All_Pro_Bills

The thing is we knew this before the House crafted the changes and voted the articles of impeachment. So if the objective is to gain a conviction on the charges and you know you can't do that then why pursue the matter in the manner it was pursued unless you've got some other objectives? It should have gone to the Federal Courts. The wheels of justice turn slowly. And taking the court route what's the rush? If justice is served in 2 weeks or 2 months in the grand scheme of things it will not matter. Also citing Constitution objections to trying former President is not a convenient rationale but a matter of law. It is based on credible and likely potentially correct interpretations of the Constitution Article I section 3. Sure the specific event happened on Jan 6 and the articles were dated before the end of his term but the charges were sent to the Senate after the Biden inauguration. Waiting until the term expired introduced this "convenient rationale" to the proceedings. It could have been avoided by presenting the charges to the Senate before Trump's term expired. But I suspect the House leadership waited until after his term expired because the new Senate gave them the majority. And it avoided another potential question. What to do if the Senate trial starts before the term ends and runs through the inauguration. Does the old Senate continue to only hear the trial they started but the new Senate handles all other matters of business? Or does the new Senate take over where the old Senate stopped? Clearly some issues without any known resolution that might drag things out further. Going to the courts avoids both the path taken and the potential issues of the path's not taken. Decisions on venue, how and when to proceed, and a lack of proper evidence killed any hope of conviction along with the political nature of the entire event.

The oldest among us might recall that before cable, satellite, streaming, other methods of communication, and 24/7 broadcasting, network TV would "sign off" at night and then "sign on" in the morning. First thing in the morning they'd play the National Anthem.

I'd rather see funds used for some form of scholarship program for low-income people to get degrees in hard sciences like engineering, computer science, and the medical sciences. That will go towards helping to solve a couple problems. Income and educational inequalities and provide financially disadvantaged individuals a more equitable chance at success while giving America the skilled graduates needed to compete.

I'll bet most Americans would like to get a $10,000 check in the mail every month so they can sit on their asses and live a comfortable life and just relax and party all day but should we do that too?

I also had advocated for holding this trial in Federal Court. And while I think that holding the trial of a former President in the Senate is unconstitutional my main reason is that would have been as fair and impartial a venue as could be possible under the circumstances. The judicial has long been the arbiter between Congress and the executive branch and as a former President a trial here would have benefited a goal of seeking the truth. Its just impossible to remove the political motivations from the legal charges in this case. And a neutral venue following standards of evidence, actual testimony from actual witnesses and actors of Jan 6th, prosecution, defense, and a jury would have served us all better. Its seems the need to rush things along as fast as possible took priority. In the end it was just a back and forth of subjective interpretations of communications and words between speaker and the audience and the ambiguity of language under specific circumstances sprinkled in with some suggestions of legal intent (or instructions to riot in this case) without the benefit of any witnesses or testimony. More like something that would pass as a psychology experiment than the justification for a trial. The law is supposed to be about objectivity and facts. From what I heard objectivity and facts from both sides were few and far between through it all. Which brings me to my final point on this entire topic. I think from the start everyone paying attention to any of this, whether pro or anti Trump or just indifferent to the whole thing, knew with close to 100% certainty that the "Yes" vote would never reach the 67 needed for a conviction. The result was pre-determined. There was no mystery or suspense about the outcome. And given the Democratic leadership must have known that too the lingering question is what was their real angle here? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Well I hope you're right. But I'll continue to expect that nothing is off the table for the wokester fanatics until events prove otherwise. Also, Mitch might suggest this would be opposed but that doesn't negate the fact they want to do it. So the intent is there. Regards..

