Yea, you keep saying this..

But you NEVER have the facts to back it up..

And you STILL have not adequately explained why Democrats loved Donald Trump when he had a -D after his name..

The *ONLY* logical conclusion is that it's hypocrisy and Party slavery at work here..

You, conveniently, skipped over one minor detail in your analysis.... loopholes are only applicable if you meet the criteria for which they were created. You argument that the President is authorized to “negotiate with foreign leaders” doesn’t include the remainder that states WHAT they are authorized to negotiate — “on matters of national security”. Creating a scandal to damage the reputation of Joe Biden in order to help his own chances to be re-elected is not “a matter of national security”.

Trump is a con man. He’s a grifter that will always seek to rig the outcome in his favor. And you need to wake up and realize that “in HIS favor” does not mean “in our nation’s favor”. The sooner you come to terms with this, the better.

Ok, hit submit as I was fact checking myself and realize I was wrong.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the Senate in the Bill Clinton Impeachment vote on whether Clinton was guilty of the charges as outlined in the AOI, and then whether the offense warranted being removed from office?

For example.. Would Putin's "help" for Obama count as a "contribution" or "donation"???

Define "contribution" and "donation" as it pertains to that...

It's happened at least twice. That's not counting the current instance

Perhaps, at it's basis.. But there were still "crimes" of a sort.. Although Andrew Johnson's was iffy at best..

I guess Democrats were just lazy and didn't want to bother actually having FACTS to prove actual crimes..

It's happened at least twice. That's not counting the current instance.

No, it's 11 CFR § 110.20 (g). No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. The emoluments clause says "accept", not "solicit". The articles of impeachment mention soliciting foreign involvement in an election. They don't mention actually receiving anything, because Ukraine didn't get around to making up any dirt on Biden -- and Pelosi wanted the impeachment to be focused on one point instead of being all over the place.

Trump has violated the emoluments clause, but it's not part of what he was impeached for.

No.. Impeachment comes in when one Party can, with complete BI-PARTISAN support, prove with FACTS (not hearsay, rumor, innuendo and bullshit, but FACTS) that the President has committed a High Crime or a Misdemeanor..

One Party can't arbitrarily decide that, since a President is an asshole and a jerk, that they are going to bring in impeachment for whatever they want it for..

The Constitution does not allow it..

Which brings us back to, "Could Democrats PROVE that President Trump was guilty as sin??"

Apparently.. NOT.. Since they didn't have **ANY** Crime as an Article Of Impeachment..

not exactly. see, this is where impeachment comes in. the reason the framers included impeachment in the constitution (while all its cousins like bills of attainder and the like were explicitly forbidden) is that they recognized the possibility of a chief executive or chief justice abusing all those loopholes and exceptions that exist for heads of government. thus, they gave congress carte blanche to come up with any crime they thought would pass muster with two thirds of the electorate.

basically, the framers' message to future congresses was that any federal official who was guilty as sin would not be protected from impeachment by a technicality of their office.

You mean, like Hillary and the Dumbocrats have done since 10 Nov 2016???

You mean like that???

" And I think there are unfortunately millions of people in this country today who would respond to that in a fashion that, you know, I’m not even sure I really want to consider all the consequences of where that might go. Could it lead to violence? Yes, it could.”

If Dumbocrats try to steal the election like they tried illegal coups.. TWICE??

You bet there is going to be violence..

Guaran-frakin'-tee it!

That's not a bad idea...

Any state that votes blue but can't guarantee that NO ILLEGAL votes were done..

Their votes should be immediately disqualified..

I like it..

The facts support criminal charges against President Trump.

A NON FACTUAL statement..

The facts WOULD support criminal charges against President Trump except for loophole A, B and C and exception X, Y and Z...

That *IS* a factual statement..

Sorry to hear that.. yea, I am a bit under too.. I fell off a ladder on Saturday and busted open the zip ties holding my ribs together.. Gotta do another surgery to repair the damage.. Quickly too, as our annual family cruise is in 61 days..

basically the reason why regular criminal charges fail against a president in many cases comes down to arcane legal arguments based on the text of the statute. for example, "obstruction of justice" implies that the people being obstructed are from the executive and judicial branches, which in this case they're not. bribery and extortion are the same, because there's a whole lot of inside baseball legalese that makes criminal presidential acts different from the garden variety criminal sort.

OK, that makes sense...

But consider this..

If there are loopholes that say a President is NOT guilty of A, B, C or D... Then it's not really factually accurate to say that the facts support criminal charges..

To put it another way..

If a man kills his wife, but it was a mercy killing, then the FACTS don't support a murder charge, even though it's a fact that the man did kill his wife..

If President Trump committed bribery, but the verbiage of the law allows for exceptions and loopholes, then it's not factually accurate to say that facts support the charges..

The fact support the charges, EXCEPT for this, this and that... If President Trump has this, this and that, then the facts DON'T support the charges..

That make sense???

To put it even another way, the facts support an Obama charge of Treason for his hot mic dealings with Putin's Lackey..

But the EXCEPTION to Treason is a President who makes a backroom deal with an enemy.. THAT is a loophole or exception to the Treason law..

Therefore it's NOT factual to say the facts support a Treason charge against Obama...

can YOU think of a logical and rational reason why NOT to press actual criminal charges if the facts completely and utterly support the charges???

basically the reason why regular criminal charges fail against a president in many cases comes down to arcane legal arguments based on the text of the statute. for example, "obstruction of justice" implies that the people being obstructed are from the executive and judicial branches, which in this case they're not. bribery and extortion are the same, because there's a whole lot of inside baseball legalese that makes criminal presidential acts different from the garden variety criminal sort.

if you name a presidential offense based on federal statute, some technicality of the statute will come back to bite you, which has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the crime.

JL

This addresses the issue perfectly..

