ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Republican Senators Prepare To Violate A Sworn Oath

[ Posted Friday, January 17th, 2020 – 17:46 UTC ]

This week, for the third time in American history, the Senate began the impeachment trial of a sitting United States president. As Nancy Pelosi helpfully pointed out, that is forever and will never be erased. Trump still bizarrely believes that somehow this is all just going to go away, but we've crossed that Rubicon now.

The most amusing thing (of a number of amusing things about the impeachapalooza circus) is how the Republicans have made "doublethink" their mantra. With this president, it's almost necessary, we suppose, but it's still hilarious to us to now hear Senate Republicans argue until they are blue in the face why they can't possibly hear from witnesses after listening to Trump and his minions argue for months on end why they should hear from witnesses. It's also doublethink of the purest order to hear them now state that those with personal first-hand knowledge of what was done and said cannot possibly testify -- after arguing for months and months and months that "this is hearsay -- it's only second-hand!" But then that's life in the GOP under Trump, one supposes. They've now moved on to arguing that the witnesses should have testified before the House committees, which conveniently ignores how Trump barred them all from doing so and all the same Republicans backed him up. Just another fun day in Trumpland.

This doublethink continued this week, as every sitting senator (except the one who was absent due to a family medical emergency) swore a solemn oath to be an impartial juror -- an oath that several Republicans have already publicly promised to utterly disregard. Because, you know, all that business about being for law and order and all that tut-tutting over the sins of "moral relativism" is so 1990s.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi is being vindicated on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis, as more and more damning information comes out. Her delay in transimitting the articles of impeachment is paying off, in other words. Just this week, we had the Government Accountability Office report that the Trump administration broke the law in holding up the Ukraine aid, which totally eviscerates yet another of the GOP excuses and rationalizations ("But, but... no law was broken!").

Also, there was that Rachel Maddow interview with Lev Parnas. That was full of damning accusations against not only Donald Trump, but also his attorney general, his vice president, and his secretary of state. Nothing like a little icing on the impeachment cake, eh?

Today we got word that Trump will be represented by Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, and Pam Bondi. So we've all got that to look forward to. We must admit we're a little disappointed, because we really, really wanted to see Rudy Giuliani lead Team Trump. Now that would have livened things up!

Maybe this week was the ultimate "Infrastructure Week"? That laughable label is now defined as a week where Trump steps all over his efforts to get something done and therefore blows any good press he could have gotten out of it (the first was the "very fine people on both sides" post-Charlottesville comment, during an infrastructure presentation that went south fast). Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate absolutely dominated the news this week, which pushed off Trump's attempt to roll out his re-election "look, I actually got something done!" announcements. The Phase I trade agreement with China, the passage of the United States/Mexico/Canada Agreement (by 89-10 in the Senate!), and all of Trump's other attempts to change the subject all fell flatter than a pancake. And now we come to the close of Infrastructure-Impeachment Week with the media more focused on the threat given to the senators than anything else (for the record, the sergeant-at-arms read: "Hear ye! Hear ye! Here ye! All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump, president of the United States").

Let's see, what else is going on? The Democratic presidential candidates held the seventh of their debates in Iowa this week, and Lara Trump (wife of Eric) then made fun of Joe Biden for stuttering. She joins Sarah Huckabee Sanders in doing so (which happened after an earlier debate), but at least the Huckasands had the grace to be embarrassed and apologize when informed that Biden actually does fight against stuttering, and has done so for his entire life. No word yet from Lara, but as of this writing she had not retracted nor apologized for her cruelty.

Virginia is tensely awaiting a planned rally next Monday (on Martin Luther King Day, no less, who was assassinated by a rifle) by pro-gun righties, and the governor has already instituted a state of emergency while three white supremacists have already been arrested by the F.B.I. Everyone (well, everyone sane) is hoping that we won't see a repeat of the Charlottesville white-power display, but you never know -- this rally is being hyped in the same circles as the Charlottesville one was, which is why things are so tense.

And finally, we have one other piece of news which was minor now but has the potential to become a major Supreme Court case. Here is what spurred this case: the T.S.A. confiscated over $80,000 from a woman in an airport who was flying on a domestic flight and who had done absolutely nothing wrong. She wasn't carrying drugs, she wasn't involved with any crime whatsoever, and she was never charged with a crime. She was just carrying a bunch of cash, that's all. Doing so is fully legal on flights within the country, mind you -- there is no law against it. However, the agents deemed it suspicious and so they just flat-out stole it. This legalized version of highway robbery is known as "asset forfeiture" (which we've written about previously) and was originally intended to seize the profits from drug kingpins or Mafia bosses, but has since evolved into nothing short of a shakedown -- by not only the T.S.A., but by plenty of other police agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Think we are overstating the case? We don't -- in 2014, federal law enforcement officers (not even counting the local and state cops, in other words) seized more property from the public than burglars did that year. Remember the old bumpersticker? "Don't steal -- the government hates competition."

This lawsuit -- filed as a class action -- directly challenges the constitutionality of such an odious affront to the Constitution, and we are sincerely hoping it will win all the way up to SCOTUS, because this revolting practice needs to end permanently.

Just to review, real quick, here is the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And here's an excerpt from the Fifth Amendment, to boot:

No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Pretty hard to square that with just flat-out stealing some woman's cash because you feel like it at the spur of the moment, isn't it? As we said, we will be paying close attention to this case because we think it is an important one that could set a Supreme Court precedent that desperately needs setting.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have a few general kudos to hand out before the actual award, starting with all the Democratic candidates at the seventh presidential debate this week. Nobody really stood out, but then again nobody really fell flat on their face either. As I wrote afterwards, the debate was "Iowa-nice," much to the disappointment of the media in general, who love onstage fireworks far more than they are willing to admit. What everyone forgets, however, is that Iowa is a caucus state, which means that second choices are very important. If your candidate doesn't get 15 percent in your caucus, you have to choose someone else. Therefore there was no benefit to any of the candidates to trash each other right before the vote. This is why we had a fairly calm debate, with actual issues discussed in more depth than they have previously.

Nancy Pelosi deserves an Honorable Mention for using what little leverage she has to maximize both the pressure on Republican senators to at least vote to hear witnesses and on the media to continue paying attention over the holiday break. Now that the trial has moved to the Senate, as Pelosi put it, the fact that Trump is only the third U.S. president to be impeached will now be "forever."

A hat-tip, as always, to the Democrats out there who are striving to elect down-ballot Democrats to state offices, an effort we have long supported here. News just came in that the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee has amassed a $50 million campaign chest for this effort, which will be spent in "as many as 14 states." The first on the list: Arizona, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Later they may expand to: Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. More power to them, since flipping state legislatures in 2020 will help avoid the massive GOP gerrymandering that took place 10 years ago.

But our winner of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is a surprising one, because we're giving it to the most prominent Democratic presidential candidate who didn't appear on the debate stage this week: Michael Bloomberg. It was little-noticed among all the other impeachment and election news, but early in the week Bloomberg committed to continuing his campaign -- against Donald Trump -- even if he doesn't win the party's nomination. That is good news indeed, no matter who the nominee is.

Bloomberg is budgeting at least a billion dollars for his own campaign effort. Let that staggering sum sink in for a moment. Indeed, he's already spent over $200 million and will be dropping a cool $10 million on a single ad to run during the Super Bowl. The man is positively made of money, and he's not afraid to spend it like there's no tomorrow.

Bloomberg not only committed to continuing his spending, he also said he would essentially continue his campaign -- paying his staff of 500 their salaries all the way to November -- and just turn over the entire operation, together with all their voter data, to whomever does win the Democratic nomination. He is that determined to beat Trump.

This could be a game-changer. Oh, sure, let's all bemoan the influence of money in politics as we should, yadda yadda yadda, but the party having such bottomless pockets for the general election campaign could mean the path to a Democratic win -- or at the very least ensure a level playing field no matter how much campaign cash Trump stacks up. And that is indeed a good thing, given the rules we have to work with right now.

Bloomberg could easily have run as an independent (as the Starbucks guy threatened to). He ran as a Democrat instead. He might win the nomination, and then again he might not. In normal times a candidate who doesn't win might offer some nominal support to the nominee, but nothing like just continuing his entire campaign and turning it over (with a blank checkbook) lock, stock, and barrel. For committing to doing so -- a little-noticed news item that may prove to be the critical decision of the entire campaign for Democrats, one way or another -- Michael Bloomberg is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Michael Bloomberg is technically a private citizen, and as a rule we do not link to campaign websites, so you'll have to search his contact information for yourself if you'd like to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We were conflicted about the most obvious choice for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, after the lineup of Trump's defense team for his Senate impeachment trial was announced. But in the end we decided that Alan Dershowitz is not really an official Democrat (not being a politician or spokesman for the party or anything) and therefore is not really eligible for this award.

So we're going to put the MDDOTW award back on the shelf until next week (unless anyone has a disappointing Democrat to suggest in the comments).

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 557 (1/17/20)

A mixed bunch this week. We do have to warn that we saved one issue for the last talking point that we have not mentioned elsewhere today, rather than ending with the most humorous item of the week. If we had stuck to our regular format this week, we doubtlessly would have ended by poking fun at the official White House Twitter feed that tweeted out a photo of snow falling on the White House, to celebrate "the first snow!" of the year, when it was actually 68 degrees outside. Man, the punchlines for that one just write themselves, don't they? HuffPost in reporting on the glee, couldn't resist the urge and included the phrase "a blizzard of criticism" in their subhead. Heh.

But instead, we've got a much more serious end to our talking points this week. Just to warn everyone in advance.

 

1
   Only the third impeached president

You just know this one gets under Trump's skin in a big way, so why not rub it in?

"Donald Trump is now the third president ever to be impeached. On his obituary, that'll be in the first line: 'Donald Trump, third impeached president....' Even worse for him, his name will forever be linked to that of Bill Clinton, because nobody living remembers the Andrew Johnson impeachment. Given Trump's feelings towards the Clintons, that one's gotta sting: 'Donald Trump, the third president ever impeached and together with Bill Clinton the second president impeached in the modern era....' Get used to that phrase, Mr. Trump, because you now own it forever. Or should I call you Mister Third-Impeached-President Trump?"

 

2
   More sand!

Heh. Just threw this one in there for laughs.

"I heard Mitch McConnell ordered several truckloads of sand shipped in from Ocean City, Maryland, because there was a shortage of good spots to stick heads into over in the Republican Senate caucus. According to Mitch, if there's enough sand available, then they won't even hear the warnings that a vote for Donald Trump not to be removed from office is a vote for any future Democratic president to do the same things that Trump has been doing. Although there's not enough sand in the world to block out the electoral consequences for Republican senators from blue states who are up for re-election. Republicans from Maine to Colorado are going to have to seriously annoy a large portion of their constituents no matter how they vote in the trial. In fact, no matter which way they vote they may be sealing their upcoming election loss to a Democrat. And coincidentally enough, this group is large enough on its own to flip control of the chamber."

 

3
   Michael Steele remembers denouncing moral relativism

This is a throwback to the 1990s, really -- the age of sanctimonious holier-than-thou-ism that dominated the Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton. This comes from Michael Steele, who used to run the Republican Party (he was Republican National Committee chair), in a recent interview on MSNBC, speaking directly to Republican senators who were taking the impeachment trial oath -- while obviously intending to break that oath. He also used the words "disgusting" and "un-American" to describe his fellow Republicans. Here was his advice for Republican senators this week:

Don't stand in the chamber today and take the oath. Take your behind out of the chamber when it's time to swear in, because you will be lying to the American people. Because you've already told us you plan not to be an honest juror. So, this is almost a joke in the sense that you have some of these senators walking into this room, standing in front of the country, standing in front of the chief justice of the United States, raising their damn hand to swear an oath that they know they're not going to defend nor uphold.... Don't try that when you get called for jury duty the next time. Don't try that when you're sitting in front of a judge under indictment because the rules, when applied to you, will come crashing down around your head. That's the responsibility at this moment that I think a lot of these members are going to let slip by.... They should be embarrassed to stand there and take the oath when they've already told us they plan to lie when they do so.

 

4
   How the mighty have fallen!

Twist this particular knife as hard as possible, because they so resoundingly deserve it.

"Unlike Michael Steele -- a Republican who still remembers what the difference between right and wrong is -- I heard another former R.N.C. chair, Reince Priebus, this week tell Sean Hannity, and I quote: 'Sometimes the best defense is the "so what" defense.' That's what Trump's defenders have come to, folks. That's their defense for breaking the law in such blatant fashion: 'So what?' Priebus went on to exhibit what Republicans used to denounce as 'moral relativism': 'If everything the Democrats said is true, it's still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it's still not impeachable.' Lo, how the mighty have fallen! Remember back in Bill Clinton's time when Republicans stood foursquare for law and order? Remember when they derided Democrats for having squishy morals? Remember when they instructed us all on the supreme importance of right and wrong? Boy, those were the days, weren't they! Now they can't even make up excuses anymore -- they are reduced to 'So what?' It's kind of pathetic to see how far they have fallen off their high horse."

