photo of him golfing during a hurricane, or golfing right after he had just declared a non-existent national emergency on the border would also have been in the mix.

Trump, of course, had many nominations for Worst Photo Op. From the generic (him screaming at reporters in front of a helicopter) to the specific (dry-humping a United States flag), Trump was well represented in the nomination pool.

Either of Trump's meetings with Kim Jong Un were up there in the running for Worst Photo Op, for obvious reasons. This got so bad that by the end of the year, Kim was the one denying Trump a meeting so he couldn't just use it as an empty photo op. That's a pretty astounding reversal of positions, when you think about it.

Funniest entry:

In a speech in from of "Turning Point USA," a conservative group hosting a Trump speech to students, an image of the presidential seal was projected behind Trump. Except it wasn't the official seal at all. It was a spoof with a double-headed Russian eagle clutching a set of golf clubs (rather than arrows) and a wad of cash (rather than olive branches). Above the eagle's two heads was the phrase: "45 is a puppet" in Spanish.

And then, for sheer stupidity, there was "Sharpiegate," where Trump used the federal government to cover up his own idiocy and refusal to admit he was wrong. I want that Sharpie-edited hurricane map to be the first thing people see in the Trump Presidential Library, personally.

But we have three finalists for Worst Photo Op. The first happened recently, after the president tweeted his rage at not being named Time magazine's Person Of The Year. He attacked 16-year-old Greta Thunberg a week after his wife got on her high horse about "attacking minors" when a witness at the impeachment hearings cracked a joke: "Trump can name his son Barron but he can't make him a baron."

In response, some hapless staffer in the White House thought it'd be a great idea to paste the face of Our Dear Leader over Greta Thunberg's body on the Time cover. This was so cringeworthy it's hard to put into words. But it was surpassed by two bad photos that were far worse.

Our runner-up for Worst Photo is that yearbook image on Ralph Northam's senior page showing a person in blackface standing next to a person in Ku Klux Klan robes. Obviously, this photo speaks for itself.

But our winner of Worst Photo Op of the year came from Mitch McConnell. Here's how we wrote it up as a talking point:

Mitch McConnell -- hours after the El Paso shooting -- tweeted a photo he found amusing, of a display of gravestones, one of which had the name of his political opponent on it. This was his response to a mass shooting -- to find it funny that someone put Amy McGrath's name on a tombstone due to her political beliefs. This is absolutely despicable, and it is definitely not funny. I call on Mitch McConnell to apologize for promoting an image of a gravestone of his opponent mere hours after one of the worst mass shootings in recent American history. This is absolutely unacceptable behavior from any elected official, period. Mitch McConnell should know better, but apparently he needs the rest of us to remind him of what is and what is plainly not acceptable in political discourse.

Absolutely beyond the pale, and completely indefensible. Which is why it wins Worst Photo Op of the year. For shame, Mitch, for shame.

 

Trophy
   Enough Already!

One of the catchall categories, without a single winner. Feel free to add to the list if we've forgotten any!

Government shutdowns -- Enough already!

Blackface photos -- Enough already!

Stonewalling Congress -- Enough already!

Trump on Twitter -- Enough already!

Republicans defending the indefensible -- Enough already!

Democrats using Republican talking points -- Enough already!

Jim Jordan -- Enough already!

Devin Nunes -- Enough already!

John Bolton -- Enough already!

Donald Trump -- Enough already!

And finally, in the most literal sense possible: Twenty-freakin'-nine Democrats running for president -- Enough already! Please?

 

Trophy
   Worst Lie

There is no shortage of lies to choose from this year, of course. After all, Trump's up to 15,000 documented lies during his time in office.

How about "The Mueller Report cost the American taxpayer millions" when in reality it recovered so much in fines from convicted felons that it actually made money for the Treasury?

Or "China pays the tariffs" when in fact the American people are the ones who directly pay it?

Then there's the perennial favorite, trotted out by Trump once again this year: "I've got a great healthcare plan, but I'm not going to reveal it until after the election." That one's a real knee-slapper. Or Trump promising he'd get rid of both the deficit and national debt, only to make both of them much worse.

Again, for stupidity's sake: Sharpiegate.

"No quid pro quo" -- that's another belly-laugh.

Trump almost caused an international incident when he lied about a meeting with India's leader:

"I was with Prime Minister Modi two weeks ago," Trump recalled. "He actually said, 'Would you like to be a mediator or arbitrator?' I said, 'Where??' He said, 'Kashmir.' Because this has been going on for many, many years. I was surprised at how long it's been going on," Trump added, revealing his lack of knowledge about the history of the conflict.

Trump added: "I'd love to be a mediator."

India immediately called Trump a big, fat liar afterwards, since this did not in fact happen.

Then there was Trump telling three members of the Democratic "Squad" to "go back where they came from" even though all three were born in the United States. That was a contender for Worst Lie, obviously.

Our runner-up in this category, however, was Trump attempting to self-deify, looking up at the heavens while proclaiming "I am the chosen one." That was pretty jaw-dropping.

But for sheer "lower than a snake's belly" disgracefulness, we have to give Worst Lie to Trump for a story he's actually told for many years now, even though it is not even remotely true. Because for Trump, nothing exists unless he is the star of the show. So after Jon Stewart shamed Congress into finally doing the right thing and passing a permanent funding bill for the first responders to 9/11, Trump said at the signing ceremony:

Many of those affected were firefighters, police officers and other first responders. And I was down there also. But I am not considering myself a first responder. But I was down there. I spent a lot of time down there with you.

Back on the campaign trail, Trump was even more petulant about not being in the spotlight: "Everyone who helped clear the rubble -- and I was there, and I watched, and I helped a little bit."

All a despicable lie. What sort of egomaniac can't stand aside for the first responders to 9/11 and has to instead insert himself into the picture? What weakness of character would even allow such an attempt at self-aggrandizement? This is a shameful lie from a liar without shame, and it wins our Worst Lie of 2019 for the depths of depravity it took for Trump to utter it.

 

Trophy
   Capitalist Of The Year

Um... all of them? [see: Biggest Winner category....]

While we gave out Best Photo Op to a guy ridiculing billionaires running for president (one in particular), we have to agree with italyrusty once again and give the Capitalist Of The Year to Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, love him or hate him, shows that an enormous pile of money can indeed buy your way into a presidential election. When he announced his run, he became the 29th Democrat to do so. Many of these had already dropped out by the time Bloomberg finally threw his hat in the ring. And most of them had never polled even at five percent nationally.

Bloomberg showed what money can buy, by spending a whopping $30 million on his first ad blitz, which aired in almost every state across the country. In the space of a few weeks, he went from polling at zero to polling right around five percent.

Now, that's not a lot (four other candidates are still far out in front of him), but it is impressive when compared to the other two dozen Democrats who ran -- none of whom ever saw five percent.

Unlimited money may not buy an entire election, or even a primary nomination. We'll have to see how things work out. Bloomberg is also skipping the first four states which could be politically suicidal no matter how much he's got to spend. But for now, his first massive ad expenditure certainly bought his way into the top five. For that, we reluctantly have to admit Bloomberg wins Capitalist Of The Year.

 

Trophy
   Honorable Mention

Another catchall category. Again, feel free to add your own.

Richard Ojeda, for being the first (but definitely not the last) Democrat to drop out of the presidential race.

Michael Cohen, for his extraordinary performance during a House hearing. This is what it looks like when a Trump toady flips, folks.

Cartoonist Wiley for mistakenly printing a Non-Sequitur cartoon (not a political cartoon, it was actually about bears) with a scribble from his draft still in it which said: "Go fuck yourself TRUMP." His comic strip was pulled from many newspapers immediately after (including, sadly, the one I take).

Robert Mueller, once again, for running the only leak-free investigation ever seen in modern Washington.

Greta Thunberg, for being able to beat Trump at his own game on Twitter (as well as for, you know, everything else that she does).

The Democratic National Committee for adopting its debate rules as time went by. From all-inclusive, they've moved to a much more reasonable field, and they even adjusted along the way to avoid "kiddie table" second-day debates.

J. B. Pritzker, the new governor of Illinois, for running on marijuana legalization and then following through by getting it through the state legislature. The new Illinois law is more progressive than others, devoting a certain number of licenses to run marijuana businesses to minorities and for expunging the legal record of those previously charged with marijuana crimes.

Jon Stewart for personally shaming Congress into passing the bill for permanent funding for the 9/11 first responders. This should have happened a long time ago, as Stewart pointed out.

Hillary Clinton, for her tweet after the Ukraine story broke: "The president asked a foreign power to help him win an election. Again." Priceless!

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, for driving the right wingers crazy (from italyrusty).

The 1958 television Western Trackdown for predicting the future so well. The storyline revolves around a con man coming to town scaring all the residents into paying him to (you can't make this up) build a wall to protect them. His name? Trump.

And finally, the nameless Medieval stonemasons and master builders who designed and built the stone vaulting which held in Notre Dame, and which saved the ground floor from utter destruction in the fire.

 

Trophy
   Person Of The Year

We thought long and hard about this one, and in the end came to the conclusion that one man deserved Person Of The Year more than any other. And Donald Trump will be sorry to hear that, once again, it's not him.

Instead, we're going to hand Person Of The Year to Adam Schiff. Throughout the year Schiff has been constantly grinding away at investigating Trump, but it wasn't until the whistleblower fracas that he became the center of attention in Washington.

From this point on, Schiff absolutely shone. His handling of the investigations and hearings was near-flawless. Through it all he showed an almost-inhumane amount of calm, weathering the storms of idiocy blowing from the Republican side of his committee well. There's a reason why Nancy Pelosi chose him to lead on impeachment, and it quickly became apparent to all who watched any of the hearings he chaired.

Schiff is a rising star in the Democratic Party, and is being talked about as a possible replacement for Nancy Pelosi whenever she chooses to step down. That's about as high praise as you can get, in the House.

There have been other impressive House committee chairs in the past, but few remember their names now. I'd be hard-pressed to name more than a few of them myself. But I'd be willing to bet that ten or twenty years from now Adam Schiff's name will still be remembered, if for nothing else than his handling of the Trump impeachment hearings.

Person Of The Year is supposed to signify the one person who was central to the changes happening, and Adam Schiff certainly qualifies. Trump will now go down in history as the third president to be impeached, and Adam Schiff will go down in history as the man who made it happen. For that, he is our Person Of The Year.

 

[See you next Friday, for the conclusion of our 2019 awards!]

 

If you're interested in traveling down Memory Lane, here are all the previous years of this awards column:

2018 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2017 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2016 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2015 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2014 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2013 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2012 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2011 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2010 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2009 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2008 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2007 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2006 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

143 Comments on “My 2019 "McLaughlin Awards" [Part 1]”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    What, no 555!?

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Our fundraising seems to have stalled somewhat,

    Maybe people were waiting for the 555!?

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: One week later, Trump referred in writing to "the Prince of Whales."

    Ah, yes... the Prince of Whales, brother of the royal jester, the Duke of Yorick, whom Trump knew so well [yet claims not to know], a fellow of infinite jest.

    He’s not pretentious. He’s a lot of fun to be with. ~ Donald Trump speaking of Yorick in 2000

    Alas, poor Yorick!

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    All Trump hate... All the time..

    Oh how the mighty have fallen.. :(

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

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

    Your post has no real heart.. Not a single fact whatsoever...

    President Trump has not been impeached by the House..

    So says Democrats' own impeachment expert...

    It's that simple..

    The "sure thing" has not happened yet..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    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 witness...

  7. [7] 
    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.”
    -Democrats' Impeachment Expert Witness Noah Feldman

    President Trump has not been impeached yet...

    This is fact...

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Our fundraising seems to have stalled somewhat ...

    That's just because some of us might be called 'World's Greatest Procrastinators" or, something …

    And, I for one intend to turn over a new leaf in the New Year … just as soon as I get around to it. Ahem.

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Update:

    Kick -

    Shades of Herman Cain's "9-9-9"? Heh.

    OK, I admit before all and sundry (or is it still Friday?) that I posted that begging plea before actually checking out the pledge drive totals for the day. Hey, writing this insanely long article takes up a whole bunch of time -- that's my excuse!

    But credit where credit is due: Due to one INCREDIBLY generous donor, we have now surpassed the 75% mark in our fundraising goal. Woo hoo! (You may have to reload the page to see the new thermometer...)

