ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- My Impeachment Reactions So Far

[ Posted Friday, January 24th, 2020 – 18:19 UTC ]

Since there's really only one story this week, we're going to totally forgo our usual format here and instead share our thoughts on the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in the United States Senate. Other things happened in the world of politics this week, but they all pale in comparison to the constitutional theater playing out live on television for seemingly-unending hours. We're even going to forgo our much-beloved editorial "we" this week, to better focus on our personal reaction to the third-ever presidential impeachment trial in our history.

 

The mechanics of an impeachment trial

I must admit, I haven't watched every single hour of it, although to my credit I did make it through all of the televised House testimony from beginning to end. The trial is a rehash of what was learned in those hearings, assembled in storyline fashion and complete with all the relevant video clips from the hearings. The House managers are spending 24 hours over three days on what in a criminal trial would merely be the opening statement from the prosecution. The president's team of lawyers will then have the same 24 hours over three days to present the defense's opening argument.

Unlike in a criminal trial, however, what happens next is that the senators will have two days to ask questions of both sides. Questions must be submitted in writing, and will be read by the chief justice, who is presiding over the trial. The senators are often called "the jury" but in reality they also have much of the power of judges as well.

The schedule for all of this is still in flux. Republicans suddenly discovered that working six days a week means working on a Saturday, when television viewership will be low, so they're now planning on only having an abbreviated 3-hour session tomorrow and then presenting their main case beginning Monday. There are even some rumors that they might only take one full day, meaning they could wrap up their presentation Monday night. This would leave Tuesday and Wednesday for questions, on a fast-track timetable that seems designed to have the entire trial over and done with in time for the State Of The Union speech.

But what comes after the senators' questions is going to be the key vote in the whole trial: whether to subpoena witnesses and/or documents from the White House. Nobody knows which way this vote is going to go. If all Democrats stick together, they'll still need four Republican votes to force witnesses to appear. Speculation is rife over a handful of GOP senators who are either publicly wavering, facing tough re-election fights in blue or purple states, or who will be retiring rather than running for re-election. Rumors have been flying all over the place about what's going to happen. At one point, it seemed there might be a deal on Democrats allowing Hunter or even Joe Biden to testify in exchange for perhaps John Bolton and/or Mick Mulvaney, but this was quickly disavowed by both sides. The White House is reportedly taking one heck of a firm line, warning GOP senators that their heads "will be on a pike" if they vote against the president at any point. If any Republicans do vote for witnesses, I expect it to be a last-minute surprise akin to John McCain's famous "thumbs-down" vote on killing Obamacare.

Democrats have the public on their side, it seems, on this crucial question. Anywhere from two-thirds to 70 percent of the public agrees in poll after poll that the Senate ought to call new witnesses. That's a pretty strong level of support, and it means that any Republican who votes against it can expect it to be used in a campaign ad against him or her in the very near future. It's a pretty easy case to make, which is why it polls so high already: "Who ever heard of a trial without evidence and witnesses?" In fact, every previous impeachment trial in American history -- all of them, including the impeachment of federal judges -- have had witnesses and evidence.

Mitch McConnell is apparently trying to warn his fellow Republicans that if witnesses are called, the White House will claim executive privilege and it'll wind up in the courts -- which will only serve to delay and lengthen the trial. At this point, that would royally screw up the schedule that McConnell has laid out and easily push the trial beyond the State Of The Union speech. However, this argument does ignore one point, which is that if a witness voluntarily decides to ignore Trump's claim of executive privilege, then nothing can stop them from testifying and answering every question put to them -- which would avoid the court fight altogether. Indeed, this has already happened with all those people who testified at the House hearings. And there's only one person to whom this really might apply: John Bolton. Bolton is a total enigma, at this point. Nobody knows what he's going to say if he gets the chance to speak. Neither side has any idea whether he's going to throw Trump under the bus or perhaps make an attempt to exonerate him. Republicans rightly see the risks of calling Bolton, but Democrats may not. If Bolton doesn't provide the bombshell evidence he's been hinting at, then it would be a real letdown for the Democratic side. Bolton is being coy about what he'll do, but he has indicated that if the Senate does subpoena him, he will appear without trying to fight it in the courts. If he sticks to that and does decide to spill the beans on Trump, there is absolutely nothing Trump can do to prevent it.

 

The trial's outcome

Adam Schiff and the other House managers are giving the best speeches of their lives in front of a captive audience of senators. But in the end will it mean anything?

The entire impeachment process, almost from beginning to end, has resembled nothing more than Kabuki theater. We all knew what was going to happen pretty much from the start, the process has played out over the past months, and now we're at the endgame. The trial does not so far appear to have changed anyone's mind and everyone fully expects -- whether witnesses are called or not -- that in the end two-thirds of the Senate will not vote to remove Donald Trump from office. No matter what the final vote (Democrats will only be able to make the attempt to claim victory if they get four Republicans to give them a majority vote, it is worth mentioning), Trump is going to be president for the next year, at the least. That has been the conventional wisdom since the start of the House investigation, and in this case the conventional wisdom is going to turn out to be right.

The few Republican senators from blue or purple states who are also up for re-election this cycle may pay a very heavy price no matter which way they vote. If they vote with Trump, they're going to risk alienating the moderate and independent voters in their states. If they vote against Trump, they risk their entire Republican voting base staying home on Election Day in disgust. Either way might mean a big enough drop in their support for a challenger to unseat them. Susan Collins is the most-often mentioned in this group, but there are others who are going to have to walk that tightrope as well. If enough of them are defeated in November, they will in essence have torpedoed their own political futures to save Trump, and in doing so handed the Senate to the Democrats.

But no matter what the exact final vote is, nobody alive thinks that it's going to be 67 or more in favor of removing Trump from office. Trump will then immediately begin bragging that he's been "totally exonerated" and may in fact conclude that there is nothing he can't get away with in terms of abusing presidential power. And he may be right about that, at least for the next year. What would it really take for Nancy Pelosi to decide that a second impeachment right in the middle of the election is absolutely necessary? That bar is going to be sky-high, and Trump will doubtlessly exploit it. This will all begin about ten seconds after the Senate vote total is announced, that's my guess.

All presidential impeachments have been overwhelmingly political, it bears pointing out. Andrew Johnson's was nakedly so, Bill Clinton's was... well, let's not use the work "naked" around Ol' Bubba, hmmm? Donald Trump's has been just as partisan an exercise as Clinton's was (due to all the Republicans sticking with him no matter what was revealed) -- and the outcome is just about as certain as it was back then, too. Ironically, the only real nonpartisan impeachment effort we've ever had never led to an actual Senate impeachment trial, because Richard Nixon had the sense to step down before it got to that point.

 

The precedents being set

There are precedents being set in the impeachment and trial of Donald Trump that will likely come back to haunt both sides of the political aisle, in different ways.

In general, however, one has to wonder if impeaching presidents itself is going to become normalized in American politics. After Johnson's impeachment we went almost a century before it was even set in motion again against a sitting president. Nixon's case was so egregious that he lost the support of his own party. But the case against Bill Clinton was the result of an independent counsel who took it upon himself to investigate every aspect of the Clintons' lives, even though he began by looking into a real estate deal in Arkansas. Eventually, they caught Bill lying under oath about having sex with an intern, and the House Republicans decided that this was impeachable behavior.

Donald Trump was impeached for far worse activities, even if Republicans won't now admit it. Conspiring with a foreign leader to use a foreign country's government to harass the president's political rival, and then leveraging this with both a carrot (an Oval Office meeting) and a stick (holding up hundreds of millions of dollars of much-needed military aid) is miles beyond lying about sex. It involves U.S. foreign policy, the sanctity of American elections, and Trump's personal political career in ways neither Clinton's impeachment nor Johnson's impeachment did.

But what once was almost unthinkable has now become once-in-a-generation. With the weaponization of everything else in Washington, will impeaching presidents now become almost routine? There's a scary thought. Will going after your political enemies with the full weight of the federal government become somehow acceptable? That's an even scarier thought.

Trump, of course, excels at being outrageous. He warned Senate Republicans that their heads would "be on a pike" if they don't vote for him, and it wasn't even the most outrageous thing from Trump that day. Trump has normalized his toddler-tantrum behavior to the extent that hardly anyone even raises an eyebrow at it any more. Will this set a precedent for future presidents? We all long for returning to normalcy, but what if this truly is the "new normal" and we never go back again? Donald Trump is a blowhard to be sure, but he certainly isn't the only blowhard in politics. Such blowhards used to be ridiculed by everyone else, but Trump has shown what a mighty power it can be when truly unleashed. Sooner or later someone is going to try to harness the same energy in the same way.

There are far more important precedents being set, however, on both sides. Nancy Pelosi resisted the urge to impeach Trump for almost a year before agreeing that Trump's Ukrainian "drug deal" rose to the impeachment level. But then after she took the plunge, she set an incredibly shortened timespan for the proceedings. It was reported at the onset that Pelosi wanted to be done with it all by Christmas, which is indeed exactly what happened. Pelosi reportedly really didn't want to get bogged down by months of court fights and have impeachment hearings ongoing throughout the entire presidential election, so she made the choice to not wait for any court proceedings and just push forward with what they had available. By doing so, she may have set not one but two precedents.

Donald Trump was impeached in his third year in office. Bill Clinton was already in his second term when he was impeached, so there was no re-election ahead for him. Will the rule of thumb now be that presidents can be impeached, but only if it happens before the general presidential election campaign gets underway? Or will some future House decide to impeach a president during his re-election campaign? It's impossible to know, at this point.

The second precedent Pelosi set was by moving so quickly. The impeachment hearings for President Nixon went on for months on end. Bill Clinton was impeached faster, but that was at the end of a very long investigation by the independent counsel. Donald Trump's impeachment happened relatively fast, because Pelosi refused to wait for the courts to weigh in (which could have taken longer than the rest of Trump's term, it's worth noting -- Trump might have "run out the clock" by challenging everything possible in the courts). This speed will doubtless be cited the next time a future House decides to impeach a president.

The Senate hasn't set any precedents yet, but they're about to no matter what happens. If witnesses and evidence are not allowed, you can bet that there will be a similar outcome in the trial of a future president, because they'll have this one to point to. But there's a larger precedent being set here that is going to have much more impact than how Senate impeachment trials are held. Donald Trump is claiming breathtakingly sweeping "blanket" immunity from answering congressional subpoenas. According to the White House, all they have to do is say no to any request for testimony or documents, and that is the end of the discussion. This is new, no matter how hard the Republicans try to make it sound reasonable and normal.

Think about it -- if Bill Clinton had successfully done what Trump is about to get away with, he never would have been impeached. He never would have sat for a deposition. He would have refused to let anyone answer a subpoena and would not have shared a single document. Ken Starr would have had nothing to go on.

The concept of "executive privilege" has been getting wider and wider, as all presidents try to push the boundaries when investigated. Normally, the courts are the ones who push back by denying such claims and ordering testimony and evidence to be provided by the White House. But we didn't have such rulings this time, and the Senate Republicans are about to vote their approval -- especially if they vote not to hear any further witnesses. Donald Trump has blown up all the constraints on executive privilege claims and issued a blanket order that nobody testify and no documents be provided to Congress. That is a precedent which is going to come back to bite the Republicans on the hindquarters, without doubt.

In the immediate future, it will mean Trump can essentially ignore Congress. He can refuse them any request even if backed up by subpoena. That's fine with the Republicans, of course, for now. But eventually a Democrat is going to sit in the White House again, and at some point a Republican Congress is going to try to investigate him or her. What possible reason would a Democratic president have to cooperate? Not only did Donald Trump prove that stonewalling is the way to go, but all the Republicans in the House and Senate essentially agreed that this was fine with them. So how will they argue in the future that presidents must comply with their demands? They won't have a leg left to stand on. We could be seeing the last functional congressional investigation of a president, ever. If Congress pushes back by taking it to court, all a Democratic president will have to do is to endlessly file motions and objections and appeals to delay the entire process until they're out of office -- just like Trump.

That is the most important precedent being set here, and it is one that few Republicans are even aware of right now. Their blind partisanship is leading them into putting their mark of approval on a tactic that they are going to howl mightily about when it is used against them, that's my prediction.

There's also the precedent of an American president not only allowing foreign interference in a presidential election but in fact demanding it. That's the most evil precedent being set, which is why few Republicans will even answer the straight-up question: "Do you think U.S. presidents should be allowed to pressure foreign governments to dig up dirt on their political opponents?" That used to be a very easy question to answer, no matter what your political party, but now it isn't. However, at some point Donald Trump will be gone, and hopefully no future president will ever attempt such an extortion scheme again. Hopefully. But there will be nothing to stop them from doing so if the Senate puts its stamp of approval on the tactic.

 

The case being made

From what I've heard (and I've already admitted I haven't heard it all or even the majority of it), the House managers are doing a great job of weaving together all the threads of the story of how Donald Trump tried to force a newly-elected foreign leader to investigate the conspiracy theories that Rudy Giuliani and Vladimir Putin had whispered to him. They are making a good prosecutorial presentation that is indeed exhaustive. These sessions go on into the evening, and they would have been even longer if Mitch McConnell had had his way and forced 12 hours per day instead of just eight. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

By design, none of us can see what the senators are doing while this all goes on. The cameras in the Senate chambers are controlled by the Senate, and the news media is under many strict rules, one of which is no recording devices. So there are no photos or video of what is happening beyond the podium. We've gotten reports of all sorts of trivia about the audience, however, that some Republicans are playing with fidget spinners while others are reading books or doing crossword puzzles to pass the time. We've even learned who has ordered milk (the only two beverages allowed are water and milk, apparently). But it's pretty plain that no matter how close attention anyone is paying, the end result is going to be the same. Whether we see witnesses or not, about the best the Democrats can hope for is to convince a handful -- at best -- of Republicans to vote to remove a sitting Republican president. If Democrats do get three or four GOP votes, that'll be the biggest storyline out of the entire process, in fact. But the expectation is that both parties will end up voting strictly on party lines on the question of removing Trump from office.

