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?

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

"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...

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..

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

Now THAT's funny!!!! :D

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...

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.

GAME OVER..

Democrats lost..

Too bad, so sad....

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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. :)

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!

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..

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..

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!

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.

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

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!

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..

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...

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

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

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

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???

That would serve Democrats right..

:D

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..

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??

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???

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.

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

hehehehe

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

Is THAT what you think America is???

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

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..

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...

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...

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???

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...

That's the whole issue in a nutshell..

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

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...

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!!!

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

heh

Word.... :D

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

:D

Funny how that is, eh? :D

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.

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. :)

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

Speechless...

Gobsmacked.

L L & P

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

JL

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

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....

THE STATE OF THINGS FOR DEMS: GLOOMY & GETTING GLOOMIER

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...

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?

Kobe Bryant was just killed...

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

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. :)

— 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!

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

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. :)

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..

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.

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...

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

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

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..

See above