    So our fundraising is not in as dire need as previously mentioned. But we're still a bit short of our goal, so we do heartily encourage everyone to still reach deep into those pockets. Remember those kittens!

    Heh.

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    We value snail mail donations just as much as electronic ones here at CW.com, no matter when they come in! And we love your annual Xmas cards too...

    :-)

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    And, if you couldn't tell by the text, kudos to italyrusty for all his helpful suggestions this year!

    :-)

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So??? According to the US Constitution, the Senate runs the trial how the Senate runs the trial..

    But Mitch McConnell stated very clearly on Hannity’s show that he would be allowing the President’s attorneys decide how the trial would go.

    Where in the Constitution does it say the Impeachment trial is to be run by the people representing the President??? Your position is that if the Senate Republicans want to make a farce out of the Impeachment trial and just ignore their oath’s of office by letting the person on trial dictate how their trial will be run, then you think that’s perfectly OK? Is that it?

    You think that was the Founding Fathers’ intent when they included impeachment in our Constitution? Face it, you are supporting corruption!

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Mitch McConnell stated very clearly on Hannity’s show that he would be allowing the President’s attorneys decide how the trial would go.

    Again.. SO??

    What part of THE SENATE RUNS THE TRIAL AS THE SENATE SEES FIT is unclear to you??

    House Democrats have ZERO say about it..

    Your position is that if the Senate Republicans want to make a farce out of the Impeachment trial and just ignore their oath’s of office by letting the person on trial dictate how their trial will be run, then you think that’s perfectly OK? Is that it?

    What is perfectly OK with me is that the US CONSTITUTION states that the Senate will run the trial as the Senate sees fit to run the trial.

    Funny how you don't care about what the Constitution says when it doesn't suit your agenda..

    You think that was the Founding Fathers’ intent when they included impeachment in our Constitution? Face it, you are supporting corruption!

    I am supporting the Constitution..

    It's you who are supporting corruption by supporting Dumbocrats and this faux impeachment coup..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    When all is said and done, the facts are these.

    The US Constitution gives the US Senate ***SOLE*** AUTHORITY to run the impeachment trial as the US Senate sees fit..

    Democrats knew that going into this faux impeachment coup..

    So, all this belly-aching and whining is for naught..

    Second..

    President Trump HAS NOT BEEN IMPEACHED..

    This isn't *MY* claim. This is the claim of the Democrats' own impeachment expert...

    You people can whine and cry and stamp your feet all ya want..

    But it will simply NOT change the facts.

    #1 The US Senate runs the impeachment trial as the US Senate sees fit. This is what the US Constitution says..

    #2 Until such time as Pelosi sends the AOI and the managers to the US Senate, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT BEEN IMPEACHED..

    These are FACTS...

    That is all....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    More facts to support how utterly frak'ed up Pelosi and the Democrats are..

    Pelosi’s Delay Tests Democratic Urgency on Trump’s Impeachment

    (Bloomberg) -- House Democrats who’ve argued for months that President Donald Trump’s impeachment was a matter of urgent national interest are now being forced to defend House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s delay in handing the case over to the Senate.

    Pelosi’s top lieutenants, some of whom said they got no heads-up that the speaker was holding back the next step in the impeachment process, brushed aside that there was an intractable stand-off with Senate Republicans. They said the issues would be resolved by Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell by early January when both chambers return to Washington from the holiday break.

    “I think they’ll be sent over,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel of New York, said Thursday. “There are points we want to make. I think it’s a good thing to hold it a while. But I don’t think we want to hold it for too long.”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-urgency-on-trumps-impeachment-tested-by-pelosi-delay/ar-BBYbTrm

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Space Force Will Start Small But Gives Trump a Big Win
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/20/space_force_will_start_small_but_give_trump_a_big_win_142010.html

    The United States now has a SPACE FORCE branch of the US Military..

    The old Weigantia would have celebrated such an achievement, regardless of who was the president who made it happen.. Why?? Because the old Weigantia was made up of nerdy sci-fi geeks who loved the idea of science fiction becoming science fact..

    Today's Weigantia is predominantly (not all, to be sure) haters who would attack and condemn President Trump even if he personally created the cure for cancer..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump signs into law making 21 the minimum age to purchase tobacco and vape products.

    One more reason to love President Trump!! :D

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There is so much nonsense such as Pelosi being Best Politician, that it can be best be covered by pointing out the flaw in the Worst Lie category.

    The Worst Lie is the continuing narrative that the Democrats and Republicans are opposition parties when they both work together for the big money interests while putting on a good cop/bad cop show for the rubes.

    As evidenced by the rest of the awards you are either one of the rubes or are willing to keep doing your part to deceive the rubes by perpetuating the lies.

    There is an old saying about making your bed and having to lie in it.

    You have instead made your bed and lie from it.

    It's time to wake up, get out of your bed, get real and get to work on ending the nightmare of big money controlling our political process by informing citizens about One Demand.

    Not only would this benefit our political system and ordinary citizens, it could bring many new readers to your site so that next year's fundraiser will bring in enough small donations so you won't have to depend on one incredibly generous donor (Pelosi? :D) to keep CW.com going.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (17)-
    Nonsense.

    An 18 year old can be trusted to decide to get married, join the army, sign a contract and vote but can't be trusted to decide to vape/smoke anything or drink alcohol?

    Ridiculous. And backwards at best.

    If they can't be trusted to vape, smoke or drink until they are 21 then they can't be trusted to get married, join the army, sign a contract or vote until they are 21.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny..

    Ya'all's "PERSON OF THE YEAR" is a PROVEN liar..

    Proving once again that ya'all don't mind liars..

    As long as they are DEMOCRAT liars... :^/

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    If they can't be trusted to vape, smoke or drink until they are 21 then they can't be trusted to get married, join the army, sign a contract or vote until they are 21.

    The difference, of course is that an 18 year old who is joining the army or getting married has NO EFFECT on my own lungs or health...

    To me, that's the difference that makes ALL the difference..

    I would be happy to have ALL tobacco/nicotine products banned from the US...

    The right for people to smoke and pollute the air ends where my lungs begins.

    Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of smokers and such whining and crying about "climate change" whilst they huff and puff and put all those pollutants in the air...

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If you are concerned about your lungs you can ban tobacco products from your home and take to your business to places that ban smoking.

    Your right to protect your lungs stops there. It does not extend into other people's lives, homes and businesses.

    Your hypocrisy argument is weak. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the leaks from just one fracking well in a year did more damage to the environment than all the smoke from tobacco products in year. (Don't ask me to look it up because I'm not going to bother because it is NOT a claim of fact.)

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Later.

    Time to go to the store for more cigarettes while I still can. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your hypocrisy argument is weak. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the leaks from just one fracking well in a year did more damage to the environment than all the smoke from tobacco products in year. (Don't ask me to look it up because I'm not going to bother because it is NOT a claim of fact.)

    And one farting cow doesn't amount to a whole hill o' beans either.. Nor does one airplane kill the whole planet...

    And yet, Dumbocrats want to get rid of cows and airplanes...

    If you have to reduce your argument to simple numbers, you have already lost...

    Time to go to the store for more cigarettes while I still can. :D

    Don't forget to pickup your big gulp, an AR-15 and some ammo as well.. :D

    "ATFE?? Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives?? Down here in these parts, that's not a government agency. It's a Convenience Store!!!"

    :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Americans are at each other's throats. Here's one way out.

    For a brief moment this month, we started to hear the proper words to describe what is happening in U.S. politics. Not the usual, safe and tired words like "polarization" or "incivility." But more accurate words.

    At a news conference ahead of the impeachment proceedings, a reporter for a conservative outlet asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., whether she "hates" President Donald Trump. She rebuked the reporter, denying that she hates anyone. Like many questions lobbed at politicians as they walk away, that one was a trap. But it made me wonder what would have happened if the same question had been asked in a different way, not with malicious intent but with genuine curiosity.

    Because hatred is what we should be talking about these days, at least as much as we talk about the facts. The American people appear to be in a "high conflict," which is a term of art among people who study conflict. A high conflict is one that feels existential and irresolvable, and it continues on its own momentum, even when specific problems could in fact be solved.

    About one in every 20 conflicts operates this way, as social psychologist Peter Coleman describes in his book "The Five Percent." High conflicts can be interrupted, but not if we approach them the same way we handle normal conflicts. Left unchecked, high conflicts can become magnetic. Examples include the Middle East, Colombia, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Sudan, Angola and Northern Ireland.
    https://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/Americans-are-at-each-other-s-throats-Here-s-one-14922137.php

    Extremely interesting objective and un-biased article..

    Unfortunately, in this case recognizing the problem does little to solving the problem...

    Mainly because most people, even with the logic of this article, refuse to admit their responsibility FOR the problem..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    But credit where credit is due: Due to one INCREDIBLY generous donor, we have now surpassed the 75% mark in our fundraising goal. Woo hoo! (You may have to reload the page to see the new thermometer...)

    I have refreshed the page quite a few times.. Still see the graph only at half way...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:
  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:
  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    California shop owner fatally shoots masked robbers, 3rd suspect on the run
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-smoke-shop-robbers-killed-suspect-fled

    Guns SAVE lives....

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    No matter how ya'all want to spin it..

    How Trump Won 2019

    Column: Thank his opponents

    President Trump ends 2019 in a better position than when he started. The year began with the swearing in of Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House. The Mueller probe dragged on. The legislative agenda of Trump's first two years in office had petered out. The Democratic frontrunner, Joe Biden, was beating him by double digits in the polls. A little more than halfway through the year, bond prices signaled recession.

    Look where things stand now. Pelosi's decision to impeach Trump already has cost her a seat and stands zero chance of resulting in a Senate conviction. Not only has Mueller shuffled off the stage, but Michael Horowitz's report on FBI malfeasance also raises serious doubts about the credibility of the government and media elites who spent years arguing that Trump and his associates were Russian agents. Mitch McConnell blocks liberal bills from the House while confirming additional conservative judges. Biden is damaged and the problems of his candidacy manifest as he sleepwalks toward his party's nomination. The economy is gangbusters.

    Nothing the Democratic majority has done has hurt Trump's approval rating. At this time last year, he stood at 42 percent approval and 52 percent disapproval in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. As I write, the RCP average of Trump's approval rating is 45 percent and disapproval is 52 percent. Trump's numbers are remarkably stable and closely track President Obama's at this point in his presidency. Biden began the year with big leads over Trump. Since then his margin has dwindled to 4 percent. And that's before Trump drops $1 billion in negative social media on him (or whoever the nominee is) next year.
    https://freebeacon.com/columns/how-trump-won-2019/

    President Trump had a very very VERY good 2019..

    Thanx to the hatred, bigotry and incompetence of his opponents.

    2020 will see President Trump re-elected... :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Bored out of my skull... Watched TNG TAPESTRY again yesterday..

    Have to agree.. One of the best TNG episodes out there...

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Overall, Chris did a helluva job here, but he dropped the ball bigtime, (for very understandable self-serving reasons) on his "Most Boring" award.

    By rights, the Mueller Report should have won the "Most Disappointing", and/or the "Most Anticlimactic", awards

    Face it, most of you guys (probably not Chris, but especially those residents of Weigantia who labor under the physical handicap of the lack of a penis), had convinced yourselves over the course of two agonizing years, that the Mueller Report was actually going to rid you of the Orange Moron affliction, and when all 20 lbs of it landed on the congressional desk with a dull thud, and the echo of a faint fizzle, it launched you into a permanent state of PTSD syndrome, from which you have yet to recover, and which the political theater you're calling "impeachment" is only going to exacerbate.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    What he ^^^^^ said..... :D

    One minor nit to pick..

    it launched you into a permanent state of PTSD syndrome,

    It's PTDS

    President
    Trump
    Derangement
    Syndrome

    Or, if you prefer, the updated version HHPTDS

    Hyper
    Hysterical
    President
    Trump
    Derangement
    Syndrome

  34. [34] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    C. R. Stucki, you appear to be generalising from insufficient evidence.

  35. [35] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I like all of these, and I'm not in the habit of defending the president. However, even I could read his fractured syntax in your "Worst Politician" box to understand what the heck he was trying to say here:

    "[NASA] should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part),..."

    My first reaction of course was 'Wha??' followed immediately by, 'Oh, duh, he means going back to the Moon as a staging station would be *a part* of an ambitious program to land men on Mars.'