 

5
   Yes, Trump broke the law

This one is the key excerpt from the Government Accountability Office's report on the Trump administration withholding aid to Ukraine for political purposes. Up until now, Republicans have defended Trump by saying "no law was broken," but that defense, as they used to say back in Nixon's day, is now inoperable. Here's exactly what the G.A.O. concluded:

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. [The Office of Management and Budget] withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (I.C.A.). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that O.M.B. violated the I.C.A. ... The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law.

 

6
   Trump not surging among black voters

The Trump campaign is desperately seeking votes in some unlikely places. They're doing "outreach" to women and African-Americans. As for the latter, they've got a long way to go.

"A new poll just out this week showed the how dismal Donald Trump's numbers are with African-American voters. Nine out of ten black voters disapprove of Trump's job performance, just for starters, and a whopping 75 percent out of that 90 strongly disapprove. Then you've got equally-high numbers agreeing with statements like 'Trump is a racist' (83 percent), 'Trump deserves some or hardly any credit for black unemployment rates being low' (77 percent), 'things Trump is doing as president are bad for African-Americans' (76 percent). That's pretty grim for Team Trump, but the worst news came from some of the responses to the question of how Trump's presidency had personally affected them. One responded flatly that: 'Donald Trump has not done anything for African-American people.' That was actually less scathing than some of the other responses, such as: 'He has created an atmosphere of division and overt racism and fear of immigrants unseen in many years,' and: 'He has taken hatred against people of color, in general, from the closet to the front porch.' In other words, good luck with that outreach to get black people to vote for him, because they've got a long way to go."

 

7
   A call for unity

I have intentionally left this to the end, mostly because it is getting far too much breathless press attention already. The so-called "feud" between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders is a lot smaller issue than just about everyone is making it, but the media loves the whole thing because it feeds into their disdain for progressives in general. So the leaders of six progressive organizations -- Democracy For America, Our Revolution, RootsAction.org, Sunrise Movement, Working Families Party, and Justice Democrats -- released a joint statement decrying the whole tempest in a teapot. Some of these organizations have endorsed either Sanders or Warren, and some have not endorsed anyone. But it is an admirable attempt to move beyond the media circus and get back to serious campaigning. In fact, if Bernie and Elizabeth are smart, they would put out some sort of joint statement themselves, to defuse the media fireworks. In any case, here's what the unity statement had to say (the full text can be read in Salon).

Our best chance of defeating Trump does not lie with an establishment or corporate Democrat. The anti-establishment, anti-corporate awareness and anger that characterize American society today are justified, and it would be a huge mistake to once again yield that ground to a phony like Trump. We can do better, and will work to persuade Democrats to choose a strong, progressive nominee.

[Senators Bernie] Sanders and [Elizabeth] Warren, as well as their campaigns and supporters, will need to find ways to cooperate. The crossfire amplified by the media is unhelpful and does not reflect the relationship between two Senate colleagues who broadly worked well together for most of the last year. We hope to build solidarity between delegates affiliated with these two candidates prior to the convention and will encourage the campaigns to work towards a unified convention strategy after the final primaries on June 2nd.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

180 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Republican Senators Prepare To Violate A Sworn Oath”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    May I just very quickly say that nobody - and, I mean NOBODY! - does titles better than you do, Chris.

    I mean that sincerely! I'm not trying to be facetious, here. :)

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Did you happen to see the debate on CNN's Anderson Cooper between professor Dershowitz and Jeff Toobin?

    Dershowitz made some very convincing arguments against the constitutionality of the impeachment articles that were not persuasively challenged.

  3. [3] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    In the 3 elections since 2016, Republicans have lost - and lost big - in various state and national elections. It is almost laughable that the Republicans in Congress continue to sing 'Stand by Your Man'. No doubt they are terrified of being 'primaried' by an even more dishonest and heartless Republican. What a delicious quandary Trump has created for them.
    At every opportunity - town halls, calls and emails, and campaign appearances - anyone represented by a Republican Senator or Representative must challenge his/her undying loyalty to President Trump during impeachment.
    As you note so eloquently, '... the electoral consequences for Republican senators from blue states who are up for re-election. Republicans from Maine to Colorado are going to have to seriously annoy a large portion of their constituents no matter how they vote in the trial. In fact, no matter which way they vote they may be sealing their upcoming election loss to a Democrat. '

  4. [4] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Perhaps it is because I live in Italy and so my media sources are self-selected. But it seems to me that the media is being overly-cautious in reporting and evaluating Mr Parnas' revelations. The articles usually include a warning that Mr Parnas has been arrested and charged with campaign finance violations. Reams of texts and emails support Mr Parnas' assertions - and much hasn't yet been reported - and yet the MSM treats him like a bigger liar than Trump! Why is the American media world afraid to use the word 'Conspiracy' and continues to sow doubt that Pence, Pompeo, Perry, and who knows how many staffers were actively involved in surveillance of the U S Ambassador to Ukraine!?!?!
    And then the same media sources smugly tells us that 'public opinion' of the impeachment process remains stubbornly unchanged!

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    From previous..

    Which would mean you did not actually vote for Trump, after all!

    Are we "talking"??

    No, we're not dumb ass..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Friday Talking Points -- Republican Senators Prepare To Violate A Sworn Oath

    As are Democrat Senators..

    What's yer point??

    This week, for the third time in American history, the Senate began the impeachment trial of a sitting United States president. As Nancy Pelosi helpfully pointed out, that is forever and will never be erased.

    Yep, this totally partisan faux impeachment coup will forever stain the Democrat Party and will never be erased..

    For President Trump?? It's a badge of honor..

    'Sides.. Clinton's impeachment didn't really drag him down in the later years, eh??

    It was his rapes and sexual assaults he committed that did him in..

    I'm just sayin'...

    Just this week, we had the Government Accountability Office report that the Trump administration broke the law in holding up the Ukraine aid, which totally eviscerates yet another of the GOP excuses and rationalizations ("But, but... no law was broken!").

    Yea, I already addressed that..

    The GOA claims that President Trump did not faithfully execute the law..

    That is not factually accurate..

    Ukraine received the aid and even received it ahead of schedule..

    President Trump merely used his discretion to adjust the timetable.. Perfectly within his purview as POTUS..

    Much like Odumbo used HIS "discretion" to prove that illegal immigrant criminals were above the law..

    Also, there was that Rachel Maddow interview with Lev Parnas. That was full of damning accusations against not only Donald Trump, but also his attorney general, his vice president, and his secretary of state. Nothing like a little icing on the impeachment cake, eh?

    All hearsay and bullshit..

    But hay.. At least it all proves how utterly and moronically incompetent House Democrats are..

    They totally scrooed the pooch on their part of the impeachment, eh??

    :D

    Today we got word that Trump will be represented by Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, and Pam Bondi. So we've all got that to look forward to. We must admit we're a little disappointed, because we really, really wanted to see Rudy Giuliani lead Team Trump. Now that would have livened things up!

    In other words, it's all just a circus for Democrats, eh?

    Thought so..

    Pretty hard to square that with just flat-out stealing some woman's cash because you feel like it at the spur of the moment, isn't it? As we said, we will be paying close attention to this case because we think it is an important one that could set a Supreme Court precedent that desperately needs setting.

    You DO realize that it was Odumbo and his administration who really shot up asset forfeiture to new heights and made it mainstream.. You DO realize that, right??

    Funny how that little fact didn't make it into your commentary..

    Another example of the "reality" of this reality based forum not being up to snuff.. :D

    For committing to doing so -- a little-noticed news item that may prove to be the critical decision of the entire campaign for Democrats, one way or another -- Michael Bloomberg is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

    So, the old white guy who is the originator of Stop N Frisk gets a MIDOTW award...

    Why?? Because he announced his hate for President Trump.. :D

    Do ya see the irony here?? :D

    EVERYONE is forgiven for all their past sins.

    All they have to do is profess their hate on the President Of The United States...

    So much for the "tolerance" and "respect" of the Democrat Party, eh?? ;D

    I made a bet with myself that, despite a PLETHORA of options and possibilities, there would be no MDDOTW award because everyone is all giddy with this faux impeachment coup and didn't want to rock the boat by attacking a fellow Democrat...

    So we're going to put the MDDOTW award back on the shelf until next week (unless anyone has a disappointing Democrat to suggest in the comments).

    Looks like facts have proven me accurate in my predictions once again..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Italy,

    In the 3 elections since 2016, Republicans have lost - and lost big

    Lost "big"?? I guess "big" means something different in Italy...

    Democrats lost "big" in 2010.. And in 2014.. AND in 2016....

    The GOP loss in 2018 was paltry by comparison..

    At every opportunity - town halls, calls and emails, and campaign appearances - anyone represented by a Republican Senator or Representative must challenge his/her undying loyalty to President Trump during impeachment.

    Why do you have a problem with "undying loyalty" to President Trump..??

    Democrats professed FEALTY and WORSHIP to Odumbo... Funny how you didn't have a problem with that, eh??

    I know, I know.. You won't answer.. But you don't have to.. As Dumbocrats established at Charlottesville, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT...

    As you note so eloquently, '... the electoral consequences for Republican senators from blue states who are up for re-election. Republicans from Maine to Colorado are going to have to seriously annoy a large portion of their constituents no matter how they vote in the trial. In fact, no matter which way they vote they may be sealing their upcoming election loss to a Democrat. '

    Yunno.. I think it's cute that you actually BELIEVE that.. :D

    You just HAVE to know that this faux impeachment coup will not change ANY Democrats mind, right?? Democrats are going to still hate on President Trump.. This faux impeachment coup will change nothing for Democrat hate..

    You ALSO must know that this faux impeachment coup will NOT change any minds with Trump voters, right?? They are still going to be loyal to the President.. Probably even MORE so, because of the Democrat malfeasance and incompetence..

    You know all this, right??

    The *ONLY* group of voters who are going to be affected by this faux impeachment coup are Independents and NPAs such as myself..

    And, as a group, they will be pushed to vote FOR President Trump and FOR the GOP candidates... The polls clearly show this...

    So, when you comment about how the GOP are going to lose their elections because of their actions in this faux impeachment coup..

    You just HAVE to know that you are commenting out yer ass and have absolutely ZERO FACTS to support your claims.. All you have is hate and bigotry to support your claim..

    You know that, right??

    I know, I know.. You won't answer.. But yer non-answer IS an answer... Silence Gives Assent..

    Perhaps it is because I live in Italy and so my media sources are self-selected.

    You must have a really skewed and bigoted view of the US if you think we don't select our own media sources.. :D

    Seriously, what would cause you to make such a bigoted statement???

    But it seems to me that the media is being overly-cautious in reporting and evaluating Mr Parnas' revelations.

    I don't see that happening.. Left wing sources (which is obviously the only sources you read) have been all over it...

    Just the same old fact-less and hearsay bullshit that has been spewed since 10 Nov 2016...

    Why is the American media world afraid to use the word 'Conspiracy' and continues to sow doubt that Pence, Pompeo, Perry, and who knows how many staffers were actively involved in surveillance of the U S Ambassador to Ukraine!?!?!

    You DO realize that the Pervyass guy totally show down that bullshit claim, right??

    But, you'll believe anything.. As long as it supports your hatred of President Trump...

    Like a good little Democrat Party slave...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Dershowitz made some very convincing arguments against the constitutionality of the impeachment articles that were not persuasively challenged.

    Exactly...

    This is not a legitimate impeachment..

    It's a faux impeachment coup..

    But don't expect anyone here to address your comment. They fall into line like good little Demcorat Party soldiers..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump not surging among black voters

    Com'on CW..

    You got ONE poll from WaPoop of all places and you treat it as gospel??

    Talk about wish-casting..

    There are HUNDREDS of polls that show President Trump's support amongst black Americans AND hispanic Americans is skyrocketing!!

    I get it.. Yer askeered about President Trump's re-election so you cling to a single WaPoop poll as a life-line..

    But the FACTS clearly show that President Trump is making HUGE inroads into black and hispanic American support..

    I know the facts are painful.. But that does not make them any less factual..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    You need an example of a most disappointing Democrat??

    How about DeBlasio for his moronic sanctuary policies??

    Policies that ***DIRECTLY*** led to the brutal rape and murder of a ****92 Yr Old**** American...

    But, of course, no one will speak out against that, will they..

    The sanctuary laws are a staple of the Democrat Party and no one here will go against the Party...

    Who cares if innocent Americans are brutally raped and murdered....

    Party Uber Alles

    :eyeroll:

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It should come as no surprise that if Bloomberg is all the Dems have to offer for the MIDOTW that it is the MIDOTW that should be left blank and Bloomberg should be the MDDOTW.

    First of all, what if the Democratic nominee doesn't want Bloomberg's money as it would be like having PAC if Bloomberg is paying and controlling the people he is paying?