Impeachment ONLY exists to address HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS...

The Articles of Impeachment were NOT a High Crime, nor were they a misdemeanor..

Ergo, even beyond the partisan illegitimacy, impeachment was not applicable..

You really didn't address the question.

If Democrats *HAD* incontrovertible FACTS to support an actual high crime or misdemeanor, WHY did the actual articles of impeachment not address an actual crime??

Dumb it down for me. You know I am just a knuckle-dragging ground-pounder..

impeachment was made specifically for this type of scenario, where a president does something that clearly violates the constitution, but there's no law yet explicitly forbidding the particular violation. if they'd cited a criminal statute it wouldn't be accurate, not because what the president did isn't criminal but because the statute is inadequate to the severity of the constitutional violation.

this is why impeachment exists.

Given the absolute HATE that Democrats have for President Trump, can YOU think of a logical and rational reason why NOT to press actual criminal charges if the facts completely and utterly support the charges???

Much smarter than me in most cases..

Can YOU think of a logical and rational reason why NOT to press actual criminal charges if the facts completely and utterly support the charges???

Democrats would have done so..

The fact that the Articles were non-criminal in nature proves that Democrats did not think they had the facts to support actual criminal charges..

If that applied to President Trump, why didn't Democrats impeach him for it??

Because the FACTS do not support the claim..

every other aspect of this whole impeachment drama is really kind-of tangential to this issue, that donald has not only accepted, but encouraged and at times even demanded personal favors from foreign states - not favors to serve the interests of the USA, but solely to serve the interests of himself.

Just as Obama accepted "help" from Putin in exchange for "flexibility" on The Crimea..

If it wasn't a crime when Obama did it, it's not a crime when President Trump does it...

but as the senator initmates, it's a stone cold fact that donald has done this.

If it were, President Trump should have been impeached for that specifically..

The fact that he wasn't proves that the facts didn't support the claim..

but as the senator initmates, it's a stone cold fact that donald has flagrantly violated a clause in the US Constitution. the only rational question is whether it qualifies as an offense that merits his removal from office.

there is. it's article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the US Constitution (currently referred to as the "emoluments" clause), over which donald has publicly run roughshod with the full support of almost half the country.

[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

every other aspect of this whole impeachment drama is really kind-of tangential to this issue, that donald has not only accepted, but encouraged and at times even demanded personal favors from foreign states - not favors to serve the interests of the USA, but solely to serve the interests of himself.

every president in recent memory has asked little favors of foreign governments in the course of serving US interests, but none except donald has so regularly and blatantly made the personal favors to himself priority 1, subservient to the interests of the nation he serves.

we can disagree about the extent to which it matters, as senator alexander did in his statement rejecting witnesses at the impeachment trial:

"I don't need to hear any more evidence to decide that the president did what he's charged with doing," Alexander told NPR's Steve Inskeep on Friday. "So if you've got eight witnesses saying that you left the scene of an accident, you don't need nine."

but as the senator initmates, it's a stone cold fact that donald has done this. the only rational question is whether it qualifies as an impeachable offense.

JL

"We're in the endgame, Stark"
-Dr Strange, AVENGERS Infinity War

But as of now, foreign involvement in other country's elections is a foregone conclusion..

The US is more guilty of that then most nations..

There is no such law...

The Constitution gives the House the sole power to vote articles of impeachment. That means that the House can impeach for any offense it deems impeachable, and refrain from impeaching for any offense it decides not to consider impeachable. But the Constitution also gives the Senate the sole power to judge impeachments. That means the Senate can acquit on whatever grounds it chooses -- including the grounds that the House shouldn't have impeached for the offense it did.

Exactly...

Once the Articles get to the Senate, it's the Senates ball to do with it as they will.. As long as the Senate addresses the ball in one form or another, the House can't do diddley squat about it..

No one knows what the voters want, because no one knows who the voters will be, and who the non-voters will be.

Disagree.. It's clear what the voters want.. :D

"If I drop a hammer on a high gravity planet, I don't need to actually see the hammer fall to accurately predict that it will fall.."
-Commander Spock, STAR TREK Court Martial

Likewise, I can accurately predict to the point of factual that the sun will rise tomorrow in the east and set in the west..

And JUST as the sun WILL rise in the east and set in the west, President Trump WILL win re-election.

Of course, you can make a logical and rational argument that I cannot know for certain and I will concede and grant you that argument..

But that doesn't change the fact that, barring a REAL assassination by Democrat loyalists, President Trump will win re-election..

Until we see the turnout, no one knows.

I concede that point.. :D

No.

The Constitution gives the House the sole power to vote articles of impeachment. That means that the House can impeach for any offense it deems impeachable, and refrain from impeaching for any offense it decides not to consider impeachable. But the Constitution also gives the Senate the sole power to judge impeachments. That means the Senate can acquit on whatever grounds it chooses -- including the grounds that the House shouldn't have impeached for the offense it did.

You can't have it both ways. Either there's some degree of objective standard implicit in the Constitution, however vague or flexible, and both houses have a duty to adhere to it; or there are sole powers granted without limit. If the House has the sole power to impeach (and therefore to decide what it considers impeachable), then the Senate has the sole power to convict or acquit (and therefore to decide what it does). Likewise if the Senate has to abide by some external standard of what's impeachable, then so does the House.

I don't see any reference in the Constitution to any definition or standard, and I see the words "sole power" in both Section 2 and Section 3 of Article I.

The Senate has the power to acquit on the grounds that the House shouldn't have impeached for violation of a law that was written to apply to Edwin Stanton (and thus was unconstitutional under the bill of attainder clause). The Senate has the power to acquit on the grounds that the House shouldn't have impeached for lying about a blowjob. And the Senate has the power to acquit on the grounds that the House shouldn't have impeached for unlawfully soliciting foreign involvement in a US election.