    God knows he posts enough inane stuff to supply a lifetime of columns of mockery. The Continental Army capturing the airports of Yorktown, as you note just below this one, is a classic for the ages. But I think here he gets a pass from the accusation that he thinks the Moon is somehow physically attached to Mars.

    I thought your most powerful point today was about the mainstream media ignoring the well-documented general popularity of programs and proposals that, decades ago, were mostly championed by left wingers.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    C. R. Stucki, you appear to be generalising from insufficient evidence.

    Care to provide any examples that support your claim??

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I like all of these, and I'm not in the habit of defending the president. However, even I could read his fractured syntax in your "Worst Politician" box to understand what the heck he was trying to say here:

    A blast from the past..

    We need more like this around in the here and now..

  38. [38] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Mezzo

    How about two solid yrs of being told that I was too stupid to understand the legal definition of "a thing of value", and being perpetually assured that the Orange Moron was a foreordained 'goner'?

    Seems like totally sufficient evidence to me.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Elon Musk welcomes Space Force with 2 words on Twitter: 'Starfleet begins'
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/elon-musk-welcomes-space-force-with-2-words-on-twitter-starfleet-begins/ar-BBYdzZK?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

    THIS is the kind of response I expected from Weigantians..

    But, apparently the hate runs too deep.. :(

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems like totally sufficient evidence to me.

    "Mr Simpson! You can't put a price on your family's safety!!!"
    "You wouldn't think so, eh? But yet, here we are..."

    -The Simpsons

    :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme ask ya'all something..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXE3Ku-mGrk

    If Donald Trump is so bad, why was he the ONLY one who helped Kevin find the lobby??

    :D

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw [kittens],

    you can expect my donation soon. however, your discrimination against puppy-kind may count against you. ;)

    great column though.

    JL

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m [41],

    i think you and the rest of the rightwingosphere tend to vastly overestimate both the percentage of democrats and liberals who hate donald, and how much those that do hate him, hate him.

    at least between his being elected and taking office, most folks i know were holding out genuine hope that he'd be more successful at governing effectively than he's ended up being. don't get me wrong, i've met my share of people who hate him, but they're much fewer than you think. when nancy said she prays for him, i don't know whether she herself was being sincere, but i know for certain that she was reflecting a feeling that a vast portion of the left sincerely holds.

    JL

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    THIS is the kind of response I expected from Weigantians..

    Oh, come on. Not only is a Space Force one of the biggest boondoggles of the 20th century, it's about 100 years too soon for it.

    Consider: if by some miracle, we could drop a new 747 onto our forces in Gettysburg in 1865, should we?

    Nope. Shiny new tech, but way too soon. In 1865, we had no runways, no fuel, etc. What a waste.

    As I see it, it's probably another of those "suggestions" from Putin, who'd love for us to spend our military money on something other than him. We've already gutted most of the European Initiative, to build the nonsensical wall at the southern border.

    Star Fleet? Gimme a break.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    i think you and the rest of the rightwingosphere tend to vastly overestimate both the percentage of democrats and liberals who hate donald, and how much those that do hate him, hate him.

    Really??

    Given the fact of the total blowout that was the Russia Collusion delusion and how that lead directly to this faux impeachment coup debacle..

    I'de say if anything, the hate is UNDERESTIMATED..

    at least between his being elected and taking office, most folks i know were holding out genuine hope that he'd be more successful at governing effectively than he's ended up being.

    And yet, not a SINGLE one of those types are here, eh?? Well, sans you, of course.. :D

    The problem is President Trump has been VERY successful at governing, as the great economic news and low LOW HISTORICALLY LOW unemployment numbers show.

    It's just that no one here wants to give him any credit for it..

    They laughably try to spin it as it's Obama that made it happen. OBAMA!!! The moron who claimed it never COULD happen!!! Ironic, eh? :D

    but i know for certain that she was reflecting a feeling that a vast portion of the left sincerely holds.

    I see no evidence of that beyond lip service.. And even the LIP SERVICE of that is sparse..

    I would love to be proven wrong.. Find me some examples of Weigantians giving President Trump credit where it was/is due..

    The only one that comes to mind was when CW credited President Trump with the most significant anti-gun legislation since the mid 80s..

    Ironically enough, I thought President Trump was totally wrong about it..

    Go figger eh? :D

    You wanna know how bored I am??

    I am actually watching a WESLEY episode of TNG!!!

    ACK!!! How the mighty have fallen.. :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL..

    Star Fleet? Gimme a break.

    Exhibit A :^/

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Robert De Niro: Trump Needs to Be Humiliated, ‘I’d Like to See a Bag of Shit Right in His Face’
    https://www.mediaite.com/news/robert-de-niro-trump-needs-to-be-humiliated-id-like-to-see-a-bag-of-sht-right-in-his-face/

    Exhibit B

    These aren't outliers..

    These are MainStream Left Wingers...

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    9

    Shades of Herman Cain's "9-9-9"? Heh.

    No, silly... longing in anticipation for the CW FTP 555... oh where is my 555? ;)

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Roberts will be applying Senate rules likely to be unfamiliar to him. He will be able to consult with the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, and could rely heavily on her expertise. Any ruling that Roberts makes could be overridden by a majority vote in the Senate.
    https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/news/impeachment-maelstrom-sucks-in-a-chief-justice-who-shuns-politics/article_0b19e059-46d9-58fb-b691-f077befbe435.html

    Hmmmmmmmm

    That sounds REAL familiar...

    Where have I heard that before?? :D

    The GOP is in control of the Senate Impeachment proceedings. House Democrats have NO SAY... PERIOD.. FULL STOP

    This was known from the VERY start that this is the way it would be..

    If Democrats didn't want to play by the Constitutional rules, they shouldn't have started this faux impeachment coup...

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    7

    “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.”
    -Democrats' Impeachment Expert Witness Noah Feldman

    Nice quote; I'm guessing you didn't supply a link to the original article because it would prove without doubt you're incorrect.

    President Trump has not been impeached yet...

    This is fact...

    That is an opinion... not to be confused with a fact. In fact, it would be a lie to call it a fact.

    Bloomberg Opinion

    By Noah Feldman
    December 19, 2019, 3:35 PM CST

    Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. His books include “The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President.”

    Read more opinion [link]

    Follow @NoahRFeldman on Twitter

    Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment? Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?

    The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats?srnd=opinion

    Feldman's opinion includes the quote you are incorrectly referring to as a "fact." You will note that even the link to Feldman's opinion contains the "=opinion" designator at the end.

    Interestingly the article explains who Feldman is and provides a link one can invoke where they can "read more opinion."

    Must you be spoon-fed with the definition of the word opinion? *laughs*

    continued...

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    ...continued

    In Other Related News

    The day Noah Feldman was testifying in Congress under oath about the impeachment of their Orange Cult Worship, the right-wingnut moron brigade were attacking his Wikipedia page and frantically trying to discredit him. They made multiple spurious claims, even going so far as to claim Feldman is the nephew of Jeffrey Epstein.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/noah-feldman-jeffrey-epstein/

    A few days later, the right-wingnut talking heads, rubes, morons, and whiny little bitches are comical to watch as they bend and fall all over themselves to accept Feldman.

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    38

    How about two solid yrs of being told that I was too stupid to understand the legal definition of "a thing of value", and being perpetually assured that the Orange Moron was a foreordained 'goner'?

    If by "goner" you mean removed from office, you're simply lying. Unless I missed the post, there is no one on this forum who has made a comment that they believed Donald Trump would be removed from office. Many of us are also on record that we didn't even think Trump would be impeached; however, he we are. I didn't think Nancy Pelosi would allow it, but then Trump left her no choice and proved me wrong when she most certainly did allow it.

    You kept insisting it wasn't illegal to "get dirt" on your political opponent from a foreign government, and multiple posters and the author of the blog pointed out the fact on multiple occasions that you are wrong... the statute exists without abatement or amendment since we began discussing it. Newsflash: It's still a statute and still illegal... no matter how many times the Podunk Pervert claims that it isn't.

    As for your insistence that "dirt" isn't a "thing of value," you're still wrong about that too. You want cites for the legal definition of a "thing of value"? I won't even make you beg:

    https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2019-10-ELW-the-law-of-a-thing-of-value.pdf

    Seems like totally sufficient evidence to me.

    You didn't produce any evidence... just a faulty recollection from the mind of skeevy perverted old man who has a reputation for prattling on and on endlessly about "penises."

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    30

    How Trump Won 2019

    Oh, look. A moron attempting to spin being impeached as a "win"... after all the endless prattling and predictions about how it wasn't going to happen. What better proof that someone needs to have their head extricated from their anal orifice?

    President Trump ends 2019 in a better position than when he started. The year began with the swearing in of Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House.

    Because Trump lost the House in a Blue Wave despite all the ridiculous predictions of a Red Tsunami that was allegedly on the horizon because of all that "black support" and his numbers being the "same as Obama's." Winning! *shakes head*

    The Mueller probe dragged on.

    Because Trump obstructed justice on at least 10 occasions and refused to cooperate with Mueller and destroyed evidence, etc., as outlined in no uncertain terms in the Mueller Report which is a 10-lane map to Obstruction Highway. Winning! *shakes head*

    The legislative agenda of Trump's first two years in office had petered out.

    Winning!?

    The Democratic frontrunner, Joe Biden, was beating him by double digits in the polls.

    Winning!? So Trump broke the law and sent his lawyer to Ukraine and used taxpayers' dollars and multiple federal employees and elected officials in an attempt to coerce an announcement from the newly elected President of Ukraine in order to smear Biden and involve yet another foreign entity in America's democracy.

    A little more than halfway through the year, bond prices signaled recession.

    So? Winning?

    Look where things stand now. Pelosi's decision to impeach Trump already has cost her a seat and stands zero chance of resulting in a Senate conviction.

    One whole seat where Trump had lost 40, which Blue Wave losses caused Nancy Pelosi to regain that big fat gavel she used to impeach Trump with. Big whoop and so what? The GOP attempting to spin the gain of one itty bitty seat as "winning" only proves that the earlier claim of 40 seats not being a Blue Wave was lousy GOP spin... way to undercut your prior argument, and thanks for that admission, GOP dumb asses.

    Not only has Mueller shuffled off the stage,

    But Mueller's multiple Appendix D case spin-offs live on (heavily redacted), are still alive and well and continuing robustly, but don't take my word for it... ask Roger Stone... convicted of all charges and lost bigly and heading to prison for lying, witness tampering, etc. More coming too.

    but Michael Horowitz's report on FBI malfeasance also raises serious doubts about the credibility of the government and media elites who spent years arguing that Trump and his associates were Russian agents.

    Wrong... Russian assets... assets... big difference... so get your bullshit straight, m'kay, and spinning Michael Horowitz's report as a win for Trump can only be described as pure GOP fiction since it proved Trump lied, lied, and lied... poor QAnon dipshit conspiracy nuts on the lunatic fringe.

    Mitch McConnell blocks liberal bills from the House while confirming additional conservative judges.

    Same shit different year.

    Biden is damaged

    Because Trump and his lawyer (the lawyer not already in prison) broke the law yet again in an attempt to interfere in the democracy of the United States because Trump was having his ass handed to him in the polls (as pointed out by the GOP dipshit, see above).

    because he and the problems of his candidacy manifest as he sleepwalks toward his party's nomination.

    Yet still defeating Trump easily in the polls you keep mentioning, and if the GOP thinks Biden "sleepwalks," then that denotes their belief that Trump is unconscious and crawling.

    The economy is gangbusters.

    Not really any different than when Trump took office, though. Sure glad Trump hasn't effed it up.

    Nothing the Democratic majority has done has hurt Trump's approval rating.

    I beg to differ.

    At this time last year, he stood at 42 percent approval and 52 percent disapproval in the RealClearPolitics average of polls.

    Right after Trump had his ass handed to him and lost 40 seats in the House with about the same poll numbers you're bragging about now.

    As I write, the RCP average of Trump's approval rating is 45 percent and disapproval is 52 percent.

    And you're giddy with delight about a 52% percent disapproval rating?

    Trump's numbers are remarkably stable and closely track President Obama's at this point in his presidency.

    Like I said... the same "numbers" he lost a shitload of House seats with... remarkably stable shitty numbers, and Trump claims his economy is so much better than Obama's... so having the same remarkably stable shitty numbers doesn't sound too good to me.