    And if he is just paying staff and letting the nominee control them then whatever Bloomberg is paying those people could be considered an in kind contribution which would violate campaign finance law unless the total amount Bloomberg is paying those people is under 2800 dollars.

    (If Bloomberg has even a staff as small as 10 and is paying a total of 2800 dollars for all of them then that would explain how he became a billionaire :D)

    But I guess you can justify this with your own doublethink with your "Oh, sure, let's all bemoan the influence of money in politics as we should, yadda,yadda,yadda..." but since it could be a game changer for the Democrats you will just say "SO WHAT!".

    About the only difference between you and the Republicans is that you did not take an oath to do your job to provide complete information on all options to citizens before not doing it.

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Of course, claiming to present a reality based blog could be considered a self-imposed oath.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the EXERCISE IN CONTRASTS department..

    Pelosi gleefully uses $15,000.00 worth of souvenir bullet pens to impeach the President.

    The President uses a $1.99 Sharpie to sign a $2,000,000,000.00 trade deal with China.

    In fairness to Pelosi, the celebration was warranted..

    It's the ONLY thing that House Democrats accomplished in their reign of power in the House..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the OH SNAP!!! department..

    Michelle Obama’s school lunch program faces new cuts on former first lady’s birthday
    https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/policy/article239402203.html

    President Trump... Making school lunches edible again...

    :smirk: :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Snowflakes triggered by a hunting rifle... :eyeroll:

    Virginia city official brings AR-15-style rifle to council meeting – triggering some colleagues
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-city-official-brings-ar-15-style-rifle-to-council-meeting-triggering-some-colleagues

    :eyeroll:

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Earlier this week, Virginia’s Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, declared a state of emergency and said he was temporarily banning individuals from carrying firearms and other weapons on Capitol grounds ahead of the rally for fear of a repeat of the violence law enforcement was ill-prepared to deal with at another rally in Charlottesville more than two years ago.

    Pro-gun activists have challenged that order.

    “The only anti-gun ppl you’ll see in Virginia on the 20th will be the government and they’ll have guns,” one Twitter user observed. “Think about that for a second.”

    Voting Democrat means having to give up your Constitutional rights....

    Democrats are toast in 2020...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even a virulent Trump hater concedes this impeachment in a bust..

    Impeachment Moves Forward to Nowhere
    Meanwhile, a debate showcases the Democrats’ detachment from life on the ground in America.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-moves-forward-to-nowhere-11579220263

    Democrats will lose BIG TIME in 2020 because they have forgotten what it is to be an American..

    Read Kurt Schlichter's THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

    That's where Democrats are heading..

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What will probably bother Trump the most about the impeachment is that is he is not the first or only.

    But maybe he will try to save face on that by tweeting that his impeachment is the biggest and bestest because even though there are only two articles included he has so many more impeachable offenses that could have been included than any other president. :D

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This is not a legitimate impeachment..

    How so, Michale?

    Give me your best argument.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ironically enough, *MY* best argument is DEMOCRAT's argument.. :D

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden, 1998

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”
    -Nancy Pelosi, Mar 2019

    “If the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this, putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good idea.”
    -Adam Schiff

    I also believe that you yourself had said that this impeachment will not be legitimate unless it has bipartisan support..

    The ONLY bipartisan support is the support in FAVOR of President Trump...

    Dems go on and on about how impeachment is forever for President Trump..

    But it's ALSO true that this partisan faux impeachment coup is ALSO forever for the Democrat Party..

    Future history will record that Democrats did EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers authored the impeachment process to PREVENT...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in addition to all of the afore...

    This impeachment is not legitimate because the Articles are not even crimes..

    It's like impeaching a President for calling a politician a scumbag and having an overdue library book..

    Not good things, but not even CLOSE to being impeachment worthy...

    Basically Democrats are guilty of throwing all sorts of lame shit against a wall and hoping and praying something sticks...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, not even the GOP, even at the very tippy toppy height of their Odumbo Derangement Syndrome never took it as far as impeachment...

    This Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome will forever be the legacy of the Democrat Party..

    It's right up there with the Democrat Party's support of the KKK and racism..

    So, it's probably NOT a good idea for Democrats to bring up the concept of legacies...

    Because, compared to the Democrat Party, President Trump's legacy is the epitome of goodness and light...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    This Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome will forever be the legacy of the Democrat Party..

    Interesting to note..

    Every time I have brought up the legacy of the Democrat Party, the origination and founding of the KKK and other racist acts, ya'all fall all over yerselves to THAT doesn't matter because it's not who the Dumbocrats are today...

    So, I guess legacies and "forever" only matter if it's a REPUBLICAN legacy...

    More facts to support the claim that it's ALL nothing but D v R political bigotry...

    On another note...

    "Donald Trump is now the third president ever to be impeached. On his obituary, that'll be in the first line: 'Donald Trump, third impeached president....' Even worse for him, his name will forever be linked to that of Bill Clinton, because nobody living remembers the Andrew Johnson impeachment. Given Trump's feelings towards the Clintons, that one's gotta sting: 'Donald Trump, the third president ever impeached and together with Bill Clinton the second president impeached in the modern era....'

    You deserve a kewpie for making that connection.. That's really outside the box thinking..

    BUT...

    But you have to admit, it works both ways...

    The "sting" is just as bad against the Clintons for being in the same boat, impeachment wise, as President Trump.....

    But Clinton is WORSE off because of the rapes and sexual assaults he committed...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden, 1998

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”
    -Nancy Pelosi, Mar 2019

    “If the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this, putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good idea.”
    -Adam Schiff

    What is the common theme in these **Democrat**
    quotes??

    BI-PARTISAN..

    ALL the Democrats agree that a legitimate impeachment is a BI-PARTISAN impeachment..

    Conversely, a totally PARTISAN impeachment is NOT legitimate.. It's a coup..

    Class dismissed...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Round one to Trump in U.S.-China trade war
    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/?post_type=opinion&p=2432608#.XiMx63vLeuJ

    Remind me again how BAD and INCOMPETENT President Trump is??

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS that prove otherwise... :smirk: :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the creepiness of the signing ceremony for the impeachment articles: Modern presidents have always held such ceremonies and signed big, happy legislation with many pens. Lyndon B. Johnson liked clutching bunches of them in his thick, meaty fist and handing them out personally. But the impeachment of a president is a grave and unhappy event. It’s not celebratory. Enacting triumphalism was shallow and looked like a tell. Why pens, why not a scalp?

    Serious people understand the implications of things. Impeachment has now been normalized. It won’t be a once-in-a-generation act but an every-administration act. Democrats will regret it when Republicans are handing out the pens.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-moves-forward-to-nowhere-11579220263

    Once again.. Democrats' EPIC fail to think things thru...

    If by some massive quirk of fate, the GOP wins the House but Democrats win the White House.

    We can count on MONTHLY impeachments from the GOP Controlled Congress..

    All because Democrats are moronic and idiotic beyond all scope of reason...

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I think the arguments made by professor Dershowitz are decidedly stronger than the impeachment process not being bipartisan.

    First, he argues that the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, is not an impeachable offense as outlined by the founders like Madison and Hamilton. While they discussed abuse of power and other open ended criteria for impeachment, they implicitly rejected it because they did not include in the constitution.

    He further argues that while the phrase, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors does not require there to be a crime committed, an impeachable offense must be of a kind that is like bribery or treason. For, example, extortion would be an impeachable offense but that wasn't included in the articles of impeachment.

    As for the second article of impeachment against Trump, Dershowitz argues quite forcefully that there can't be obstruction of Congress because a president wishes to refuse to have his executive branch honour legislative subpoenas until after a judicial review and order. He argues that is all just part of the checks and balances between the three branches of government.

    I might add that Jeffery Toobin and Anderson Cooper were not able to persuasively challenge any of Dershowitz's arguments.

    In any event, Trump will not be convicted. But, constitutional argument always provide fodder for a fun debate!

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    First, he argues that the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, is not an impeachable offense as outlined by the founders like Madison and Hamilton. While they discussed abuse of power and other open ended criteria for impeachment, they implicitly rejected it because they did not include in the constitution.

    Exactly..

    He further argues that while the phrase, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors does not require there to be a crime committed, an impeachable offense must be of a kind that is like bribery or treason. For, example, extortion would be an impeachable offense but that wasn't included in the articles of impeachment.

    Yep... If President Trump is actually guilty of those things and the FACTS actually support the claim, then the question is begged.. WHY didn't Democrats MAKE the charge as one of the Articles Of Impeachment??

    The answer is clear.. Because the FACTS don't support the charge..

    Basically, what the Democrats are doing is making all sorts of base-less and fact-less accusations based on hearsay and rumor and innuendo in their narrative and trying to pass it off with a catch-all bullshit "crime" of ABUSE OF POWER.

    They are counting on the American people getting so hysterically emotional about the claims that they ignore that there are no real FACTS to support the claims.

    But the American people are smarter than that..

    As for the second article of impeachment against Trump, Dershowitz argues quite forcefully that there can't be obstruction of Congress because a president wishes to refuse to have his executive branch honour legislative subpoenas until after a judicial review and order. He argues that is all just part of the checks and balances between the three branches of government.

    And THAT is exactly my argument as well.. So far, Russ is the *ONLY* one who disagrees..

    You might want to work on him.. :D

    I might add that Jeffery Toobin and Anderson Cooper were not able to persuasively challenge any of Dershowitz's arguments.

    That's because Der's arguments are inescapable and unassailable..

    A point that Weigantia circa 2006-2016 would have made as well...

    In any event, Trump will not be convicted. But, constitutional argument always provide fodder for a fun debate!

    Yes and Yes...

  29. [29] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Chris:
    It is unfortunate that the spat between Elizabeth and Bernie is so personal. A "he said, she said", "liar liar" sort of fight. But there will be some sort of fight to see who actually carries the progressive standard. How do you see this inevitable conflict playing out? There is certainly very little daylight between then on policy,so my guess is it will revolve on personal issues of who is more "electable". Who do you think will come out on top and how do you think they will get there.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    SF Bear,

    You seem to be making the assumption that the Democratic nominee for president will be either Sanders or Warren.

    In that case, I think the question of electability will be centered on the chances that each of them can beat Trump.

    Who do you think will come out on top in those match-ups with Trump?

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Well, Dershowitz's constitutional arguments against impeachment of Trump make the question of whether the process was bipartisan a bit quaint, no?

    I think Biden would agree.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    SFB

    It is unfortunate that the spat between Elizabeth and Bernie is so personal. A "he said, she said", "liar liar" sort of fight.

    BUT!! BUT!!! That cannot be!!!

    "{Democrats} are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults."
    -Russ

    Someone is lying here!! :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who do you think will come out on top in those match-ups with Trump?

    Neither..

    There is simply NO WAY that Independents and NPAs will swing towards the socialists..

    NO WAY, NO HOW....

    The *ONLY* person who could actually make it a race is Joe Biden.. Unfortunately, he's swung too far Left to really have a chance..

    It's Independents and NPAs like me who decide elections..

    And the vast majority of them have been pushed into President Trump's camp..

    Even MORE so by this faux impeachment coup..

    Well, Dershowitz's constitutional arguments against impeachment of Trump make the question of whether the process was bipartisan a bit quaint, no?

    "Sauce for the goose."
    -Captain Spock, STAR TREK II, The Wrath Of Khan

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    HOISTED BY HIS OWN PICARD!!! :D

    It has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a President — not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed — but because conditions in late 20th century America has made it possible for a small group of people who hate Bill Clinton and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.
    -Charles Schumer, 1999

    Replace "Bill Clinton" with "Donald Trump" and it's a PERFECT match for today....

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you had asked me one year ago if people like this with such obvious political motives could use our courts, play the media and tantalize the legislative branch to achieve their ends of bringing down the President, I would have said “not a chance — that doesn’t happen in America.”
    -Charles Schumer, 1999

    Once again, what Schumer said in 1999 is eerily prescient to what is happening in the here and now..

    It's simply AMAZING the power of that -D or -R after a person's name, eh???

    :smirk: :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Bill Clinton did was wrong and arrogant — we all agree. We are all angered.

    But let’s express some sympathy.

    Bill Clinton is an extraordinary but flawed individual. But so are many other revered leaders, including other presidents. And when we knew about their flaws or suspected as much, we didn’t make that a cause celebre — not because we condoned whatever character flaw they might possess, but because we realize that none of us are superhuman.

    We are all flawed. “Let him without sin cast the first stone” is no more a cliche today than it was almost 2,000 years ago.
    -Charles Schumer, 1999

    Again.. Replace Bill Clinton with Donald Trump and the entire passage STILL works...