Those decisions differ dramatically in merit: certainly in how they will be viewed by history, and hopefully in how they will be viewed by voters over the next six years. But if the Senate has the power to make the first two decisions, then it has the power to make the third.

[83] Michale wrote:
The VOTERS want President Trump in office.. For ANOTHER 4 years..

You and your Democrats and Trump/America haters KNOW this.

No.

No one knows what the voters want, because no one knows who the voters will be, and who the non-voters will be. There are enough people on each side, and there's routinely enough variation in turnout from each side, that it could go either way. I'm pessimistic about politics, so my prediction matches yours. But only as a prediction. Until we see the turnout, no one knows.

{{{sssiiiiggghhhh}}}

Sometimes ya just gotta shake your head sadly...

If you hang out with young progressives, you might be under the impression that socialism is popular. It is, but only on the left. In the latest Gallup poll, taken in September, liberals and Democrats viewed socialism favorably, but Americans as a whole rejected it, 57 percent to 39 percent. In the same poll, respondents viewed capitalism favorably, 60 percent to 35 percent. A Harvard/New York Times poll, taken in July and August, found similar results: Americans endorsed capitalism, 57 percent to 37 percent, while rejecting socialism, 59 percent to 34 percent. Polls taken in May by the Pew Research Center, in March for the libertarian Cato Institute, and in December for Fox News yielded similar results. In every survey, socialism scores well among progressives but gets trounced, among voters as a whole, in a showdown with capitalism.

I mean, it's all a moot point anyways..

NONE of the Democrat candidates can beat President Trump..

But out of all the candidates, Bernie has the WORST chance of winning..

And if Bernie is the nominee then moderate Democrats will stay home and Independents/NPAs will vote President Trump by the tens of millions..

Nov can't come soon enough!! :D

The president has a game plan to win the election. A Sanders nomination is just what he needs.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-bernie-sanders-socialism.html

And it's beginning to look like Democrats are, once again, going to give President Trump exactly what he wants.. :D

It's almost as if Democrats ***WANT*** to keep President Trump in office.. :D

“I’ve been in Washington for a long time and I need to get to a lot of places around Iowa today and the next day,” Ms. Warren said. She said her golden retriever, Bailey, would do pictures with supporters instead.

And, of course, Warren sycophants would be perfectly happy with the dog.. :D

Hell, the DOG would be a better POTUS than Warren!! :D

“The impeachment trial went on a little too long.”
-Bernie Sanders

Which is rather ironic since Bernie voted to EXTEND the trial with witnesses..

Bernie doesn't stand a chance against President Trump..

Democrats hang their heads in shame.

ANOTHER failed coup attempt..

Democrats have NOTHING to show the voters to explain why they should retain the House..

NOTHING...

As usual, factually not accurate..

The CONSTITUTION is solely responsible for determining what an impeachable offense is...

Where to begin with this bullshit defense??? First, the White House doesn’t have the authority to rule on whether the House’s subpoenas were properly constructed or whether they can simply ignore Congressional subpoenas.

Yes, it does.. :D

And that's why yer so pissy.. :D

Russ... You really need to come to grips with the fact that you, once again, lost..

President Trump will be 100% completely and utterly exonerated and vindicated..

These are the facts..

But that’s where you’ve been off this whole time. I have never been a fan of Trumps.

So? Who cares?? Your credibility is shot.

But DEMOCRATS were "a fan" of Trump when Trump had a -D after his name..

This is well-documented..

All of this hate and bigotry is SOLELY based on the fact that President Trump now has a -R after his name..

You keep claiming that the Democrats allegations against Trump are untrue, but they are not.

Again, per your norm, not factually accurate..

I claim two things.

1. The Democratic allegations are UNPROVEN and UNSUPPORTED by facts.

2. Even if the allegations WERE 1000% factually accurate, they are NOT a crime and NOT impeachable..

You keep saying that we are “losing” to Trump, “we” being Americans it would seem.

WOW.. So many factually inaccurate claims..

I am saying "ya'all" are losing to Trump, "ya'all" being Democrats and Trump/America haters..

Americans.. REAL Americans are winning.. Just like President Trump is winning. :D

Republicans sold this country out just in the fleeting chance that they can hold onto power just a little longer.

Yea, you keep saying that.. But it's just hate and bigotry spinning.. Nothing more..

Much like the Confederate States did when they sold out the country to hold on to slavery,

And, let's not forget.. Those were all DEMOCRATS...

today’s GOP has turned against the Union in their desire to prevent their removal by the voters.

The voters weren't trying to remove the President.. It was Democrats and Trump/America haters..

The VOTERS want President Trump in office.. For ANOTHER 4 years..

You and your Democrats and Trump/America haters KNOW this..

Which is exactly why ya'all keep trying to illegally remove President Trump from office..

Ya'all KNOW that President Trump is loved by the voters, by the real patriotic Americans..

Ya'all KNOW that yer gonna lose at the ballot box..

But that’s where you’ve been off this whole time. I have never been a fan of Trumps. He’s a over-privileged, narcissistic, bully with serious self-esteem issues who has never placed anyone’s needs before his own. He’s a self-admitted sexual offender and possibly a rapist. You may love the guy even more now that he has sold out our country for his own benefit, but I find him more repulsive than ever.

I remember a lesson we had in the police academy...

Was that Police Academy 4, 5, or 6? I saw the first three movies, but not the last three.

You keep claiming that the Democrats allegations against Trump are untrue, but they are not. Trump has admitted as much. When idiots like you lie to yourself, does it make it easier to accept that you are being used by a Russian asset? You keep saying that we are “losing” to Trump, “we” being Americans it would seem. Republicans sold this country out just in the fleeting chance that they can hold onto power just a little longer. Much like the Confederate States did when they sold out the country to hold on to slavery, today’s GOP has turned against the Union in their desire to prevent their removal by the voters.