Before we get to that point, of course, the Trump team will get their innings. Starting tomorrow, we'll hear from them, but we all know what it's going to be like. We've seen it before, in all the antics from the House Republicans who sat on the relevant committees. The best and easiest argument for Trump's lawyers to make may not even be raised, because it would consist of arguing that perhaps Trump may have done something wrong but even if that were the case it in no way rises to the level of impeachment. Trump is said to hate this line of argument, because it even allows for the possibility that his Ukrainian phone call was not, in fact, "perfect." This would be the ideal argument to make to the Republican senators, because it would allow them some moral breathing space -- they could even agree that Trump did something that presidents simply should not do, but at the same time argue that it was so minor as to not be impeachable. That sort of hair-splitting would allow plenty of political wiggle room for those Republican senators who still possess some shred of conscience. But Trump doesn't even like the suggestion of wrongdoing, so this argument may not even be made.

The president's legal team may in fact cut their presentation short, and only take a day and a half rather than three days. I'm sure the senators will be OK with that, since their stamina is already being sorely tested by having to sit in the same place without their smartphones and all. But for at least one full day, we'll hear Trump's praises being sung to the high heavens by his lawyers. This, notably, is not going to change anyone's mind any more than the House managers' presentation will. Journalists all have to pretend that what is being said and how it is being delivered matter a great deal and will have some sort of impact on the end result, but I bet if you got any of them off the record they'd admit that they were fully aware they were watching grand Kabuki theater.

 

Was it worth it?

This will be the biggest question asked after all the dust settles. Was it worth it? Trump stays in office, validates his position as the ultimate victim, and crows to the skies that he has been "totally exonerated." That's the overwhelmingly likely result, whether it comes at the end of next week or at some time a little further in the future.

If John Bolton is allowed to testify, will he have anything earth-shattering to say? That's a question that could mean a big difference in the "Was it worth it?" question afterwards. Even if Bolton unloads on Trump and exposes him for being ill-informed, illogical, petulant, petty, and downright criminal, is that going to change anyone's vote next November? It certainly would make for a more interesting trial, that's for sure. Bolton is such a staunch righty that it's almost impossible to cast him as some sort of Democrat-loving partisan out to get Trump. And he was in the room when all of the important discussions and decisions happened, so he would have first-hand knowledge of what went on, which he could uncover in brutal fashion (if he so chooses). He'd never work for a Republican administration again, but his name would live in history, that's for sure.

Trump will, as Nancy Pelosi pointed out, always be the third president to be impeached. That is forever. He'll also likely be the third president to remain in office after being impeached. The whole thing will be a stain on his legacy, though, and that might be the best answer to the "Was it worth it?" question, for Democrats.

Democrats saw impeaching Donald Trump as their duty, after all. Pelosi didn't even want to go there, but was forced to by the egregiousness of Trump's actions and behavior. House Democrats were restrained in what they impeached Trump over, as well -- they could have thrown everything but the kitchen sink in there (breaking the emoluments clause, the obstruction of justice found by Bob Mueller, illegally altering an official weather map, etc.), but they chose not to. Will they later regret this? It's impossible to know, at this point. But I fully expect any Democrat who voted on impeachment in either the House or the Senate to respond afterwards to the "Was it worth it?" question with some version of the following: "That's the wrong question, because we didn't really have a choice -- our duty to the Constitution and the oath we all swore demanded that we impeach Donald Trump. I leave the question of whether it was worth it or not to the historians."

My guess is that the impeachment and trial of Donald Trump is no more than a bump in the road. Because Pelosi refused to wait for the courts, I truly think it's going to be such "old news" by the time of the election that it's not going to have any real effect one way or the other. Perhaps it'll affect turnout of both the Democratic and Republican base voters, but it already seemed like we were headed for record turnout on both sides anyway.

Normally, a presidential impeachment would loom large over a re-election campaign, and Trump is certainly going to milk it for all it is worth on the campaign trail (indeed, he is already doing so). But this is Donald Trump we are talking about, and there are over nine months to go before Election Day. It's tough to remember what Trump was doing nine weeks ago, or even nine days ago, at times. He is a whirlwind of distraction, so who knows what people will be talking about in November? But my guess is impeachment will be pretty far down on the list by that point, because there will be so many other things happening -- both for Democrats to get outraged over and for Republicans to cheer about. Trump is a rollercoaster ride, and that's going to be even more true during his re-election campaign than ever. So in the end, I truly don't think the third impeachment of a sitting U.S. president is really going to have all that big an effect on the upcoming election. Everyone -- voters and senators alike -- had already made their minds up going in, and to date I haven't noticed anyone whose mind has been changed by any of it. It's stunning to admit, but I really think the impeachment of Donald Trump isn't going to move the needle of American politics one tiny bit, one way or the other.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

193 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- My Impeachment Reactions So Far”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Can the promise of America be damaged beyond repair if this president is allowed to play out his term and, perhaps, be given another four years?

    Is it strong enough today to withstand all the damage to its ideals that this president can inflict

    Could America ever be recognized throughout the world as that shining city on the hill, ever again?

    Is it just foreigners like me who even care about that last bit?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If I may just add, for the sake of context, that this is the singular most depressing piece I have ever had the displeasure of reading here at Chris's blog.

    So, I'm going to keep watching on the assumption that moral courage won't be rarer, in this impeachment trial than the courage demonstrated everyday by just one percent of Americans who have served in the military.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Say, Chris! Are nominations open for MIDOTW honours?

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or, maybe we should just save it until the end with another unusual format …

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    So how will they argue in the future that presidents must comply with their demands?

    They'll have to reinvent themselves because the facts will emerge, and the Trump stench is one that is definitely going to linger. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they disbanded and/or rebranded and went the way of the tariff-loving Whigs.

    They won't have a leg left to stand on.

    They won't have heads either after having had them explode or implode. Of course, what good is a leg when one has no spine? :)

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well shucks. i was hoping for some more commentary on the substance of the trial. and there is quite a bit of substance there.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that might be the next column, served up with some pie, I hope.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there is always hope for pie.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

    I was helping myself to some with a cup of tea during the proceedings this evening.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Best quote of the day,

    "Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change." – Robert F. Kennedy

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    Democrats saw impeaching Donald Trump as their duty, after all. Pelosi didn't even want to go there, but was forced to by the egregiousness of Trump's actions and behavior.

    Exactly. For the reasons you've listed above and throughout the commentary, it doesn't matter if it was politically "worth it." When the facts emerge... and they will... it'll be obvious why Democrats were left with absolutely no choice but to take action... being the Party still retaining their skeletal systems, complete with working vertebrae and gray matter intact and functioning.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's interesting to ponder what Chief Justice Roberts thought of today's concluding presentation, in general but, in particular, what he thought of the prospect of this senate being in the position of overruling his decisions. Perhaps, he intends to avoid making any. But, that would be surprising.

  13. [13] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    How are ya, stranger? Been keeping busy in 2020? I’m glad to see your screen name in the posts...always puts a smile on my face!

    Just wanted to let ya know that you’ve been missed.

    -Russ

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said..

    There is only ONE way this ends...

    With President Trump completely and utterly exonerated and vindicated... And, according to Joe Biden, probably STRONGER going into the Nov 2020 election...

    As Piers Morgan said of Democrats..

    Mind-blowingly STUPID politics....

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    But what comes after the senators' questions is going to be the key vote in the whole trial: whether to subpoena witnesses and/or documents from the White House. Nobody knows which way this vote is going to go.

    Well, as of 10:30pm in the eastern time zone, it seems a lot of people, including Democratic senators, think that the vote for witnesses and documents will be won by Republicans.

    The SOTU address will be unwatchable, indubitably.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Just a friendly reminder.. There are a couple comments awaiting moderation... :D

    Trump will, as Nancy Pelosi pointed out, always be the third president to be impeached. That is forever. He'll also likely be the third president to remain in office after being impeached. The whole thing will be a stain on his legacy,

    As much as it was a "stain" on Clinton's legacy. Which is to say, not at all..

    The bigger stain is on Democrats and what they have done to the rule of law and impeachment in general..

    They have debased impeachment so bad that, in the future, it will be just another political bludgeon to use whenever the House of one Party disagrees with the President of another Party...

    Not even the GOP, in their WORST fit of Odumbo Derangement Syndrome, ever went THAT far in destroying the fabric of our political system..

    Leave it to the Dumbocrats to make such a large stain...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    well shucks. i was hoping for some more commentary on the substance of the trial. and there is quite a bit of substance there.

    What have I been telling you for the last couple months??

    There IS no "substance" to this faux impeachment coup..

    It's nothing but sore luserism on the part of Democrats..

    I mean, seriously..

    What kind of MORON political move impeaches an effective POTUS less then a year before a Presidential election??

    A mind blowingly STOOPID political move...

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, I wish you would stop tapping out 'Dumbocrats' because, it makes Chris's blog appear innately juvenile.

    That can't possibly be asking too much ...

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that was fast! Heh.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Well, as of 10:30pm in the eastern time zone, it seems a lot of people, including Democratic senators, think that the vote for witnesses and documents will be won by Republicans.

    Yep... You are exactly correct Liz....

    The SOTU address will be unwatchable, indubitably.

    Wha??? Ya don't think a SOTU speech full of gloating and victory laps won't be fun?? :D

    If ONLY someone had warned Democrats that pulling this faux impeachment coup was mind-blowingly stoopid..

    If only.. If only... :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Michale, I wish you would stop tapping out 'Dumbocrats' because, it makes Chris's blog appear innately juvenile.

    That can't possibly be asking too much ...

    That about sums up the mentality of the Party who tries to impeach a POTUS less than a year before his election..

    'Sides, after enduring 3 years of innately juvenile 3rd grade playground style "debate", it's become simply a matter of 'When In Rome'....

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's stunning to admit, but I really think the impeachment of Donald Trump isn't going to move the needle of American politics one tiny bit, one way or the other.

    So why did Democrats do it???

    We look to Rep Al Green and Nancy Pelosi to explain why..

    "If we don't impeach President Trump, he is going to be re-elected..."

    Or, as you yourself put it (paraphrased)

    "Democrats desperation to impeach is directly and inversely proportional to their confidence that they can beat President Trump at the ballot box."

    The funny thing is, this faux impeachment coup has actually made it MORE likely that President Trump will be STRONGER going into the Nov election...

    Even Joe Biden acknowledges this...

    So, what would POSSIBLY possess Democrats to do such a MIND BLOWINGLY STOOPID and BONEHEAD move???

    6 Words....

    Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome.. Or HHPTDS for short...

    In other words.. Their hatred of President Trump and America was greater than their political sense..

    No matter HOW ya wanna spin it, the facts are these..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re-reading your commentary, it comes across as a die hard Democrat trying desperately to find SOMETHING... ANYTHING good to say about this faux impeachment coup and not having ANYTHING to work with.. :D

    It reminds me of Aladdin struggling to find something good to woo Jasmine with and "punctual" is the best he can come up with.. :D

    Let's face reality, CW..

    This was a Democrat Cluster-Frak from the word 'GO'...

    Democrats scroo'ed da pooch at EVERY juncture... Especially with Pelosi's actions of screaming to high heaven how it's so URGENT to remove President Trump ASAP and then sits on Articles Of The Faux Impeachment Coup for a month...

    I mean.. Honestly.. That's probably the BIGGEST (Mind-blowingly???) stoopid move in Pelosi's long career...

    Democrats have succeeded in doing one thing and one thing only...

    They made President Donald Trump look Presidential by comparison..

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    And WHOSE bright idea was it to have 2 milquetoast Articles that aren't even crimes!!???

    One for HAVING AN OVERDUE LIBRARY BOOK and the other being BEING AN ARROGANT NARCISSISTIC PRICK.....

    I mean, honestly... OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS!!!???

    Barack I HAVE A PHONE AND A PEN Obama obstructed Congress DAILY.. Oft times HOURLY...

    It's what Presidents do when Congress doesn't do what the President wants..

    Hell, Democrats might as well have impeached a President for BREATHING!!!

    Again... Mind blowingly STOOPID aptly describes the Democrats' actions from start to finish...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    The new US SPACE FORCE logo..

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220821545746141187

    Is it just me or is that the beginnings of the Star Trek chevron..

    In the Weigantia of yore, politics would be eschewed to all join together and marvel about the beginnings of STARFLEET...

    But alas, in this day of rampant HHPTDS, ya'all can't get past that it was President Trump who created the foundation for STARFLEET.... :(

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is it just me or is that the beginnings of the Star Trek chevron..

    I do believe it's NOT just me... :D

    https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1220823935102652417/photo/1

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Now all the libidiots will hate Star Trek"
    -doofus maximus
    @maximus_doofus
    ·
    11m

    Sadly.... yes..

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    Nice recap of the events thus far in the Senate’s impeachment trial, but I gotta disagree with a couple of your assessments on whether all of this has been worth it in the long run.

    The White House is reportedly taking one heck of a firm line, warning GOP senators that their heads "will be on a pike" if they vote against the president at any point. If any Republicans do vote for witnesses, I expect it to be a last-minute surprise akin to John McCain's famous "thumbs-down" vote on killing Obamacare.

    I am still holding out hope that the Senators are going to shock the world and drop kick Trump out of office. It’s my hope — i wouldn’t wager any money on it, mind you — that threats like the one’s you pointed out Trump has made against any Republican Senator daring to ignore his demand for loyalty to him, are seriously rubbing them the wrong way. WHO DOES THAT?!? Who threatens the very people who will vote whether to remove you from office and believes that they won’t be offended at your gall? And an even more important question — why did Trump feel he needed to make such a threat?

    The Republicans in the Senate have not been nearly the rabid cultists for Trump that many of the Republican House members have shown themselves to be. I’d say that Graham is probably Trump’s biggest cheerleader/defender, yet Graham has made it no secret that he is simply doing what it takes to stay in office and that his dislike for Trump has not wavered in the least! So if Trump’s biggest supporter in the Senate cannot stand him, it doesn’t seem implausible that the Senate might not be as under Trump’s thumb as he wants everyone to believe.

    I also think that we should expect a huge news story to drop in the next week that will rock Trump’s world mightily! Pelosi wasn’t gonna walk into a no-win situation without some serious fire power to shake things up! Lev Parnas turned over lots of information....not all of it has been released. As someone who worked so closely with Giuliani in Ukraine, it just seems likely that the biggest bombshell from Lev has yet to drop.

  29. [29] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    There is only ONE way this ends...

    With President Trump completely and utterly exonerated and vindicated

    That ain’t gonna happen! How does one get exonerated and vindicated from something that he has openly confessed to and that Trump still admits to having done?

    Trump won’t have the benefit of AG Barr putting out a false narrative for how the Senate trial went like he did with the Mueller Report. All the world will know if Trump will have been given a free pass for seeking foreign interference into our 2020 elections for Trump’s personal benefit if he is acquitted without facing a fair trial that includes all of the evidence and witnesses available being first considered. Trump has shown that he welcomes outside help if it benefits him personally, regardless of the costs to our country!