    That's the fool proof test to indicate blatant hypocrisy...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems we have lost the ability to forcefully advocate for our position without trying to criminalize or at least dishonor our adversaries — often over matters having nothing to do with the public trust. And it is hurting the country; it is marginalizing and polarizing the Congress.
    -Charles Schumer, 1999

    WOW... It's simply AMAZING.. 20 years ago, Schumer described **EXACTLY** what is occurring today..

    Schumer is the frakin' Nostradamus of Congress!!!

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    The people and the founders are the twin oaks that stand tall amidst this sad episode of American history. But if the cycle of political recrimination and scandalizing continues, the American people will become more alienated and cynical and shaken by the political process and they, too, will lose faith in the great instrument the Founding Fathers have given us.

    If it gets to the point where the American people become too cynical we could lose it all.

    After this is over let’s end the recriminations. Let’s not blame Ken Starr, or bash the President, or scapegoat the House Managers. Let’s instead think about what brought us to this point.

    Let us shake hands and say we are now going to forego bringing down people for political gain. Let us understand that our leaders have foibles, and though we must be held to a higher standard, let us not make it a sport to expose those weaknesses.
    Charles Schumer, 1999

    SIMPLY AMAZING....

    Change the characters to today's and everything Chuck describes is SPOT ON...

    CW, what do you think???

    Do you agree with 1999 Chuck Schumer???

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    You come at the Trump, you best not miss
    Why are the Democrats committing constitutional suicide?

    https://spectator.us/come-trump-best-miss/

    Yep...

    If you are going to try and kill the king, you better *KILL* the king...

  40. [40] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    EM --
    Yes, I do think that a progressive will beat Biden, as their combined popularity far exceeds his. Even if they shed some of their votes to other candidates there is plenty left to beat Biden. The only way I can see Biden winning is if EW starts to climb ahead and the Bernie Bros refuse to support her or anyone else. I doubt this will happen this time. It is still unclear to me how this struggle for supremacy of the progressives will play out. What will be the issue that puts one of them over the top?

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congress has called its own bluff. Even something as simple as transmitting the articles of impeachment from the House to the Senate became a protracted and politicized farce, in the midst of which truly serious questions of war and peace — and constitutional war powers — arose. But faced with Democrats’ outrage over the killing of Iran’s Gen. Soleimani, President Trump must have asked himself, ‘what are they going to do? Impeach me?’

    This is exactly how Democrats have stepped on their wee wees...

    It's universally accepted that President Trump will remain in office.. It's also pretty much universally accepted that he will also win re-election..

    Democrats have shot their wad with this faux impeachment coup..

    There is simply NOTHING that Democrats can hold over President Trump that will reign in his behavior...

    Their "kill shot" was a love tap whose result will be to simply make President Trump stronger..

    Democrats have used the last arrow in their quiver...

    And President Trump is less than halfway thru his total presidency...

    Does anyone here honestly believe that Democrats will be stoopid enough to mount ANOTHER impeachment down the road??

    Does anyone believe that the American people will sit still for ANOTHER witch hunt???

    Democrats have accomplished one thing and one thing only..

    They have neutered themselves.. They have made President Trump untouchable...

    Congrats Dumbocrats.. You couldn't have frak'ed up your agenda more if ya tried...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    SFB,

    What will be the issue that puts one of them over the top?

    Electability...

    Democrats will decide whether they love their agenda more than they hate President Trump and this country..

    That will be the determining factor in the Democrat Primary...

    Oh, you weren't talking to me..

    OK, forget what I said.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The *ONLY* person who could actually make it a race is Joe Biden.. Unfortunately, he's swung too far Left to really have a chance..

    What makes you say that he has swung too far to the left!?

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My point, SF Bear, is that neither Warren nor Sanders has a better chance than Biden of beating Trump, based on their ideology, not any poll.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    What makes you say that he has swung too far to the left!?

    His statements on fraking and fossil fuels and health care for illegal immigrants.

    We was too firm and unequivocal.. Did not leave him any wiggle room to tack back to the center..

    My point, SF Bear, is that neither Warren nor Sanders has a better chance than Biden of beating Trump, based on their ideology, not any poll.

    Word....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    We was too firm and unequivocal..

    HE was too firm and unequivocal... My bust

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We are SUCH perfectionists, eh?

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you have Biden confused with someone else.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    We are SUCH perfectionists, eh?

    Or just harpin' on the need for an EDIT function.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed!

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which reminds … have to get over to the post office. Ahem.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think you have Biden confused with someone else.

    I don't think so, but I could be mistaken.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, you wouldn't be alone in that. Biden has many times over won the award for most misunderstood politician on the planet.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    As for the second article of impeachment against Trump, Dershowitz argues quite forcefully that there can't be obstruction of Congress because a president wishes to refuse to have his executive branch honour legislative subpoenas until after a judicial review and order. He argues that is all just part of the checks and balances between the three branches of government.

    And THAT is exactly my argument as well.. So far, Russ is the *ONLY* one who disagrees..

    It's ironic, eh??

    You and I make the same argument.

    Yet I am the only one who gets jumped on..

    Makes me feel so speeshal... :D

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Somebody said before that President Trump's base is shrinking.. There are NO FACTS to support that claim.

    But what IS shrinking are Trump Protests....

    Anti-Trump protests have shrunk. What’s it mean for 2020?
    https://apnews.com/bfabbf7df2b7a411117590d4840f314b

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    SFB-
    It may not be what issue puts one over the top, it may be the issue that puts one over the top is an issue that sets them apart from the other(s).

    A commitment by a candidate to run a small donor only campaign for the general election would do it for me as it has now become too late to change the primary election donor strategy (Thanks, CW. Job well done.).

    Imagine a presidential candidate making such a declaration explaining how just 3% of the 130 million presidential election cycle general election voters would be about five million citizens.

    This candidate could explain how these five million citizens could average 100 dollars each in contributions of 200 dollars or less per donor, the maximum the candidate will accept from any one donor for the general election, and raise around 500 million dollars for the general election campaign.

    This presidential candidate could say that if 3% of citizens will not support a candidate that makes this commitment then we do not deserve to get the big money out of our political process.

    Some of these citizens might be able to and would have given more to the candidate, perhaps even up to the legal limit.

    This presidential candidate could encourage these citizens to give that money in amounts of 200 dollars or less to other candidates for Congress and the Senate that may be inspired by the presidential candidate to make the small donor commitment for the general election to put small donor legislators in Congress to work with the small donor president.

    Now THAT would be PROGRESS.

    So it would seem like something that any true progressive would support and the proper action for any candidate that could be considered progressive would take.

    So anyone here that considers themselves a progressive should be in favor of and calling for the candidates to take this action.

    With all the crazy scenarios CW has imagined, this doesn't seem anymore crazy.

    Maybe CW isn't that much of a progressive.

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    donald was prescient when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and not lose his supporters. at the rate new evidence is coming out, i wouldn't be surprised if he had.

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    do you still want me to write something for you?

    JL

  59. [59] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    SF Bear [29]

    If Sanders persists in remaining in the competition right up to the Democratic Convention, as he did in 2016, I hope Warren stays in too as long as he does. That way they will cancel each other out.

    They've made it public and very clear that neither are as concerned about beating Trump as they are about besting each other. America deserves better.

  60. [60] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [44]

    I wholeheartedly agree with you!

    That said, who do you think Biden will choose as his running mate?

  61. [61] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [27]

    I've seen arguments against Dershowitz and by no less a personage than the highly-regarded Constitutional scholar, Laurence Tribe, among others.

    First, he argues that the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, is not an impeachable offense as outlined by the founders like Madison and Hamilton. While they discussed abuse of power and other open ended criteria for impeachment, they implicitly rejected it because they did not include in the constitution.

    On its face, this is nonsensical. Just because the words "abuse of power" are not included in the Constitution, does not imply that abuse of power is not impeachable.

    Is Dershowitz seriously contending that it is not abuse of power when a sitting president commits "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors"? Does he contend that accepting emoluments is not an abuse of power?

    He must suely also be aware that the title given to an Article is just that, a title. The description of the offense follows the title and, in the case of the First Article, it clearly describes bribery and extortion.

    Is Dershowitz seriously saying that the offense of bribery is unimpeachable if the title of the Article is "Abuse of Power"?

    As for the second article of impeachment against Trump, Dershowitz argues quite forcefully that there can't be obstruction of Congress because a president wishes to refuse to have his executive branch honour legislative subpoenas until after a judicial review and order.

    Dershowitz knows full well that legislative subpoenas have the same weight as court subpoenas and that compliance is required by law. Furthermore, he knows that Trump used "absolute immunity" - itself a fabrication - specifically in order to obstruct Congress by concocting barriers to members' ability to carry out their duties. That then forced the House to go to court which is a long and very slow process in America.

    Dershowitz must also know that a judge - Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson - did review the use of "absolute immunity", did rule that it was illegitimate and did order that legislative subpoenas must be heeded.

    Judge Jackson is not the only judge to order that people and entities must comply with legislative subpoenas. There are two cases with the Supreme Court now that have been reviewed by two judges and two panels of appellate judges all of whom ruled for the House. That Dershowitz fails to mention this is disingenuous on his part.

  62. [62] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [41]

    Democrats have used the last arrow in their quiver...

    No, Michale, they haven't and Trump knows this even if you don't.

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is Dershowitz seriously contending that it is not abuse of power when a sitting president commits "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors"? Does he contend that accepting emoluments is not an abuse of power?

    I don't think so.

    Did the House articles of impeachment mention emoluments or was it implied?

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is Dershowitz seriously saying that the offense of bribery is unimpeachable if the title of the Article is "Abuse of Power"?

    No, that's not what he said. He just made the argument that Madison and Hamilton and the others discussed 'abuse of power' but, in the end, rejected it implicitly as an impeachable offense.

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dershowitz knows full well that legislative subpoenas have the same weight as court subpoenas and that compliance is required by law. Furthermore, he knows that Trump used "absolute immunity" - itself a fabrication - specifically in order to obstruct Congress by concocting barriers to members' ability to carry out their duties. That then forced the House to go to court which is a long and very slow process in America.

    I think everyone participating in this debate understands that.

    The point Dershowitz was making is that when a president refuses to have the executive branch members honour legislative subpoenas for the reason of asking the judicial branch to review it cannot be an impeachable offense.

    I don't think that arguing that there wasn't enough time for the House to allow the court process to play itself out is a necessarily sound constitutional argument.

    I think the articles of impeachment would have more weight than they do now if the House had explicitly described the presidents behavior as extortion or bribery. Why do you think they went with the more nebulous abuse of power?

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are two cases with the Supreme Court now that have been reviewed by two judges and two panels of appellate judges all of whom ruled for the House. That Dershowitz fails to mention this is disingenuous on his part.

    But, the Supreme Court is the last word on these cases.

    I'm looking forward to hearing Dershowitz make his constitutional arguments against impeachment in front of the jurors/judges in the US Senate and the Q&A that will follow. Then we can revisit it all right here! :)

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Should Biden be so fortunate as to be the Democratic nominee for president, I can't be certain who he would pick as his vice president but it would most decidedly be a person in whom he has complete trust and who would be 100% capable of taking the reins of power should President Biden drop dead.

    This person would have a similar worldview and represent the president and president's agenda, at home and abroad.

    When Biden was running in 2008 - before the fiasco in Iowa - or perhaps I should say 'his' fiasco in Iowa - he was asked in one of the debates who he might choose has his running mate. He answered, without any hint of hesitation, that he would pick Republican Chuck Hagel and would seriously consider Republican Richard Lugar, fellow members of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    Wouldn't a fusion or hybrid ticket be a lot of fun!?

    These days, when asked, Biden says he'll consider a Republican for a running mate but can't think of one on the spot. Tell me about it.

    Anyway, I think my analysis rules out any of the contenders for the Democratic nomination. I trust that Biden would choose well. I'd like to see someone like a John Kerry (I know, I know - two old white guys!? Well, stranger things have already happened.)

    I can't think of a woman I'd like right now, on the spot, black or white or Hispanic but, I'm sure Biden knows a bunch of qualified candidates in each group.

    My hope is that Biden will wait until or if he gets the nomination before announcing who his running mate will be. This will be better for him and, more importantly, the country.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    mIchale,

    You and I make the same argument. Yet I am the only one who gets jumped on..

    Could it have something to do with open-mindedness? :)

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, dear ... ...

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    If I recall correctly, you're in Australia. I hope you are well and safe and not directly dealing with the fires.

    I'm wondering how the situation is evolving - things getting better yet?

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I have a couple of ideas about who I'd love to see as Secretary of the Treasury and head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but, those should also remain secret until AFTER the nomination. Ahem.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    When I wrote in comment 67, "When Biden was running in 2008 - before the fiasco in Iowa - or perhaps I should say 'his' fiasco in Iowa - he was asked in one of the debates who he might choose has his running mate. He answered, without any hint of hesitation, that he would pick Republican Chuck Hagel and would seriously consider Republican Richard Lugar, fellow members of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee [for secretary of state].",

    I left out that Biden said that he would seriously consider Lugar as Secretary of State.