Hitler became all powerful because he was elected chancellor of Germany in 1932. Once he came to power his party leveraged their minority position in the Reichstag to change the constructs of the countries "constitution" and to grant him unlimited political power. Then the SS and the Gestapo rounded up and murdered, imprisoned, or exiled all political opposition. So lets fast forward to present day America. As I said earlier the Democrats want to change the construct of our system by granting statehood to PR and DC and stacking the SCOTUS with "liberal activist" judges. That would most likely result in one party rule forever. Perpetual control of all three branches of government and eliminate any and all checks and balances and give one party absolute power at the Federal level. Like a dictator, like Hitler. So who is following the NAZI script? Hint: it's not Trump. A lot of people need to wake up and realize this comparison is spot on and they're following the dictators playbook to the letter before its too late.

This cap site claims his comparable market value is over $8M per season. Seems high. I don't see the Bills going anywhere near that figure. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/jon-feliciano-16854/market-value/

That kind of leads to a potential moral dilemma. Today its decided to "squash" a couple groups viewed as marginal. So whats to stop the powers ruling the system to move the fence in a little further and start squashing more groups or organizations. I'm hearing Megadeth's Symphony of Destruction in my head now. The other question is how far are you willing to go to stop them? Pass legislation making their ideas or organization illegal? Arrest people? Round them up and put them all in camps? Exterminate people? I assume they'll resist all that and fight back. Are you willing to go all in and put your life on the line to stop them? Or is the idea that law enforcement, the people the Democrats want to defund, are going to do all the dirty work? What if things get ugly and turn into an all out firefight in the streets. Are we going to enlist an Army of social justice warriors that are willing to fight and die for their cause? I know I'm taking it to an extreme but there is nothing to suggest we're not headed there without some leadership willing to compromise and openly address people's grievances from all perspectives. At this point we have none of that on either side. So I am worried.

Well for starters the desire to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC in order to perpetually stack the Senate. And given a conservative slant to the Supreme Court demands from the left to add 2 or more justices with liberal leanings to reverse that back. Both of these would push the political environment to a permanent Democratic majority and one party rule. So our "democracy" would devolve into something similar to Huessen in Irag where he got 99% of the vote in the presidential "election". President for life. A dictatorial democracy. Who really wants that? With no checks and balances. Truth is I grew up in a staunch Democratic union household but the leaders and objectives of this party are just unrecognizable compared to the statue and integrity of their predecessors I grew to admire. The core used to be the working man and women but now its victims and the pursuit of social grievances of all types. I could go on. I would prefer the addition of two or more political parties to give the voters some valid options vs. the pick your poison choice as presented today.

Moments like this is where I see the comic value in all of this political theater. If Hillary was a right-leaning or libertarian poster and she accused the Democratic Senators of conspiring to <fill in the blank> her account would have been suspended and her tweet removed for spreading misinformation and violating the code of conduct of the site. The fact it isn't just proves what lying hypocrites there are running the social media "ministry of truth". Whatever your political view you can't tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong.

Unfortunately the left's definition of "Democracy" is the majority's right to impose their views and agenda on the minority without legal or moral limits. The fact others don't share their vision does not equate to them being against Democracy. The primary concern of many is freedom. And I've come to the conclusion the liberal mind does not comprehend the concept of freedom. Their false belief in their moral and intellectual superiority that it gives them the "right" to impose their views on anyone that disagrees inhibits their ability to think critically and logically. Their behavior is equivalent to a spoiled and petulant child and ultimately they need to be dealt with in the same manner.

Yes I do lean a certain way. I'm against big government and the concentration of power in the central government. I am against anything that gives the state more power and control over the lives and freedoms of its citizens. I'm against using government threats of violence and imprisonment to force people to act, think, and speak against their own interests. I'm against using our men and women in the armed forces as cannon fodder and muscle in pursuit of aggression and wars that serve private interests but no real security or national interest. I'm against the growth of the surveillance state that tracks and accumulates all forms of communications and data on private citizens. I think the Federal budget should be cut 75% to eliminate the funding that gives them so much power. And I cannot understand why anyone who values personal freedoms, rights, and responsibilities would vote to give the government more power and control over their lives and sell their soul to that "Devil" for what is consistent with "30 pieces of silver" and the illusion of safety.