    Biden began the year with big leads over Trump.

    Biden is also ending the year with big leads over Trump.

    Since then his margin has dwindled to 4 percent.

    Nope.

    And that's before Trump drops $1 billion in negative social media on him (or whoever the nominee is) next year.

    Nice fantasy you got there, moron GOP dipshit, but I would wager Trump will be running against Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, "the Squad" and socialism regardless who wins the Dem nomination... so there's that. :)

    President Trump had a very very VERY good 2019..

    First the loss of the House, then the loss of the entire State of Virginia, then Kentucky and Louisiana, and all kinds of his friends winding up in prison, Roger Stone headed there too and the same remarkably stable shitty poll numbers. You just know when they write the history books, they'll be talking about what a great year Trump had in 2019, you know, the year he was impeached on two counts and a bunch of his campaign associates got convicted of felonies.

    2020 will see President Trump re-elected... :D

    2020 will see Roger Stone being sentenced and will likely see Trump's lawyer (the one not already in prison) being indicted for crimes he performed at the request of President Trump... you know... a kind of lather, rinse, repeat scenario from what we saw in 2019.

    Thank you for that walk down memory lane; it turns out I remember 2019 a whole lot different than a GOP dipshit.

    My advice for the Trump Trash in 2020 is: Quit your incessant whining like aggrieved victims, and don't bet against the astronaut. :)

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump not an effective President??

    Trump is remaking the federal judiciary
    WASHINGTON - After three years in office, President Donald Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November's election.

    Trump nominees make up 1 in 4 U.S. circuit court judges. Two of his picks sit on the Supreme Court. And this past week, as the House voted to impeach the president, the Republican-led Senate confirmed another 13 district court judges.

    In total, Trump has installed 187 judges to the federal bench.

    Trump's mark on the judiciary is already having far-reaching effects on legislation and liberal priorities. Just last week, the 5th Circuit struck down a core provision of the Affordable Care Act. One of the two appellate judges who ruled against the landmark law was a Trump appointee.

    The Supreme Court - where two of the nine justices are conservatives selected by Trump - could eventually hear that case.

    The 13 circuit courts are the second most powerful in the nation, serving as a last stop for appeals on lower court rulings, unless the case is taken up by the Supreme Court. So far, Trump has appointed 50 judges to circuit court benches. Comparatively, by this point in President Barack Obama's first term, he had confirmed 25. At the end of his eight years, he had appointed 55 circuit judges.
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-is-remaking-the-federal-judiciary-14924789.php

    Shirley, ya'all jest... :D

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL...

    #50 & #53...

    Exhibit C

    Democrats don't really hate President Trump as much as I think they do??

    The facts say otherwise...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell Crushed Impeachment in One 30-minute Speech

    The Democrats have their impeachment. There will be no Trump surrender. There’s nothing left for them to do but begin the long retreat.

    ouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) opened the farcical impeachment debates with a speech invoking American history, including the Battle of the Bulge during which Americans overcame a surprising Nazi counterattack to prevail ultimately in World War II.

    I have another comparison for the speaker; Napoleon Bonaparte in Moscow. On September 14, 1812, Napoleon led his Grande Armée into Moscow with the expectation that the Russians would surrender. After a month with no surrender, Napoleon began a long retreat that ended in the loss of approximately 90 percent of his force and the eventual defeat of France.

    There will be no delegation of Republican congressmen quietly slipping over to the White House to urge a dignified resignation. The pattern of accuse, investigate, leak, rinse, and repeat has come to an end. The next step is an unwinnable Senate trial or the Democrats’ retreat.

    There could be no more efficient takedown of the Democrats’ impeachment effort than the short 30-minute speech delivered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) the day after Democrats passed the articles.
    https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/20/mcconnell-crushed-impeachment-in-one-30-minute-speech/

    This faux impeachment coup of the Democrats' is dead in the water..

    Pelosi has been out-gunned, out-manned and out-maneuvered by President Trump and Senate Leader McConnell..

    Democrats' best course of action is to simply let the matter die it's ignoble death..

    Pelosi should do a presser and simply say, "We were just kidding"

    It's a foregone conclusion that Democrats have lost ANY chance for the White House..

    There is ZERO chance that Democrats can nominate anyone that can defeat President Trump.

    ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA.... NONE....

    I would also say it's virtually guaranteed that Democrats will lose the House as well..

    On the other hand, there is a slight (VERY SLIGHT) glimmer of hope..

    If Democrats can quit their hysterical hate obsession on President Trump, accept that President Trump is the freely, fairly, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected President Of The United States and work WITH said freely, fairly, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected President Of The United States for the betterment of all Americans...???

    If Democrats can do all that..

    There is a slight glimmer of hope that they can retain the House..

    Anyone wanna lay any bets that Democrats can do it?? :D

    No??? Didna think so.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Democrats’ rushed and rigged process produced two articles of impeachment [which] are fundamentally unlike any articles that any prior House of Representatives have ever found,” McConnell explained. Article I involves the “timing of aid to Ukraine.” But the articles do not even purport to allege an actual crime. “Instead, they deploy the vague phrase ‘abuse of power’ to impugn the president’s actions in a general and indeterminate way.”

    The Democrats might not be required to allege a crime, but McConnell warned, “history matters and precedent matters. And there were important reasons why every previous House of Representatives in American history restrained itself . . . from crossing the Rubicon.”

    The vagueness of the “abuse of power” article is effectively a “mal-administration” charge rejected by the Constitution’s Framers because it would so easily be used to attack presidents over policy differences. If the Democrats are successful, all presidents henceforward will be impeached whenever the opposition party achieves power in the House.

    “So there were powerful reasons why every House of Representatives for 230 years . . . required presidential impeachment to revolve around clear, recognizable crimes,” McConnell said. “That 230-year tradition died last night.”

    Of the second article of impeachment, “Obstruction of Congress,” McConnell said, “What it really does is impeach the president for asserting executive privilege . . . a two-century-old constitutional tradition.” Presidents beginning with Washington have invoked it and courts repeatedly have recognized it. The House requested extraordinarily sensitive information—exactly the type of requests against which presidents from both parties have asserted privilege.

    “It’s not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up,” McConnell said. “That’s not a constitutional crisis! It’s a routine occurrence. Separation of powers is messy—by design. Here’s what should have happened . . . either the president and Congress negotiate a settlement or the third branch of government, the judiciary, addresses the dispute between the other two.”

    McConnell totally DECIMATES the Democrats' faux impeachment coup..

    TOTALLY... :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Following this process, “takes time, it’s inconvenient,” the majority leader said. “That’s actually the point. Due process is not meant to maximize the convenience of the prosecutor. It’s meant to protect the accused.”

    McConnell shot down the suggestion that the Senate should force the president to give up more information to facilitate the trial. As I recently wrote (perhaps McConnell is a reader), impeachment means “ready for trial.” It’s not the proper role of the Senate to investigate and impeach the president. “Nobody made Chairman Schiff do this,” McConnell said of Schiff’s decision to forego court assistance to overcome the president’s lack of cooperation with the probe. “In Nixon, the courts were allowed to do their work. In Clinton, the courts were allowed to do their work.”

    But these House Democrats, he added, “decided that due process is too much work.”

    McConnell further challenged House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s attempt to bully the executive branch out of asserting executive privilege. He quoted Schiff saying, “any action that forces us to litigate . . . will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”

    What the Democrats are trying to say, in effect, is that if the president asserts his constitutional rights, it’s just that much more evidence that he’s guilty.

    McConnell further explained how the House impeachment effort harms separation of powers by attempting to make the president serve at the pleasure of Congress. But the process also infringes upon the Senate as an independent body.

    The House can follow whatever process it chooses for impeachment. But it is now attempting to dictate how the Senate discharges its duties. The House has made a “demand that this body redo House Democrats’ homework for them. That the Senate should supplement Chairman Schiff’s work to make it more persuasive.” Further, the House could effectively swamp the Senate whenever it wants by passing flimsy impeachment articles to force a Senate trial.

    I mean, com'on people..

    Did ya'all HONESTLY think this would end any other way???

    Ya'all knew from the start there was no case.. ya'all knew from the start that the Senate would never actually convict President Trump.

    And now that we're hear ya'all act so shocked and indignant..

    How else did ya'all think this would end???!??

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    The House can follow whatever process it chooses for impeachment. But it is now attempting to dictate how the Senate discharges its duties. The House has made a “demand that this body redo House Democrats’ homework for them. That the Senate should supplement Chairman Schiff’s work to make it more persuasive.” Further, the House could effectively swamp the Senate whenever it wants by passing flimsy impeachment articles to force a Senate trial.

    Quoting Pelosi’s now-abandoned warnings that impeachment should not be done without an overwhelming and bipartisan case, McConnell said, “by the speaker’s own standard . . . she has failed the country. The case is not compelling, not overwhelming, and as a result not bipartisan.”

    The weakness of the Democrats’ case is demonstrated by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s calls to supplement the House’s shoddy work with new Senate-led investigations. And now, McConnell observed, it appears that the House is too afraid to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate where they rightly fear they will lose their case.

    “It looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country,” McConnell added. “The articles aren’t just unproven, they’re also constitutionally incoherent.” If the Senate blesses either of these articles, “we will invite the impeachment of every future president.”

    Pelosi was shell-shocked. Watch her stammer during her own press conference just a few minutes after McConnell concluded his speech. A friendly reporter asked whether the Republicans might accuse the House of playing games by holding onto the impeachment articles too long. Pelosi mumbled something about needing to know Senate trial procedures before she could appoint House managers. It’s a nonsense argument that she can’t even explain.

    The Democrats have their impeachment. There will be no Trump surrender. There’s nothing left for them to do but begin the long retreat.

    "DOMINATION!!!!! FLAWLESS VICTORY"
    -Mortal Kombat

    Senate Leader McConnell just ate the Democrats' lunch...

    Time to pack it in, Democrats.. Ya'all lost..

    "What are ya'all still doing here?? It's over.. Go home.. Go on... Go..."
    -Ferris Beuhler

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Any action that forces us to litigate . . . will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”
    -Adam Schiff

    Get that???

    If you exercise your rights under the US Constitution, that's considered "Obstruction Of Justice" according to Dumbocrats??

    THAT is what ya'all's Democrat Party has become??

    And, ya'all are on board with this!!???

    Are you fraking KIDDING ME!!!????

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously..

    For those few here who AREN'T blinded by hysterical hate and bigotry..

    Think about it..

    Let's say you are accused of a crime..

    You file a motion to suppress the evidence, due to it being obtained illegally..

    And NOW......

    Because you filed that motion to suppress, NOW you are charged with OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!???

    Is THAT the kind of America ya'all want to live in???

    "THE ARROGANCE IS MIND-BOGGLING!!!!"
    -General Hank Landry, STARGATE SG1, Continuum

    This entire impeachment is illegitimate from start to finish...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden was asked at the last debate.

    "As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of blue-collar workers, in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy?'"

    Joe Biden answered quickly and boldly... "YES"

    Joe Biden just lost the election, assuming he is the nominee...

  63. [63] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [52]

    According to your interpretation, if Putin (or for that matter, some Russian callgirl) were to say to Trump "Good luck with your election", or "I'm pulling for you", or "I hope you win your election", or even less likely, "I'll be praying for you", that would constitute a "Thing of Value".

    Try rejoining the world of reality, you will become much less vulnerable to PTSD syndrome!

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    It's funny..

    After 2 years of claiming that opposition info is a thing of value, NO ONE here can point to the election law that states this..

    Funny, eh? :D

    It's like "Obstruction Of Congress" or "Collusion"...

    Everyone CLAIMS it's an illegal thing, yet not a single one can provide ANY facts to support the claim..

  65. [65] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Wow, Chris, I am delighted and honored that you appreciated several my nominations, both those that were sincere and those with a bit of added snarky (ha ha!). Thank you for publicly recognizing my contribution. Most importantly, thank you for making each Saturday such a pleasure; the Friday Talking Points is a great remedy at the end of yet another week of Trump nonsense.

    My family is here for the holidays, so let me take this early opportunity to wish you and your family a wonderful holiday season.

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    49

    The GOP is in control of the Senate Impeachment proceedings. House Democrats have NO SAY... PERIOD.. FULL STOP

    Wrong, dumb ass. The Senate is in control of the impeachment trial. You should read the Constitution of the United States and stop posting your bullshit spin and misinformation.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong, dumb ass.