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I am still holding out hope that the Senators are going to shock the world and drop kick Trump out of office. It’s my hope —

    Funny... Yesterday you said it was GOING to happen..

    NOW it's just your "hope"..

    I guess you realized that Democrats have no case and now you're just trying to save face..

    "That rhymes, Marge!! That rhymes and you know it!!!"
    -Homer Simpson

    Trump has shown that he welcomes outside help if it benefits him personally, regardless of the costs to our country!

    Melodrama much???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    How exactly does it cost us our country??

    I also point out that you didn't have a problem when Hillary and the Dumbo..... Democrats solicited "outside help" for dirt on Trump..

    Oh, yea.. That's right.. They are Democrats so it's perfectly acceptable for them..

    Hypocrite... :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also think that we should expect a huge news story to drop in the next week that will rock Trump’s world mightily! Pelosi wasn’t gonna walk into a no-win situation without some serious fire power to shake things up! Lev Parnas turned over lots of information....not all of it has been released. As someone who worked so closely with Giuliani in Ukraine, it just seems likely that the biggest bombshell from Lev has yet to drop.

    ANOTHER "bombshell"???

    You just don't give up, do you.

    You remind me of that sick old man in the park screaming that the end is near.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Repeat after me, Russ..

    "This only ends ONE way... With President Trump still in office and, according to Joe Biden, likely STRONGER going into the Nov election.."

    :D

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    13

    How are ya, stranger?

    Neither more nor less stranger. ;)

    I do have a few things I'd like to discuss with you, though, as outlined below:

    * a petulant 4 year old that eats paint chips
    * Hint: The Green New Deal is not law
    * VETO is NOT OBSTRUCTION
    * STRAW MAN FALLACY FRIDAY!!!
    * Bullshit BINGO!!!

    *laughs*

    As for Executive Privilege, Trump failed to claim that as his reasoning for his order to federal agencies to ignore all requests for information or for witnesses to testify before Congress.

    Yes, sir... exactly. Trump never actually invoked executive privilege; also, there's no such thing as a "blanket" executive privilege even if Trump had done so. Invoking executive privilege would require he produce the documents for which he's claiming privilege, and last but certainly not least: Executive Privilege almost never applies in cases of suspected or obvious criminal wrongdoing... tough break since Donald confessed "the woman is going to go through some things" in the not-so-perfect-not-a-transcript transcript. And, Lordy, there are tapes.

    Russ, you and I both know we can't fix repetitive right-wing spoon-fed "stuck on stupid," but it's comical to witness the attempts. I imagine it's akin to watching Jackson Pollock hurl large paint filled brushes smack into a blank canvas... repetitively... and yet not a single droplet of color ever adheres... nice expressionism in the process, though.

    Been keeping busy in 2020?

    Busier than a one-armed man in a paper-hanging contest... Christmas vacation and then got ordered to the "mothership."

    I’m glad to see your screen name in the posts...always puts a smile on my face!

    Just wanted to let ya know that you’ve been missed.

    I love you more! :)

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    If you have not yet seen Picard....all I can say is.... it is everything and so much more than I dared to think it could be! I have been grinning ear to ear even hours later.

    I was curious...and honestly a wee bit skeptical that they could pull off bringing back an 80-something year old legend and drop him back into a show with a story worthy of such a legend....but they sure seem to have done it if this first episode is any indication.

  35. [35] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Excellent column that nicely summarizes 'where we are today'. Of course, new information is coming to light daily, so by Monday the ground may have shifted (or not).
    The only silver lining to the Republican Senators (possibly) not allowing witnesses and evidence is that they, too, have seen the polling. So they are fully aware that they are NOT representing the wishes of their constituents and are defending Trump, NOT the country. And a few will - cross fingers - pay for their betrayal in November.

  36. [36] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Re: 'Donald Trump is claiming breathtakingly sweeping "blanket" immunity from answering congressional subpoenas. According to the White House, all they have to do is say no to any request for testimony or documents, and that is the end of the discussion. This is new, no matter how hard the Republicans try to make it sound reasonable and normal.'
    The court rulings thus far have been against the Trump administration. IMO the Republicans are confident the courts will rule against Trump's claims of immunity - AFTER he leaves office. Thus, they will be armed with court precedents to be brandished righteously against the next Democrat.

  37. [37] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Would it be too obvious for every House Democrat who voted for impeachment to dress in peach for the State of the Union?

  38. [38] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    BTW, it is de rigueur to cite Nixon's resignation as a 'shining moment' of bipartisan patriotism. Many historians contradict that impression (I have no first-hand knowledge; I was 11 at the time and annoyed that the impeachment hearings preempted 'The Price is Right')
    '...even as some leaders complained about Nixon in the press, the GOP largely gave Nixon every benefit of the doubt it could—partly because Nixon’s conservative base had stuck with him. In words that will ring true for today’s proceedings as well, historian David Greenberg outlined in his book Nixon’s Shadow how personally the president’s supporters viewed the impeachment proceedings. “During the upheaval of the late Sixties and early Seventies, millions of Americans believed that their time-honored values were being swept away by an insurgent left. Impeaching a president … was to Nixon’s supporters a metaphor,” Greenberg explained. “To them, the attack on Nixon was an attack on their mores and way of life.” It was a message reinforced each day by the White House, as Ron Ziegler and the press operation made the case that Richard Nixon was Victim No. 1. '

  39. [39] 
    italyrusty wrote:
  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you have not yet seen Picard....all I can say is.... it is everything and so much more than I dared to think it could be! I have been grinning ear to ear even hours later.

    I was curious...and honestly a wee bit skeptical that they could pull off bringing back an 80-something year old legend and drop him back into a show with a story worthy of such a legend....but they sure seem to have done it if this first episode is any indication.

    I was gonna ask if anyone has seen it...

    I too was skeptical but was heartened by the appearances of Riker, Data and Seven of Double DD...

    I am only disappointed because I thought that Season 3 of Discovery was going to premier along with it.. We still don't have a premier date for it..

    But I did read that there are at least 2 new TREKs in the works.. Lower Decks, an animated Trek comedy and SECTION 31 starring Michelle Yeouh.. The plan, as far as I read, is to have a Trek on almost every day of the week..

    Looking forward to THAT..

    I would LOVE to see a STAR TREK: TEMPORAL INVESTIGATIONS series :D Kinda a cross between TREK and TIMELESS... :D

    I just wish CBS ALL ACCESS would do what NETFLIX does.. Put the whole series up all at once.. :D

    Thanx for the recommendation...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Trump, of course, excels at being outrageous. He warned Senate Republicans that their heads would "be on a pike" if they don't vote for him, and it wasn't even the most outrageous thing from Trump that day.

    Any **FACTS** to support that claim??

    Any facts at all??

    No??

    Of course not...

    Remember.. REALITY based... :^/

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    RE: the Head On A Pike Story..

    "No Republican senator has been told that."

    “completely, totally false.”

    "baloney."

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-outraged-by-schiff-mentioning-reported-trump-threat-baloney

    Once again, we see a moronic mind blowingly stoopid Democrat attacking and alienating the VERY people he needs to have a successful faux impeachment coup..

    I mean, seriously... Why is such utter stoopidity ingrained into EVERY Democrat's actions???

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even some Democrats were miffed by the remark.

    Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who hasn’t indicated how he plans to vote said, "That could have been left out, that's for sure."

    Not only is Schiff-head alienating the very Republicans he needs, he is ALSO alienating Democrats...

    Takes a REAL moron Democrat to accomplish THAT..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The $391 million in security aid was only released because President Trump was caught red-handed,”
    Democrat House Manager

    See? Like I said.. Total and completely bullshit.

    There wasn't an issue of ANYTHING when the security aid was released..

    NO ONE knew anything about it..

    Democrats just make shit up...

    These 4 facts totally decimate the Democrats' faux impeachment case..

    The call transcript shows zero link between aid and political investigations. (And remember, President Trump declassified and released the transcript all on his own.)

    The aid was released without any commitment to new investigations.

    Ukraine did not know aid was withheld at the time of the July 25 phone call.

    President Trump and President Zelensky have both repeatedly said that there was no pressure. In fact, there are multiple Ukrainian officials on the record saying there was no pressure and no link between the aid and investigations.

    The Democrats' case is complete and utter BS....

    This faux impeachment coup will fail..

    Just like the Mueller Russia Collusion delusion coup failed..

    Just like Democrats have FAILED **EVERY TIME** they tried to take down President Trump..

    "Failed... Failed... Impressively failed!"
    -NASA Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

    Democrats have NOTHING to show the American people that would allow the people to decide that Democrats are worthy of keeping the House..

    It's gonna be a Democrat Shellacking in Nov.. GOP will have a run..

    Keep the White House...

    Keep the Senate...

    Take the House...

    It's what's gonna happen.. :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I did read that there are at least 2 new TREKs in the works.. Lower Decks, an animated Trek comedy and SECTION 31 starring Michelle Yeouh.. The plan, as far as I read, is to have a Trek on almost every day of the week..

    It just occurred to me, however, that a SECTION 31 series starring Yeouh is problematic.. Emperor Georgiou is on Discovery 930 years into the future..

    It's unlikely that CAPTAIN Georgiou would have been amiable to Section 31 service so a prequel is not realistically feasible.....

    One has to wonder how they are going to work in Georgiou as a Section 31 agent...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is it just me or is that the beginnings of the Star Trek chevron..

    Trump debuts official Space Force logo — and it's literally a ripoff of Star Trek

    Apparently President Trump thought we hadn't had enough Star Trek spinoffs for one year.
    https://theweek.com/speedreads/891643/trump-debuts-official-space-force-logo--literally-ripoff-star-trek

    Apparently, it's NOT just me.. :D

    Way ta go, Mr President!!! :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    VA Democrat gun hating morons back down!!! :D

    Virginia House advances gun control measures -- just days after gun-rights rally

    RICHMOND, Va. — Democrats in the Virginia House are advancing a package of gun-control measures less than a week after tens of thousands of pro-gun advocates from around the country rallied at the state Capitol.

    But the advancing bills don't yet include a proposed assault weapon ban, a top priority for Gov. Ralph Northam and one that's drawn fierce resistance from gun-rights advocates.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-house-advances-gun-control-measures

    Do you know WHY it's impossible to have an "Assault Rifle" ban??

    Because there is no such thing as an "Assault Rifle"..

    ANY criteria or nomenclature of an "Assault Rifle" is the same criteria and nomenclature of ANY semi-automatic rifle..

    There is one exception..

    Cosmetics.. "Assault Rifle" LOOKS "scary".. :eyeroll:

    So yea. Base a law on what LOOKS "scary"....

    Become the laughing stock of the entire country and patriotic Americans everywhere.. :D

    It'll be a hoot! :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    The House committee passed seven out of eight gun bills that Northam has said were his priority. But it did not take up an assault weapon ban, which some Democrats said they don't think can pass this year. The Senate has already killed off its version of the bill and some moderate Democratic senators said they won't support the legislation, which would outlaw the popular AR-15-style rifles.

    Even DEMOCRATS acknowledge the utter stoopidity of trying to ban a rifle based on how it looks..

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...I was 11 at the time and annoyed the impeachment hearings preempted The Price is Right."

    The more things change the more they stay the same.

    The current impeachment hearings are just part of the show designed to preempt any discussion of how "the price is right" for the politicians of both CMPs when it comes to taking big money and representing the big money interests.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am going to do ya'all a HUGE favor..

    I am going to tell you how you can achieve future happiness...

    Simply acknowledge the fact that the ONLY way this faux impeachment coup ends is with President Trump still in office and "probably" (according to Joe Biden) stronger for the General Election..

    How will this guarantee future happiness, you might ask...???

    Simple..

    It will eliminate like 80% of my gloating when this fact comes to pass.. :D

    Won't that make ya'all happy?? :D

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (43)-
    Stupid has nothing to do with it.

    The Democrats job is to appear to be trying to fight against Trump and the Republicans while they all work together for the big money interests.

    Stupid would be anyone that buys into one side or the other and believes that it is stupidity that causes the actions of the other side rather than by design to deceive the rubes.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats job is to appear to be trying to fight against Trump and the Republicans while they all work together for the big money interests.

    But that's my point.

    It's a STOOPID and MORONIC way to go about it..

    If they want to FAKE fighting with Republicans, at least make it a good showing..

    It's like Democrats want to put up a reasonable fight but they left their brains at home...

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    italyrusty
    37

    Would it be too obvious for every House Democrat who voted for impeachment to dress in peach for the State of the Union?

    If by "dress" you mean they should all show up in Bronx Colors Boosting Hydrating Concealer in Orange BHC06, I have to tell you, I endorse this idea of yours.

    https://shop.bronxcolors.com/product/boosting-hydrating-concealer/

    Most everyone I know got them for Christmas... and not something that was pre-planned in any way whatsoever, but a couple of tubes "accidentally" got opened and slathered on a few partiers, and then a few more, and a few more still, and it wasn't long at all before our white Christmas quickly turned to hues of "gag me" Trumpian orange face. We laughed so hard we cried. Good times. :)

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would it be too obvious for every House Democrat who voted for impeachment to dress in peach for the State of the Union?

    Yea.. And maybe have them all dressed up with black-face..

    They could all take pointers from Democrat Northam...

    Wouldn't that be a hoot!!

    :eyeroll:

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Time to update my list of House Retirements wherein Republicans are leaving in droves.

    House incumbents who have announced their retirement from public office:

    Republicans*

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

    Democrats

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

    * House Retirements/Trump Con Incarcerations**

    CA-50 Duncan Hunter
    NY-27 Chris Collins

    ** Trump Cons Likely Destined to Follow

    CA-22 Devin Nunes

    Trump cons pleading guilty as charged after hysterically crying "witch hunt"... take a number and get in line.
    _______________

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

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    How the Democrats Will Pay for Impeaching Donald Trump
    We can already conclude with certainty that Democrats have lost the impeachment fight against President Trump.

    The only question is how much of a political disaster this will be for the Democrats, and who will pay for the failure.
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-democrats-will-pay-impeaching-donald-trump-116486

    Remember the ONE pre-requisite for a legitimate impeachment??

    The ONE requirement that ALL Democrats (and ALL Weigantians) agreed on??

    Only a BI-PARTISAN impeachment would be legitimate....