Agree with your insights. I view myself as a objective and impartial observer of politics as I don't have any affinity for either political party. So I think I can represent that impartial view you express regarding the defendant's political affiliation. In fact, I view the political parties as a single entity of one party rule. Maybe some things differ between administrations of one party or the other but for me it follows the 80/20 rule where 80% is the same no matter who's in charge. You can call me a cynic. If I was a Senator and had to vote on the charge of "inciting insurrection" or whatever the formal definition of it is I would vote not guilty. I interpret absolutely nothing said or written by Trump explicitly or implicit directed anyone to commit the acts of violence that occurred on January 6th. The House managers are citing terms like "fight like Hell" as evidence of some connection or cause and effect. Words some of them have used in the past. The record also shows many House and Senate members have used more incendiary terms than Trump did in their political speeches and statements. But in none of these cases do I conclude they were advocating violence or criminal conduct. No matter my personal view of Trump I would need to apply the same standards to his statements. And just because some extremists took to violence on the 6th does not imply anyone, specifically Trump in this case, is responsible for the actions other than the actors themselves. Unless we want to go in the direction of some sort of conspiracy theory or some elaborate and nefarious organization behind it all. But as none of the charges suggest this we can dismiss this idea altogether. To me the core issue boils down to a discussion about criminalizing political speech and rhetoric. And I would vote "no" to that.

If Trump isn't President the Senate has no authority to hold a trial. If he is they can try him. But he's not the President. And the impeachment articles were presented to the Senate after the buzzer sounded and Trump's term ended. Its not mix and match circumstances to get it to work the way you want. The issue is the grey area around interpretation of the meaning of "the President". But as I said in my original comment. It doesn't matter as 45 Senators voted that the trial is unconstitutional. Does anyone think a single one of them will vote to convict based on their belief the trial is illegal? 55-45 next week and game over.

If I recall the House delivered the charges to the Senate floor after the Biden inauguration. But reality is this: This is simply all politics using the Capitol riot event as a justification. We're going to hear about a weeks worth of testimony and "evidence". I think we already know plus or minus a vote or two on how every member of the Senate chamber is going to vote when it comes to an end. It doesn't matter today or next week how good or bad the House manager's case is or how good or bad of an argument the defense attorney's provide. Something like 55-45 for the impeachment plus or minus a vote or two for or against. With 67 votes needed for a conviction the vote will fall short. So Trump will be acquitted once again and he'll have another talking point to rally his forces around. Along with a couple weeks of outrage from his political enemies and media activists about how the Republicans voting to sustain did a disservice to their country. Like any of them were going to cast a vote in favor of any those Senators in 2022 Senate races anyway. My preference was to see this all play out in Federal Court. I believe that would be the most objective and logical place for a trail of a "former" President to take place. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts appears to agree with me. He made a very unusual decision to recuse himself and decline to preside over the Impeachment trial in the Senate. What that signals is its likely the court's majority opinion is this Impeachment trial in the Senate is unconstitutional as Trump is no longer the sitting President and they want no part of any Senate show trial. The Senate voting that their procedure is constitutional is no surprise. If they didn't think that they wouldn't hold the trial in the first place. The highest court might have a different view. In Federal Court the case would be heard by a jury of 12 vs. a Senate chamber completely immersed in political conflict. A prosecutor that would present evidence that passes the legal threshold and legitimacy tests that are ignored in the Senate chamber and the House indictment. The defense would need to present its case purely on the law without the aid of politics and the cover provided in the Senate. This to me would be the best and most legitimate place to pass judgment on Trump's guilt or innocence. Agree or disagree with some or all or none of what I say but other than interrupting a lot of daytime TV this Senate trial is DOA and is going to result in an acquittal and maybe next week we can close the book on Trump and move on.