  73. [73] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "{Democrats} are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults."
    -Russ

    Someone is lying here!! :D

    Thank you for pointing out the big difference in how Republicans disagree compared to how Democrats handle it. Notice there were no insulting names being hurled, just two people disagreeing about things said in a past conversation. She says he said it. He says he doesn’t think he said it. Ohhhh... how have we avoided bloodshed thus far when the stakes of this conflict are so..... so.... so.... non-existent!?!? Oh yeah, that explains the lack of bloodshed! This is only a big issue for those hoping to generate click-bait!

  74. [74] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The point Dershowitz was making is that when a president refuses to have the executive branch members honour legislative subpoenas for the reason of asking the judicial branch to review it cannot be an impeachable offense.

    That might be a valid argument, except that Trump’s refusal to comply was not so they could seek judicial review of the subpoenas. Dershowitz is good, but he left out the fact that Trump’s order to ignore all requests for information by Congress does not consider what the request is specifically seeking; it is just a broad, sweeping refusal of ALL requests prior to receiving them.

    There is plenty of legal precedent regarding HOW our government must respond to requests for information — and it is HOW and not IF they will respond. Trump has ordered the federal agencies to NOT respond at all. There is no need to seek the court’s ruling on matters it has ruled on previously.

    Mr. Dershowitz also fails to acknowledge that the courts cannot force Trump to comply with their rulings... and he’s already shown a willingness to ignore their orders in the past. Trump’s administration failed to return the children to their families in the timeframe the court had ordered. Incompetence isn’t an acceptable justification for their refusal to comply. Trump does only what Trump wants to do, and this habit of putting his wishes above all else makes his actions impeachable.

    Dershowitz doesn’t want to admit that if Trump wanted the court to rule on whether the federal government should have to respond to any Congressional requests, the government could have sought the answer itself! Saying that Trump wanted Congress to ask the courts to determine whether the government has to respond for him is NOT a defense. Trump cannot defend himself against the charges themselves, so he is left trying to argue they aren’t, or should not be, charges at all.

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What Bill Clinton did was wrong and arrogant — we all agree. We are all angered.

    Again.. Replace Bill Clinton with Donald Trump and the entire passage STILL works...

    That's the fool proof test to indicate blatant hypocrisy...

    Except YOU are not admitting that Trump did anything wrong, nor is he! Clinton lied about an extramarital affair he was having, Trump sought a foreign government’s assistance in damaging the reputation of a political rival, and he used military aid for that country as a way to pressure them into doing his wishes.

    Clinton’s blowjob was not a threat to our national security... withholding military aid for personal gain is a threat to national security. That you cannot accept this distinction is the real issue.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    do you still want me to write something for you?

    Most definitely.. :D

    Not sure if I had mentioned it, but on our last annual family cruise I did some karaoke.. I had them play Don McClean's AMERICAN PIE, but I sung Weird Al's THE SAGA BEGINS which, if you haven't heard it, is the story of STAR WARS Phantom Menace..

    The problem is, American Pie is 6 verses long (excluding the chorus) and The Saga Begins is only 4 verses long..

    I used to be able to write creatively, but I have lost the talent..

    I am hoping you can extend The Saga Begins by 2 verses so that it will be compatible with the karaoke version of American Pie..

    Of course, a better than working knowledge of The Phantom Menace is going to be required..

    I can email you the lyrics to both songs...

    Let me know if ya wanna tackle the project and what form of payment you would require.. :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    That might be a valid argument, except that Trump’s refusal to comply was not so they could seek judicial review of the subpoenas.

    This requires mind-reading... You have absolutely NO FACTS to support your claim of President Trump's motivations..

    There is plenty of legal precedent regarding HOW our government must respond to requests for information — and it is HOW and not IF they will respond.

    Then you should have NO PROBLEM providing such precedent that indicates President Trump is NOT responding properly...

    Mr. Dershowitz also fails to acknowledge that the courts cannot force Trump to comply with their rulings... and he’s already shown a willingness to ignore their orders in the past.

    Just as Obama has during HIS administration.. Why wasn't that a problem for you then??

    I would also like to see your facts to support your claim that President Trump has ignored orders from the court...

    Trump’s administration failed to return the children to their families in the timeframe the court had ordered.

    Facts to support???

    Trump cannot defend himself against the charges themselves, so he is left trying to argue they aren’t, or should not be, charges at all.

    Considering that the Articles Of Impeachment are **NOT** valid charges, it's obvious that President Trump is on firm legal ground..

    Except YOU are not admitting that Trump did anything wrong, nor is he!

    I am admitting that President Trump has not committed the crimes he is charged with under the Articles Of Impeachment because the Articles Of Impeachment are not chargeable crimes at all..

    Clinton’s blowjob was not a threat to our national security...

    And if Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob, you would have a valid argument..

    But Clinton was impeached for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, so you DON'T have a valid argument..

    withholding military aid for personal gain is a threat to national security.

    So, you are saying that Obama's decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine was a "threat to national security"...

    Is THAT what you are saying???

    That you cannot accept this distinction is the real issue.

    If you want to concede that Obama's actions in withholding military aid from Ukraine was a "threat to national security" then I'll accept your distinction.. :D

    Just let me know if you want to concede.. :D

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Notice there were no insulting names being hurled,

    Really???

    Warren said that Bernie called her a liar..

    Face reality, Russ..

    Your Democrats are as mean and nasty towards each other as you accuse Republicans of being..

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    MOPSHELL!!!!!

    Well, there is a blast from the past!!!

    How ya been doing!!??? :D

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dershowitz knows full well that legislative subpoenas have the same weight as court subpoenas and that compliance is required by law.

    And court subpoenas can also be appealed to a higher authority..

    Which is all President Trump has done..

    Judge Jackson is not the only judge to order that people and entities must comply with legislative subpoenas. There are two cases with the Supreme Court now that have been reviewed by two judges and two panels of appellate judges all of whom ruled for the House. That Dershowitz fails to mention this is disingenuous on his part.

    But has the SCOTUS ruled on those two cases??

    I don't believe so..

    So, until such time as the SCOTUS rules, compliance is not legally required..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You and I make the same argument. Yet I am the only one who gets jumped on..

    Could it have something to do with open-mindedness? :)

    What do ya mean??

    *I* am the ONLY one here (well, besides a couple) that *IS* open minded..

    After all, I (NEN) am the only one here who can admit that I MIGHT be wrong..

    You won't catch most others being able to concede the same thing..

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But, the Supreme Court is the last word on these cases.

    Exactly...

    Until such time as the SCOTUS rules, compliance is not required..

    The problem is, all the lower court rulings are not based on the rule of law but on the hatred of President Trump..

    As such, non-compliance is not only allowable, it's REQUIRED...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do you think they went with the more nebulous abuse of power?

    OH!!! I KNOW!!!! I KNOW!!!! PICK ME!!! I KNOW!!!!

    House Democrats went with the more nebulous "Abuse Of Power" because A> the facts did not support the claims within the catch-all and B> it sounds scary..

    "They call him 'The Sand Spider'.."
    "Why do they call him that?"
    "Probably because it sounds scary.."

    -TRUE LIES

    :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    No, Michale, they haven't and Trump knows this even if you don't.

    What can Democrats do to President Trump after he is re-elected??

    The American people aren't going to stand for endless monthly impeachments..

    Impeachment is the ultimate that Democrats can do..

    And they have blown it with, according to Democrats own quotes, an illegitimate impeachment..

    What other arrows do Democrats have in the quiver??

    Armed insurrection???

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    donald was prescient when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and not lose his supporters. at the rate new evidence is coming out, i wouldn't be surprised if he had.

    It's a HUGE step from drunken hearsay to pre-meditated murder...

    Don'tcha think?? :D

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know ya'all are giddy over the GOA report..

    But, as per the norm, when the FACTS are displayed, the report is revealed as a bogus and non factual pile of excrement..

    Trump Had Right to Withhold Ukraine Funds: GAO is Wrong

    The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

    To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

    Even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not — the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents.

    If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law.
    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15462/trump-had-right-to-withhold-ukraine-funds-gao-is

    As I mentioned to Russ above..

    If ya'all believe that President Trump should be impeached for withholding aid to Ukraine, then ya'all MUST believe the same of Obama.

    Because OBAMA also withheld aid to Ukraine..

    Funny how no one here batted an eyelash when THAT happened.. :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack Obama created when he unilaterally made the Iran deal and sent that enemy of America billions of dollars without congressional approval. I do not recall the GAO complaining about that presidential decision, despite the reality that the Iran deal was, in effect, a treaty that should require senate approval that was never given.

    WHATEVER the President wants to do with regards to Foreign Policy (sans Declaration Of War or Treaties) is Constitutionally permissible..

    It's really that simple...

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    In any event, even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not— the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents. Those alleged violations were barely noted by the media. But in the hyper-partisan impeachment atmosphere, this report received breathless "breaking news" coverage and a demand for inclusion among the articles of impeachment.

    If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law. But let us not continue to water down the constitutional criteria for impeachment by including highly questionable, and on my view wrongheaded, views about violations of an unconstitutional civil law.

    Ya'all get breathless over the GOA report..

    But the FACTS clearly show that, even if this were a violation, it's a CIVIL violation..

    It's a jaywalking ticket...

    But the reaction from the Left is indicative of the times we live in..

    Ya'all like to claim that President Trump could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters wouldn't care..

    But what ya'all don't realize is that the converse is ALSO true..

    President Trump could spit on the sidewalk on 5th Avenue and the Trump/America haters would hysterically demand his head on a platter...

    Kinda sad when ya think about it, eh?

  89. [89] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NYpoet-
    It has already happened. But the shootings were in alleys and on the sidewalks.

    Trump purposely said in the middle of fifth avenue so he would be able to say no if anyone ever asked him if he had done so and not be lying (you know how important the truth is to Trump).

    In fact, it has happened so often they have even written songs about it.

    East side, west side
    all around the town
    The Trump is on a rampage
    and he's shooting people down
    All of his supporters
    Think it's better than to deport
    And cheer Trump on his rampage
    on the sidewalks of New York

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just in case everyone is still asleep, let me relay the facts..

    The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

    When it comes to Foreign Policy (sans the previous exceptions) Congress has absolutely NO SAY in what the President does..

    That is why Obama was allowed to get away with sending a terrorist regime hundreds of billions of dollars..

    Republicans knew that it was within Obama's Constitutional authority to do that...

    Just as it is in President Trump's Constitutional authority to do what he did..

    It's simply amazing that ya'all try to argue against these ***FACTS***...

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I understand why you have to dress up the word 'facts' all the time, Michale. :)

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, your foreign policy argument as stated above is weaker than the 'legitimate impeachment must be bipartisan' one.

    I'd stick with the stronger constitutional arguments if I were you ...

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    I understand why you have to dress up the word 'facts' all the time, Michale. :)

    Exactly.. Because many here simply deny the facts...

    And, your foreign policy argument as stated above is weaker than the 'legitimate impeachment must be bipartisan' one.

    I'd stick with the stronger constitutional arguments if I were you ...

    My argument *IS* a Constitutional argument..

    Or, to be more accurate, my argument is Dershowitz's argument and HIS argument is a Constitutional argument..

    The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

    And I am further constrained to point out that my argument that this is an illegitimate impeachment is BASED on the Constitutional argument..

    IE the Constitutional argument begets the illegitimate impeachment conclusion..

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer D-Md, the number-two Democrat in the House, defended the House's impeachment inquiry last month by remarking that Trump was afforded "every opportunity to prove his innocence."

    "Instead, he ignored Congressional subpoenas for documents and for testimony by White House officials and ordered his subordinates not to cooperate. This itself is unprecedented," Hoyer claimed.

    I don't know what country Hoyer THINKS he is living in, but this country is NOT Soviet Russia...

    In America, we don't require Americans to PROVE their innocence...

    A perfect example of how Democrats hate this country...

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Progressives Warn of a Great Deflation
    The left is more energized than ever. So what happens if Joe Biden is the nominee?

    “Please don’t make me vote for Joe Biden!” a flock of teenagers pleaded in a series of videos posted to the social-media app TikTok earlier this month.

    But as the Iowa caucuses draw closer, a Biden nomination is looking more likely by the day. Lefty groups are worried—and warning that a Biden win could crush the activist enthusiasm they’re counting on to win in November.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/biden-sanders-warren-great-deflation/605134/

    The coming Democrat civil war is so predictable...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    The life stages of Yoda

    http://sjfm.us/pics/Yoda.jpg

    :D

  97. [97] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    amused we are not

  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as to verses five and six, work on them i will.

