hark! Methinks I hear expulsion of internet flatulence!

If it's audible, then it has to be coming from your end. Diapers might help you... Depends. Heh.

You're inventing commentary that MtnCaddy never said and then insulting him for saying something you pulled straight out of your backside. Bad form. :)

Yes, sir. That's exactly what I was getting at with my post, but you said it better. :)

there are many ways to get rich, some involving hard work and real productivity, others involving no work and fictional productivity. likewise, some people are poor because they don't want to work or don't have drive or talent, while others are poor in spite of copious hard work, drive and talent. any insinuation that all the rich or all the poor fit in one category or the other is mere fiction.

ideally, the tax structure can reward real productivity on all levels of the economic scale while still treating people humanely who aren't as driven or as lucky. right now the scales are tipped so far in favor of the hyper-rich and against semiskilled laborers that there's really nowhere else to go.

JL

Of course, MCad didn't say any of that. He was responding to a post of mine, and I understood exactly what he meant.

Are you advocating that when the highly productive get rich they should instantly, retire, go out of business, etc.?

If the Koch brothers retired when they got rich, they would have popped out of the womb with nothing to do for the rest of their lives. Do you not know that?

If that seems like a good idea to you, meaning a way to make the world a better place, then the sensible thing to do would be to pass a law that people have to quit working whenever they reach some arbitrary level of wealth.

How about a law that people who are confused have to quit posting whenever they reach some arbitrary level of nonproductivity?

That represents the belief of the economics ignoramuses, that the rich only get rich by stealing from the poor. Doesn't work that way.

Especially when you're born that way because your daddy was a Texan blacklisted in his home state who built a refinery at the request of Adolph Hitler that served the Third Reich... but of course not before your daddy had built more than a dozen oil refineries in the Soviet Union at the request of Joseph Stalin.

Need more help with your obvious confusion? Just ask. :)

I might. Haven't decided. Depends a lot on how exhausted I am by then, really...

John M from Ct. [28] -

Boy, they nailed it. It was 13 minutes, but it was like a punch to the gut. That opening video was just brutal...

And you're right, this truly is their entire case. Because it really is all they need to show.

-CW

Are you advocating that when the highly productive get rich they should instantly, retire, go out of business, etc.? If that seems like a good idea to you, meaning a way to make the world a better place, then the sensible thing to do would be to pass a law that people have to quit working whenever they reach some arbitrary level of wealth.

That represents the belief of the economics ignoramuses, that the rich only get rich by stealing from the poor. Doesn't work that way.

Here's the secret: the rich know something the rest of us don't. You can take it with you! So whoever dies with the most money wins. It's the only explanation for why, say, the Koch brothers need many many billions on top of the first one each made.

Regardless of whether you're making light of a thing like that or making a comparison of CW's FTPs to it, this is wholly indicative of your total lack of any intellect... not that you haven't freely volunteered a mountain of such evidence already.

I won't call you a troll because you are fathoms below that station, you creepy little expletive.

Exactly what I was thinking. Neither defense works in the context of an impeachment trial of a president.

Yep. Impeachment by the Senate doesn't require that a president be given due process or any other legal standard his lawyers will try to use as a defense. Bottom line is: Donald Trump (and other government officials) can be impeached and removed from office for speech that isn't necessarily criminal, and the First Amendment protects the right of private citizens against either criminal or civil sanctions for their speech.

When Donald Trump took a sworn oath to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States" and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," that meant what it said. Spending a shit-ton of time and taxpayers' dollars denying you lost an election and additionally phoning officials in Georgia to find you a certain number of votes and then lobbying your Vice President (who took a similar oath) to unilaterally ignore the certified results of an election and declare themselves the winners isn't exactly what's outlined in that Constitution they both swore to God to uphold. Pence knew this and had already refused to do it. Trump knew Pence had already refused. Sending a mob to the Capitol to delay the constitutionally mandated job of Congress isn't upholding the Constitution. If the object of the exercise is to have your Vice President declare yourselves the victors or to send a mob to force Congress to delay doing their jobs as mandated by the Constitution, then it matters not whether you've broken any criminal law because you've broken your oath to the People, your Country, your God, and the Constitution.