The big money interests will not spend money to influence elections when it no longer works for them.

So when you and the masses that devote themselves to the OneDemand way don’t have a presidential candidate to vote for, you will write in your own names on the ballot, correct? That means a big money candidate will win every election.

You cannot beat the PACs because their spending money will always work at influencing elections! And your OneDemand all but ensures that! You throw away your votes and allow big money candidates to always win. Your own grand plan guarantees your failure.

“If only people knew about it,” you keep telling yourself; all the while ignoring the fact that less than 5 of the people who HAS heard of it has signed on with it...if they actually exist. But keep telling yourself that the flaw isn’t in your plan....nah, it’s perfect! It’s democracy, afterall!

The Senate is not voting on whether they think the House handled the inquiry or even if they agree with what the House charged the president with! That is not what the Constitution requires of them. They are not asked to comment on whether the House did everything they could have done to get the requested documents. They are asked to determine whether Trump committed obstruction of Congress — something Trump’s defense freely admits that he did!

Trump’s defense claim that they instructed all federal agencies to ignore all FUTURE Congressional requests for records because the White House RULED that the House’s subpoenas were not properly constructed. Then Trump’s defense claims that it cannot be obstruction if the House didn’t try to get the courts to rule on whether the records had to be released.

Where to begin with this bullshit defense??? First, the White House doesn’t have the authority to rule on whether the House’s subpoenas were properly constructed or whether they can simply ignore Congressional subpoenas.

Second, they were telling agencies to ignore FUTURE requests from Congress because they — somehow — know that those subpoenas will be improperly constructed and therefore, they can be ignored! Trump has mastered time travel, apparently. So even if we ignore that they do not have the authority to rule on whether they have to respond to Congressional subpoenas, they told the agencies that subpoenas that they had not yet received were not valid because... they said so?

Lastly, Trump’s defense team argued that there was no need for more witnesses, BUT if witnesses were going to be called, then they would want to cross examine ALL of the witnesses that they did not cross-examine when they chose not to have the opportunity to cross examine when they refused to participate in the inquiry.

They all but threatened the Senate to vote against witnesses or they would drag out the impeachment trial for as long as they could. They are openly obstructing in their defense of Trump being charged with obstruction!

The Bloomberg campaign has fired back in a statement this morning that actually says: “The president is lying. He is a pathological liar who lies about everything: his fake hair, his obesity, and his spray-on tan.”

Bloomberg is trying to out Trump President Trump...

Cuz that's worked out so well for everyone else who took on the President.. :D

No, it's tomorrow.

Yep.. You guessed it.. She's a Democrat..

President Trump's place in history is going to be much MUCH better than Pelosi's place in history..

But, I guess as bad as Democrats got their asses handed to them..

Clinging to ANY silver-lining, no matter HOW faded and tattered it is..... Well, that has to be a requirement to maintain ya'all's sanity, eh?? :D

The latest polling by AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs shows a clear enthusiasm deficit for Democrats concerning the presidential campaign. According to Real Clear Politics, three polls over the last month have also seen Democrats slip in the generic congressional ballot to within the margin of error, potentially marking a sharp shift in voter preference.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tom-basile-pelosis-impeachment-gamble-fails-heres-what-going-all-in-could-cost-her-and-the-democrats

Democrats are surely going to lose the Presidential election..

They don't have a chance of taking the Senate..

And it's entirely likely that, due to Pelosi's mind-blowingly stoopid play, Democrats will lose the House..

Simply amazing...

Sadly, Democrats have NO ONE of any value or worth that they will listen to to set them straight..

This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. This very series of events was expressly laid out before the vote, and House Democrats made a decision to choose certain failure over completing their impeachment case. There was no reason to expect Senate Republicans to assist House managers in making their case, particularly in calling witnesses not subpoenaed by the House. Democrats had opposed any witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Clinton and voted as a bloc for a summary acquittal. There was no reason to expect Republicans to adopt an entirely different approach.

There is simply no doubt that House Democrats dropped the ball.. Scrooed da pooch.. Frak'ed things up to hell..

By not conceding this, ya'all are simply encouraging.. nay.. BEGGING for the exact same incompetence over and over again..

It's as if, despite your claims, ya'all **WANT** President Trump to succeed..

I remember a lesson we had in the police academy...

Before Newhall, cops killed in the line of duty were revered and the mistakes they made that brought about their deaths were swept under the rug..

After Newhall, it became common practice to analyze they incidents, determine what went wrong and take steps to correct the errors thru training..

While cops who die in the line of duty deserve our respect, their actions *MUST* be analyzed in the cold light of objectivity. To prevent mistakes (if any) from taking the life of more cops..

That's kinda how I feel with ya'all here..

CW used to be able to be counted on to calmly and objectively analyze the actions of the Democrat Party and deliver a scathing report on the bone-head moves that Democrats make..

We haven't seen that since President Trump was elected..

And that's said because it actually BETTER'ED the Democrat Party..

Now, Democrats have no reason to change because they KNOW that, no matter what, the Left Wing masses will accept ANYTHING, even the GROSSEST level of incompetence..

It's perfectly clear why Democrats ran away from the courts..

They knew they were going to lose and they didn't want to establish the precedent..

House Democrats' actions were mind-blowingly stoopid...

And yet, with one or two possible exceptions... NO ONE here can concede that reality...

NBC host Chuck Todd recently asked guests on his show if supporters of President Trump just want to be lied to. It is a question that many in the media would never ask about Democrats, even in the face of overtly false claims. This week is an example. After the Senate rejected witnesses and effectively ended the impeachment trial on Friday, the media ignored the primary reason for the defeat, which is the insistence of House leaders to impeach Trump by Christmas. Critics of the president simply do not want to hear that the blind rush to impeach guaranteed not only an acquittal but an easy case for acquittal. It is after all important for some members of the media to maintain that fools dwell only in Republican red states.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/481015-how-the-house-lost-the-witness-battle-along-with-impeachment

Democrats engineered and created the circumstances of their own defeat..