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think for nancy it was never about "winning." she never wanted to impeach donald in the first place, because she knew how it would end. when it became apparent based on donald's behavior that she'd have no choice, her goal was to get it done as quickly as possible so it wouldn't interfere with the next election cycle.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    when it became apparent based on donald's behavior that she'd have no choice, her goal was to get it done as quickly as possible so it wouldn't interfere with the next election cycle.

    That's a bogus claim...

    The Russia Collusion delusion was a MUCH **MUCH** worse claim than this simple act of US Diplomacy...

    If it were accurate, it **SCREAMED** impeachment..

    What more likely occurred is that Pelosi realized that if she did nothing, President Trump was going to win re-election easily..

    So, she cast around for an excuse... ANY excuse.. to start this impeachment debacle... She and the other Democrats figured that they would be greeted as liberators by the GOP and the American people..

    "{She} chose.... poorly.."

    She royally frak'ed up..

    And, it's likely she will be blamed when the Dems lose the House in Nov...

    Add that to the list of my factual predictions..

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    The spurious case remains the same as one that earned no Republican support in the House. It likely won’t earn a single Republican vote in the Senate either, where it would require twenty Republican votes and unanimous Democrat support to remove Trump.

    The evidence presented in opening arguments, which are supposed to be stunning and convincing since they occur before the White House makes its defense, has been laborious, unconvincing, and repetitive. No actual criminal offense has been plausibly articulated.

    What is going to add insult to injury is that there is likely going to be at least 3, possibly 5, Democrat Senators who will vote with Republicans..

    So, the *ONLY* bi-partisan support is President Trump's support..

    No matter how ya wanna spin it..

    Democrats committed a "mind blowingly STUPID" political act...

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the mueller probe, if proven, might have been a bigger violation, but it was much more difficult to prove. this one has donald on camera telling the entire world what he did, daring anyone to do something about it.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    >>>>when it became apparent based on donald's >>>>behavior that she'd have no choice, her goal was to >>>>get it done as quickly as possible so it wouldn't >>>>interfere with the next election cycle.

    That's a bogus claim...

    Allow me to re-phrase..

    when it became apparent based on donald's behavior that she'd have no choice, her goal was to get it done as quickly as possible so it wouldn't interfere with the next election cycle.

    I don't think that is factually accurate...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    the mueller probe, if proven, might have been a bigger violation, but it was much more difficult to prove.

    But it was the bigger accusation..

    Surely impeachment was more warranted by that then by this...

    As Joe Biden proved beyond ANY doubt, bribery, extortion and quid pro quo is how US Diplomacy works..

    this one has donald on camera telling the entire world what he did,

    Just as Joe Biden did.. Well, bragged about it...

    daring anyone to do something about it.

    Which is de-facto proof that there was nothing wrong with it..

    If it WAS an illegal act A> President Trump would have hid it and 2> Democrats would have actually made it one of the impeachment articles..

    By their actions, Democrats PROVE that it wasn't an illegal act..

    If it were, it would have been an Article of Impeachment..

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Just watched PICARD..

    WOW!!!

    Was a bit confused until I realized that Picard's House staff were Romulans and not Vulcans...

    But, yea... Tons better than I thought it was going to be...

    While some of the old Captain Picard showed thru, you really get the sense that Picard has evolved..

    Wish CBS ACCESS would just put the whole series up.. Would love to binge on it.. :D

  64. [64] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    the mueller probe, if proven, might have been a bigger violation, but it was much more difficult to prove. this one has donald on camera telling the entire world what he did, daring anyone to do something about it.

    And it differed from Trump asking Russians hackers to find Hillary’s alleged missing e-mails during a press conference HOW? Face it, THAT ONE had one as well.

    When asked if his investigation had determined if Trump had committed any criminal acts, Mueller responded that because the DOJ does not allow for a sitting president to be indicted while still in office, he WOULD NOT accuse Trump of having committed an indictable offense as Trump would not have the opportunity to defend himself in court.

    That is NOT an exoneration of Trump by any means! An exoneration would have been Mueller simply answering, “Yes we did, and no, he did not.”

    Which is de-facto proof that there was nothing wrong with it..

    If it WAS an illegal act A> President Trump would have hid it

    Congratulations! You have proven that Trump was correct when he accused his followers of being so stupid that Trump could publicly shoot someone on 5th Ave. and he’d still be able to convince his followers that he did nothing wrong!

    Why bother hiding it?!? The FBI and DOJ have demonstrated that won’t do anything to stop him. The Republicans in Congress are either too afraid to stand up to him or too corrupted themselves to want to stop him. His base has proven willing to swallow as much bullshit as he can shovel down their bloated little throats. Seriously, WHY BOTHER HIDING ANYTHING AT THIS POINT??? Only problem is that Trump just made you believe he wasn’t hiding anything...because he is definitely hiding lots of things!

    Michale, you do not see the irony of calling us “America haters” for being outraged that Trump is seeking foreign countries to interfere in our elections to help him get re-elected while “patriots” like yourself defend him by saying that it cannot be wrong if he did not try to hide it, but the rest of the world sure does!

    Only problem with that defense is that Trump DID try to hide it...and he still is!!! It was only after the whistle blower’s report was made public that Trump released the transcript that had been described with amazing accuracy by the whistle blower.

    That is why the inspector general’s report stating the whistle blowers claims were valid and demanded immediate attention was not sent to Congress when it should have been..

    That is why Barr’s DOJ refused to even look into or ask a single question after the CIA’s head attorney recommended a criminal investigation into this matter be started.

    Trump’s only choice was to release the “rough transcript” (still waiting to see the full one if it hasn’t been completely destroyed) and act like he had done absolutely nothing wrong!

    If Trump had nothing to hide, then he’d release all of the documents requested and allow every witness to testify to the truth of what happened!

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Trump had nothing to hide, then he’d release all of the documents requested and allow every witness to testify to the truth of what happened!

    And if Obama had nothing to hide, he would have released his school transcripts and ALL of the Fast/Furious documents and allowed his "wingman" Holder to testify to the truth of what happened..

    And if Joe Biden had nothing to hide, he would be testifying in front of the Senate.. Ditto for Hunter Biden..

    THAT's your reasoning applied to it's logical and rational conclusion..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hell, let's take your argument even further, Russ..

    If you have nothing to hide, why don't you open all your email accounts and all of your information to the public???

    I mean, seriously.. Do you believe that BS yer spewing??

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And if Obama had nothing to hide, he would have released his school transcripts and ALL of the Fast/Furious documents and allowed his "wingman" Holder to testify to the truth of what happened..

    And if Joe Biden had nothing to hide, he would be testifying in front of the Senate.. Ditto for Hunter Biden..

    THAT's your reasoning applied to it's logical and rational conclusion.

    No it is NOT! Neither Obama (school transcripts) nor Biden were served with Congressional subpoenas, so your arguments fall flat.

    As for F/F, Obama released over 4000 documents related to that investigation. Those withheld were done so based on statutes that restricted their release. If Trump hadn’t run scared from the very start and provided some of the requested documents...i mean, it can’t ALL be BAD...or can it???

    And wasn’t Holder found in contempt of Congress? So then the trial is the proper response to Trump doing what Holder did, is that the point you were trying to make?

  68. [68] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Hell, let's take your argument even further, Russ..

    If you have nothing to hide, why don't you open all your email accounts and all of your information to the public???

    My argument is that Trump refused to allow agencies to respond to any Congressional subpoenas requesting documents sought in their investigations. If I was subpoenaed and ordered to turn over my emails, then your argument wouldn’t seem so stupid....but I wasn’t and your argument does! Plus, you know Straw Man Fallacy Friday’s was yesterday, so no double points!

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    No it is NOT! Neither Obama (school transcripts) nor Biden were served with Congressional subpoenas, so your arguments fall flat.

    We're not talking about subpoenas.

    We're talking about YOU claiming the bullshit claim about something to hide..

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Please stop spreading false accusations about Joe Biden on this site. If anyone in this sordid affair is corrupt, it ain't him.

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    I must agree with Liz.

    Why waste time spreading false allegations about Buyed'im when there are plenty of valid allegations to make.

    Buyed'im's Buddies (trademark :D) alone are confirmation of his corruption.

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    And if Obama had nothing to hide, he would have released his school transcripts and ALL of the Fast/Furious documents and allowed his "wingman" Holder to testify to the truth of what happened.. ~ Mike

    Mike's routine deflection of "but, but, but Obama" means he has nothing left in the tank. Point to you, Russ.

    And if Joe Biden had nothing to hide, he would be testifying in front of the Senate.. Ditto for Hunter Biden..

    Russ, I am not constrained to point out that all the Senate need do is subpoena Joe Biden to Trump's impeachment. However, Trump using taxpayers' dollars in order to advance his own personal political interests by smearing Joe Biden is exactly why Trump has been impeached -- for always, forever, and in perpetuity -- and it would take a special kind of mind-numbing stupidity for Trump and/or the members of the Trump Cult to use Trump's impeachment as a vehicle to smear Joe Biden in order to advance Trump's own political interests... and thus further prove Trump's culpability and object of his con job to kneecap Joe.

    Donald Trump is a lying con artist who solicited a foreign nation to interfere in United States' elections in order to smear his most feared political opponent. The fact that Trump and the Trump Cult are foaming at the mouth at the chance to turn Trump's impeachment into a smear of Joe Biden tells you everything you need to know about the lawless dipshits. :)

  73. [73] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Kick [55]
    Thanks for the updated list and especially organizing it as you did. When you see them listed that way, 'the Great State of Texas' jumps out. I have read a few articles about Dem aspirations of flipping TX this year. Perhaps these retirements are a sign that Repubs think so too?

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Please stop spreading false accusations about Joe Biden on this site. If anyone in this sordid affair is corrupt, it ain't him.

    Could you point to where I did that???

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reposted for clarity

    Liz,

    Please stop spreading false accusations about Joe Biden on this site. If anyone in this sordid affair is corrupt, it ain't him.

    Could you point to where I did that???

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rusty,

    Thanks for the updated list and especially organizing it as you did. When you see them listed that way, 'the Great State of Texas' jumps out. I have read a few articles about Dem aspirations of flipping TX this year. Perhaps these retirements are a sign that Repubs think so too?

    Don't waste your time..

    It's nothing but wishful thinking on the part of Victoria...

    A> Democrats want to ban fossil fuels.. There is NO WAY IN HELL that they will ever win Texas with that agenda..

    2> Democrats in the House have absolutely NOTHING to show for their 2 years except for 2 failed coup attempts. There is NO WAY IN HELL that the American people will allow Democrats to keep the House..

    Keep in mind that Victoria made specific predictions during the 2016 elections.. As did I..

    Victoria was 100% WRONG in each and every one of her predictions..

    I had a 100% accuracy rate...

    The problem with the Democrats here making predictions is that it is SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on wishing..

    My predictions are based on FACTS.

    That's why everyone here has been WRONG about their President Trump predictions and I have always been dead on ballz accurate in my President Trump predictions..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since ya'all just LOVE polls so much..

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

    Looks like Trump/America haters are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people.

    :D

    Face reality, Weigantians..

    This faux impeachment coup ONLY ENDS ONE WAY..

    With President Trump still in office and, according to Joe Biden, "probably" stronger in the general election..

    Everyone here knows it... Well, everyone but Russ.. He's a a little slow.. Too much hate and bigotry in him..

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Alarmists Were Wrong about the Soleimani Strike
    https://tinyurl.com/w2wj4xl

    Speaking of failed predictions.. Ya'all's...

    Didn't Democrats promise that the Sillyman assassination would herald WWIII????

    That hundreds of thousands of Americans would be killed in retaliation???

    Well, I am really sorry to disappoint ya'all..

    As with all of ya'all's wishful predictions...

    NONE of it happened..

    President Trump reaped a whirlwind of awesome PR for the bold Sillyman assassination...

    And, as usual, Democrats were left holding their wee-wees in their hands.. :D

    Ya just GOTTA love reality, eh people?? :D

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Two weeks ago, the United States seemed on the brink of starting another war in the Middle East after a drone strike killed Iran’s most notorious spymaster, Qasem Soleimani, as he departed an international airport in Baghdad. The shadowy general, in charge of the Iranian equivalent of the CIA, was one of the most effective operatives in the Middle East’s history. He built a sprawling army of proxy militias throughout the region and helped expand Tehran’s dominance in nearby countries.

    But the dust has now settled, and none of the doomsday scenarios that so many in the media warned about has come to pass. It is true that Iran launched a missile attack into U.S. bases in Iraq, but the attack was merely symbolic. As Iraqi officials revealed the following day, Iran had informed them of an imminent attack on U.S. bases, a message that the Iraqis promptly and predictably passed on to the Americans. No fatalities were recorded, but the Iranian regime still told its followers that dozens if not hundreds of Americans were killed as a result of the retaliation.

    Once again.. I know ya'all were wishing for massive American casualties that ya'all can blame on President Trump...

    On several different levels, I am very VERY happy to disappoint ya'all...

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    , but the Iranian regime still told its followers that dozens if not hundreds of Americans were killed as a result of the retaliation.

    But it is VERY telling that Democrats and Trump/America haters ALWAYS seem to side with America's enemies..

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    The funny thing is, all the pearl-clutching and hoping for massive retaliations from Iran were never really plausible to begin with..

    The US can clean Iran's clocks every day of the week and 20 times on Sunday..

    Iran knows this and Iran has NO desire to poke the bear... Especially a bear who has PROVEN he is willing to escalate things by the nth degree....

    Iran was *NEVER* in any real position to strike at the US in any meaningful way..

    It is only in the fevered imaginations and desires of Democrats and Trump/America haters that Iran would inflict massive casualties on Americans that the Trump/America haters could then blame on President Trump..

    It's truly amazing the depth of hatred these people have for President Trump that they would be HOPING for hundreds or thousands of American dead...

    #sad

  82. [82] 
    John M wrote:

    OK Let's get our predictions straight...

    Michale's prediction is that President Trump will be reelected for office...

    Michale further predicts that Republicans will win the White House, win the Senate and regain the House...

    Of course, there is not a single shred or iota of a fact that supports Michale's predictions..

    But hey... For Michale, the real factual world is simply too much to bear.. I won't begrudge him his delusions and fantasies...

    Now for my predictions..

    1.. President Trump will be defeated.. The only thing up in the air is will it be a HUGE defeat?? Or just a milquetoast narrow loss... There are a MULTITUDE of facts that support this prediction..