    As usual, you are wrong.. Notice I don't stoop to your childish name-calling.

    The GOP is in control of the Senate Impeachment proceedings.. House Democrats have NO SAY..

    PERIOD...

    FULL STOP...

    As usual, you are wrong..

    You should read the Constitution of the United States and stop posting your bullshit spin and misinformation.

    You should read my comment and stop posting your bullshit spin and misinformation.

    Have a great day, Kick. :D

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Joe Biden just lost the election, assuming he is the nominee...

    presuming he is the nominee, he didn't lose your vote, right? ;)

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It’s very telling that the Republicans are arguing that having any of Trump’s staff members who have firsthand knowledge of the events in question testify before the Senate should be avoided — as that would be “helping the Democrats” prove their Articles of Impeachment are for real! If Trump did nothing wrong, then their testimony should only make that clearer to the world. It should hurt the allegations that Trump did something wrong — not further prove that he is guilty!

    You are arguing that the Senate should ignore Trump once again seeking help from a foreign government in interfering in our elections. That the Senate should not be expected to take the Impeachment trial seriously; that there is nothing wrong with pre-determined jury verdicts that ignore the relevant evidence completely!

    But the economy is doing so incredibly well, unemployment is at record low numbers...so you claim that these things should mean something in judging Trump’s fitness to lead us.

    The vagueness of the “abuse of power” article is effectively a “mal-administration” charge rejected by the Constitution’s Framers because it would so easily be used to attack presidents over policy differences.

    Just as “mal-administration” was rejected by the Constitution’s framers as a way to attack presidents over policy differences, citing Trump’s successes should not play any role in the impeachment process as well! Trump was not impeached simply because he isn’t good at his job, there are specific actions that Trump committed that make up the charges listed in the Articles of Impeachment.

    If the Democrats are successful, all presidents henceforward will be impeached whenever the opposition party achieves power in the House.

    If the Republicans are successful, then a President can violate any law he wishes to while in office without fear of being held accountable for his crimes....just as long as he has popular policies and the economy is strong!

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    presuming he is the nominee, he didn't lose your vote, right? ;)

    I am as good as my word.. He'll get my vote if he is the nominee, but it won't do him any good.. :D

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You are arguing that the Senate should ignore Trump once again seeking help from a foreign government in interfering in our elections.

    No.. The Senate should ignore Left Wing spin and bullshit in that regard...

    If the Republicans are successful, then a President can violate any law he wishes to while in office without fear of being held accountable for his crimes....just as long as he has popular policies and the economy is strong!

    That's how Odumbo and the Dumbocrats tried to play it..

    Yer just pissy because President Trump actually makes it work.. :D

    The only "crimes" that have been committed are in the fevered hate-fill fantasies of the Democrats and Trump/America haters.

    Democrats could find ANY crimes to charge President Trump with so they simply made shit up..

    JUST like they did with the Russia Collusion delusion..

    Face reality, my friend..

    At ever turn, at every juncture, Democrats lost.. President Trump wiped the floor with them..

    You better be prepared for 4 more years of President Trump with the power of a full GOP Congress behind him..

    :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    “This is the first time in the history of our country that a president has been impeached without a single article alleging any criminal conduct. Democrats don’t allege any crime, they don’t even allege any federal law that was violated. This was at the end of the day a political response because Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats hate the president.”
    -Senator Ted Cruz

    Democrats have lost and lost big...

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    56

    Okay, just because you break them up into multiple boxes, you still continue to abuse the author's comments section by posting near-entire and entire articles written by right-wingnut fantasy and conspiracy theory morons.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) opened the farcical impeachment debates with a speech invoking American history, including the Battle of the Bulge during which Americans overcame a surprising Nazi counterattack to prevail ultimately in World War II.

    I have another comparison for the speaker; Napoleon Bonaparte in Moscow. On September 14, 1812, Napoleon led his Grande Armée into Moscow with the expectation that the Russians would surrender. After a month with no surrender, Napoleon began a long retreat that ended in the loss of approximately 90 percent of his force and the eventual defeat of France.

    It's comical how a whole bunch of the right wing QAnon nuts, Tea nuts, neo-nuts and torch carriers got their tan pants in a twist because Nancy Pelosi dared to ding their precious Nazis, and there is no shortage of the Trump Trash on Brietbart and 8Chan and the like whining about it and singing the praises of Moscow and Vlad in their responses.

    So much whining grievance, hatred, and worship of dictators coming from the righties; it's creepy, but here we are.

    Democrats' best course of action is to simply let the matter die it's ignoble death..

    The impeachment is done and lives on forever... there is no death for "in perpetuity."

    Pelosi should do a presser and simply say, "We were just kidding"

    But they weren't kidding so why would she do that?

    It's a foregone conclusion that Democrats have lost ANY chance for the White House..

    Nope.

    There is ZERO chance that Democrats can nominate anyone that can defeat President Trump.

    Equally as stupid as the prior comment.

    I would also say it's virtually guaranteed that Democrats will lose the House as well..

    Where have we heard endless prattling on and on of a Red Tsunami before? Oh, right! Your ridiculous drivel.

    On the other hand, there is a slight (VERY SLIGHT) glimmer of hope..

    Let the back-peddling begin... a whole one sentence later.

    Anyone wanna lay any bets that Democrats can do it??

    You're on, and you've already lost the bet. Democrats can already retain the House. Will they retain the House is another matter. Democrats can retain the House, and I think they will. Republicans in the House seem to agree.

    House incumbents who have announced their retirement from public office:

    Republicans

    AL-02 Martha Roby
    FL-03 Ted Yoho
    FL-19 Francis Rooney
    GA-07 Rob Woodall
    GA-14 Tom Graves
    IL-15 John Shimkus
    IN-05 Susan Brooks
    NC-02 George Holding
    NC-06 Mark Walker
    NC-11 Mark Meadows
    NY-02 Peter King
    MI-10 Paul Mitchell
    OR-02 Greg Walden
    TX-11 Mike Conaway
    TX-13 Mac Thornberry
    TX-17 Bill Flores
    TX-22 Pete Olson
    TX-23 Will Hurd
    TX-24 Kenny Marchant
    UT-01 Rob Bishop
    WI-05 Jim Sensenbrenner

    Democrats

    CA-53 Susan Davis
    HI-02 Tulsi Gabbard
    IA-02 Dave Loebsack
    IN-01 Peter Visclosky
    NY-15 Jose Serrano
    NY-17 Nita Lowey
    WA-10 Denny Heck
    _______________

    Retirements by incumbents generally signal the Party lawmakers believe will control the House; the insiders are predicting Blue.

    That's a lot of Republican incumbents quitting. Poor guys, looks like they don't relish being in the minority. Sure, some of them are in "safe" gerrymandered seats, but a whole lot more of them aren't. :)

  74. [74] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    FEC chairwoman reiterates illegality of soliciting campaign help from foreign governments

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464227-fec-chairwoman-reiterates-illegality-of-soliciting-campaign-help-from

    Well, according to the Chairwoman of the FEC, a candidate directly requesting information on an opponent from a foreign government is a violation of the law. Not that this will convince you, that much is clear.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    The GOP is in control of the Senate Impeachment proceedings.. House Democrats have NO SAY..

    PERIOD...

    FULL STOP...

    That is all

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, surely you don't expect a journey through life to be without sacrifice, do you?

    And, of course you understand that what is lost can often be replaced with something even better, no?

    Biden will be the Democratic nominee or Trump will be re-elected.

    Now, I won't suffer anymore nonsense on this from you, okay?

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, according to the Chairwoman of the FEC, a candidate directly requesting information on an opponent from a foreign government is a violation of the law. Not that this will convince you, that much is clear.

    Quote the part of the link that says that.

    You can't because it says nothing of the sort..

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, surely you don't expect a journey through life to be without sacrifice, do you?

    We did sacrifice.. We put up with 8 years of Obama..

    Biden will be the Democratic nominee or Trump will be re-elected.

    One is not dependent on the other..

    Biden may or may not be the nominee..

    Irregardless of that fact, President Trump will be re-elected..

    Now, I won't suffer anymore nonsense on this from you, okay?

    If you choose to call it nonsense, that's your choice..

    But what you call it does not make it any less factual..

    "Just the fax, ma'am"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    60

    “Any action that forces us to litigate . . . will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”
    -Adam Schiff

    So what's your problem with that?

    If you exercise your rights under the US Constitution, that's considered "Obstruction Of Justice" according to Dumbocrats??

    Obviously Schiff was referring to "executive privilege"... specifically Trump's idea of not having to answer in any way to Congress and Trump's refusal to answer to Congress and ordering subordinates and American citizens to ignore production requests and subpoenas.

    Executive privilege isn't mentioned anywhere in the United States Constitution. You should really read that thing versus making shit up that doesn't exist in it.

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Lighten-up Michale :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lighten-up Michale :D

    I'de rather be asleep.. :D

    But until that miracle of miracles happens.

    I gots ta call 'em as I sees 'em.. :D

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    From the Democrats' own impeachment expert.

    “Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution, does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. 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.

    If the House never sends the articles then Trump could say with strong justification that he was never actually impeached.”
    -Noah Feldman

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

    According to the Democrats' own expert, President Trump has NOT been even been impeached.. :D

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    61

    I mean, seriously..

    You expect to be taken seriously when the majority of your shit is fiction? Good luck with that.

    For those few here who AREN'T blinded by hysterical hate and bigotry..

    Well, that leaves you out since you're constantly wishing death to democrats and those who disagree with your dipshittery, and it doesn't get anymore hateful than that.

    Think about it..

    You're asking others to do something you refuse to do yourself. Typical.

    Let's say you are accused of a crime..

    You file a motion to suppress the evidence, due to it being obtained illegally..

    And NOW......

    Because you filed that motion to suppress, NOW you are charged with OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!???

    Ordering people not to testify to Congress or produce documents (which is ordering them to break the law) and refusing to produce documents to Congress (against the law) isn't remotely the equivalent of requesting that a Court order certain facts/documents already in evidence be excluded from consideration in a case.

    Is THAT the kind of America ya'all want to live in???

    I want to live in an America where no one is above the law and there is no one who can refuse to answer to We the People by ignoring our requests for documents and ordering other citizens to ignore We the People's elected representatives in the House. Our Founding Fathers declared their independence from a monarchy already and set up our co-equal branches of government for a reason.

    "THE ARROGANCE IS MIND-BOGGLING!!!!"

    Your ignorance is too. :)

    This entire impeachment is illegitimate from start to finish...

    What do you have against the United States Constitution? You should read it.

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    62

    Joe Biden just lost the election, assuming he is the nominee...

    A debate answer is not an election... assuming you have a brain cell. :)

  85. [85] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “This is the first time in the history of our country that a president has been impeached without a single article alleging any criminal conduct. Democrats don’t allege any crime, they don’t even allege any federal law that was violated. This was at the end of the day a political response because Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats hate the president.”

    -Senator Ted Cruz

    You’d think a Harvard grad would know Impeachment does not require federal criminal laws being violated in order to occur.

    What good would accusing Trump of violating a federal law do when the DOJ has argued in court that it is their position that the President cannot even be investigated for any crime committed while in office???

    How could Democrat’s have charged Trump with criminal offenses that he can prevent anyone from truly investigating? Trump has refused to allow anyone who might have witnessed and/or have direct knowledge of him committing a crime from testifying against him to Congress. Trump has placed the full transcript of the phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelensky into a secure server typically reserved for only the most guarded intel to prevent it from being released.

    How would the Democrats prove that the evidence supports criminal charges being brought when they are refused access to the evidence? They could not, so they did not accuse him of violating federal criminal law.

    They only accused Trump of doing what they could prove he had done. Because the “rough” transcript that Trump did release clearly showed Trump doing everything he is being accused of in the Articles of Impeachment, then the charges are not only warranted — they are justified.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    You’d think a Harvard grad would know Impeachment does not require federal criminal laws being violated in order to occur.

    Which is not really relevant to the point now, is it?

    They only accused Trump of doing what they could prove he had done.

    Which is nothing impeachable or criminal..

    Which is why Pelosi is afraid to send the AOI to the Senate. Because she KNOWS they are shit..

    Because the “rough” transcript that Trump did release clearly showed Trump doing everything he is being accused of in the Articles of Impeachment, then the charges are not only warranted — they are justified.