And the hilarious thing is they don't even see it..

Democrats had control from the start.. They could have done their jobs and made the Senate GOPers' job impossible.

Instead they took the lazy way out. They just assumed that the GOP and the American people would just fall all over themselves to make the Democrats' case for them..

Moronic..

Completely and utterly moronic..

More witch hunts.

Yea.. Cuz THAT has worked out so well for Democrats :eyeroll:

Doing the same thing over and over and over again, hoping for a different result..

The VERY definition of insanity...

“He has that option,” he added. “I’m not saying he’s going to take it.”

I have to agree..

President Trump's BEST strategy is to Kill 'em with kindness

Be so sweet and fair to Democrats that their continued hate and bigotry will be blatantly obvious by comparison. It will PROVE (as if any proof is necessary) that Democrats are motivated solely by their hate...

As I said, it's the BEST strategy forward.. It's not the strategy I would like.. It's unlikely to be the strategy that President Trump will follow..

But it's undoubtedly a good idea..

I know asking the lot of ya'all to give credit where credit is due is a waste of photons..

But ya gotta admit, it IS an amazing achievement that ONE MAN could stand up to such an unrelenting daily... HOURLY onslaught by such an amassed force and actually emerge the other side.. Not only emerge but emerge utterly triumphant, vindicated and show NO SIGN of letting up..

All ya'all's hatred and bigotry aside, President Trump is a force to be reckoned with..

The fact that ya'all refuse to acknowledge that explains why ya'all constantly lose..

Mr. Trump’s foes struck at him but did not take him down.

“I don’t think in any way Trump is willing to move on,” said Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman who teaches at Princeton University. “I think he will just have been given a green light and he will claim not just acquittal but vindication and he can do those things and they can’t impeach him again. I think this is going to empower him to be much bolder. I would expect to see him even more let loose.”

I don't think you people realize how BAD it's going to be for Democrats now...

All ya'all's sore luserism spin it's simple deflection to mask how scared ya'all are now..

"It's open season {on Democrats} and there is no bag limit."
-President Fowler, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

And if yer not scared?? You obviously do not have a proper grasp of the facts and reality..

Ya gotta ask yerselves one question??

What can Democrats do to President Trump now?? What hold do they have over him and his behavior??

Absolutely nuttin'...

Democrats have well and truly unleashed the beast..

There will no longer be any constraints on President Trump's behavior save for the constraints of his supporters...

Democrats have well and truly lobotomized and neutered themselves..

Unless I just woke up in an alternate reality where all elections are on Monday....I assume you mean 'Tuesday'..

Stick a fork in Biden.. He's done..

Biden may yet get an impeachment trial, if he does well enough on Monday to assure Republicans that he's the nominee. Not looking likely at this point, but stranger things have happened.

The man replies, "Roughly a gallon."

Baa daa da... :D

Factually not accurate..

Republicans wanted to win and they wanted the FACTS...

They got both..

What President Trump did, even if Democrats COULD prove it, is not impeachable.

There is no such "crime" as abuse of power..

There is no such "crime" as obstruction of Congress..

There is no such "crime" as collusion..

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

Democrats completely and totally and utterly lost...

If this had happened in a real legal court??

The judge would have thrown the Democrats in jail for contempt.. To be so presumptuous as to waste the court's time with complete and utter bullshit..

THAT is how badly Democrats frak'ed up..

Ask House Democrats???

They are the ones who didn't call the witnesses ya'all wanted the Senate to call..

Besides, Dumbocrats claim to have an airtight case..

According to ya'all, witnesses are not necessary..

DUH!!

No matter HOW Dumbocrats want to spin it.. They're morons..

History is written by the winners, sugar..

And Democrats are utterly and completely **NOT** winners..

Never will be..

“This trial in so many ways crystallized the completely diametrically opposed threats that Democrats and Republicans see to the country.

That dichotomy, that contrast, has been growing over the last three years, but this trial really crystallized that difference. We were just speaking different languages, fundamentally different languages when it came to what this trial was about. They thought it was about the deep state and the media conspiracy. We thought it was about the president’s crimes.”
-Senator Chris Murphy

The only thing Murphy fails to acknowledge is that FACTS and reality support President Trump and his supporters view of the dichotomy...

The Democrats' view is nothing but wishful thinking, hatred and bigotry...

The President has committed no crimes...

Democrats tried to prove over and over that this was not factual.. They failed over and over..

Based on the foundation of jurisprudence in the United States Of America, President Trump is completely, unarguably and unequivocally INNOCENT of all criminal charges against him..

WHO could have POSSIBLY predicted this outcome!??

I think ya'all know the answer to that....

CW, JL, Liz, DSWS, CRS, DH and Me... :D

Everyone else was a moron... Or, at best, just deluded by Party slavery...

Actually, it's DEMOCRATS who have lost any and all control they can exert over President Trump..

It's DEMOCRATS who have given up all oversight capability they had ever had..

And NO ONE is "petrified" of President Trump... His supporters love him.. They LOVE what he is doing to the Dumbocrats..

Everything President Trump is and all his capabilities he has now are SOLELY because of Democrats...

Their CONSTANT and hysterical attacks, their CONSTANT attempts to nullify the will of the people and illegally remove a freely, fairly, legally, duly, democratically and Constitutionally elected President Of The United States???

THAT has made President Trump the political juggernaut he is today...

You Democrats blew it..

It's REALLY that simple...

Pretending??!!??

Shirley, you jest...

What I meant to say was that the vast majority of people here are perfectly OK with it when it was a DEM POTUS and hate it when a GOP is POTUS...