    2.. The GOP will lose the Senate.. Given the hypocrisy and bigotry of Senate Republicans, it's likely that the DEMS will increase their numbers at the very least by at least 4, possibly 5 seats.... Vulnerable Republican Senators include: Martha McSally of Arizona, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Joni Ernst of Iowa, John Cornyn of Texas, both David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, and the OPEN Republican seat in Kansas.

    3.. Democrats will retain control of the House. The GOP will lose by a considerable margin as their grip on the suburbs continues its precipitous fall....

    There ya'all have it. A round-up of who is predicting what... :D

    Anyone want to add their 2 cents in, feel free... Be nice to get as many people on the record so we can all see who is full of shit and who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together.. :D - Thanks Michale!!!

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, there is not a single shred or iota of a fact that supports Michale's predictions..

    Actually, there are plenty of facts.

    Just like there was in 2016. Y'all ignored the facts then too.. :D

    1.. President Trump will be defeated.. The only thing up in the air is will it be a HUGE defeat?? Or just a milquetoast narrow loss... There are a MULTITUDE of facts that support this prediction..

    Name one.. You can't, because none exist.

    I'll await your response.. But it will never happen because you always run away.... :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as all ya'all's whining and crying about 'whataboutism'...

    It ISN'T about 'whataboutism'...

    It's simply an acknowledgment of very basic facts and reality..

    If the BS yer whining and crying and complaining about WASN'T illegal under Odumbo, it's NOT illegal under President Trump..

    DUH....

    I am surprised that I have to explain this...

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    John M...

    Where did ya go???

    Don't you have ANY facts to support your BS predictions??

    ANY facts at all???

    {{ccchhhhiiiirrrrrrppppp}}{{{ccccchhhiiiirrrrpppp}}}

    Yea.. That's what I figured..

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW/Russ
    28

    The White House is reportedly taking one heck of a firm line, warning GOP senators that their heads "will be on a pike" if they vote against the president at any point.

    Russ, thank you for highlighting this very nice excerpt of CW's; you pointing it out like you did has made me look at this issue in an entirely different light.

    "Firm line"? Well, a pike certainly does qualify as a "firm line" that would make a "point" should any of the "GOP senators" make a point at some point to keep their sworn oaths to the United States/We the People, our Constitution and laws, and the God that every single one of them claims reverence, but I cannot help but notice on second look that this excerpt is screaming for clarification by somebody from the "White House"... as follows:

    * What is the caliber of these so-called "pikes" in possession of the "White House"?

    * How many "GOP senators" heads will fit on one of these weapons in possession of the "White House"?

    * Will the "White House" use one of their pikes to impale multiple of the GOP senators' heads or will it be one GOP senator's head per pike?

    * Will the "White House" utilize a weapon in order to fire these pikes into the head(s) of the GOP senators or will they be manually thrust?

    * Just how many of these pikes does the "White House" believe will fit up Donald Trump's ample fat ass?

    * Has the "White House" considered extricating any of the constrained GOP senators' heads from the ass of Fat Bastard before they fire/thrust the pikes?

    As y'all can easily tell from my queries needing clarification, it sounds like an ignorant plan that could backfire on the "White House" in spectacular fashion. :)

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I am STILL waiting for that recession ya'all promised us...

    Where is it??

    The economy is in awesome shape!! :D

    Thank you President Trump.. :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    As usual, you Democrats spew BS and fiction without ANY facts to support the claim was made... :D

    Funny how that is ALWAYS the case..

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prince Charles flew 16,000 miles using three private jets before proudly posing with Greta Thunberg in Davos...

    This is EXACTLY why it's IMPOSSIBLE to take Global Warming fanatics seriously..

    They are hypocrites..

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'm already on record with my prediction in the presidential contest, but i'll give my full prediction for 2020 as of now:

    1. donald wins the electoral college again with an even greater deficit of overall votes, making him the only president ever to be elected twice without ever winning the most votes.

    2. the senate will see modest dem gains and balance out at 50-50, with the vice president's vote allowing the GOP to narrowly hold on to power there.

    3. Dems will lose a few seats but still hold the house, by around 10 seats.

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[89]

    you mean the "prince of whales?"

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. donald wins the electoral college again with an even greater deficit of overall votes, making him the only president ever to be elected twice without ever winning the most votes.

    I agree with the EC win, but disagree with the Vanity Vote loss.

    Here is my reasoning..

    Democrats and Trump haters are going to be SO demoralized with the President Trump vindication and exoneration, they will stay home in droves..

    Especially when one considers the total chasm between pragmatic and progressive Democrats..

    If Biden wins, progressives will stay home.. If Bernie/Warren win, pragmatists will stay home..

    No matter which scenario comes to pass, Democrats will stay home by the millions..

    Hence an EC and a Vanity Vote win for President Trump..

    2. the senate will see modest dem gains and balance out at 50-50, with the vice president's vote allowing the GOP to narrowly hold on to power there.

    I disagree, but it's more my gut than anything else.

    Dems will lose a few seats but still hold the house, by around 10 seats

    I simply can't see this happening as House Democrats have NOTHING to run on... Any legislative success they can point to is actually a President Trump success, so that actually PISSES OFF the Democrat base..

    Democrats will lose the House and lose it bigtime.. They will be in the hole at least 20 seats when all is said and done..

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    you mean the "prince of whales?"

    More like the prince of whines..

    The hypocrisy is simply staggering..

    "TIGHTEN YOUR BELTS!!! GIVE UP YOUR MODERN CONVENIENCES!!! NOW EXCUSE MY WHILE I JUMP INTO MY PRIVATE JET FOR ANOTHER RALLY ACROSS TOWN"

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jesse Watters says 'it's over' after watching Trump legal team's opening Senate impeachment defense

    Watters' Words: President Trump won today

    Jesse responds to Trump counsel demolishing Democrats case on day 5 of Senate impeachment trial.

    Jesse Watters blasted Democrats Saturday on "Watters' World," accusing them of lying about the facts of their case against President Trump during the Senate impeachment trial, saying "they didn't care about the facts" and that "they only cared about getting Trump impeached by Christmas."

    Trump's lawyers defended the president against articles of impeachment Saturday morning, arguing it’s the Democrats who are trying to interfere in elections by seeking to remove Trump from the 2020 ballot for doing “absolutely nothing wrong.”

    White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said Democrats have no case and are doing damage to democracy by trying to undermine the will of American voters.

    During his "Watters' Words" commentary, the host commended the president's legal team, summarizing their case before bringing up key points, including that their case hinges on testimony by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordan Sondland.

    "That smooth, rich, bald guy," Watters said of Sondland. "He said he assumed Trump had a quid pro quo going on in his public testimony."

    "He said he was guessing that Trump was linking aid to investigations," he continued. "He admitted he had no evidence for it. And he's a Democrat star witness. And when Sondland spoke to the president, Trump said no quid pro quo."

    "It's over," Watters added. "Their whole case is based on someone's speculation that was wrong. The Democrats have no witness who provides any evidence of a quid pro quo. They never did because it never happened."

    Trump defense team makes case for Senate to acquit the President on two impeachment articlesVideo
    Watters also pointed out issues with impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his credibility.

    "Why are we supposed to believe anything Adam Schiff says, anyway? He lied about Russian collusion for three years," Watters said. "He fabricated Trump's phone call on live television and he lied about his relationship with the whistleblower. He has no credibility."
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/jesse-watters-its-over-trump-legal-team-opening-impeachment-defense

    It's over.. Democrats and Trump/America haters lost..

    President Trump and patriotic Americans have won...

  95. [95] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Neither side of the current political divide really understands the other, and that goes for you too, m. Everyone and i mean everyone left of center is scared to death of another four years of Donald as president. They will all show up no matter how much or little they like the dem candidate. Overall vote totals will soar. That is the reasoning behind my predictions.

  96. [96] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Overall vote totals will soar. That is the reasoning behind my predictions.

    Logical..

    I don't fault your thought process.. Your reasoning is logical and rational..

    I just think you are overestimating the Democrat loyalty.. They have taken major hits the last 3 years and it doesn't look like it's gonna let up between now and Nov...

    I believe they can only handle so many hits to the head and they are ready to call it quits...

    Time will tell..

  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if you read the numbers, i think you'll find my interpretation is the only one that fits what everyone sees. there are significantly more people in the country who support democratic people and policies than republican ones, but they're mostly concentrated on the coasts, which advantages republicans in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college. thus, democrats will get more votes but republicans will hold on in the senate and the white house, which give more weight to states with smaller populations.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    there are significantly more people in the country who support democratic people and policies than republican ones,

    Says who??

    Democrats?? :D

    This nation is a center-Right nation.. Even more so now than ever before since Saint Ronald Reagan..

    thus, democrats will get more votes

    We'll see.. :D

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Says who??

    have you been reading CW's columns for the past ten years?

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    have you been reading CW's columns for the past ten years?

    CW is a Democrat and gives the DEMOCRAT perspective ONLY..

    And, as recent history has shown, CW's grip on political reality is tenuous at BEST...

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which is to say that CW tends to discount the reality perspective in favor of the Democrat perspective..

  104. [104] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CW is a Democrat and gives the DEMOCRAT(sic) perspective ONLY..

    that's just flat not true. CW acknowledges his own biases, but he's the first to admit when his opinion isn't all that popular, and gives solid data to support any claims he makes when his opinion is shared by others.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's just flat not true. CW acknowledges his own biases, but he's the first to admit when his opinion isn't all that popular, and gives solid data to support any claims he makes when his opinion is shared by others.

    Maybe in the olden days..

    But when was the last commentary that CW took Democrats really to task over substantial issues??

    His milquetoast response to the bone head moves of the Democrats in impeachment is a perfect example..

  106. [106] 
    Kick wrote:

    italyrusty
    73

    Thanks for the updated list and especially organizing it as you did.

    You are more than welcome. I'll post it again if anything changes.

    When you see them listed that way, 'the Great State of Texas' jumps out.

    We here in Texas are nothing if not jumpers and flippers. ;)

    I have read a few articles about Dem aspirations of flipping TX this year. Perhaps these retirements are a sign that Repubs think so too?

    Parts of Texas will flip; of that there is zero doubt. Democratic candidates in Texas defeated longtime GOP incumbents in Houston and Dallas in the 2018 midterms, and there are six other Republican House members who won reelection to their districts in 2018 by five points or less. Of those six House members, Reps. Will Hurd, Kenny Marchant and Pete Olson have chosen to retire, and Reps. Michael McCaul, Chip Roy and John Carter will face tough reelections they used to take for granted.

    Texas has a lot of transplants from California and other Blue states, and the demographics are changing fast. It's not a matter of if Texas will flip but when Texas will flip, and regardless of when the GOP will take a whipping and Texas will be flipping, it's going to take a whole lot of money and an inordinate amount of time to defend her that the GOP is used to spending elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, New York and California show no signs whatsoever of moving even a scintilla so when Texas flips, the GOP as we know it will be gone, and they know it. :)

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    so when Texas flips,

    BBBWWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Weren't you the one who said PA and FL would vote for Hillary in 2016???? :D

    Let's face it, sugar.. You don't have much of a credibility track record.. :D

    {smooches} :D

  108. [108] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    “All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society.

    “I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard. Although I may admit to failures in my private life, I have at all times, and to the best of my ability, kept faith with every oath I have ever sworn to this country. I have known some men who kept that faith at the cost of their lives.

    Presidents are not ordinary citizens. They are extraordinary, in that they are vested with so much more authority and power than the rest of us. We have a right; indeed, we have an obligation, to hold them strictly accountable to the rule of law.”

    — Sen. John McCain

    This recording should be played at the end of the Democrats closing statement. Let McCain get the parting shot in the impeachment trial...it will drive Trump crazy!

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    90

    The majority in the House of Representatives hasn't flipped twice in a row since 1954 and also hasn't flipped during a presidential cycle since 1952... so Democrats have history on their side, and your predictions are -- historically speaking -- likely dead on accurate.

    3. Dems will lose a few seats but still hold the house, by around 10 seats.

    In seven of the past eight presidential cycles, the net partisan seat shift in the House has been in the single digits.

    Additional historical points to ponder:

    Democrats have gained seats in the House of Representatives in five of the past six presidential elections... and that one odd presidential election where Democrats didn't gain seats was in 2004 when the GOP in Texas drew a second favorable new redistricting map in 2003 after having already drawn a new map based on the 2000 census -- redistricting maps that were both gerrymandered nine ways to Saturday and twice on Sunday -- and still the GOP only managed to pick up 3 seats overall in 2004 while gaining 5 of those from the controversial second redistricting of Texas.

    Fast forward to today where Texas remains as gerrymandered as ever and nevertheless continues to flip.

    In other gerrymandering news: North Carolina is getting redrawn for the 2020 election, and it'll be like Pennsylvania in the 2018 midterms all over again... where Democrats will be all but guaranteed to pick up at minimum 2-3 of the newly drawn districts no longer gerrymandered by the GOP... so there's that. :)

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump has been completely and utterly exonerated on the Russia Collusion and on the Faux Impeachment Coup...

    This recording should be played at the start of Congress' every day and at the end of Congress' every session..

    It will drive Dumbocrats and Trump/America haters crazy!

    :D

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW..

    Kobe Bryant was just killed...

  112. [112] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    I do have a few things I'd like to discuss with you, though, as outlined below:

    * a petulant 4 year old that eats paint chips
    * Hint: The Green New Deal is not law
    * VETO is NOT OBSTRUCTION
    * STRAW MAN FALLACY FRIDAY!!!
    * Bullshit BINGO!!!

    You are too good to me! (Major blushing!).

    Donald Trump is a lying con artist who solicited a foreign nation to interfere in United States' elections in order to smear his most feared political opponent. The fact that Trump and the Trump Cult are foaming at the mouth at the chance to turn Trump's impeachment into a smear of Joe Biden tells you everything you need to know about the lawless dipshits. :)

    PREACH! Here’s a few questions for those claiming Trump was focused on rooting out corruption in Ukraine, not his re-election when he withheld the military aid in exchange for saying Biden was being investigated:

    If the Ukrainian’s did not even know it was being held up until they did something to combat corruption in their government, how were they supposed to do whatever was needed to get the aid released? And, more importantly, why was the money released if the Ukrainians did not do anything to fight the corruption Trump is so concerned with?

    I guess it was just by chance that all of this election-related hijinks took place just as the FEC lost it’s ability to rule on any legal issues surrounding our upcoming elections since Trump has not replaced any of the resigning commissioners.