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    v5.
    well here we all were in one ship
    with two light sabers in our grip
    duelling here on mustafar
    well the pleas of me and pad'me
    fell on deaf ears this fateful day
    'cause ani wore his passion like a scar

    now i did cry and she did beg
    but he jumped up and lost his legs
    right then i had to fess up
    his training was a mess-up

    As the flames burned up his arms and face
    i left him right there in that place
    thought all my efforts went to waste
    i guess i had to teach the boy

    so my, my, this here anakin guy
    now he's vader maybe later he could be a good guy
    but now he's sith lord and he's buyin' their lies
    but i really wish he was a jedi
    i wish that he was still a jedi

    (feel free to revise as you wish, i'm just shooting from the hip here)

    ~JL

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    line 3,
    "duelling down on mustafar"

    already used the word 'here' in line 1

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    as to verses five and six, work on them i will.

    That would be awesome.. :D

    The way the SAGA BEGINS song is now is nominally (where it goes from fast temp to slow tempo, there are 2 verses missing..

    But the movie scenes are relatively close together. In the fast tempo part ends with Annakin appearing before the Jedi Council and the slow tempo part picks up when they depart for Naboo to fight in the final battle..

    Not much happens in the movie between those two parts..

    It occurs to me that you could fit in a couple verses (fast tempo) even before the last fast tempo verse, instead of trying to squeeze 2 verses in between the fast tempo verse and the slow tempo verse..

    Yer the creative genius.. Just ask if ya need any of my input.. :D

  102. [102] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    chorus, line 3

    but now he's A sith lord

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    verse 6 will be be from chapters 4-6

  104. [104] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    they're the best films anyways...

  105. [105] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that will have to wait though, as i have a toddler who needs attention

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Exactly.. Because many here simply deny the facts...

    You're incorrigible.

  107. [107] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    v6.

    well i met a droid and it turned on
    a girl said help me obi-wan
    she said i was her only hope
    then i went down to mos eisley port
    to seek a ride and storm the fort
    but i worried that her brother couldn't cope

    in hyperspace the falcon flew
    a million screamed and then were through
    the force was overloaded
    when dantooine exploded

    and the jedi i admired the most,
    yoda, mace, qui-gonn and quinlan vos
    they merged themselves into the fo'ce
    to help me teach his boy
    they were singin'

    my, my, this old anakin guy
    now he's vader maybe later he'll return t'the light side
    now leia and luke have to reunify
    and someday they might bring back the jedi

  108. [108] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    someday they might bring back the jedi

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    isn't there a repeat chorus at the end? if so:

    i was singin'
    my, my, this old anakin guy,
    strike me down and i'll be stronger then you'd ever realize
    your son and daughter will be back by and by
    and they'll bring you back to be a jedi
    yes before you go you'll be a jedi

  110. [110] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22:

    dantooine exploded

    Actually, it was Alderaan that exploded...but I like the lyrics you came up with! Well done!

  111. [111] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    oh damn, that's right. dantooine was where leia said the rebel base was, but it was alderaan got blowed up.

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    no matter, same number of syllables, fits right in there.

  113. [113] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    That might be a valid argument, except that Trump’s refusal to comply was not so they could seek judicial review of the subpoenas.

    This requires mind-reading... You have absolutely NO FACTS to support your claim of President Trump's motivations..

    Except the FACT that Trump NEVER BOTHERED TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE REQUESTS! No mind-reading required, Trump’s claim might have merit if he’d bothered to have asked the courts to tell hm if he had to respond.

    It’ll be interesting to see if Dershowitz stays onboard with Trump’s defense, he’s represented a lot of scummy folks in the past, but he’s not gonna be part of a defense team that is actively committing crimes.

    Considering that the Articles Of Impeachment are **NOT** valid charges, it's obvious that President Trump is on firm legal ground..

    I am admitting that President Trump has not committed the crimes he is charged with under the Articles Of Impeachment because the Articles Of Impeachment are not chargeable crimes at all..

    Impeachable actions do not have to be criminal actions. President Ford’s definition has been the most quoted definition for what an impeachable offense.

    An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history. — President Gerald Ford

    (Gerald Ford’s presidency was so sad that SNL did not even bother to have an actor who sounded like or was made to look like Ford to portray him! )

    So, you are saying that Obama's decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine was a "threat to national security"...

    Is THAT what you are saying???

    Mind telling us WHEN it was that Obama withheld military aid that Congress had designated was to go to the Ukrainians?

    OR are you trying to lie to everyone here and claim that Obama deciding not to sell Javelin missiles to Ukraine after Crimea was invaded by Russia in an attempt to limit casualties and instead have the conflict resolved at the negotiating table is what Trump was actually attempting to do? Nope! Trump halted money Congress had earmarked for Ukraine and threatened not to release it unless the Ukraine said that Biden was under investigation.

    What’s worse is that Trump wasn’t wanting an actual investigation on Biden, he simply wanted Ukraine to SAY one was being opened. Because THAT is Trump showing just how much he is against corruption!

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just saw the first Star Wars movie and don't have time to catch up but, great job, Joshua on those lyrics!

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Except the FACT that Trump NEVER BOTHERED TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE REQUESTS! No mind-reading required, Trump’s claim might have merit if he’d bothered to have asked the courts to tell him if he had to respond.

    Well, somebody or body should have taken it to court, no?

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It’ll be interesting to see if Dershowitz stays onboard with Trump’s defense, he’s represented a lot of scummy folks in the past, but he’s not gonna be part of a defense team that is actively committing crimes.

    Oh, it sounds like Dershowitz will be there to the bitter end … for Democrats, I mean …

    Dershowitz is just plain against impeachment. I guess there would be some impeachments he'd be for but he hasn't met one yet.

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Impeachable actions do not have to be criminal actions.

    I'm pretty sure the professor agrees with that. He just argues that the impeachable offense must be like bribery, treason and other - emphasis on other (as in similar to bribery or treason) - high crimes and misdemeanors.

    I'm not sure what non-crime he would consider an impeachable offense, though ...

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What’s worse is that Trump wasn’t wanting an actual investigation on Biden, he simply wanted Ukraine to SAY one was being opened. Because THAT is Trump showing just how much he is against corruption!

    Precisely.

    Now, Michale, if Trump really thought Biden had done something wrong then he would most decidedly NOT have asked "little powerless and corrupt Ukraine' to investigate it. No, Trump would have asked his very busy investigating Attorney General Bill Barr to add Biden to his list.

    Good God, even Trump knows Biden is guilty of NOTHING!

  119. [119] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    *bows*

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  121. [121] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Now, Michale, if Trump really thought Biden had done something wrong then he would most decidedly NOT have asked "little powerless and corrupt Ukraine' to investigate it. No, Trump would have asked his very busy investigating Attorney General Bill Barr to add Biden to his list.

    Exactly! Biden had diplomatic immunity while representing our country in Ukraine, so it is not like they could conduct too much of an investigation on him. They would actually have had to ask the FBI to investigate Biden if they believed that he had done anything corrupt against their country.

    I think Trump’s legal team is already showing signs of not working well together! Dershowitz has put out a statement that he had no part in Trump’s defense team’s letter in response to the House’s arguments against Trump.

    Then there is Ken Starr. Not a defense attorney at all. But as the special counsel in the Clinton case, Starr argued that Clinton had committed an impeachable offense by blocking witness testimony and documents. He is sitting at the wrong table it seems like.

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's going to be a fun trial!

    Especially if the Biden's testify. Heh.

  123. [123] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Well, somebody or body should have taken it to court, no?

    If Trump is now claiming that THAT was why he ordered federal agencies and employees to ignore any requests from Congress for documents or information, then by all means he should have asked the courts to tell him what he should do...but, not surprisingly, Trump didn’t!

    The Democrats did not want the impeachment trial to interfere with the election, especially since the allegations against Trump are based on his attempts to have a foreign country interfere in our elections on his behalf! If Trump is guilty of this, then he needs to face judgement for it prior to the election. Trump’s refusal to release documents to the impeachment inquiry.investigations when they sought them was a stall tactic. The Supreme Court ruled on the issues a president wants to prevent investigators from seeing during the Nixon impeachment inquiry.

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That sounds like a pretty weak argument, Russ.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Except the FACT that Trump NEVER BOTHERED TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE REQUESTS!

    But that's not the point you are making..

    The point you are making is WHY President Trump never bothered to seek judicial review of the requests..

    And you can't know the why, you are just making an assumption based on Trump/American hate..

    It’ll be interesting to see if Dershowitz stays onboard with Trump’s defense, he’s represented a lot of scummy folks in the past, but he’s not gonna be part of a defense team that is actively committing crimes.

    Actually, Der is not part of President Trump's defense team.. He is simply addressing the Senate on the illegitimacy of this faux impeachment coup.

    Impeachable actions do not have to be criminal actions. President Ford’s definition has been the most quoted definition for what an impeachable offense.

    It may be the most quoted, but that doesn't mean it's factually accurate..

    The US Constitution defines impeachment, not President Ford..

    And the US Constitution specifically states that the President must be guilty of specific CRIMES to be impeached..

    Abuse of Power and Obstruction Of Congress are not crimes..

    Mind telling us WHEN it was that Obama withheld military aid that Congress had designated was to go to the Ukrainians?

    That's NOT what you said.. You said that withholding military aid from Ukraine was a "threat to national security"..

    Obama did the EXACT same thing...

    Now that Obama is on the hot seat, NOW you want to change your spin..

    Typical

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Well, somebody or body should have taken it to court, no?

    Yes...

    House Democrats tried to play the "URGENT REMOVAL" spin as an excuse why they couldn't be bothered to go thru the courts.

    Pelosi royally fraked up that excuse by withholding the Articles Of Impeachment..

    This faux impeachment coup has been AMATEUR HOUR from the get go..

    It's actually very surprising that Pelosi would handle it so badly..

    Oh, it sounds like Dershowitz will be there to the bitter end … for Democrats, I mean …

    Der is on record as stating that he is not really on the President's legal team.. He is simply testifying to the illegitimacy of this faux impeachment coup..

    Now, Michale, if Trump really thought Biden had done something wrong then he would most decidedly NOT have asked "little powerless and corrupt Ukraine' to investigate it. No, Trump would have asked his very busy investigating Attorney General Bill Barr to add Biden to his list.

    I am sure Barr IS investigating Biden.. But since Ukraine was the focal point of Hunter Biden's illegal activities, it would make sense for President Trump to ask President Zelevsky to nose around from HIS end..

    Again, perfectly within the purview of the President Of The United States..

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Trump’s legal team is already showing signs of not working well together! Dershowitz has put out a statement that he had no part in Trump’s defense team’s letter in response to the House’s arguments against Trump.

    Old news.. :D

    Then there is Ken Starr. Not a defense attorney at all.

    Yer right.. Ken Starr is just a former Federal Judge..

    Hardly qualified.. :eyeroll:

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s refusal to release documents to the impeachment inquiry.investigations when they sought them was a stall tactic.

    Once again, all you have is MIND READING to make that claim..

    You really need to get it thru your head that you simply have NO FACTS to support ANY claim you make about President Trump's motivations...

    And I will always call you on it.. :D

    You can thank me later... :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Oh my gods, those are awesome lyrics!!! :D

    I really miss my creative side..

    Unfortunately, THE SAGA BEGINS is the story of the Phantom Menace.. It would be confusing to sing the story of the Phantom Menace, switch to later stories, then back to Phantom Menace for the last slow tempo verse..

    I have an XLS file I created that matches up the two songs. I'll email it to you when I get to the shop..

    But, damn!! Those are some awesome lyrics!!! :D

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    How Pelosi became President Trump's biatch..

    Now that Pelosi has impeached Trump, she will become his stooge

    The more Nancy Pelosi tries to get people to take her seriously, the more ridiculous she is. During the impeachment vote, it was, “Everyone will take us seriously if we all just wear black.”

    For an entire month after that, it was, “Everyone will take us seriously if we withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate.” This week, it was, “Everyone will take us seriously if we have a solemn procession across the floor of the Capitol.” No? Not that? How about fancy ceremonial pens? Would that make anyone take them seriously? Any takers? Nancy stopped just short of ordering commemorative plates from the Franklin Mint to see if that might convince America we’re in a Very Serious Crisis.

    Pelosi lost this fight before it even started because there was never any chance Trump would be removed from office by the Senate. That became clear way back in October. Everything she did after that amounted to taking multiple trips to the punishment buffet and stuffing her face.

    Madame Speaker is the new Dean Wormer. Nothing she had in her arsenal carried any more mojo than Wormer’s sinister threat to the livelihood of Animal House. She might as well have threatened President Trump with Double Secret Impeachment.
    https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/now-that-pelosi-has-impeached-trump-she-will-become-his-stooge/

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi’s doomed impeachment gambit can’t even be classified as historic. Sorry, Fancy Nancy, but the third time something happens isn’t historic. Quick: Who was the third man on the moon? The third of anything isn’t history. It’s just trivia.