    There ARE no charges..

    THAT'S the point..

    Seriously, dood.. You DO know that you are going to lose, right??

    You DO know that President Trump is going to be thoroughly and utterly vindicated and exonerated, right??

    You DO know that this is all going to end very badly for Democrats, right??

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    How would the Democrats prove that the evidence supports criminal charges being brought when they are refused access to the evidence?

    Why didn't Democrats just go thru the courts to obtain the evidence??

    Because they knew they would lose..

    The courts would have sided with President Trump over executive privilege...

    That's the problem with this whole faux impeachment coup..

    It wasn't based on anything but hate of President Trump..

    It was the Russia Collusion delusion all over again..

    Democrats figured that, if they investigated, they would HAVE to find some dirt.. Enough dirt to convince the American people and the GOP..

    But Democrats were lazy and didn't want to be bothered with due process...

    And now they are on the LOSING end of this whole faux impeachment coup..

    Do you know how we know this??

    Because CW has been commentarying on everything and anything other than this faux impeachment coup debacle..

    If things were going good for Dims, we would be seeing daily Rah Rah Impeachment commentaries, even with all the end of the year stuff...

    But there isn't any Rah Rah Impeachment stuff because it's going very VERY badly for Democrats..

    Once again, President Trump has the upper hand and Dumbocrats are being decimated..

    Even by their OWN experts! :D

    How laughable is that..

    The GOP is in complete and utter control of the Senate Impeachment proceedings..

    PERIOD.... FULL STOP....

    And Democrats are paying a HUGE political price for their stoopidity..

    It's really THAT simple...

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting to note..

    Dumbocrats are whining and crying that GOP Senators have declared support for President Trump and won't be fair & impartial..

    What about the DIM Senators who have called for President Trump's removal from office?? What about all the nasty and unfounded attacks from DIM Senators???

    Are THEY "fair and impartial"??

    Of course not.

    As I said at the beginning and NO ONE has refuted..

    GOP Senators will be as fair and impartial as Dumbocrats have been..

    Don't like it? Tough shit.. Dumbocrats shouldn't have started this faux impeachment coup..

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    For this country, patriotic Americans and President Trump...

    Things just keep getting better and better.. :D

    Democrats and Trump/America haters???

    Not so much... :D

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    63

    According to your interpretation, if Putin (or for that matter, some Russian callgirl) were to say to Trump "Good luck with your election", or "I'm pulling for you", or "I hope you win your election", or even less likely, "I'll be praying for you", that would constitute a "Thing of Value".

    There's no need for a pathetic strawman argument when you've been given a link crammed full of legal cites as examples. Republicans' idea of debate these days is to invent ridiculous strawman arguments and generally fabricate lies.

    It's lazy and so very Trumpian... a real commentary on the depths to which the GOP and many of their ilk have allowed themselves to sink... to just continually make shit up, gaslight, and con: The Grand Old Prevaricators.

    Try rejoining the world of reality, you will become much less vulnerable to PTSD syndrome!

    The GOP's idea of reality these days is not somewhere I'd allow myself to sink; I'm fine here on Earth 1. :)

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    The GOP's idea of reality these days is not somewhere I'd allow myself to sink; I'm fine here on Earth 1. :)

    With President Trump til Jan 2025.. And with the GOP in complete and utter control of Senate Impeachment proceedings...

    Agreed.. :D

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    64

    It's funny..

    After 2 years of claiming that opposition info is a thing of value, NO ONE here can point to the election law that states this..

    Funny, eh? :D

    I just posted a link crammed full of legal examples, and the law isn't complicated.

    It's like "Obstruction Of Congress" or "Collusion"...

    Another strawman argument from the righties... surprise not surprise.

    Everyone CLAIMS it's an illegal thing, yet not a single one can provide ANY facts to support the claim..

    FEC law claims it's illegal. It's not even complicated unless you're ignorant of the law, and unless you're blind, I just posted a link crammed full of legal examples.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    FEC law claims it's illegal.

    Cite the law...

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since you have proven you have comprehension issues, I'll clarify.

    Cite the FEC law that states information is defined as a "thing of value"...

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Take your time..

    I'll be here all day.. :D

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Impeachment Takes a Holiday' -- Starring Nancy Pelosi

    Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “rogue leader” on Thursday, but based on what we saw last week, a more accurate assessment would be that Pelosi is the rogue leader presiding over a runaway Congress.

    In her actions and words, Pelosi looked more like a wannabe Third World dictator than the hope of her nation, or even of her party. It was not enough for her to try to cut the president off at the knees with her sham impeachment vote; she also had to insult the Senate leader and try to assert House authority over the constitutionally mandated Senate role in trying any federal impeachment. To top it off, she implicitly dismissed the third branch of government by bypassing the judiciary’s traditional role as the broker between the legislative and executive branches.

    That was the week that was, and it should be the final nail in Pelosi’s political coffin.

    Dressed appropriately in black, she engineered the third impeachment of a president in United States history on a party-line vote with little evidence and a magical mystery timeline that oscillated between “clear and present danger” and “no big deal.”
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/23/impeachment_takes_a_holiday_--_starring_nancy_pelosi_142014.html

    Result... President Trump wins again.. :D

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember, Pelosi has been telling us for months that it was an urgent matter to unseat President Trump before he did permanent damage to the nation. Her designated impeachment czar, fellow Californian Adam Schiff, invented two non-criminal charges to be brought against the president — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — and rammed them through three committees and the full House. We were told that the nation could not possibly wait for a court to decide on the legality of the president’s assertion of executive privilege. Too long! Too late! Trump would collude with some new foreign power to interfere in our sacred elections — possibly with Latvia now that he has used up Ukraine and Russia! It was like a giant version of Risk, the game of world domination. Pelosi was going to roll the dice until she took all of Trump’s armies off the board — at least the ones in Eastern Europe.

    But then something remarkable happened. As soon as Pelosi had Trump where she supposedly wanted him, skewered by impeachment, she reversed course. Within minutes of her victory in delivering a one-party vote, she announced that the House would not transmit the historic articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial anytime soon. The problem? Well, it seems Pelosi found something more urgent than impeachment — Christmas break. (Someone get Chevy Chase on the phone. He can’t pull off Nancy Pelosi, but he will be perfect as bumbling Joe Biden. Isn’t it time for a sequel to “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation”? Maybe “Impeachment Takes a Holiday”?)

    Funny how something that was vital to the nation became no big deal when urgency was political-agenda inconvenient..

    This faux impeachment coup is a debacle for Democrats from the start.. :D

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:


    'Impeachment Takes a Holiday' -- Starring Nancy Pelosi
    COMMENTARY
    .By Frank MieleDecember 23, 2019
    'Impeachment Takes a Holiday' -- Starring Nancy PelosiAP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

    Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “rogue leader” on Thursday, but based on what we saw last week, a more accurate assessment would be that Pelosi is the rogue leader presiding over a runaway Congress.

    In her actions and words, Pelosi looked more like a wannabe Third World dictator than the hope of her nation, or even of her party. It was not enough for her to try to cut the president off at the knees with her sham impeachment vote; she also had to insult the Senate leader and try to assert House authority over the constitutionally mandated Senate role in trying any federal impeachment. To top it off, she implicitly dismissed the third branch of government by bypassing the judiciary’s traditional role as the broker between the legislative and executive branches.

    That was the week that was, and it should be the final nail in Pelosi’s political coffin.

    Dressed appropriately in black, she engineered the third impeachment of a president in United States history on a party-line vote with little evidence and a magical mystery timeline that oscillated between “clear and present danger” and “no big deal.”

    Remember, Pelosi has been telling us for months that it was an urgent matter to unseat President Trump before he did permanent damage to the nation. Her designated impeachment czar, fellow Californian Adam Schiff, invented two non-criminal charges to be brought against the president — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — and rammed them through three committees and the full House. We were told that the nation could not possibly wait for a court to decide on the legality of the president’s assertion of executive privilege. Too long! Too late! Trump would collude with some new foreign power to interfere in our sacred elections — possibly with Latvia now that he has used up Ukraine and Russia! It was like a giant version of Risk, the game of world domination. Pelosi was going to roll the dice until she took all of Trump’s armies off the board — at least the ones in Eastern Europe.

    But then something remarkable happened. As soon as Pelosi had Trump where she supposedly wanted him, skewered by impeachment, she reversed course. Within minutes of her victory in delivering a one-party vote, she announced that the House would not transmit the historic articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial anytime soon. The problem? Well, it seems Pelosi found something more urgent than impeachment — Christmas break. (Someone get Chevy Chase on the phone. He can’t pull off Nancy Pelosi, but he will be perfect as bumbling Joe Biden. Isn’t it time for a sequel to “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation”? Maybe “Impeachment Takes a Holiday”?)

    Of course, we shouldn’t have been surprised by the delay. Turns out that during the urgent mission to save the nation from the dire threat of Trump’s wicked sense of humor, there had also been time for a weeklong Thanksgiving break as well. Maybe Nancy thought the Donald would retreat to Mar-a-Lago with his tail between his legs and never come back. She must have been very disappointed. But maybe she thinks Trump didn’t really return at all. Didn’t she call the president an imposter? Or is that just another debunked conspiracy theory?

    Doesn’t matter. If anything, Pelosi’s stated reason for refusing to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate on a timely basis was even more ludicrous than my “National Lampoon” scenario. The bottom line is that in trying to circumvent the constitutional role of the Senate and trying to delegitimize its leader, she has entered territory that is radical even for a “rogue” (her word again) political party.

    “We are not sending it ... because it is difficult to determine who the managers would be until we see the arena in which we will be participating,” Pelosi said on the night when the articles were passed on a strictly partisan vote. Of course, she knew the arena because it is spelled out in the Constitution. (It’s the Senate, stupid!) And though Pelosi had a moment of clarity when she acknowledged, “It is up to the Senate to say what their rules will be,” she did everything in her power to shame, cajole and extort McConnell into running the trial according to the House’s rules — namely, that Trump gets no due process and the coddled whistleblower shall not be named.

    Unbelievably, Pelosi told the truth the following morning when she admitted the entirely partisan reason why she is not transmitting the impeachment to the Senate: “Just to get this off the table right away, if we impeach the president immediately, everybody moves on to the next thing.”

    D’oh! You already did impeach the president, Madam Speaker. And since when did “moving on to the next thing” become a problem? Are you admitting that the Democratic House is really just an obstructionist tool of “the Resistance”?

    Trump’s subsequent summation on Twitter was concise and on point.

    "So after the Democrats gave me no Due Process in the House, no lawyers, no witnesses, no nothing, they now want to tell the Senate how to run their trial. Actually, they have zero proof of anything, they will never even show up. They want out. I want an immediate trial!"

    Pelosi made one other mistake in her political gambit. In her zeal to attack McConnell, she apparently forgot the Constitution mandates that the Senate trial of a president shall be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. So she’s also thumbing her nose at John Roberts by suggesting he’s unable or unwilling to run a fair trial. Based on what?

    This is no surprise. There is no such thing as “obstruction of Congress” as a high crime — or even a low crime. Obstructing Congress is what all presidents do when they think Congress is wrong. It’s called the balance of power. The arbiter of that never-ending battle between the executive and legislative branches is the judiciary. Yet, as I mentioned at the outset, the House Democrats refused to seek court guidance on how to proceed when President Trump invoked executive privilege to prevent the delivery of documents and testimony to the Congress. That’s because the Supreme Court has long upheld that the executive branch does not automatically have to submit to congressional subpoenas or demands.

    If Pelosi took Trump to court, she would very likely lose, and then be left with nothing but her stupid “abuse of power” complaint against Trump when clearly it is Pelosi and the House Democrats who have abused their power time and again.

    Verdict: Trump wins again.

    Honestly, what MORON would think that OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS is actually a crime???

    Apparently, all the morons in the Democrat Party..

    Democrats couldn't prove bribery, couldn't prove quid pro quo, couldn't prove extortion..

    Couldn't prove ANYTHING...

    So, they just make shit up.. Just like their laughable COLLUSION "crime".. :D

    Democrat Party = Keystone Cops :D

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Just to get this off the table right away, if we impeach the president immediately, everybody moves on to the next thing.”
    -Nancy Pelosi

    Even PELOSI admits that President Trump has not been impeached yet.. :D

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m
    You need to cut the length of those epic copy paste posts. I try to read what you send but even my eyelids are drooping.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    You need to cut the length of those epic copy paste posts. I try to read what you send but even my eyelids are drooping.