That's why it's obvious that, for THEM, it's not that they hate when a POTUS has too much power..

They hate it when a GOP POTUS has too much power..

Which is why it's impossible to assign **ANY** credibility to their arguments..

Because it's **SOLELY** based on RvD issues..

Agreed...

But here, you are the exception that emphasis the rule..

Congress has handed over way too much power to the executive. I blame Congress for doing so, not the successive presidents for accepting it.

How naïve he was, I thought to myself. But I was the naïve one. Trump has forced the world to pivot to him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/01/opinion/sunday/trump-impeachment-trial-witnesses.html

Yep!!

SUCK IT!!! :D

The deep state establishment is NOT calling the shots anymore!!

:D

WAAAAA WAAAAAA WAAAAA WAAAA

Get used to it, Dumbocrats..

You can't do NUTTIN' about it!!! :D

BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ya'all have utterly and COMPLETELY neutered yerselves!!! :D

And what's even MORE hilarious is that Dumbocrats did it willingly!! Even EAGERLY!!!!! :D

My gods, how hilarious is THAT!!!

Democrats are TOTALLY impotent with regards to President Trump's actions.. :D

It wasn't HUNTER'S career he was making millions off of..

Therefore, your argument, like ALL your arguments, is bullshit and non-applicable

Further, I never said THAT was the illegal part..

Joe Biden's extortion and bribery is the illegal part.. At least by your OWN standards you want to apply to President Trump..

Now yer just being a semantical moron because you have no other factual argument..

Which makes your screaming that Hunter Biden being paid to be on the board of an oil company is somehow illegal seem like an odd position for you to take....

That goes WAY beyond policy position disagreement

No one ever loved Trump because he had a -D after his name... because, except for you, apparently, NO ONE BASES THEIR LOVE ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT!

It does go way beyond policy position disagreements! Trump’s actions and comments are reprehensible most days. Trump tried to steal glory from 9/11 first responders by claiming he was there, too! I know that seems perfectly OK to someone who lies about being in law enforcement and serving in our military, but the rest of the world finds it disgusting.

The more you make this argument, the more it appears to be you are deflecting from the fact that you only like Trump because he has an -R after his name!

It has to be one or the other.

NO, no it does NOT!

Do you even hear yourself? It’s YOUR way or else it won’t work! Democracy works regardless of whether people buy into your fantasy.

Do you think a Bernie or Warren making the small donor commitment now for the general election would not get a huge boost in the primaries and not get art least 3% of presidential election voters to contribute an average of 100 dollars for the general election campaign should they be the nominee?

I have no reason to think that they would see an increase because I have never heard a single person claim that they do not donate to a political campaign because the candidate accepts donations over $250.

I have never heard a single person claim that they would donate $100 to a political campaign, something they have never done previously, if only there was a candidate that was only taking small dollar donations.

You’ve never bothered to say what percentage of voters already donate to campaigns to know if your 3% would even be an improvement or would be less people donating.

You don’t explain what is motivating someone who has never given to any candidate’s campaign to suddenly do so. But I am sure it is just me who thinks this makes no sense...i’ll let you get back to working on fixing that website of yours before the wave of donations starts flooding in!

Actually, MANY people here have quoted FOX news quite extensively, including you.....

So, once again.. Yer proven to be a moron..

And totally WRONG..

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with people enriching themselves personally from their political careers..

This is FACT..

How do we know this FACT???

Because NONE of ya'all ever complained about it when morons like the Clintons or Odumbos did it..

Once again.. The FACTS prove ya'all to be nothing but bigoted Party/Ideological slaves...

No wonder Trump and his gaslight-gang are beacons of fidelity and pillars of American decency for you Michale, you all share the same tenuous tethering to reality. I suppose the link to the religious media outlet that sourced the facts through the IRS, PTL and Sekulow's various shady shell corps was just too much actual fact for your cognitive processes to organise into understandable data.

It's fascinating to observe how even a bludgeoning of methodical fact, honestly sourced and diligently laid out completely stymies you, time and again.

This is what FOX news has to answer for, the dumbing down and moronification of the American mind.

My expectations remain low, there's something to be proud of, maintenance of the status quo requires some attention to detail and conviction.

LL&P

Thanks for that link to the story on the Sekulow families’ non-profit scam. Here’s the thing that is so disgusting....it is incredibly likely that everything he is doing is actually legal! Yes, he is gaming the system for everything he can, and takes advantage of tax breaks meant to help missionaries barely able to scrape by, but he technically is not breaking the law.

The rules that govern how the government takes out federal taxes for ordained ministers was created to allow missionaries to go into the most impoverished areas to create missions that helped their communities. It was a small way to reward those willing to sacrifice to help others. The only problem is that the rules cannot distinguish a pastor at an extremely well-funded mega-church from a missionary living in a shelter in a tiny village.

You just chose to ignore it or didn't understand it.

Yep, that's the MO around here...

It's good confirmation for you..

According to Weigantian Charlottesville rule...

SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

I am not talking about "I disagree with your positions but I respect your right to have them..", dickweed...

Democrats LOVED President Trump when he had a -D after his name..

Now they hate and despise him and wish him and his family dead...

That goes WAY beyond policy position disagreement

And you know it. Yer just flailing more bullshit because you are hysterical about being wrong..

AGAIN..

So if the guy you gave your blessing to marry your daughter — a man you thought the world of — winds up being an abusive husband, your opinion of him will remain the same?

Of course not..

But I would have to acknowledge that maybe I am not the best judge of character for having thought the world of the monster in the first place.

THAT's the point..

Regardless, becoming an abusive monster *IS* a valid reason to change one's position..

Party slaver is NOT a valid reason to change one's position or opinion about a person..

If you think that President Trump was an awesome guy as a Democrat but a horrible despicable monster as a Republican..??

Well, it's obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together is that it's YOU with the problem..