    Enlarge ImageClerk of the US House of Representatives' Cheryl Johnson, with Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Irving and House Impeachment managers, carry the articles of impeachment to the Senate floor in the US Capitol.
    Clerk of the US House of Representatives’ Cheryl Johnson, with Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Irving and House Impeachment managers, carry the articles of impeachment to the Senate floor in the US Capitol.SHAWN THEW/EPA-EFE/REX
    After Pelosi’s little impeachment show flops harder in the Senate than “Cats” did in the multiplex, Trump will return to nonstop trolling of her on the campaign trail. The pertinent sports term is “posterizing.” In every poster-worthy photograph of a particularly exceptional touchdown catch or mythic slam dunk, in the near background there’s always some woebegone defender standing there, deflated and despairing and questioning his life choices. That’s poor Pelosi: posterized.

    Pelosi is a canny political operator and so she must be fully aware of what I call Omar’s Law, from “The Wire”: You come at the king, you best not miss. So why did she go through with this folly, sign up for ritual humiliation and invite the people she probably hates most on this earth — Trump and Mitch McConnell — to outsmart her?

    The impotency of the Democrat Party..

    I commented on that before..

    After this faux impeachment coup falls flat and President Trump is thoroughly and unequivocally vindicated and exonerated....???

    Assuming that Democrats keep the House in 2020 what can Democrats hold over President Trump to reign in his behavior??

    Not a damn thing...

    Basically the next 4 years is going to be President Trump unleashed and unstoppable... Especially since it's all but assured that Democrats will lose the House..

    It's gonna be a WILD ride!!! :D

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reposted for readability...

    Pelosi’s doomed impeachment gambit can’t even be classified as historic. Sorry, Fancy Nancy, but the third time something happens isn’t historic. Quick: Who was the third man on the moon? The third of anything isn’t history. It’s just trivia.

    After Pelosi’s little impeachment show flops harder in the Senate than “Cats” did in the multiplex, Trump will return to nonstop trolling of her on the campaign trail. The pertinent sports term is “posterizing.” In every poster-worthy photograph of a particularly exceptional touchdown catch or mythic slam dunk, in the near background there’s always some woebegone defender standing there, deflated and despairing and questioning his life choices. That’s poor Pelosi: posterized.

    Pelosi is a canny political operator and so she must be fully aware of what I call Omar’s Law, from “The Wire”: You come at the king, you best not miss. So why did she go through with this folly, sign up for ritual humiliation and invite the people she probably hates most on this earth — Trump and Mitch McConnell — to outsmart her?

    The impotency of the Democrat Party..

    I commented on that before..

    After this faux impeachment coup falls flat and President Trump is thoroughly and unequivocally vindicated and exonerated....???

    Assuming that Democrats keep the House in 2020 what can Democrats hold over President Trump to reign in his behavior??

    Not a damn thing...

    Basically the next 4 years is going to be President Trump unleashed and unstoppable... Especially since it's all but assured that Democrats will lose the House..

    It's gonna be a WILD ride!!! :D

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah, remember when the Emoluments Clause was the Fairy Godmother of the #Resistance? We were all so young then. Pelosi spent the intervening three years muttering about all of the Trump misdeeds she was unable to do anything about. It was exactly like Dean Wormer gravely intoning, “Every Halloween, the trees are filled with underwear. Every spring, the toilets explode.”

    What Nancy Pelosi is going to get out of this little gambit is zip. Nada. A non-chilada with a side of naught sauce. Trump will never stop laughing at her. In fact, she has supplied him with the means to laugh all the way to reelection.

    You really have to ask... Didn't Pelosi realize that this would be the end result??

    Did Pelosi HONESTLY believe that Republicans and Independents/NPAs would rally to her cause???

    If she did, the incompetence is stunning in it's depth and breadth...

    Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would have realized what the outcome. Hell I have been predicting this very outcome since day one..

    Speaking of not having two brain cells to rub together, where have Kick and Paula gotten themselves too.. :D

    Ya ever notice how they always disappear together...???

    Things that make ya go 'Hmmmmmmmmm' :D

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Hole in the Impeachment Case

    Something is missing from the charges against Trump: An impeachable offense.
    https://tinyurl.com/rbwe84e

    And there it is in a nutshell...

    This is an illegitimate impeachment because there is no impeachable offence in the Articles Of Impeachment..

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thought experiment No. 1: Suppose Bob Mueller’s probe actually proves that Donald Trump is under Vladimir Putin’s thumb. Fill in the rest of the blanks with your favorite corruption fantasy: The Kremlin has video of the mogul-turned-president debauching himself in a Moscow hotel; the Kremlin has a bulging file of real-estate transfers through which Trump laundered racketeering proceeds for Putin’s favored mobsters and oligarchs; or Trump is recorded cutting a deal to drop Obama-era sanctions against Putin’s regime if Russian spies hack Democratic accounts.

    Thought experiment No. 2: Adam Schiff is not a demagogue. (Remember, this is fantasy.) At the very first televised hearing, when he alleged that President Trump told Ukrainian president Zelensky, “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent . . . lots of it,” Schiff was not defrauding the public. Instead, impeachment’s Inspector Clouseau can actually prove that Trump was asking a foreign government to manufacture out of whole cloth evidence that Vice President Biden and his son were cashing in on the former’s political influence (as opposed to asking that Ukraine look into an arrangement so objectively sleazy that the Obama administration itself agitated over what to do about it).

    What do these two scenarios have in common, besides being fictional? Answer: If either of them were real, we’d already be talking about President Pence’s upcoming State of the Union address.

    This is the point that gets lost in all the endless chatter over impeachment strategy and procedure. Everything that is happening owes to the fact that we do not have an offense sufficiently grave for invocation of the Constitution’s nuclear option. If we had one, the machinations and the posturing would be unnecessary — even ridiculous.

    That's a VERY good point that no one here can address..

    Remember what CW said??? Something about Blatant and Obvious??

    These Articles of Impeachment are anything BUT blatant and obvious..

    They are nebulous and, as crimes, non-existent..

    Democrats have violated every claim they made prior to this faux impeachment coup...

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Allow me to illustrate how I can defeat ALL of ya'all's rhetoric and false assertions and spin with a single question..

    Ready???

    Have House Democrats made their case for removing President Trump from office?

    Taaaa daaaaaa :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Iowa caucus is 2 weeks away!!???

    Where are Sanders & Warren & Klobacher???

    Oh yea.. That's right..

    They are stuck in DC on jury duty..

    :D

    Pelosi's faux impeachment coup..

    A total cluster-frak from the start... :D

  138. [138] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    if you're stuck on continuity, i think it makes less sense to send my new verses to the scrap-heap and more sense to drop one of weird al's verses and replace it with a clone wars verse, presuming that is possible.

    regarding sanders, warren and klobuchar being in DC during the caucuses, that's great for biden and buttigieg!

    JL

  139. [139] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m

    if you have my old yahoo email, don't send as that's been a bit of a black hole in recent months. my gmail is first name dot middle initial dot last name. for some reason the dots matter.

    JL

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    if you're stuck on continuity, i think it makes less sense to send my new verses to the scrap-heap and more sense to drop one of weird al's verses and replace it with a clone wars verse, presuming that is possible.

    I was thinking the same thing but that is a lot heavier of a load.. I was reluctant to ask that of you..

    regarding sanders, warren and klobuchar being in DC during the caucuses, that's great for biden and buttigieg!

    Yes it is.. Suspiciously so... :D

    f you have my old yahoo email, don't send as that's been a bit of a black hole in recent months. my gmail is first name dot middle initial dot last name. for some reason the dots matter.

    Ahhh I DO have the old email.. :D

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme know if ya don't receive it..

  142. [142] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Have House Democrats made their case for removing President Trump from office?

    yes. if everything the house prosecutors say is completely true, then donald merits conviction and removal.

    your argument that "abuse of power" isn't a crime doesn't hold water, because the contents of the article are illegal acts irrespective of the title heading of the article. the "name" of the crime is just a function of the unusual legal status of impeachment. if the act itself is criminal, the congress could call the impeachment article 'happy fun ball' and it would still merit conviction and removal.

    Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
    Do not taunt happy fun ball.
    ~SNL

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember what CW said??? Something about Blatant and Obvious??

    These Articles of Impeachment are anything BUT blatant and obvious..

    And also keep in mind that the *ONE* point above all others, the *ONE* requirement that EVERY legitimate impeachment, according to Democrats, MUST have...???

    Bi-Partisan....

    That's the ONE component that **DEMOCRATS** insisted must be present for an impeachment to be legit....

    Apparently... "Bi Partisan" is so 2019 and not applicable today.. :smirk: :D

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes. if everything the house prosecutors say is completely true, then donald merits conviction and removal.

    OK... So, Democrats don't need any more witnesses...

    your argument that "abuse of power" isn't a crime doesn't hold water, because the contents of the article are illegal acts irrespective of the title heading of the article.

    If the contents of the Article are A> criminal acts and B> factually beyond all doubt, then it makes absolutely NO SENSE for Democrats NOT to include these alleged "criminal acts" as Articles Of Impeachment..

    Read this: https://tinyurl.com/rbwe84e to see what I mean..

    The FACT that House Democrats DIDN'T do that proves that they don't have your faith in their "truth"...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    House managers cite 'overwhelming' evidence against Trump in their brief to Senate
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/house-managers-cite-overwhelming-evidence-against-trump-their-brief-senate-n1118436

    Funny thing..

    Those same Democrat CongressCritters *ALSO* said that there was "overwhelming evidence" to support the claim of Russia Collusion...

    We know now how UTTERLY and COMPLETELY ***WRONG*** said CongressCritters were about that..

    I think it's adorable that these CongressCritters think they have even an IOTA of credibility in their claims.. :D

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    yes. if everything the house prosecutors say is completely true, then donald merits conviction and removal.

    OK... So, Democrats don't need any more witnesses...

    OK, no fair.. You snuck a lil "IF" in there..

    OK, so you claim that Democrats DON'T have a case right now..

    If this is factual, it means that House Democrats did not do due diligence...

    In other words, House Dims frak'ed up. Scrooed da pooch... Shot the horse when it came back to the barn...

  147. [147] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Farewell well Comments Section. You are no longer worth visiting. The continuing decline in nuggets to slag ratio makes mining opertarations unsustainable. Sadly, this an Internet trend among unmoderated forums.

    This is not a criticism of the parent column, which I will continue to read and support.

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Officer Kailike Kalama
    Honolulu Police Department, Hawaii
    End of Watch: Sunday, January 19, 2020

    Officer Tiffany-Victoria Enriquez
    Honolulu Police Department, Hawaii
    End of Watch: Sunday, January 19, 2020

    And remind the few...
    When ill of us they speak...
    That we are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak....

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig,

    Farewell well Comments Section. You are no longer worth visiting. The continuing decline in nuggets to slag ratio makes mining opertarations unsustainable. Sadly, this an Internet trend among unmoderated forums.

    Would you like some cheeze to go with yer Sour Grape Whine???

    By constantly bitching and offering nothing more than Party Slavery "Me Too"s and "Ditto"s, you are part of the problem..

    Not part of the solution..

    On the plus side, it appears we are winnowing the "noise".. I think yours is the 4th departure of the noise makers in the past couple weeks... :D

    Soon we will be back to the Weigantia of days gone past... :D

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, TS!

    Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

    Hehehehehehehehehe ...

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Seriously, I left the comments sections, too … many time to count. :)

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, there is some moderation around here!

    Every time you post too fast somebody comes on to say, "Slow down, you're posting too fast". :0

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Every time you post too fast somebody comes on to say, "Slow down, you're posting too fast". :0

    My favorite is, when you accidentally hit the PREVIEW COMMENT button without having actually typed something you get a snarky:

    Empty comments may not be previewed. I mean, what would be the point, really?

    :D

    Let it not be said that CW does not have a sense of humor.. :D

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed!

    But, I can't just post Indeed! because it looks like I may have already made that comment. Well, indeed.

  155. [155] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Mind telling us WHEN it was that Obama withheld military aid that Congress had designated was to go to the Ukrainians?

    That's NOT what you said.. You said that withholding military aid from Ukraine was a "threat to national security"..

    Obama did the EXACT same thing...

    Now that Obama is on the hot seat, NOW you want to change your spin.....

    Obama COULD NOT HAVE DONE THE EXACT SAME THING since declining to sell missiles to Ukraine is not the same as withholding military aid that Congress had earmarked to help Ukraine in their war with Russia. And for the record, Obama’s presidency ended in 2016. Anything that he did that you have a problem with should have been dealt with when they occurred. Seeing how nothing you claim Obama did has ever matched what it is Trump is being accused of, you are admitting that Trump is guilty every time your defense is “But Obama....”. Just FYI, I won’t be playing the Obama game anymore.

    It was in our national security interests to not sell Ukraine the weapons after Russia took Crimea to avoid unnecessary escalation of fighting that could draw us into the conflict. Asking Ukraine to SAY that Biden was under investigation was being done on behalf of Trump, personally, as there are no national security reasons to make such a claim. According to the letter Giuliani sent to Zelensky. his meeting with Zelensky was being done on behalf of Donald J. Trump, the man, not President Trump. So why Trump thought he could hold that aid to force Zelensky’s hand is anyone’s guess!