    Normally I do.. Normally I just CnP the paragragh or 2 I am commenting on..

    But every once in a while, my CnP will twitch and copy the entire article.. And I don't notice till after I have already hit SUBMIT..

    Apologies.. it's not intentional...

    In comment #102, start reading at This is no surprise. There is no such thing as “obstruction of Congress” as a high crime — or even a low crime. and my response should make more sense..

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    I try to read what you send

    "Thank you, Q. I always knew you were on my side..."
    "Uhh... No... Actually, I'm the one that got ya kicked out"

    -STAR TREK:TNG, Deja Q

    :D

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    67

    As usual, you are wrong.. Notice I don't stoop to your childish name-calling.

    I wouldn't be one to boast about my not stooping to "childish name-calling" if I was the guy who constantly tossed out the term "Trump/America haters" on a near continual basis and without abatement, but "haters gonna hate"... or so the kids say these days.

    I also wouldn't exactly be patting myself on the back for my not stooping if I was that "paragon of virtue" who suggested that my political opponents should commit suicide en masse:

    If Democrats are looking for suggestions, I would suggest they consider the Jonestown option.. :^/ ~ Michale

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/12/18/the-federalist-papers-number-66/#comment-150361

    Would it be too repetitious to point out the fact that self-awareness isn't exactly the strong suit of the GOP and their seemingly clueless group of talking heads and useful idiots? Oh, well... it bears repeating since they're infinitely clueless at seeing in themselves what they claim in others... very Trumpian-like projection. I mean, what kind of dumb ass would refer to everyone else on the forum on a near-constant basis as a "hater" yet pat himself on the back and claim he doesn't use childish names? Asked and answered.

    The GOP is in control of the Senate Impeachment proceedings.. House Democrats have NO SAY..

    Again, for the quite obvious incorrect persons... a.k.a. dumb asses: The Senate is in control of the impeachment trial -- explained simply in the United States Constitution -- but if the Senate consisted of 100 members of the GOP, you'd be correct in saying that the GOP was in control of the Senate Impeachment proceedings, but they're not... so you're not.

    continued...

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    ...continued

    Also, there are already existing rules, which rules state in no uncertain terms that the House opens and closes the impeachment:

    XXII. The case, on each side, shall be opened by one person. The final argument on the merits may be made by two persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate upon application for that purpose), and the argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives.

    ~ Rule XXII

    https://tinyurl.com/yx5zu5yq

    Let's Be Honest(TM): First and last say in the impeachment proceeding doesn't exactly sound like "no say" in the proceedings... unless you're a dumb ass, of course. Obviously, the Senate could always vote to change the existing and longstanding rules by simple majority, but the Senate does indeed have members of both parties and not merely the GOP.

    Have a great day, Kick. :D

    I always do. Note my link containing the longstanding Senate Procedure rules regarding Impeachment... so you could learn something. It's never too late to educate.

    Education: The gift that keeps on giving. Happy Christmas. :)

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's amazing how you can spend so much time saying absolutely nothing relevant about anything. :D

    Absolutely gabber-flasting.. :D

    The GOP is completely and 100% in control of Senate impeachment proceedings.. This is FACT.

    You were wrong.. You simply can't admit it..

    Have a happy.. :D

    Still waiting for you to give me the FEC law that defines information as something of value..

    Don't let me down.. :D

  106. [106] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Cite the FEC law that states information is defined as a "thing of value"...

    The law states that it is illegal for a campaign to seek or receive any thing of value from foreign governments. Do you honestly think that legislators need to list every single thing that could potentially have value in order for the law to be enforceable? This is your brilliant defense of Trump?!!? Why not just argue that the law does not specifically name Trump as someone who cannot ask foreign governments

    Here’s one way you can tell if something is considered to be a “thing of value” in our legal system — if you have to request it, it has value!

    I am surprised at how stupid you are willing to look because you are stuck desperately trying to defend Trump’s blatant crimes.

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    The law states that it is illegal for a campaign to seek or receive any thing of value from foreign governments.

    CITE THE LAW that states that opposition information is a thing of value..

    You can't because no law says that.

    You are wrong and you just can't admit it..

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's like "collusion" or "obstruction of congress"..

    You make shit up because you cannot handle that President Trump beat every thing Democrats threw at him..

    It's really THAT simple..

  109. [109] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Question for you: Do you think that the House chose not to list specific criminal charges in their AOI was to prevent Trump from claiming Double Jeopardy if the DOJ plans on charging him once he is removed from office?

    Impeachment is a legal process as well as a political one. You know good and well that will be argued if a former president is charged with a crime that they were impeached on...and it is not a bad argument to make. There is no legal precedent since we’ve never had a former president indicted on charges stemming from their presidency.

    This is why I think they chose not to include Mueller’s list of Trump committing obstruction of justice in their AOI. It also supports the reasoning behind my crazy hunch that the Republicans and Democrats are working together to remove Trump from office without him catching on until after it is a done deal! Why else would McConnell announce to the world that he was throwing the trial before it even started? Only reason that makes sense is that it was said to calm Trump’s fears and assure him that he was not going to be removed from office. I think Trump will be in handcuffs the moment he is out of office.

    I know it might just be wishful thinking, but it is the only way I can explain the blatantly horrible job the Republicans have done at defending Trump’s actions and why they would even bother to defend him at this point. Everything they have done has been to pacify the big orange baby — it’s been a performance for one that’s all show and no substance.

  110. [110] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CITE THE LAW that states that opposition information is a thing of value..

    You can't because no law says that.

    WOW! You are repeating what I just told you while ignoring what was being stated completely! Great defense!

    I know that no law lists every thing that is considered to be a “thing of value”...it not only would be redundant but also impossible to name every possibility. Does opposition information have any value to a campaign? Of course it does, so asking a foreign government to provide it to your campaign is against the law.

    Also, Trump only wanted the Ukrainians to announce they were investigating Biden — they weren’t asking for opposition info.

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    68

    presuming he is the nominee, he didn't lose your vote, right? ;)

    Heh.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know that no law lists every thing that is considered to be a “thing of value”.

    So, you concede you have absolutely NO FACTS to support your claim that opposition research is defined as a "thing of value" as specified in FEC law..

    Thank you for your concession....

    First you concede that Obstruction of Congress is not a crime.

    Now you concede that opposition research is not defined as a "thing of value" under FEC law..

    There is hope for you yet, my friend.. :D

    Also, Trump only wanted the Ukrainians to announce they were investigating Biden

    Facts to support?? No??? Of course not..

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    69

    All good points, but you'll just confuse them with facts!

    Hey, Russ, if I didn't know any better, I'd say the GOP talking heads and useful idiots were full up to their eyeballs in shit when they kept whining they wanted Hair Dick Tater to be impeached. ;)

  114. [114] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's like "collusion" or "obstruction of congress"..

    You make shit up because you cannot handle that President Trump beat every thing Democrats threw at him..

    Says the person who constantly claims that the Mueller report TOTALLY EXONERATED TRUMP OF COLLUSION!

    The same person who claimed to have been in law enforcement for over two and a half decades, and then called me a liar and said that I was making it up when I repeated his claim of 25 years as a LEO.

    “Once again, you are a liar... So live with that dipshit” — Michale

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    71

    No.. The Senate should ignore Left Wing spin and bullshit in that regard...

    You keep talking about the Senate as if there are no Democrats in it... clue in, Bubba Trump!

    That's how Odumbo and the Dumbocrats tried to play it..

    Your deflection lands with a thud and a tacit admission of Russ's point. You're practically calling yourself a hypocrite and saving Russ the trouble; how very nice of you.

    The only "crimes" that have been committed are in the fevered hate-fill fantasies of the Democrats and Trump/America haters.

    There are multiple people sitting in prison right now that say otherwise and several guys packing and heading there fairly soon. I lost count.

    Democrats could find ANY crimes to charge President Trump with so they simply made shit up..

    Yes, correct, Democrats could find ANY crimes, and Republicans could too were it not for the fact they're complicit in the cover-up and ignoring the facts in already in evidence. Gaslighting and conning the American public is the Trumpian way, but it hasn't kept any of Trump's cronies out of prison yet, even Gates who sang like a canary.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Says the person who constantly claims that the Mueller report TOTALLY EXONERATED TRUMP OF COLLUSION!

    It did..

    You just refuse to see it because you hate President Trump and you hate it when he always wins.. :D

    The same person who claimed to have been in law enforcement for over two and a half decades, and then called me a liar and said that I was making it up when I repeated his claim of 25 years as a LEO.

    I never said I was 25 years an LEO.. I have specifically stated on more than one occasion that I was Military, Security, FSO and LEO...

    I have 25 years in the career field of Public Safety..

    But, of course, you spin that and twist it to support whatever complete bullshit and lies you want to tell at any given moment...

    But, it's OK.. Your come-uppance is that you always LOSE and President Trump always wins.. So, in the end, I am always the happy one and ya'all (NEN) are always the ones covered in yer own bullshit.. :D

    I'll ask again..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that this whole faux impeachment coup is going to go the Democrats' way??

    Honestly??

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    72

    “This is the first time in the history of our country that a president has been impeached without a single article alleging any criminal conduct. Democrats don’t allege any crime, they don’t even allege any federal law that was violated. This was at the end of the day a political response because Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats hate the president.”
    -Senator Ted Cruz

    Rafael Cruz lies. One needs simply read the Articles of Impeachment wherein the Democrats allege multiple crimes. While I don't expect everyone reading it to recognize the crimes contained therein, Rafael is a lawyer so it takes a special kind of blatant lying for him to claim there are no crimes alleged. Typical GOP Trumpian con and gaslighting, but here we are.

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    78

    Irregardless of that fact, President Trump will be re-elected..

    Predictions aren't facts... especially predictions like yours. :)

    If you choose to call it nonsense, that's your choice..

    State the obvious.

    But what you call it does not make it any less factual..

    I am not constrained to point out that it doesn't make it any more factual either because predictions obviously aren't facts. :)

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Predictions aren't facts... especially predictions like yours. :)

    You mean, like when I predicted Trump would win Pennsylvania & Florida?? :D

    You said I was wrong then too.. :D

    When it comes to PRESIDENT Trump, my predictions have a funny way of turning into facts..

    Don'tcha just HATE that.. :D

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    91

    With President Trump til Jan 2025.. And with the GOP in complete and utter control of Senate Impeachment proceedings...

    Agreed.. :D

    Nice of you to make shit up and then agree with something I never said, but thank you for proving my point... you are ever the little helper these days in the "assist" department.

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    93

    Cite the law...

    Pound sand. It's been cited a shitload of times all over this forum, and the GOP argument that amounts to "words have no meaning" only works on:

    * Rubes
    * Liars
    * Partisan hacks
    * Useful idiots
    * All of the above

    So which one are you?

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's been cited a shitload of times all over this forum, and the GOP argument that amounts to "words have no meaning" only works on:

    It's NEVER been cited here because there is no such definition of the law..

    Even Russ admitted that..

    Face reality sunshine.. You have NO FACTS to support your claim that opposition information is defined as "something of value" under FEC law.

    NONE.. ZERO.... ZILCH... NADA....

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again.. You are wrong and you just can't admit it..

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    94

    Since you have proven you have comprehension issues, I'll clarify.

    I don't have comprehension issues. I'm not the idiot who keeps tossing out an argument that is the equivalent of "words have no meaning." Your argument is one of semantics and nothing more.

    Cite the FEC law that states information is defined as a "thing of value"...

    The FEC isn't the Alpha and Omega of statute in America. I've posted the FEC laws on this forum ad nauseam. Look them up. Additionally, I've already posted what you're asking for in a link at [52] above.

    Do you need your nose rubbed in it or need it spoon-fed to you like a toddler?

    https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2019-10-ELW-the-law-of-a-thing-of-value.pdf

    You want me to quote the entire legal memorandum? Only a selfish dipshit would use the comments section of another man's blog to in effect republish the work of another person. So if the link I already posted isn't good enough for you, I can assure you I'm not in the habit of republishing the works of another person like a common troll.

    I've posted the link again above, and there is a shitload, a plethora, a cornucopia, a veritable Santa's bag of toys worth of legal precedence cited in it whether or not the rubes and citizens of Podunk acknowledge its existence.