I suspect his African-American teammates have a completely different view of things. Brady didn't beat Mahomes. As they weren't on the field of play at the same time at any single play in the game. The Bucs beat the Chiefs to win the SB. And isn't Pat's mom white? Something all those goofball posters might want to consider. I always thought the complaint would be February only has 28 days and since all the other months of the year are longer Black History Month is getting the lowest number of days possible.

45 of 50 GOP Senators agree with the position the Trump impeachment trial in the Senate is unconstitutional. On the grounds Article I Section 3 of the Constitution providing Impeachment powers to the Senate applies only to a sitting President. Assuming with 100% certainty all 50 Democratic Senators vote "yes" on impeachment they'll need 12 of those 45 to vote "yes" too. Does anyone believe 12 GOP Senators that concluded the trial is not "legal" will vote to impeach? So this is going to the same place the 1st impeachment went which is to defeat. On top of this proving a charge of Inciting Insurrection is difficult. It implies some direct control or instructions or command. Legal case study shows courts hold the burden of proof to the highest standards. Convictions are extremely difficult. In this case some highly subjective interpretations of insurrection are cited as "evidence". This case is flimsy at best and perhaps completely absent. This charge will go absolutely nowhere. Much to the displeasure of the left Trump is likely to escape once again. When this happens, queue the obligatory protests, outrage, and calls for Constitutional changes.

What annoyed me most in the AFCCG was that the Bills coaches upon seeing how it was being called didn't direct our defense to rough up and abuse the Chiefs receivers in the same manner. And dare the officials to call it on us but let them continue to get away with it.

Great players have the ability to elevate the play of others. For whatever reason, Mahomes didn't do that last night even though he benefits from being surrounded by highly skilled athletes at every skill position on the field. With the exception of Diggs, Allen does not. Josh just seemed to will his way to wins at times during the season. And his leadership attributes are clear. The team rallies around him and feeds off his energy. The team has assumed his identity. While the QB is the de facto leader of the team I don't see Mahomes as having the same leadership qualities. That's not to diminish his style, leadership, or play which is outstanding. But if I had to choose one going into 2021 I'd pick Allen.

The counter argument is the women is "hosting" the fetus/child and that although dependent on the mother for survival that organism is a distinct and separate living entity. And therefore, not of the "woman's body". I'm not advocating either side of the issue just pointing out a counter view for the sake of argument and suggesting the issue is not so clear cut as some might see it. The core of the disagreement on abortion is at what point in the 9 month gestation period do you consider the fetus to be a sentient person.

A former President cannot be tried by the Senate. Taking the view to an extreme, under this interpretation former Presidents Clinton, Bush, or Obama can be tried for "crimes" committed during their terms. And if this is true then all these lawsuits and charges against Trump working their way through the Court system should be thrown out and referred to the House for consideration of indictments. Only a sitting President can be charged and tried. That's the purpose of the Article/Section in the Constitution. But you have your interpretation and I have mine. I expect if the issue is pressed it will be up to the Supreme Court to provide their interpretation and ruling of Article I.

"Nothing is over until we say its over!" John Blutarsky Animal House (1978)

Maybe Zimmer drops to 275 and plays DE next season?

A more extreme approach might be to refuse to mount a defense based on the argument the legislative branch under the Senate has no authority to "try" or "impeach" a private citizen. Therefore, any legal actions must be entertained in Federal court under the authority of the judiciary branch. As the articles of impeachment were delivered from the House to the Senate after the Biden term started and the Trump term ended this position has some validity as the law is one part legality and two parts process. Article I, section 3 of the Constitution states the Senate has sole power over impeachment proceedings of the President. But he's not the President. So the issue may be destined for a Supreme Court ruling. And let's not yank each others chains here. The sole purpose of the impeachment is not to address some "insurrection" charge. It's politically motivated to make sure Trump cannot hold any office, or specifically run for the presidency in 2024. That possibility scares the crap out of the Democrats and many Republicans who want to see him gone. I really can't foresee that happening but I guess they figure if the opportunity comes along to prevent it why take a chance?