Not President Trump..

It's never ending with these crooks, who else would Trump hire to be his personal lawyer but a two-bit fraudster and his family of hangers-on and assortment of favorites.

Yea.. DUMBOCRATS would ***NEVER*** enrich themselves off their political careers..

Do you even NOTICE your blatant hypocrisy??? Or is it like breathing for you???

To my eye, it's fitting that the religious right wing are being taken for a ride by the slime of humanity.

Yea, you keep saying that.. But you have NO FACTS to support your bullshit and you are ALWAYS wrong about every prediction you have ever made.

I mean, shit.. The laws of averages says you should be RIGHT at least ONCE IN A WHILE...

But you are ***ALWAYS*** wrong...

Any normal person (IE a non bigoted hate-filled ideological slave) would have to eventually question, "Hmmmm Maybe I *AM* wrong..."

But not you.. Bigoted and hate-ful slave til the end.. :D

You mean when he supported Democrats’ positions on the issues? And you are honestly admitting that you cannot figure out why the Democrats no longer support a person who now rails against everything they stand for? It’s really not hard to explain at all.

So if the guy you gave your blessing to marry your daughter — a man you thought the world of — winds up being an abusive husband, your opinion of him will remain the same?

https://religionnews.com/2020/01/31/sekulow-run-christian-charities-steered-65m-to-the-trump-lawyer-and-his-family/

It's never ending with these crooks, who else would Trump hire to be his personal lawyer but a two-bit fraudster and his family of hangers-on and assortment of favorites.

While Sekulow has been arguing in front of the senate about how Biden and his son need some attention from authorities, he and six members of his family, ranging from his wife, sons, brother and daughters-in-law are happily toiling away at nothing for his shady not-for-profit tax exempt businesses and receiving huge sums of cash for doing so.

So rich of these people to wag a finger at anyone, much less Biden et-al, when they have been living in the lap of luxury courtesy of $5-10-20 donations from the religious right and blurring the taxability of their incomes by use of shady paper corps and creative accounting.

To my eye, it's fitting that the religious right wing are being taken for a ride by the slime of humanity, you get what you pay for.

LL&P

And as I have said before, just 3% of presidential election voters contrbuting an average of 100 dollars in donations under 200 dollars total would total around 500 million dollars.

So there is NO VALID REASON to take more than 200 dollars from any one donor.

Other than it is legal to do so and, more importantly, 3% of voters are NOT donating $100 to campaigns! Those seem like pretty valid reasons for a campaign to accept as large of campaign donations as are legally permitted.

And you realize that while your $500 million in campaign donations sounds wonderful, your 3% does not mean that it will be spread out evenly. Let’s look at a town with 30000 registered voters. 3% of the registered voters would be 334 voters. If they each give $100 to campaigns, that means the various campaigns will have to fight over the $33,400 available. If there are 3 candidates running for mayor and all of them agree to One Demand rules, they will likely be forced to run their campaign for under $15,000. How successful of a campaign do you think $15k gets a candidate these days?

The reason the big money interests spend the money they spend is because citizens keep voting for those candidates.

First, you don’t really know why anyone donates to a candidate. Next, who else are people going to vote for other than the candidates? Your insistence that any amount higher than $200 makes the donation evil is ridiculous.

And lastly, you did not explain how One Demand would combat PACs! If a candidate accepts only $1 donations to their campaign, but a PAC — that they claim not to be connected to — is spending 2 million in ads supporting the candidate, how is One Demand effective at getting the influence of Big Money out of the election?

Allow me to show you how it's done..

Mtn??

You may be absolutely factually accurate.. Although you have ALWAYS lost in your predictions, you might be right that President Trump is evil incarnate..

It's hard to explain Democrats love for Trump when HE was a Democrat..

But, you might be right and I might be totally and utterly wrong..

The facts don't support it.. But it's still possible.

Can you do the same??

If you can't, then it's you who is the cult-follower and not President Trump supporters..

I wonder if some of these folks are clinging to Trump because deep down inside they fear how mortified they will feel when they figure out what rubes they've been? They can only ignore reality for so long, right?

OR.....

Or it's you who are clinging to bullshit..

It's YOU who can't concede that you MAY be wrong about everything..

Basically, you are conceding that you are as much of a close-minded cult follower as you accuse President Trump supporters of being.

CAN you admit the POSSIBILITY that you are wrong???

See how easy it is to bullshit people...I have maintained publicly that the Trump campaign had synergy with the GRU and their efforts to interfere in US elections, Trump asking Russia for Clinton's emails and promptly receiving them was proof enough to conclude that handily.

So??

As usual, you deflect and dodge..

Your golden boy Mueller said that what you spew does not rise to Collusion..

You STILL lose..

As for credibility, you need look no further than yourself for a profile in gobshitery, all your posts and rhetoric are of similar ilk to the sewage spewed forth by FOX news and its conspiracy army.

You mean, all the stuff I post that turns out to be dead on ballz accurate???

As opposed to all your spewage that turned out to be nothing but bullshit?

Again.. YOU LOST...

Get over it..

Do you really believe that the majority of Americans are going to accept the Republican's argument that their refusal to hear testimony on newly uncovered information from people with firsthand knowledge on the allegations against Trump is NOT them covering up his crimes?

No.. The vast majority of American are going to accept that Democrats spin things and bullshit about things that are not factual...

How is it a "cover up" if Dumbocrats could have called the witnesses when the House had impeachment??

So, based on YOUR OWN WORDS, it's DEMOCRATS who are guilty of a cover-up..

You see how easy it is to refute all your bullshit with FACTS...

You lost the 2016 election..

You lost with your Russia Collusion delusion..

You lost with your faux impeachment coup..

You lose... Constantly...

Okay, feel free to keep on tilting.