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    101

    Normally I do.. Normally I just CnP the paragragh or 2 I am commenting on..

    Incorrect. You're routinely using multiple comment boxes to in effect republish near-entire or entire articles by cutting them up in pieces.

    How does one "accidentally" post a near-entire or entire article that spans multiple comment boxes? You routinely post the cite in the first comment box and then use multiple comment boxes with no attribution in order to republish the remainder of the article. #SSDD

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, you cannot quote the law that defines oppo research as a "thing of value" as it pertains to election law..

    I accept your concession..

    I've posted the link again above, and there is a shitload, a plethora, a cornucopia, a veritable Santa's bag of toys worth of legal precedence cited in it whether

    And yet, with all that you CLAIM it has, you STILL cannot provide this forum with a SINGLE quote that says what you claim it says..

    Funny how that ALWAYS is the case with you.. :D

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    You routinely post the cite in the first comment box and then use multiple comment boxes with no attribution in order to republish the remainder of the article.

    Yes I do..

    So??? :D

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't like it??

    Tough...

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    105

    The GOP is completely and 100% in control of Senate impeachment proceedings.. This is FACT.

    Still a lie and shall remain a lie no matter how many times you post it.

    I know you posted on this forum that "Section 3 states that the Senate 'shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments,'" but you seem utterly clueless regarding the meaning of that snippet you quoted from the United States Constitution. It doesn't mean the Majority Party of the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments, it means the entire Senate.

    Ask yourself these questions:

    * If the (quoting you) "GOP is completely and 100% in control of Senate impeachment proceedings," wouldn't the Constitution mention the GOP or at the very least the "Majority Party"? Doesn't it clearly state "the Senate" in the Constitution?

    * If the "GOP"... a.k.a. the Republican Party... emerged in 1854 (it did), how did the Framers make the "GOP completely and 100% in control of Senate impeachment proceedings" in the United States Constitution that was written/ratified in 1787/1788... even before the existence of the GOP?

    * Why has McConnell met multiple times with Schumer to formulate procedure for the trial if the (quoting you) "GOP is completely and 100% in control of Senate impeachment proceedings"?

    Am I making myself clear yet?

    You were wrong.. You simply can't admit it..

    Nothing to admit since the GOP is obviously NOT completely and 100% in control of Senate impeachment proceedings.

    Have a happy.. :D

    I always do. You too. Catch up on some reading... starting with the Constitution of the United States. I do not think it means what you think it does.

    Still waiting for you to give me the FEC law that defines information as something of value..

    You keep asking for "FEC law"... as if its magical/special versus the entirety of United States Code containing federal statutes. Law isn't limited to "FEC law" contained in Title 52 and Title 26 of the United States Code.

    Anyway, I already posted what you and Stucki keep asking for. You piled onto the post I made to him which contained what you're asking for and stated nobody ever posts what I had posted in the post you were piling on.

    There are multiple pages of small font footnotes with case upon case where information is defined as "a thing of value." There are a lot of legal cites in there wherein Courts have defined information as a "thing of value"... despite all protestations and pathological lying to the contrary.

    Don't let me down.. :D

    I already didn't. It's been posted for multiple hours spanning multiple days already.

    Anyone who posts as much information as you do that keeps on prattling and whining that information isn't a thing of value must admit that their posts are the most worthless on the forum.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone who posts as much information as you do that keeps on prattling and whining that information isn't a thing of value must admit that their posts are the most worthless on the forum.

    And yet, here you are.. Addressing each and every one of them

    :D

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still don't see any quote that says opposition research is a thing of value as defined for election law..

    I accept your concession.. :D

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    109

    Question for you: Do you think that the House chose not to list specific criminal charges in their AOI was to prevent Trump from claiming Double Jeopardy if the DOJ plans on charging him once he is removed from office?

    Nah. I think Rafael Cruz is lying about there being no allegation of a crime because there are several. Cruz knows the law but is now reduced to spewing the Party line. How do we know Cruz knows it's wrong?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ted-cruz-course-trump-was-wrong-ask-china-probe-bidens-n1065536

    A. He's on record, see link above.
    B. He's a lawyer and politician who knows election law.
    C. A + B equals Cruz is a Trumpian gaslighter and con.

    Impeachment is a legal process as well as a political one. You know good and well that will be argued if a former president is charged with a crime that they were impeached on...and it is not a bad argument to make.

    If Cruz were Trump's lawyer, of course. As it is, Cruz is just spewing the Party line. If one takes the time to read the Articles of Impeachment of each of the presidents, you will find identical language and no actual citing of United States Criminal Code or Federal Statutes. Cruz is lying. Read Trump's Articles, and you will find he is being alleged to have committed crimes.

    There is no legal precedent since we’ve never had a former president indicted on charges stemming from their presidency.

    What Andrew Johnson was primarily impeached for was violating the Tenure of Office Act by attempting to replace Secretary of War Stanton while Congress was not in session. Clinton was impeached on Article One and Article Three, lying and lying, while two of the Articles of Impeachment that passed the Judiciary Committee failed in the House.

    This is why I think they chose not to include Mueller’s list of Trump committing obstruction of justice in their AOI.

    I think they were trying to keep it simple versus throwing every thing he's done into the mix.

    It also supports the reasoning behind my crazy hunch that the Republicans and Democrats are working together to remove Trump from office without him catching on until after it is a done deal!

    I wish! Don't think so, though.

    Why else would McConnell announce to the world that he was throwing the trial before it even started?

    McConnell's announcement was meant for the Republican base since his approval ratings are similar to the Republican Governor of Kentucky who just got booted out of office last month.

    Only reason that makes sense is that it was said to calm Trump’s fears and assure him that he was not going to be removed from office. I think Trump will be in handcuffs the moment he is out of office.

    I think he's definitely looking at an indictment or three if he leaves office with a pulse. Handcuffs? Nah.

    I know it might just be wishful thinking,

    Glad to hear that. ;)

    but it is the only way I can explain the blatantly horrible job the Republicans have done at defending Trump’s actions and why they would even bother to defend him at this point.

    I hear you, Russ. Nothing wrong with believing the best in people and that a Party you used to belong to hasn't surrendered every ethical bone in their body -- including their spinal columns -- to Benedict Donald Trump. But the majority of them have willingly donated their spines to political science and are now complicit in the con... witness Rafael "Ted" Cruz.

    Everything they have done has been to pacify the big orange baby — it’s been a performance for one that’s all show and no substance.

    Some of their cover-up and complicity involves GOP perps, but those guys are slowly landing in prison too. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but those wheels are still attached to a wicked big bus. :)

  133. [133] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The Federal Election Campaign Act (the “Act”)2 defines a contribution to include “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.”

    ...

    The legal concept of a “thing of value” is not unique to the Act. The words “thing of value” “are found in so many criminal statutes throughout the United States that they have in a sense become words of art,” wrote the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.6 “The word ‘thing’ notwithstanding, the phrase is generally construed to cover intangibles as well as tangibles.”7 Federal courts have consistently applied an expansive reading to the term “thing of value” in a variety of statutory contexts to include goods and services that have tangible, intangible, or even merely perceived benefits, for example: promises, information, testimony, conjugal visits, and commercially worthless stock.

    ...

    etcetera.

  134. [134] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, anything CAN be a thing of value, if it's possible to establish factually what that value is to the person seeking it. perhaps part of nancy's reluctance to impeach over the mueller charges is that those investigations didn't make clear what value (if any) donald and his campaign attached or were willing to pay to the assistance he received. i.e. what is the person willing to trade in return.

    and that is why the quid pro quo may matter. it is clear evidence that an announcement of an investigation into joe biden and hunter biden was worth 391 million dollars in military aid (and a white house visit) to all parties involved.

    that's the value.

    JL

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    119

    You mean, like when I predicted Trump would win Pennsylvania & Florida?? :D

    Why not? When you "predicted" them, they weren't facts either because predictions aren't facts.

    Your circular bullshit is just bullshit.

    You said I was wrong then too.. :D

    You will find I am eerily consistent when I claim predictions aren't facts because -- drumroll -- predictions aren't facts... ever.

    Besides, you keep bragging about your 50/50 predictions... as if that's some big damn deal. Keep it up, though, it lets everyone on the forum know just how inherently needy you are of attention... very Trumpian in your constant peevish neediness to be noticed... denotes a very low self-esteem and projects exactly the opposite of what you think it does, but I digress.

    When it comes to PRESIDENT Trump, my predictions have a funny way of turning into facts..

    I see you are qualifying your shitty predictions now that John M recently called you on them and I quickly added two more. Don't force me to post a link to that proof and your concession of your shitty predictions.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/11/22/ftp552/#comment-149839

    Oops. I accidentally quickly found that comment and mistakenly posted it... slipped; I won't let it happen again... in 2019.

    Don'tcha just HATE that.. :D

    No offense, but you're not worth it... but no offense, no one is worthy because hate requires passion and clouds one's critical thinking abilities. I've seen no evidence of real hatred on this forum except, of course, the guy who keeps projecting his hatred onto others and suggesting repeatedly that people commit suicide... all while claiming expertise as a "law enforcement officer"... no wait... a "career field of Public Safety." *laughs*

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    126

    I accept your concession..

    I made no concession and provided a legal memorandum, dipshit. Accept that and stop lying.

    And yet, with all that you CLAIM it has, you STILL cannot provide this forum with a SINGLE quote that says what you claim it says..

    Cry more! You want to argue semantics? I provided a multiple page memorandum with a buttload of cites. Click the supplied link, and there you have it. I'm not going to single out one cite when there are dozens of them in the memorandum I posted, and I'm also not going to republish a multiple-page memorandum with a shitload of legal citations for a dipshit whining like a toddler for it. Duh!

  137. [137] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    130

    And yet, here you are.. Addressing each and every one of them

    Another lie from Mike. I don't address every one of them; I don't even read a whole lot of them. Recognizing your modus operandi and republishing/plagiarism doesn't mean I'm reading all the nicked and republished contents. *laughs*

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    131

    Still don't see any quote that says opposition research is a thing of value as defined for election law..

    Suggestions:

    * Get glasses
    * Get an education
    * Stop arguing semantics
    * Stop the pathological lying

    I accept your concession.. :D

    One cannot accept something that wasn't proffered.

  139. [139] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    134

    Oh, Lord, help us... a person with critical thinking skills; I am gobsmacked, overcome with joy and might faint straight away.

    Excellent post and dead on accurate. :)

  140. [140] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Do you HONESTLY believe that this whole faux impeachment coup is going to go the Democrats' way??

    We don’t have a “whole faux impeachment coup” going on, Trump was impeached after he used the power of his office to get a foreign government to agree to announce that they were starting an investigation into one of Trump’s political opponents.

    Trump ordered money that Congress had allotted as military aid to Ukraine be withheld until their president fulfilled Trump’s demands. Emails released last Friday show that the Pentagon was instructed to hold all military funds to Ukraine less than 90 minutes after Trump finished his “perfect call” with Zelensky.

    According to Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials, all senators must make the following oath: "I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God." You want to know if I believe that the evidence that led to the AOI is enough to warrant Trump being removed from office? That all depends on if the Senate lives up to the oaths they will take. If they do, then Trump will be removed.

    Trump accepted help from a foreign government in order to get elected in 2016...and he got busted trying to get assistance from a different foreign country for the 2020 election. He has acted on behalf of Russian interests even if it put our national security at greater risk. He sided with Putin over our own intelligence agencies’ intel — humiliating those who serve in our country’s intelligence agencies. Why you support this compromised traitor is beyond my understanding.

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice dodge Russ.

    I noticed you totally ignored the question..

    Do you HONESTLY think that this faux impeachment coup is going to go the Democrat's way..

    Why you support this compromised traitor is beyond my understanding.

    That's because your "understanding" is solely based on your bigotry and your hate...

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    And STILL not a single fact that states opposition research is a "thing of value" as defined in Election Law...

    :D

    Funny how that's always the case, eh? :D

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    and that is why the quid pro quo may matter. it is clear evidence that an announcement of an investigation into joe biden and hunter biden was worth 391 million dollars in military aid (and a white house visit) to all parties involved.

    Then why didn't House Democrats include quid pro quo as an Article Of Impeachment???

    Because the PROVABLE and RELEVANT facts did not support the charge..

Comments for this article are closed.