But as the defense has already argued, this trial is 'political theater', even if they try to pretend that the theatrical part is limited to the Democrats' response to Trump's attempted coup and seizure of a presidency-for-life. No one's political career has lived and died more by the standards of political theater than Trump's.

That Trump speech at the Ellipse and the subsequent insurrection and attempted hijacking of Congress was indeed "political theater." Let's hope the public gets to see a lot of the recorded footage.

https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/

I don't suppose this will end in a conviction, except by the history books. But after the trial I would guess that the Dems in Congress will disqualify the ex-president from future public office, one way or another.

Trump has clearly disqualified himself, and if the GOP won't take out their trash, somebody has to do it. This president has lied to the People on multiple occasions, and thousands of Americans have paid with their lives.

I have heard the House managers have "as yet unseen" footage. Great... let it roll.

... this will be Trump's way of denying for the foreseeable future that he is an ex-president or a former president or that there even is a 46th president. Those useful terms will simply not be allowed in the 45th president's entourage.

If the "45th President" insists he's still POTUS, then that clearly removes his lawyers' arguments for claiming the Senate has no jurisdiction over his highness's second impeachment trial. We will be happy to entertain your client's insistence that he's still the president if you will stop insisting he's a citizen for the purposes of his second Senate impeachment trial. Not that it matters, however, since the United States Constitution makes it very clear that the Senate has the "sole power" to try "all impeachments," and he holds the record for being the peachiest of all those thusly impeached.

Ha! Great minds think alike. I just found that the commentators on ElectoralVote.com have posted their thoughts on the House managers' best prosecution presentation, and it duplicates my idea above about a short, viral-primed video for national circulation. Forgive, and then enjoy, this extended quote from their piece:

"The impeachment managers have, for some reason, neglected to ask our advice for how they should conduct the trial. If they had asked, however, our suggestion would be to put together a video of no more than 10 minutes. And 5 minutes would be even better, while 3 would be even better than that. The video should show three things, in this order: (1) incendiary remarks from Trump on the day of the insurrection, (2) footage of people storming the Capitol, and (3) clips of insurrectionists explaining that they did it because Trump told them to (these clips are already easily found on YouTube, since these folks are now busily trying to save their own necks by shifting blame to the former president).

"Anyhow, if it were up to us, that 10-minute or 5-minute or 3-minute video would be the entire prosecution case. This approach would have three benefits:

"It would make a statement that the case against Trump is so clear and so simple that it does not require hours (or days) to lay out.

"It would be an effective defense for the Internet Age. In the end, the whole trial—barring the unexpected—is just going to be a giant PR exercise in anticipation of the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential election. The Democrats want to paint the Republicans as a party that now tolerates sedition and treason, and the Republicans want to sustain as little damage to their brand as is possible. A brief video, also posted to YouTube, Facebook, etc., would be watched by millions of people (and rebroadcast by most news stations). The impeachment managers could expose a vast number of people to the meatiest meat of their case. By contrast, a 16-hour prosecution will be distilled down to sound bites for various websites and news broadcasts. Those sound bites might not be the most politically advantageous sound bites, and they are not likely to reach anyone other than politics junkies.

"It would leave plenty of low-hanging fruit for future prosecutors. Trump is at serious risk of criminal prosecution here, even if (when) he's acquitted by the Senate. If the Democrats play too many cards here, it will take some of the oomph out of a future criminal case. If the Democrats keep it short and sweet, on the other hand, they'll leave lots of goodies behind for the next group of attorneys to take a crack at the Trump piñata.

"Of course, the impeachment managers are both attorneys and politicians, putting them into two different groups of people who love to bloviate. So, they will undoubtedly go in a very different direction than the one we propose, and will use most or all of their 16 hours." - from ElectoralVote.com, Feb. 9, 2021, "Deja Vu All OVer Again" article.

Exactly what I was thinking. Neither defense works in the context of an impeachment trial of a president.

But as the defense has already argued, this trial is 'political theater', even if they try to pretend that the theatrical part is limited to the Democrats' response to Trump's attempted coup and seizure of a presidency-for-life. No one's political career has lived and died more by the standards of political theater than Trump's.