    And Republicans need to be asked if getting to the truth is more important than getting the conman holding them hostage to face the consequences of his actions for the first time in his life?

    I am still waiting for us to learn that the economy has not been as healthy as Trump’s administration has told us. If Trump will force NOAA to offer up untrue weather announcements to cover for his mistakes, why would we think that he wouldn’t doctor any reports that his presidency’s success is judged by?

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    THE STATE OF THINGS FOR DEMS: GLOOMY & GETTING GLOOMIER

    The problem for Democrats is that taking down Bernie might well ensure they lose the election because lots of Bernie bros won’t vote for Joe Biden or the other powdered milk substitutes. We know a significant portion of Bernie voters in 2016 ended up voting for Trump in November. What might happen this year? A recent Emerson College poll found that only 53 percent of current Bernie voters said they would definitely support another Democratic nominee. The NY Times offers this typical anecdote from the campaign trail:

    Elsewhere on the increasingly broad Democratic spectrum, Pete Doyle, who attended a Sanders rally in Manchester, N.H., last weekend, had a ready answer when asked about voting for Mr. Biden: “Never in a million years.” He said that if Mr. Biden won the nomination, he would either vote for a third-party nominee or sit out the general election.

    While it MAY be (VERY SLIGHTLY) possible that Biden supporters will vote for Sanders, it's a sure gone conclusion that MILLIONS of Bernie supporters will stay home or cast their vote for President Trump..

    Democrats are in a gloomy place and, in the aftermath of the failed faux impeachment coup...???

    It's only going to get gloomier...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, impeachment has turned into a total bust. The Senate spectators’ gallery has been half empty most of the time. I guess Democrats overestimated the charisma and animal magnetism of Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. And the public has tuned it out on television:

    According to TV ratings for the first two days of the trial, the six news networks covering Trump’s impeachment averaged a little over 11 million viewers combined, with Fox News leading the pack with some 2,654,000 on their channel from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Viewership dropped by about 20 percent on Wednesday, with a total of 8,858,000 million watching; MSNBC led day two with 1,793,000 tuning in.

    Worse for Dems: Quinnipiac, a very reputable polling outfit, now finds a majority of Americans opposed to Trump’s impeachment:

    A majority of Americans now oppose impeaching and removing President Trump from office, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll Tuesday that signals Democrats’ month of hearings to make their case has failed. Quinnipiac found 51% of registered voters surveyed said they don’t want to see the president ousted through impeachment. That’s the first time the number has been above 50% since before Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry in late September.

    Even worse news: the latest YouGov “generic ballot” poll for the House, which had showed a solid Democratic advantage, is now showing only a 1 point Democratic edge over Republicans. And Trump’s approval rating is near its highest level since he took office, along with new survey data showing the satisfaction with the state of the nation at its highest level in 15 years. The raw number—41 percent—may not seem like much to cheer about, but its the kind of number that gets presidents re-elected.

    I just may take the rest of the day off and plant more popcorn in the field.

    There is simply NO shining beacon of hope for Democrats between now and Nov.. It's going to be one painful disappointment after another for the next 10 months..

    Kinda like being a Jaguars fine, but much MUCH worse....

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kinda like being a Jaguars fine, but much MUCH worse....

    That would be "Jaguars FAN".....

  116. [116] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    have you watched the good place yet? beside being an amazing show, there are a TON of jaguars jokes.

    JL

  117. [117] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    RIP Kobe....

    Speechless...

    Gobsmacked.

    L L & P

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    They STILL doing JAGs jokes??

    We haven't caught up on the new season yet..

  119. [119] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    of COURSE they're still doing jags jokes!

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    FUN FACT

    Houston, Texas, is the energy capital of the world and the headquarters and intellectual seat of nearly every segment of the oil industry that includes not just exploration and production but also technology, marketing, transmission, and supply of that energy, and the City of Houston indeed employs about 1/3 of Texas's jobs in both oil and gas extraction... and sits squarely in Harris County, Texas, a county bluer than a big ol' bursting blueberry pie filled with the bluest berries in Texas atop a pile of deep blue Texas bluebonnets... and getting bluer every day.

    Interestingly, however, the industries that are the largest employment sectors and drivers of the Texas economy are retail trade, professional services, leisure and hospitality, and health care, and those sectors represent the vast majority of jobs and income of the voters in the Lone Star State.

    Democrats have gained seats in the House of Representatives in five of the past six presidential elections, and in the 2018 midterm election, Democrats flipped a seat in the energy capital of the world -- Houston Texas/Harris County and also in "Big D" -- Dallas -- which is also "Big B" -- Blue -- and getting bluer too. :)

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    While Republicans are on record admitting that a politician might have taken one look at the multitude of polls in 2019 and determined that they needed to kneecap an opponent in the upcoming election, the short-sighted GOP and Trump Cult members completely devoid of any self-awareness have decided those numerous polls showing Joe Biden defeating Donald Trump by between 6-12 points nationally and multiple polls showing Biden winning in Texas were the impetus for Nancy Pelosi to kneecap Trump. And that makes them demonstrably ignorant with a particular penchant and inherent inability to connect huge dots from one to another.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/biden-beating-trump-texas-poll-1355285

    The above link is to a poll from June 2019 -- the month just prior to the not-so-perfect-July 2019-phone-call-from-the-transcript not really a transcript. It wasn't the first poll of its kind to show Joe Biden beating Donald Trump in Texas so the Trump Cult and GOP dipshits might want to allow themselves to join reality and entertain the idea that Texans would vote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump... particularly since Donald Trump appears to have allowed that fact to sink in when he continued unabated in his shakedown of Ukraine in order to procure announcements of investigations into the Bidens. Full stop.

    There are more tapes coming, of course, and there is an excellent excerpt of a book manuscript provided by John Bolton to the White House; Trump obviously knows what Bolton will testify to because he obviously knows what he told Bolton... hence, Trump's obstruction of Congress; however, executive privilege does not apply to illegal acts like obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress in order to cover other illegal acts.

    So to recap:

    * Lordy, there are tapes and manuscripts.
    * There is a huge coverup going on in order to obstruct justice.
    * Obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress are definitely crimes.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    * Obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress are definitely crimes.

    And yet, NONE of that are the Articles of Impeachment.

    :D

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  123. [123] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Allow me to confess in public that I hold congress in complete contempt, so please send Schiff after me. I also have contempt for Trump, and most politicians, but that's likely not a crime, right?

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Allow me to confess in public that I hold congress in complete contempt, so please send Schiff after me. I also have contempt for Trump, and most politicians, but that's likely not a crime, right?

    heh

    Word.... :D

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really hilarious..

    All Weigantians talk about alleged crimes committed, about how the "facts" are irrefutable.

    And yet, the Articles of Impeachment are ***NOT*** crimes..

    Logically, if the "facts" to PROVE crimes are "irrefutable", then WHY didn't House Democrats make the Articles ACTUAL crimes??

    Answer: Because there ARE not real "facts" to prove any crime was committed..

    "Simple logic."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  126. [126] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    * Obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress are definitely crimes.

    And yet, NONE of that are the Articles of Impeachment.

    Let’s see if we can figure this out in ways that you can comprehend...don’t worry, I know reading is not your strongest subject, so I will try to type slowly so you can keep up!

    Obstruction of Congress is simply Congress’ version of Obstruction of Justice, and it is the appropriate charge for Trump’s intentional blocking of evidence that Congress has been seeking. If the House would have claimed Obstruction of Justice, Trump defenders would scream that Trump could not be guilty of that offense because by definition, Congress is not an arm of law enforcement nor is it part of the judicial branch. Therefore, by its legal definition, Trump cannot be guilty of “Obstruction of Justice”.

    This is also why the Democrats decided to limit the number of articles of impeachment to two charges that are broad in their scope. Yes, there is plenty of evidence that Trump is guilty of criminal acts, but Republicans have argued that there has been no DIRECT EVIDENCE presented to convict Trump.

    And why haven’t the Democrat’s provided the direct evidence if it exists??? Because of Trump’s obstruction of Congress — they are making the Democrats second article impossible to honestly vote that Trump did not do!

    By making the charges against Trump more broad instead of very specific, Democrats have forced the Republicans to use a defense that only makes the Democrats’ charge of obstruction for them!!!

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obstruction of Congress is simply Congress’ version of Obstruction of Justice, and it is the appropriate charge for Trump’s intentional blocking of evidence that Congress has been seeking.

    Factually not accurate..

    If Democrats meant OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE why didn't they say so??

    Because the FACTS don't support OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE..

    So Democrats just make up a "crime" that doesn't exist..

    If the House would have claimed Obstruction of Justice, Trump defenders would scream that Trump could not be guilty of that offense because by definition, Congress is not an arm of law enforcement nor is it part of the judicial branch. Therefore, by its legal definition, Trump cannot be guilty of “Obstruction of Justice”.

    That's a circular argument that has absolutely NO factual or legal merit..

    This is also why the Democrats decided to limit the number of articles of impeachment to two charges that are broad in their scope. Yes, there is plenty of evidence that Trump is guilty of criminal acts,

    If that were so, then Democrats would have CHARGED President Trump with actual criminal acts in the Articles..

    The fact that Democrats DIDN'T charge President Trump with any criminal acts PROVE the facts don't support such chargers..

    And why haven’t the Democrat’s provided the direct evidence if it exists??? Because of Trump’s obstruction of Congress —

    Again, a circular argument without any factual basis..

    By making the charges against Trump more broad instead of very specific, Democrats have forced the Republicans to use a defense that only makes the Democrats’ charge of obstruction for them!!!

    Obstruction of Democrats is not a criminal act.. It's a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN thing to do..

    Democrats did not charge President Trump with any crime because the FACTS don't support such a charge..

    It's really THAT simple and no amount of your tap dancing about what the definition of 'is' is will change that FACT...

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ...

    For your mental health, you better wrap your head around and accept the FACT that President Trump will remain in office after this faux impeachment coup is done..

    And, as Joe Biden said, will "probably" be stronger going into the General Election..

    Accepting that FACT now will make the gloating I do much easier to take.. :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats don't allege any crime in the Articles of Impeachment because no crime was committed..

    That's the whole issue in a nutshell..

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    , and there is an excellent excerpt of a book manuscript provided by John Bolton to the White House;

    Do you have any facts to prove it's legitimate?? No, you do not..

    But the leaking of this manuscript (if legit) proves one thing beyond any doubt..

    President Trump is morally, legally and ethically in the right to keep his tax returns private...

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate Republicans must stand up for the rule of law and ensure a fair, open proceeding
    https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/479845-senate-republicans-must-stand-up-for-the-rule-of-law-and-ensure

    Republicans ARE standing up for the "rule of law"..

    And since even DEMOCRATS concede no law has been broken, there is no need for anyone to stand up for them..

    Further, the Senate proceedings are as fair and open as House Democrat proceedings were..

    How can anyone ask more than that???

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just hours after my Republican colleagues voted – nine times – against seeking documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial, President Trump bragged about the ongoing cover-up while rubbing elbows with billionaires in Davos. He proudly proclaimed that, “honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.” Boasting about documents he has withheld sounds a lot like an outright confession to obstruction of Congress.

    It is.. But since Obstruction Of Congress is not a crime, take yer BS and shove it up your ass..

    As a reminder, the White House has blocked the testimony of key witnesses like John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, and Michael Duffey.

    Just like Obama blocked so many key witnesses.. If it wasn't illegal then, it's not illegal under Trump.. Oh, excuse me...

    PRESIDENT Trump.. :D

    I never get tired of saying and hearing that..

    PRESIDENT Trump..

    I guess it's because each and every one of ya'all told me I was daft when I said Donald Trump would win the election.. :D

    PRESIDENT Trump... :D

    They’ve produced zero – that’s right, zero – documents requested from the White House, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Management and Budget.

    Bullshit... DO you have any facts to support your bullshit claim?? Of course you don't..

    If the witnesses the White House has blocked would testify to President Trump’s innocence, why don’t Republican esnators want to hear from them?

    For the same reason Obama wouldn't let witnesses testify...

    If it wasn't a crime then, then it's not a crime now..

    Why is that so hard for you to understand??? Moron..

    In the face of Donald Trump’s confessed concealment, if they fail to stand up for the rule of law – a fair, full, open proceeding – history will haunt them, and the American people will judge them harshly.

    Blaaa blaaaa blaaaa blaaaa

    The only ones who are going to be judged harshly by history will be Democrats...

    Two failed coup attempts and 3 years trying to illegally nullify a fair, free, legal, democratic and Constitutional election...

    Yer Democrats heads' are on the chopping block, dickweed...

    Not President Trump's...

  133. [133] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Obama was not impeached. If he had been, blocking witnesses would have been a constitutional violation for him too.

  134. [134] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The whole reason impeachment was retained by the founders instead of doing away with it, as with ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, is that they recognized the ability of chief executives to come up with new ways of violating the rules that aren't already on the books. That is why as gerald Ford said, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama was not impeached. If he had been, blocking witnesses would have been a constitutional violation for him too.

    Exactly..

    Obama did the same thing.. Obstruct Congress.. He wasn't impeached..

    Because it's NOT an impeachable offense..

    That is why as gerald Ford said, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.

    That's Ford's opinion, unsupported by Constitutional Law..

    Now, if Democrats want to do it the RIGHT way, they propose legislation and get it signed into law that it's illegal to Obstruct Congress..

    But they don't get to just make up laws when it suits them..

    ESPECIALLY when THEY violate the very laws they are making up..

    There is NOTHING illegal or impeachable about President Trump going thru the courts to protect his rights.

    THAT's the point that ya'all ignore..

    And ya'all ignore it because it totally decimates your position...

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is NOTHING illegal or impeachable about President Trump going thru the courts to protect his rights.

    THAT's the point that ya'all ignore..

    And ya'all ignore it because it totally decimates your position...

    Now, if President Trump defied the SCOTUS, then you MIGHT have a legitimate leg to stand on..

    But, as it is now, it's NOTHING but regular politics as a President from one Party ignores the demands of a House of another Party..

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Next to me, yer the most logical and rational person here..

    It's GABBERFLASTING to me why you can't see this...

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean... Using ya'all's reasoning, President Trump could declare that OBSTRUCTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is a capital offense and have the lot of Congress executed..

    Is THAT what you think America is???

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO BRANCH of the US Government can just make up laws on a whim..