  156. [156] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    The 'if' was not to imply that they haven't established a factual basis of evidence to prove the charges, merely to acknowledge that defense may present evidence to rebut those charges. If i were a grand juror i would vote to indict. If i were a petit juror I'd be curious to hear the other side.

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Obama COULD NOT HAVE DONE THE EXACT SAME THING since declining to sell missiles to Ukraine is not the same as withholding military aid

    Obama withheld military aid from Ukraine...

    This is FACT...

    President Trump delayed military aid to Ukraine for a grand total of a day... The military aid STILL got to Ukraine even before the deadline..

    Yer right..

    It's NOT the same thing.. Obama's actions was a threat to national security, according to your definition..

    President Trump's actions was not..

    Just FYI, I won’t be playing the Obama game anymore.

    Of course you won't.. Because you always lose.

    I accept your concession.. :D

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    The 'if' was not to imply that they haven't established a factual basis of evidence to prove the charges, merely to acknowledge that defense may present evidence to rebut those charges. If i were a grand juror i would vote to indict. If i were a petit juror I'd be curious to hear the other side.

    So, you are saying that, in YOUR mind, Democrats have already made their case...

    So, you would agree that Democrats don't need to call any witnesses...

    Do I have that right??

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Irregardless of all your hypocrisy, there is one FACT that you simply cannot explain..

    Sans Declarations Of War and Treaties, Foreign Policy is the ***SOLE*** purview of the President Of The United States..

    So, even if President Trump did what you claim..

    It is NOT illegal nor impeachable...

    It's what allowed Odumbo to give the NUMBER ONE Terrorist State on the planet, hundreds of billions of dollars so that the state could continue it's terrorism and missile programs..

    If ANY President deserved impeachment, it was Odumbo..

    But it's not impeachable because...

    Say it with me....

    Sans Declarations Of War and Treaties, Foreign Policy is the ***SOLE*** purview of the President Of The United States..

    Class dismissed..

  160. [160] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    Not quite. I'd say if the defense were not entitled to present their own case, there would be enough to convict without further testimony. However, the defense is so entitled, so it wouldn't be fair to hamstring the prosecution with a ban on additional evidence prior to the defense making its case.

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    The defense can make it's case without witnesses..

    Can the Democrats??

    All the defense has to do is state the facts..

    Sans Declarations Of War and Treaties, Foreign Policy is the ***SOLE*** purview of the President Of The United States..

  162. [162] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The defense can make it's(sic) case without witnesses..
    Can the Democrats??

    No. This point i concede. The defense is not based on facts, it's based on legal precedent.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. This point i concede.

    Fair enough.. I won't belabor the point then..

    The defense is not based on facts, it's based on legal precedent.

    In this case, a distinction without a difference....

    The precedent is based on fact, ergo the current defense is based on fact, once removed..

  164. [164] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Sans Declarations Of War and Treaties, Foreign Policy is the ***SOLE*** purview of the President Of The United States..

    You are right! Now explain how having a foreign country say that it was investigating a US citizen who is the political rival of the president in the upcoming election is part of our country’s Foreign Policy?!?! Oh wait, you cannot because it IS NOT! The President having a foreign government publicly smear the reputation of an American citizen to help the president’s re-election is most definitely not part of America’s foreign policy...but it is most definitely an impeachable offense.

    It also shows how scared Trump is about his chances at a second term! Trump knows his days are numbered and that he’s gonna be facing criminal charges the moment he leaves office.

    I cannot wait to hear your attempts to spin an explanation for your devotion to Trump once it becomes crystal clear to even the most ignorant Trump follower that he was compromised and corrupt as hell! Luckily, I doubt I’ll have to wait too long.

  165. [165] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The defense should be able to call defense witnesses who can offer testimony that exonerate the President from the charges outlined in the AOI. That, logically, should be Chief of Staff Mulvaney, John Bolton, William Barr, Rick Perry, Mike Pompeo, and Rudy Giuliani — the people who had firsthand knowledge of the President’s actions and the reasons for his actions.

    If Trump is innocent, then he should be demanding that each of these individuals be allowed to testify so to clear his name from the baseless accusations against him... who else has more information regarding Trump’s actions? Well, other than Putin, I guess. If these people — who were front and center for the events in question — cannot clear Trump, then he is surely guilty!

  166. [166] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The site keeps saying that I have already posted this, but I cannot find it....so i’ll try it once more...

    The defense should be able to call defense witnesses who can offer testimony that exonerate the President from the charges outlined in the AOI. That, logically, should be Chief of Staff Mulvaney, John Bolton, William Barr, Rick Perry, Mike Pompeo, and Rudy Giuliani — the people who had firsthand knowledge of the President’s actions and the reasons for his actions.

    If Trump is innocent, then he should be demanding that each of these individuals be allowed to testify so to clear his name from the baseless accusations against him... who else has more information regarding Trump’s actions? Well, other than Putin, I guess. If these people — who were front and center for the events in question — cannot clear Trump, then he is surely guilty!

  167. [167] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Whoop, there it is!

  168. [168] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's what allowed Odumbo to give the NUMBER ONE Terrorist State on the planet, hundreds of billions of dollars so that the state could continue it's terrorism and missile programs..

    First of all, former President Barack Obama didn’t give “150 billion in cash” to Iran.

    The nuclear agreement included China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, so Obama didn’t carry out any part of it on his own. The deal did lift some sanctions, which lifted a freeze on Iran’s assets that were held largely in foreign, not U.S., banks. And, to be clear, the money that was unfrozen belonged to Iran. It had only been made inaccessible by sanctions aimed at crippling the country’s nuclear program.

    Secondly, $150 billion is a high-end estimate of the total that was freed up after some sanctions were lifted. U.S. Treasury Department estimates put the number at about $50 billion in “usable liquid assets,” according to 2015 testimony from Adam Szubin, acting under secretary of treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence.

    So to be clear, Trump knew that Iran had been given their assets back because they agreed to stop their attempts to get a nuclear bomb and to the stipulations that we and 5 other countries had placed on Iran. Trump was told over and over again that our years of holding those assets had worked at getting them to agree to what we demanded of them. And what does Trump do when Iran has finally been corralled?

    Trump rips up the agreement, telling the world that the US cannot be counted on to keep its side of agreements even if they do everything we ask of them! The money was Iran’s so they had every right to have it back. Trump no longer has their frozen assets to use as leverage over them, which means he has no true leverage anymore! Not that it matters, since he doesn’t actually have a foreign policy plan for Iran...he just doesn’t like Iran. Trump doesn’t like Iran because the Saudi’s told him not to like Iran, and they give him money!

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are right! Now explain how having a foreign country say that it was investigating a US citizen who is the political rival of the president in the upcoming election is part of our country’s Foreign Policy?!?!

    How is it NOT Foreign Policy??

    If Trump is innocent, then he should be demanding that each of these individuals be allowed to testify so to clear his name from the baseless accusations against him...

    Just as if Obama was innocent in Fast/Furious, then HE should have been demanding that Holder et al testify and release all the Fast/Furious docs to prove his innocence..

    First of all, former President Barack Obama didn’t give “150 billion in cash” to Iran.

    Yes, he did..

    You can play dumb and throw up deflection after deflection..

    But you and I both know how this is going to play out.. President Trump will be completely and utterly exonerated and vindicated.. Just like he was in the Dims Russia Collusion delusion..

    And after that??

    Democrats have NO way to reign in President Trump's behavior...

    They shot their wad.. They have NOTHING left..

    So, President Trump will be scot-free to put thru his agenda without ANY interference from the Dumbocrat Party..

    Won't that be a hoot!!?? :D

  170. [170] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    How is it NOT Foreign Policy??

    Well for starters it was engaged in through people who are not part of our government, and people who are part of our government were pulled away from their posts to help make it happen. Also there was no policy goal stated.

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well for starters it was engaged in through people who are not part of our government, and people who are part of our government were pulled away from their posts to help make it happen. Also there was no policy goal stated.

    Distinctions that in no way invalidates the FACT that it was President Trump dealing with a foreign leader..

    BY DEFINITION, that's Foreign Policy... :D

    But if you prefer the dictionary defintion..


    for·eign pol·i·cy
    noun
    a government's strategy in dealing with other nations.

    Viola... Foreign Policy.. :D

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    And WHAT do we know about Foreign Policy??

    Sans Declarations Of War and Treaties, Foreign Policy is the ***SOLE*** purview of the President Of The United States..

    :D

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's like accusing the President of leaking classified information..

    Since the President is the sole arbiter of what is and is not classified, by definition the President cannot leak classified information..

    There is simply no case here..

    Just like there was no case with the Russia Collusion delusion..

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again... I have to ask..

    *HOW* do ya'all think this will end???

    Is there ANYONE here who HONESTLY believes that President Trump will be removed from office???

    This *ONLY* ends one way..

    With President Trump completely and utterly vindicated..

    Just like he was with the Mueller witch hunt...

    On the part of the Democrats, it's an exercise in futility... The merciless beating of a deceased equine...

    And Democrats seem willing to enter this ultimately losing battle willingly.. EAGERLY...

    It boggles the mind..

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well for starters it was engaged in through people who are not part of our government,

    The President decides who is and who is not part of our government..

  176. [176] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The president makes appointments and the Senate confirms them.

  177. [177] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The President decides who is and who is not part of our government..

    No, no he doesn’t! He’s not God. He’s not a King! The President is an elected official who serves at the pleasure of the American people.

    Since the President is the sole arbiter of what is and is not classified, by definition the President cannot leak classified information..

    God, you sure love to sound stupid, apparently! Our individual intelligence agencies determine the security level of all information/data that they each possess. Trump can be impeached if he leaks classified national secrets, because even though like you pointed out he technically might not be violating any law by leaking it, he would be violating his oath of office and would be abusing his authority.

    *HOW* do ya'all think this will end???

    Is there ANYONE here who HONESTLY believes that President Trump will be removed from office???

    I think it is going to end with a near unanimous vote to remove Trump from office. I think the GOP is fed up with the non-stop shitshow that is Trump’s presidency and recognize that this is the safest way to rid themselves of him.

    I look at how panicked his toady Lindsey Graham sounded after Trump had Soleimani executed because Trump, according to his tweets, believes starting a conflict with Iran is a sure way to get re-elected. Lindsey wanted to have an immediate vote in the Senate on the AOI... saying he wanted to acquit Trump...but it sure seemed strange that a Trump loyalist would want to risk that vote when there was still the threat of a war breaking out. Graham’s reaction was more in line with someone wanting to remove Trump from office out of fear of what he is going to do next.

    Trump’s corruption has been toxic to our government institutes and to the people they employee. I just read where the FDA approved 97% of the pesticides that they tested this past year. Under Trump’s administration, the agency now looks only at how dangerous each individual chemical ingredient is, and does not study how the combination of ingredients (the actual product seeking approval) react together and the dangers this combination creates. Think about that! If your pesticide consists of a mixture of five ingredients that are safe individually but are toxic when combined

  178. [178] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Dang it, pasted over my post and hit submit by mistake.

    Bottom line: I may be the only one who thinks that Republicans in the Senate cannot stand Trump and are thrilled to get him out of office and into an orange jumper ASAP!

    By voting in solidarity with the Democrats on this issue, it will be extremely tough for anyone to doubt their claims that Trump was a massive threat to our country and he had to be removed. It will give them a way to remove some of the stain that Trump will leave on the GOP, they can claim that they had to play along with Trump so not to make him suspect they were on to him. It’ll allow them to paint themselves as patriots for putting country before party, and it might keep a few of them from being voted out of office in 2020. Face it, they are gonna need as much separation from Trump as they can possibly muster once all of his crimes become public. The GOP won’t be cleansed of Trump’s poison for years, if it truly survives at all. But it will be far worse for the future of the Republican Party if they do not remove him the safest, quickest way available to them!

    The last paragraph in the prev. post was supposed to be a new post.

  179. [179] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    i think you're engaging in a little wishful thinking there. GOP senators are far more afraid of donald's voting bloc than they are of some amorphous 'future of the party.'

    good point about the president's right to declassify though. technically the president would be completely within his legal powers to order the CIA to provide him their entire NOC list complete with identities and placements and hand it directly to kim jong un over a beer. but if he did so it would still be treason.

    JL

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    The president makes appointments and the Senate confirms them.

    Not always..

    Does the name Valerie Jarrett mean anything to you? :D

    Allow me..

    Valerie Jarrett - Wikipedia
    Valerie June Jarrett (née Bowman; born November 14, 1956) is an Iranian-American businesswoman and former government official. She served as the senior advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama and assistant to the president for public engagement and intergovernmental affairs from 2009 to 2017.

Comments for this article are closed.