I don't suppose this will end in a conviction, except by the history books. But after the trial I would guess that the Dems in Congress will disqualify the ex-president from future public office, one way or another.

It would be nice if the video evidence submitted by the House managers included a crafty montage of all the Republicans who repeated the president's lies, and and who echoed his encouragement of armed assaults on politicians and the political process. A really effective viral video from the trial might even help reinforce public opinion that the 45th president - oops, sorry, the ex-president* - was guilty as charged and deserves conviction.

*I read a snarky article last week pointing out that a Trump press release defending his latest indefensible etc. used the phrase "45th president" five times in four paragraphs to refer to the hero-in-exile. It was merely pathetic, until I read a follow-up comment by another writer who figured out that this will be Trump's way of denying for the foreseeable future that he is an ex-president or a former president or that there even is a 46th president. Those useful terms will simply not be allowed in the 45th president's entourage.

Thank you. We're not worthy. Okay, I lied... some of us are. ;)

It's an impeachment trial wherein Trump is being accused of being unfit for office (again), and his lawyers are going to help prove it by claiming he's too ignorant to separate fiction from fact? Awesome.

... and (2) was protected by the First Amendment anyway.

Trump's lawyers are going to argue that the First Amendment protects him from lying for months and months about a "rigged election" and that he has the right to request a group of people go down to the capital on the particular day of January 6 in order to cause a delay in the mandated constitutional duty of Congress to count the electors certified by the States according to constitutional mandate?

Like Impeachment 1.0, the Senators are again going to have to ignore the facts and their sworn oaths to God and the United States of America to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, in order to acquit.

They say they believe in God... so I hope they enjoy Hell.

The Constitution seems infinitely clear on this issue in terms that aren't confusing:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

~ Article I, Section 3, United States Constitution

*
The GOP keeps whining incessantly (looking at you, Rand Paul) that the Senate cannot impeach a former president. He's technically correct since the House has the sole power to impeach an official... and they did that already when Trump was still president. If Rand Paul or anyone else wants to explain how Donald Trump's impeachment by the House isn't included in the term "all impeachments," I'm open to being convinced that the Senate has no jurisdiction. *good luck with that*

If the Senate were to forego the trial of the already impeached President and then the Department of Justice were to take up the issue via a criminal indictment, you just know that the "now citizen" would be arguing that his judgment was under the sole power of the Senate to try since he was impeached while still president.

This ain't rocket science!

If those GOP Senators had some balls and/or spinal columns (not looking at you, Mitt Romney), the House wouldn't have to keep taking out their trash, and since the majority (as far as I know) claim profusely and repeatedly their belief in God... they can therefore burn in Hell for ignoring their Oaths to the Constitution that they swore to Him.

Here's hoping their eternal damnation in hellfire in their next life turns out to be a fair trade for the lying cheating con artist who wouldn't spit on a single one of them to put them out if they were on fire in this one.

I really must stop hiding my feelings and just tell everyone how I feel about things. :)

Vast Covid related actions including the Federal response, workplace protections and money. This mo'fo is ON IT.

And much much more. Girl you outta be proud of your boy Joe!

Ya see, Trump be missing the spotlight and his ego might make him have to simply walk over his lawyer's dead bodies to go show those Dimocrats! On deck: implosion.

I strongly believe that Capitol Police and a judiciously selected few other witnesses (the Sick Nick family) should appear in person. On it's own video-o-rama is not quite visceral enough. Close with a legal expert to shoot down Trump's lawyers and maybe, say, George W. Bush himself to explain how his fellow Repugs would Convict Obama in a heartbeat for what Trump did.

But, I really need music this week.

Trump's encouragement went on for months. It's just too bad that he didn't at some point repeat his old campaign refrain from four years ago when he told his rowdy crowd that he'd pay for their lawyers if they felt the need to punch somebody in the face.

If they hold hearings on Sunday will you write a column then add well? No judgment either way, just curious.

JL

They say that FBI documents show that the riot was planned days in advance and therefore Trump couldn't have encouraged it.

:-(