    It's THAT fact that ya'all ignore..

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now...

    Get into Modern Warfare 2019 and we'll settle this like REAL men!!! :D

    hehehehe

  141. [141] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    NO BRANCH of the US Government can just make up laws on a whim

    Impeachment is the sole exception to that rule, as was the framers intent, as a check on the powers of the executive. The part of my last post you ignored was that Obama was not impeached, which makes your comments about him irrelevant to the discussion.

  142. [142] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And yes, the next gop house can make up any reason they want to impeach the next dem president, and that president ought to be constitutionally required to comply with the investigations.

  143. [143] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The balance to that check is an extremely high bar for conviction and removal.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment is the sole exception to that rule

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    And yes, the next gop house can make up any reason they want to impeach the next dem president, and that president ought to be constitutionally required to comply with the investigations.

    Without recourse of legally and legitimately going thru the courts???

  145. [145] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yes. Where a president is concerned, the legislature IS the court. As we're seeing right now.

  146. [146] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In Nixon vs u.s. (a different Nixon, not the president), the scotus basically said they only have the authority to intervene in impeachment under the most extreme circumstances, and even then they weren't so sure.

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically you are saying that, if the GOP had passed a law that said skinny guys with big ears are illegitimate presidents, impeached Odumbo and demanded all sorts of documents from Odumbo..

    YOU are saying he would HAVE to comply and could not go thru the courts??

    Again, I ask.. Is THAT the America you want to live in??

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    In Nixon vs u.s. (a different Nixon, not the president), the scotus basically said they only have the authority to intervene in impeachment under the most extreme circumstances, and even then they weren't so sure.

    Fine.. So let the lower courts decide...

    Democrats didn't want to wait... Because they KNEW they would lose..

    Because they are just making up laws and the courts WON'T uphold them..

    And round and round and round we go..

    And all the while, Democrats are doing Putin's bidding by causing so much strife and conflict in our government..

  149. [149] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yes it could in theory be taken to such crazy extremes. Irrespective of whether or not I'd like it, that's what the constitution says would probably have to happen. Based on concurring opinions in Nixon, the scotus MIGHT be able to intervene, but maybe not.

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    I still like the idea of President Trump that OBSTRUCTION OF POTUS is a capital offense and executing all of Congress...

    That would serve Democrats right..

    :D

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes it could in theory be taken to such crazy extremes.

    And you would be perfectly OK with that??

    Think of how ya'all acted about GOP obstruction of Obama..

    NO WAY in hell would ya have accepted Obama being impeached, DEMANDS for ALL his documents and record and have NO RECOURSE thru the courts..

    NO ONE here would accept that..

    So, this begs the question..

    Why is it advocated when it's President Trump???

  152. [152] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Fine.. So let the lower courts decide...

    If the scotus ruled that They can't decide, lower courts can't either.

  153. [153] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Why is it advocated when it's President Trump???

    Because they believe what he did to be that far beyond the pale of what his office can be permitted to do.

  154. [154] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And you would be perfectly OK with that??

    No, but there wouldn't be anything i could do about it.

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, we'll just have to disagree on that..

    It's not right, it's not American to just make up charges to fit against a person that is hated.

    And Democrats would NOT SIT STILL for it, if it were being done to a Dem POTUS...

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's all going to be for naught anyways..

    President Trump will remain in office.

    And if we're unfortunate enough to have a DEM POTUS in our lifetime again, the GOP will remember and will likely act accordingly..

    Like with Reid and killing the filibuster, Democrats fail to think ahead..

  157. [157] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Think of how ya'all acted about GOP obstruction of Obama..

    NO WAY in hell would ya have accepted Obama being impeached, DEMANDS for ALL his documents and record and have NO RECOURSE thru the courts..

    It did not happen, so there is nothing to think about!

    You keep saying the Democrats should have taken Trump to court to determine if his reasons for denying the requests for documents were justified before impeaching him. You might have had a solid argument except that Trump ordered federal agencies not to provide any response to Congress’ requests. Had the agencies responded with any statutes showing why they could not respond to Congress’ requests, then there would have been something for the courts to rule on.

    There is no legal precedent for the federal government to refuse to acknowledge requests for information from anyone. In fact, FOIA statutes are extremely clear concerning HOW the government MUST respond to document requests — agencies can either provide the documents immediately if they are able to, deny the request because the requested documents do not exist, or they must give a timetable for how long it will take to find the requested documents and determine if they are exempt from disclosure. Agencies must state how many documents they discover that match the criteria of the request, and if they redact any information in the documents they release, they must site the statute that prevents the info from being released.

    Trump ignored the law entirely by telling the federal agencies that they no longer have to obey the laws Congress has passed! Congress did not have to go to court to know that Trump has no legal precedent for denying their requests.

    Trump could have sought the court’s answer on whether he had to allow federal agencies to respond to Congress’ subpoenas and calls for witness testimony, but HE DID NOT ASK! Stupidity isn’t a valid defense!

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said, Russ..

    Yer wrong..

    And you know how we all know you are wrong??

    Because President Trump will be completely vindicated and exonerated...

    And remain in office...
    :D

  159. [159] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    But, as it is now, it's NOTHING but regular politics as a President from one Party ignores the demands of a House of another Party..

    Complete BS! The President completely ignoring Congress, putting his little fingers in his big ears and screaming loudly, “I can’t hear you! You can’t make me listen! La-la-la-la!” is not REGULAR POLITICS! The President ordering the federal government to completely ignore Congress’ requests — the branch of government granted the power of oversight by the Constitution— is not REGULAR POLITICS!

    Michale, if you are gonna try to avoid looking like a complete tool by Trump and retain any glimmer of self-esteem, you are going to need to jump ship soon! If you “come to your senses” before the evidence becomes too undeniable that even his House toadies turn on him, you will come off looking a lot smarter. Or wait until after the GOP turns and drink the koolaid with the rest of the cultists who weren’t smart enough to admit the truth.

  160. [160] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And you know how we all know you are wrong??

    Because President Trump will be completely vindicated and exonerated...

    OK, so you are saying that I am correct...I get it! Because there is NO WAY for Trump to claim that he was “completely vindicated and exonerated” any more! His defenses have all been eviscerated by his own stupidity! The country is not fooled by a president who thinks his base is too dumb to realize that the reason Democrats were stuck with no first hand accounts of what occurred is because he blocked everyone who could provide it from testifying! OK, some of you might be that dumb, but most aren’t!

    Remember back in 2016, before Trump was elected, how so many of you loved to say that one of the great things about Trump was that he “tells it like it is!” Funny, you never hear anyone say that anymore, yet Trump hasn’t changed one bit! I guess even his base are sick of being lied to all the time...even if they won’t admit it!

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Complete BS! The President completely ignoring Congress, putting his little fingers in his big ears and screaming loudly, “I can’t hear you! You can’t make me listen! La-la-la-la!” is not REGULAR POLITICS! The President ordering the federal government to completely ignore Congress’ requests — the branch of government granted the power of oversight by the Constitution— is not REGULAR POLITICS!

    It is...

    You just refuse to accept it because your hatred of President Trump and your bigotry towards Republicans.

    But facts are facts.. And you have no facts..

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, so you are saying that I am correct...I get it!

    Yes, Russ.. THAT is what I am saying .. :eyeroll:

    You debate like a 6 yr old..

    You act exactly like you accuse President Trump of acting.

    WAAAAA WAAAAA

    Yer gonna lose, son..

    You know it. I know it.. Everyone here knows it..

  163. [163] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Ahhhh...”Michale gets flustered when his argument is completely annihilated so he resorts to insults as his only response” in the lower left box....BULLSHIT BINGO! Wow, usually it takes most of the day and lots of comments to get a BINGO, but you are in rare form today, obviously!

    But that actually makes sense...Trumps actions are impossible to defend rationally and honestly. He has left you no where to go, so you are stuck trying to deflect and distract. Like I said before, you are gonna want to jump ship soon if you want to be able to say that Trump did not completely own you and made you his bitch by making you accept his lies as the truth. If you wait until the GOP turns on him, you will look dumber than they are... not a good look on anyone!

  164. [164] 
    Kick wrote:

    Weigantia

    Russ and JL make a lot of dead on accurate points to which I would like to add some more inconvenient -- for the GOP -- facts and observations, as follows:

    * There was no criminal code in existence when the Framers passed the Constitution... so the asinine and ridiculous assertion that the Framers intended impeachment to require a future House of Representatives to formally make a "charge" or "indictment" from a list of crimes in a criminal code that didn't exist at the time is nonsensical... yet an infinitely easy spoon-fed distraction that could be understood and regurgitated by the Trump Cult.

    The incessant whining that "this" or "that" word choice doesn't allege a crime is simple distraction akin to the semantical argument of "no collusion" and the equally asinine argument that "collusion isn't a crime."

    * It is a crime to obstruct the Congress of the United States of America. Anyone who has read the Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump and tells you that no crimes are stated is either lying, ignorant, or a Trump rube regurgitating the GOP's spoon-fed distraction.

    Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

    Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

    Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

    Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

    It is a crime to obstruct the Congress of the United States, and there are multiple ways in which a person can commit that crime. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant of United States statute or lying.

    * The act of soliciting a foreign government to help your re-election campaign is a crime. Prison is one of the punishments for doing it. Full stop.

    * I believe the most important thing to keep in mind is this: All our representatives in Washington, DC, are elected by us to represent us whether they serve the People in the House of Representatives, the Senate, or in the Executive Branch. None of those Representatives should be allowed in indiscriminate and wholesale fashion to refuse to answer any requests of We the People; they all serve us and not the other way around. The false equivalency deflection to Obama is a bullshit right-wing talking point. Trump's refusal to answer the subpoenas of Congress in any way and ordering of government employees and former employees to provide zero documents/zero depositions by witnesses to the People's 70+ requests for production of documents and multiple subpoenaes for testimony to the People's representatives is unprecedented in our nation's history... and illegal and punishable by imprisonment (see above).

    The House and Senate GOP Representatives have repeatedly moved the goalposts in an attempt to normalize and cover up Donald Trump's illegal shakedown of a foreign government to announce an investigation into an American citizen and his family for his own personal political advantage and the subsequent cover-up of same with the obstruction of the investigation of our Representatives in Congress, and that conduct is illegal. The GOP owns this cover-up and are complicit in it.

    The impeachment of this lawless POTUS is accomplished in perpetuity, and while the GOP majority in the Senate was never going to remove this lawless President regardless of whether or not he violated the public trust by putting his own personal interests before those of the People's democracy or for his multiple violations of law, you have your impeachment trial... and trials have witnesses, and anyone under the impression that this is simply a trial of Donald Trump and not a de facto trial of those complicit in the cover-up are seriously missing the big picture. :)

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh...”Michale gets flustered when his argument is completely annihilated so he resorts to insults as his only response” in the lower left box....BULLSHIT BINGO! Wow, usually it takes most of the day and lots of comments to get a BINGO, but you are in rare form today, obviously!

    You say the same thing over and over again.. The same old bullshit that you KNOW is bullshit.

    And when all your bullshit is said and done, guess what?

    President Trump will STILL be President and STRONGER, according to Joe Biden, for the general election.. :D

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why I LAUGH every day..

    Because I know that, for all ya'all's bluster and bullshit, when all is said and done.

    Ya'all are going to be PROVEN to be full of shit and WRONG as usual..

    And I will be dead on ballz accurate..

    AS USUAL.. :D

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what's so hilarious is that, when ya'all lose and the daily... HOURLY gloating starts..

    Ya'all will only have yerselves to blame.. :D

  168. [168] 
    Kick wrote:

    I find it infinitely interesting how Trump's counsel are hysterically and desperately attempting to convince the People's representatives and We the People that Trump was obsessed with fighting corruption in Ukraine.

    With all this so-called alleged concern with corruption in Ukraine, why has Trump never once shown a scintilla of interest in addressing the corruption being perpetrated by Russia?

  169. [169] 
    Kick wrote:

    Regarding that executive privilege Trump never actually invoked:

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.

    Executive privilege regarding what Trump said to Bolton on the question of the justification for withholding the aid was just waived by President Dotard in the above tweet. You don't get to claim subjects are privileged while you tweet away in hysterical fashion about those same issues.

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    In Iowa, the ‘Not Sanders’ Democrats Find Voters Torn
    As the liberal Bernie Sanders tightens his grip in Iowa, more traditional Democrats remain split among his four leading competitors, or are unsure altogether of whom to support.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/iowa-democrats-bernie-sanders.html

    No matter who wins, MILLIONS of Democrats are going to be disillusioned and demoralize and will stay home in Nov...

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    BETTENDORF, Iowa — As they streamed out of the ballroom following a Scott County fund-raising banquet Saturday night, one after the other Iowa Democrats admitted that they still had not decided whom to support just over a week before the state’s presidential caucuses.

    But by not mentioning his name as they rattled off their short lists, they made it clear whom they would not support: Senator Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist from Vermont who has taken the lead in recent polls.

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    WH Lawyers Have Already Closed the Case on Impeachment
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/27/wh_lawyers_have_already_closed_the_case_on_impeachment_142242.html

    GAME OVER..

    Democrats lost..

    Too bad, so sad....

    Now run along and try not to embarrass yerselves in Nov...

  173. [173] 
    Kick wrote:

    Trump lawyer Jane Raskin argues vehemently that Rudy Giuliani is "just a minor player" in the shakedown of Ukraine.

    Was that supposed to be the comic relief portion of their defense of Donald Trump?

    It seems that Ms. Raskin failed to heed Trump's advice to read that "perfect call" transcript-not-really-a transcript where Donald Trump invokes Rudy's name five times during the July 25 call.

    Trump's counsel are either ignorant or they believe Americans are.

  174. [174] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You'll have to be a little more thoughtful about responses to professor Dershowitz, I should hope! :)

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Supreme Court allows Trump administration to enforce ‘public charge’ immigration restriction

    The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to enforce, for now, its "public charge" immigration restriction, lifting a pair of preliminary injunctions issued by federal judges.

    The Monday order followed a 5-4 split vote that divided the court’s conservatives and liberals.

    At issue is the administration’s rule issued in August that would restrict immigrants entering the United States if the government believes they will rely on public assistance, such as housing or health care benefits. Lower federal courts had blocked the policy from being implemented while the issue is being litigated.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-enforce-public-charge-immigration-restriction

    Once again, the SCOTUS sides with President Trump....

    Democrats and Trump/America haters lose again...