Great recap of the precedents that Trump’s acquittal will result in, especially the refusal to properly respond to requests for documents. I agree that Trump has made it so Congress cannot get information needed to conduct investigations into his conduct in a timely fashion.

Republicans have tried to argue that the House should have sought judicial review of Trumps refusal to properly respond to their record requests BEFORE filing an article of impeachment for obstruction of Congress. That goes against the legal reasoning that led to the statutes of the Freedom of Information Act being passed.

Government agencies became quite efficient at being inefficient at responding to record requests of information that would be embarrassing to those in charge of the agency. Before FOIA’s creation, if you put in a record request with an agency and it got denied, you had to appeal to the same agency if you believed they were wrong to refuse disclosure of the records you sought.

How often do you think telling the person who had rejected the record request the first time that they were wrong to deny the record worked and changed the person’s mind? And if that information would have resulted in the director facing possible criminal charges, it should not surprise you to learn that the appeals process could takes months or years to be completed.

That is why FOIA and most states public records acts do not require those seeking records from having to jump through all the administrative hoops that could be used to further deny or delay records that weren’t exempt from disclosure from being released; the law allows the requester to seek immediate remedy by taking the agency to court where it faces stiff penalties for improperly withholding documents.

Congress seeking records is a quasi-FOIA request, as Congress often has more need for legal access to the records than your average citizen. However, agencies do not face the same possible financial penalties from denying Congressional requests, nor does the President.. That is why the article of impeachment wasn’t just necessary, it literally is the only recourse to stop the president’s obstruction from continuing. It is brought specifically to combat obstruction of Congress, as the courts do not have a way to deter the intentional delaying of records by a president — impeachment is the only true determent available!

Excellent rant! You rather neatly summed up my own exasperation with the 42% who just don't get it.

I wonder if some of these folks are clinging to Trump because deep down inside they fear how mortified they will feel when they figure out what rubes they've been? They can only ignore reality for so long, right?

You raise a valid point. Brother Don's heart is in the right place, yet I'd like to see him redirect his energies into an anti Citizens United campaign.

Much as I'd hate to give away organized labor's ability to fund candidates and PACs that's a good trade for getting Big Money out of politics. Besides, Unions can still help provide boots on the ground for favorite candidates and causes.

It’s actually dipshits like you and the GOP wussies that have neutered the country’s ability to reign in President Trump by your willful ignorance and refusal to stand up for the Constitution. You let that conman control your weak little mind and now you cheer his constant erosion of our political norms like a trained dog performing for his master. The saddest part is that you know that he has fooled you, but you think if you just keep saying that everyone else is “losing” but you and he are “winning”, it won’t be so bad.

Your messiah only got elected because a foreign country aided his campaign in 2016. Trump got caught seeking foreign help in the 2020 election by the whistleblower, and after Trump failed at preventing the whistleblower’s complaint from being buried, Trump decided to pull the “it can’t be criminal if I admit to doing it publicly” bullshit that idiots like you believe must be true. Trump cannot win the election fairly and he knows it!

How many times over the past 3 years have you been forced to contradict yourself when defending Trump because he’s switched his stories after being caught lying? I am guessing that you have done it more often than you normally do to coverup your own lies!

Do you really believe that the majority of Americans are going to accept the Republican's argument that their refusal to hear testimony on newly uncovered information from people with firsthand knowledge on the allegations against Trump is NOT them covering up his crimes?

I cannot believe that I am saying this, but I gotta agree with CRS. I have never understood why you focus on the part of campaign finance that does have caps on how much money a person can give to a candidate when it is the SuperPACs and PACs that allow unlimited money that is hard to trace its true origins to pout into our elections.

It’s a big part of why it is untrue to claim One Demand would get Big Money out of our elections. Even if a candidate doesn’t accept donations over $1 directly to their campaign, a PAC can accept the corporate money on the candidate’s behalf (even if the candidate claims to have nothing to do with the PAC).

This is why One Demand has always seemed like you were ignoring the real problem and focusing on the superficial one instead. It is like you were putting a bandaid on one hand’s cut while ignoring that a tourniquet is needed on the other arm’s severed hand.

You are engaged in a futile (and probably also mostly unjustified and unnecessary) attempt to get big money out of politics, right?

The "big money" donors are ALREADY precluded from donating huge sums directly to candidates, meaning all you have left is to try and prevent them from supporting candidates with political advertising (aka "Free Speech", as in "First Amendment"), right?

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!! So, what's the point of crusading?

See how easy it is to bullshit people...I have maintained publicly that the Trump campaign had synergy with the GRU and their efforts to interfere in US elections, Trump asking Russia for Clinton's emails and promptly receiving them was proof enough to conclude that handily. I have never said I thought Trump would be removed from office after impeachment. I did say to anyone who would listen the day after the election that Trump would be impeached within his first term, his removal, in my view was unlikely considering thin-skinned nature of the those in congress, and the hyper-partisanship of American politics. I also thought it unlikely given the fact that the GOP didn't possess a spine between them and Trump had them by the short and curly's...

As for credibility, you need look no further than yourself for a profile in gobshitery, all your posts and rhetoric are of similar ilk to the sewage spewed forth by FOX news and its conspiracy army.

President Trump keeps whining and whining and whining.. :D

See, I'm not without compassion, I fixed your brutally misspelt final sentence.

LL&P

There is one fact that blows away your hate filled and bigoted comment..

Democrats **LOVED** Donald Trump when he had a -D after his name..

Not to worry, my furry friends, this is just another 'era', Trump might believe in his own divinity and assumed presidential immortality, but he'll be an asterix before too long, a mere stain on the American annals.

Says the guy who actually BELIEVED the Russia Collusion delusion and actually BELIEVED that President Trump would be removed from office..

Sorry, son.. Yer credibility is non-existent here..

President Trump keeps winning and winning and winning.. :D