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

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:06:43 +0000

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.

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 23:34:54 +0000

@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.

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 22:53:19 +0000

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.

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 22:36:19 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:54:44 +0000

The president makes appointments and the Senate confirms them.

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:35:26 +0000

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..

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:25:11 +0000

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..

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:19:37 +0000

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..

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:18:08 +0000

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..

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:17:32 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:05:42 +0000

How is it NOT Foreign Policy??

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:48:05 +0000

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

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:42:18 +0000

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!

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:14:50 +0000

Whoop, there it is!

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:13:58 +0000

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!

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:12:13 +0000

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:57:10 +0000

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.

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:36:37 +0000

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..

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:15:58 +0000

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.

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:57:43 +0000

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..

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:49:41 +0000

@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.

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:40:30 +0000

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..

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:32:43 +0000

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??

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:31:44 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:23:16 +0000

@m,

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:21:05 +0000

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!

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:07:14 +0000

Indeed!

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:38:01 +0000

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

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:59:44 +0000

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

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:57:07 +0000

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

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:55:31 +0000

Hey, TS!

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

Hehehehehehehehehe ...

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:41:41 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:30:56 +0000

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

By: TheStig

TheStig — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:29:28 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:12:47 +0000

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...

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:01:31 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:58:03 +0000

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"...

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:53:40 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:41:12 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:37:47 +0000

Lemme know if ya don't receive it..

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:35:35 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:04:45 +0000

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.

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:55:39 +0000

@m,

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:09:25 +0000

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..

Pelosi's faux impeachment coup..

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:33:19 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:24:40 +0000

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...

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:18:26 +0000

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..

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:04:21 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:57:14 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:56:11 +0000

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.

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:51:43 +0000

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/

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:48:16 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:38:56 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:36:30 +0000

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:

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:35:04 +0000

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..

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:27:08 +0000

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

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 07:00:23 +0000

That sounds like a pretty weak argument, Russ.

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:28:09 +0000

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.

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:21:20 +0000

It's going to be a fun trial!

Especially if the Biden's testify. Heh.

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:10:19 +0000

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.

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.

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 05:34:02 +0000

Heh.

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 03:17:27 +0000

*bows*

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 02:38:55 +0000

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.

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

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 02:33:45 +0000

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 ...

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 02:26:29 +0000

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.

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 02:24:14 +0000

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?

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 02:22:42 +0000

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

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 01:45:36 +0000

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!

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 01:14:16 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 01:13:59 +0000

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

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:41:59 +0000

nypoet22:

dantooine exploded

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:33:01 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:19:34 +0000

someday they might bring back the jedi

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:16:51 +0000

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

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:54:59 +0000

Michale,

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

You're incorrigible.

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:36:03 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:24:06 +0000

they're the best films anyways...

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:23:45 +0000

verse 6 will be be from chapters 4-6

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:22:41 +0000

chorus, line 3

but now he's A sith lord

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:22:32 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:18:59 +0000

line 3,
"duelling down on mustafar"

already used the word 'here' in line 1

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:18:07 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:23:10 +0000

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

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:14:51 +0000

amused we are not

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:38:00 +0000

The life stages of Yoda

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

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:29:04 +0000

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...

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:24:29 +0000

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...

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 14:21:29 +0000

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

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:54:20 +0000

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 ...

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:51:58 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:25:20 +0000

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

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***...

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:57:33 +0000

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?

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:51:20 +0000

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...

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:45:36 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:41:41 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:40:29 +0000

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???

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:27:11 +0000

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

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:24:03 +0000

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...

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:21:05 +0000

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..

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:18:07 +0000

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..