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You'll have to be a little more thoughtful about responses to professor Dershowitz,

    Now THAT's funny!!!! :D

  177. [177] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wonder if Dershowitz would be in favour of removal if there were only one article of impeachment against president Trump with the title 'Bribery' or 'A High Crime Akin to Bribery' … :)

  178. [178] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's try to stick to the topic at hand, shall we, Michale?

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wonder if Dershowitz would be in favour of removal if there were only one article of impeachment against president Trump with the title 'Bribery' or 'A High Crime Akin to Bribery' … :)

    If it listed an actual CRIME, then I would think yes..

    But Democrats don't have the facts to support an actual crime..

    Foreign Policy, sans Declaration of War or Treaties, is the SOLE purview of the President Of The United States..

    NO ONE else can do anything about it.

    Which is why the GOP was powerless when Obama sent hundreds of billions of dollars to the number 1 terrorist state on the planet..

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Using Democrats' logic, a stronger case for impeaching former President Obama could be made, Herschmann argued later. He noted that Obama had been caught on camera promising Russia's president that he would have more "flexibility" on missile defense issues after the 2012 election -- an apparent instance of a "quid pro quo" involving politics influencing foreign affairs.

    "The president exercises official power. In his role as head of state during a nuclear security summit after asking the Russian president for space, he promised him missile defense can be solved? What else can that mean than in a way that can be solved for the Russians?" Herschmann asked. "He was asking an adversary for space for the express purpose of furthering his own election purposes... 'after my election, I have more flexibility.' Obama knew the importance of missile defense in Europe but decided to use it as a bargaining chip."

    Obama was more guilty of treason than President Trump..

    but, of course, Obama has a -D so he gets a pass from ya'all...

  181. [181] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Trump's counsel are either ignorant or they believe Americans are.

    I’m guessing it’s a little from column A, a little from column B, and a lot from column C — they have an idiot for a client who they cannot control.

  182. [182] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    What did you think of professor Dershowitz's constitutional history and arguments?

  183. [183] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But Democrats don't have the facts to support an actual crime..

    I disagree.

    And, remember, not all quid-pro-quos are created equally.

    The one used by vice president Biden with Poroshenko was one in which both countries benefited. Ukraine would get rid of the corrupt Prosecutor General who wasn't prosecuting corruption cases and the US would have a stronger ally in the overall effort to prevent further Russian aggression and subversion of democracies around the globe.

  184. [184] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    174

    You'll have to be a little more thoughtful about responses to professor Dershowitz, I should hope! :)

    Not sure if you're talking to me, but if you are: What is not thoughtful about pointing out that the argument of Trump's counsel claiming Rudy Giuliani is "just a minor player" in this Ukraine shakedown is ridiculous on its face. Any American paying even the least bit of attention to this issue knows this argument to be bollocks.

    Rudy Giuliani was a key player in this, and to argue otherwise after reviewing the facts in evidence assumes Americans are deaf, dumb, and blind. Bolton didn't call him "a hand grenade" and describe Trump's fixer's handiwork as a "drug deal" for no reason. Minor player? *laughs*

    As for Dersh... his argument too is ridiculous on its face. If a President decided he was going to go on a six-month vacation and he'd attend to his official duties upon his return, that wouldn't exactly be illegal, but it would darn sure be grounds to impeach him from office.

    As for the ridiculous assertion that Trump has a blanket executive privilege and immunities from any type of Congressional subpoena for documents or testimony and the right to gag employees and American citizens from testifying to Congress, Trump's legal team is arguing/advocating a degree of executive privilege and immunity from prosecution to apply to the POTUS that would establish an unconstitutional rule of executive supremacy. Our Founders set up a system of checks and balances and not a system where the POTUS could order Americans to ignore the representatives of "We the People."

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    I think most of Trumps lawyers have put on a pitiful defense of their client, mostly because they play too loose with the facts.

    But, Dershowitz is different. He is inviting debate on the constitutional arguments of the impeachment process and what constitutes an impeachable offense.

    Your six-month vacation example is hardly grounds for impeachment, in and of itself. Now, if the president could be deemed incapacitated, that would be another story but, also not impeachable!

    As for the ridiculous assertion that Trump has a blanket executive privilege and immunities from any type of Congressional subpoena for documents or testimony …

    Well, that is ridiculous but, not what Dershowitz was arguing. (I'm pretty much ignoring the rest of Trump's legal team as they have proven to be far less than effective counsel, in my view.

    The question here is why did the House not pursue the courts in order to have their subpoenas enforced. The 'time' arguments fails, in my opinion. And, the course of this impeachment so far vindicates that view.

  186. [186] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, with regard to Biden's take on all of this is to say that he doesn't hold a grudge, presidents can't hold a grudge, presidents need to be healers.

    I guess that sort of tack could work … I guess.

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, what say you!?

  188. [188] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    The question here is why did the House not pursue the courts in order to have their subpoenas enforced. The 'time' arguments fails, in my opinion.

    On its face, this is a reasonable question to ask. But I disagree that the “time” argument fails... it is very clear that Trump was going to do everything he could do to drag out the requests for documents in the hope that he could prevent the House from starting an impeachment hearing prior to the 2020 election.

    If Trump held off the House from getting any documents until Spring, the president’s backers would be screaming that impeachment hearings were just the Democrats trying to screw up the 2020 election and that the people should vote Trump out if they want him gone. And it’s an argument that would work.

    Also, you need to realize that Congress would not get the documents just by a single visit asking the court to rule on the matter. The first time they go to court, they would be seeking the court’s ruling on whether a federal agency can simply ignore a request for documents. The court would rule, then it would go to the Appeals Court, and would eventually make its way o the SCOTUS. Even rushed through the courts, the quickest you could hope for a decision would be a month after the House first sought judicial review. The court can only address the issues that have occurred — Trump telling federal agencies to ignore Congressional requests.

    But even if SCOTUS rules that the agencies must respond to Congressional requests for documents, that won’t get Congress any documents. It just means the federal agencies will respond to Congress’ requests for documents — denying their request for documents under Trump’s blanket claim of “executive privilege”. Now guess what the House will have to restart...court hearings all the way to the SCOTUS again.

    So now Congress can expect the documents they have requested to be handed over? No chance! Then the agencies can claim actual FOIA statutes for denying record requests that will have to be determined via judicial review. It is not impossible to think that it could take THREE rulings from SCOTUS for Congress to receive the first of the documents they have sought on this matter. How long do you think 3 SCOTUS visits would take?

    Government agencies have a long history of dragging their feet when responding to requests for documents that could cause the agency embarrassment, which is why the FOIA laws state that if you make a record request, the government must respond in writing to your request within a set number of days. If the agency fails to respond in that time, you can immediately seek judicial review and the agency will be fined for everyday it withholds the records...at a level no less than 10 cents and no more than 35 cents per page/per day that it was improperly withheld. (Those are WA States public records fine rates...not sure what FOIA’s are these days).

    And if that did not change your mind on the House’s “time” reason being legit, then I offer you the much simpler argument: the Constitution does not require judicial review prior to impeachment articles being drawn up.

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Help me understand why any of that should have stopped the House from continuing the effort through the courts even after the impeachment articles were voted on and the trial in the Senate began, regardless of long it may take or how futile it may be.

  190. [190] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    185

    What are you doing commenting on a tired old thread? Just kidding.

    I think most of Trumps lawyers have put on a pitiful defense of their client, mostly because they play too loose with the facts.

    Yes, they have definitely lied... Pam Bondi's revisionist history designed to smear the Bidens and the utter fabricated Fox Newsian bullshit about Barack Obama... Russian propaganda and conspiracy theories, red meat for the spoon-fed low-information spewing rubes... a cornucopia of lies debunked multiple times already in multiple newspapers including Rupert Murdoch's WSJ. My crew and I laughed so hard at this legal farce that we cried... the utter absurdity that their legal defense of Trump was "what about Obama?"... legal malpractice that wouldn't even be allowed in a real court of law because comparing yourself to the other guy whom you've insisted repeatedly should go to prison for investigating you when you were a political candidate isn't a defense of your investigation into your own political candidate... just to state the screaming obvious.

    And as if that utter nonsensical crap wasn't enough -- when you see so many clowns there must be a circus nearby -- between episodes of this certifiable legal malpractice, Joni Ernst goes and pulls a Kevin McCarthy and outs the entire charade by saying "the silent part" totally out loud into the camera for all posterity:

    Iowa caucuses, folks... Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening, and I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters...those Democratic caucus goers. Will they be supporting President... Vice President Biden at this point? ~ Joni Ernst (Ruh-Roh) Iowa, scoring a goal for the other team because stupid is as stupid does, particularly the kind of stupid that burns and/or penetrates all the way into the bone

    But, Dershowitz is different. He is inviting debate on the constitutional arguments of the impeachment process and what constitutes an impeachable offense.

    He's got personal reasons to advance Trump's agenda and shut down discussions of Trump's past because he's implicated in illegal acts tied to Trump and Trump associates living and deceased. Also, he's misstated positions of multiple of the men on which he opined, and his views are far outside the mainstream and I believe designed to create distraction.

    Spending a lot of time discussing the ridiculous and incorrect beliefs of a person with an interest in burying Trump's past isn't worth the time. The outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion, but the facts will emerge regardless.

    Your six-month vacation example is hardly grounds for impeachment, in and of itself.

    Agree to disagree. The "vacation isn't illegal" and therefore not an impeachable offense is akin to a distraction argument. A POTUS who would leave America in suspended animation and unable to function would be impeachable on multiple other grounds under a number of other factors that aren't criminally illegal, such as violating the public trust or his oath to the Constitution and "We the People" to which a POTUS is sworn to God to uphold, etc.

    Read Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65. Dershowitz's position is ridiculous.

    Now, if the president could be deemed incapacitated, that would be another story but, also not impeachable!

    An incapacitated POTUS might be impeachable if he refused to relinquish the office, but Amendment 25 was added to the Constitution to deal with such issues depending on the facts at issue.

    Well, that is ridiculous but, not what Dershowitz was arguing. (I'm pretty much ignoring the rest of Trump's legal team as they have proven to be far less than effective counsel, in my view.

    Smart move on your part. The sight of Ken Starr whining hysterically that impeachment has become over-used and weaponized when he's the tip of the spear of the weapon... Bullshit BINGO! -- Russ ;)

    The question here is why did the House not pursue the courts in order to have their subpoenas enforced.

    They did. Anyone seriously interested should read their Letter to the Court of Appeals requesting expeditious ruling at the following link:

    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-d5a6-df0c-a1ff-d5feb03d0000

    It explains perfectly:

    In his answer to the Articles of Impeachment, President Trump criticized the House for not “seek[ing] to enforce” its “subpoenas in court.” Answer of President Donald J. Trump at 5, In re Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump (U.S. Senate Jan. 18, 2020). President Trump’s impeachment attorney similarly faulted the House Committees for not litigating their subpoena disputes in court: “So take Article III of the United States Constitution and remove it? We’re acting as if the Courts are an improper venue to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude? That is why we have courts. That is why we have a federal judiciary.” Senate Trial Tr., Day 2 pt. 1, at 1:07:08-32, In Re Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump (Jan. 21, 2020).

    By contrast, DOJ argued to this Court that courts cannot hear suits brought by a House Committee to enforce its subpoenas against the Executive Branch. E.g., Oral Arg. Tr. at 13 (“Congress, when it’s asserting its institutional prerogatives, never had standing.”); id. at 15 (If the courts “resolv[e] a purely political dispute, a dispute between the political branches, it risks politicizing the court and undermining public confidence in the court.”); Br. at 24 (adjudicating subpoena-enforcement suits threatens “permanent harm” to the Judiciary).

    And did I mention the sheer amount of lies that were spewed one after the other of these so-called lawyers of Donald Trump? It was a gobsmacking mish-mash of the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever witnessed... pure unadulterated horseshit.

  191. [191] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are the Democrats currently in court pursuing their subpoenas? I rest my case.

    I think Dershowitz should have stopped his presentation just short of bringing up the Bolton repercussions which took the punch right out of his constitutional arguments.

    What questions would you like to hear asked of either side?

    It's quite alright to be commenting on this old thread for reasons already stated. :)

  192. [192] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Help me understand why any of that should have stopped the House from continuing the effort through the courts even after the impeachment articles were voted on and the trial in the Senate began, regardless of long it may take or how futile it may be.

    Are the Democrats currently in court pursuing their subpoenas? I rest my case.

    Because Republicans wanted to use that as an excuse to put off the discussion of whether Trump had sought a foreign government to interfere in our upcoming election until AFTER the election was completed at the earliest! This wasn’t the Republicans withholding documents because they truly believe the law is on their side — they know it isn’t — this is an intentional act of gaming the system to prevent the president from being held accountable. Why should the Democrats have to play along if they could make Trump face the repercussions of his crimes sooner than later? Can we risk allowing Trump to invite more interference into our elections?

    And while the suits seeking the witnesses to testify may have been pulled, I can guarantee that the requests for documents are still being heard by the courts.

    Liz, you are responding exactly the way the GOP hoped you would...buying into the argument that Trump cannot be impeached unless we have all of the evidence that shows his guilt. This is not a criminal trial where the accused is sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial and unable to do any further harm. Trump is free to continue trying to rig our upcoming election in his favor. Again, the Articles of Impeachment were written in broad terms that include the specific crimes within them because it is imperative to remove him from office ASAP.

    Trump nor the Republicans offer any defense that Trump did not seek to do what he is charged with... that alone should make an acquittal impossible in a fair trial.

  193. [193] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Liz, you are responding exactly the way the GOP hoped you would...buying into the argument that Trump cannot be impeached unless we have all of the evidence that shows his guilt.

    I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion, from reading what I wrote, that I'm buying into anything but, I'll let that slide.

    Did you actually think that the Republican-controlled senate was ever going to vote in any other way than to acquit?

    No, I think Democrats are going to have to find another way to stop Trump.

    Speaking of which, I'd like to hear the following question asked tomorrow or Thursday:

    Is there a remedy to hold to account an American president who attempts to invoke a bribe or seeks to extort a foreign government and ally to announce investigations of his political rivals by withholding things of value to that government such as hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance and military aid in an effort to cause foreign influence or interference in an American presidential election for his personal political benefit to bolster his chances of winning that election? And, if so, what is it? If not, then should there be a remedy for the solicitation by a POTUS for foreign interference in the American electoral process?

Comments for this article are closed.