Rob's House

Tibs has no interest in debate, or the pursuit of truth. He's a troll that some speculate is paid to spam message boards with DNC talking points. The only reason to respond to him is if you get some level of satisfaction out of tearing down his arguments (to the extent you can call them arguments). Most regulars have him on ignore. I hate blocking people because I like to hear what the opposition has to say, but I had to make an exception for him due to the volume of his posts. The board has been much more enjoyable since.

They'll be declaring President Trump a rapist before their eyes have dried from Kobe's passing.

Y'all are posting in a Tibs thread.

I'm sorry to hear you're having a rough go of it. You should come over to the MAGA side. Like they say, winning cures everything.

You're missing the point, which is twofold: 1. Persuing something because you believe it is in your own personal best interest does not preclude you from also believing it is in the best interest of the country. 2. Subjective intent is irrelevant when the underlying act is not improper. For example, say a cop pulls over a driver who's going 10 over, has a busted tail light, and is borderline DUI. The cop intends to let him off with a warning, but the guy gets belligerent and mouths of to him. Because he's personally offended the cop charges him w/ DUI, Speeding, & Defective Equipment. The cop's subjective intent is irrelevant because there was a legitimate basis for charging the man. Establishing that the cop charged him for his own personal satisfaction rather than to fulfill his official duties does not render his actions improper in the eyes of the law.

I like to answer questions posed to others. From your response, however, I take it this was personal in nature.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

What was the question?

I believe what Dershowitz was saying is not that the President could never be removed for any abuse of power, but that simply meeting a bare abuse of power threshold is not necessarily sufficient criteria and lacks the requisite specificity. He could have fleshed that out better. He sounded more like he was arguing to the bench rather than the jury. That makes since because [most of] the Senators making the decision are more analogous to a legally savvy judge than lay jurors, but in this situation he needs to break it down to sell it to the lay public as well.

John "How Will I Look" Roberts has always been more concerned with his image than the law.

Liberal humor

I don't tend to get upset about being the target of this sort of soft, bigoted humor because I'm tough enough to take it (and I really don't care), but I do find it irritating to know that if ANY other group was mocked in that manner there would be utter fu¢king outrage from the same crowd yucking it up and defending this. Just imagine Sean Hannity cracking up over a conservative guest mocking the accent of <insert marginalized liberal virtue pet minority victim group>. I doubt we'll ever know for sure how that would go over, but I'd be willing to place a sizeable wager on not good.

I agree with the theory that establishment Rs & Ds are all in it together to a point, but I think it's loosely analogous to the NFL. The fans (supporters) love their team (party), think winning is the most important thing, and hate the rival team. The players/coaches (politicians) want to win for personal benefits - money/job security (power) & prestige, but the team winning isn't as important as long as they have personal success. And they might talk ***** during the week but they're friends with half the guys on the other team. The owners, who collectively comprise the league (power players) all in it together. Sure, they want to win, but even if they lose they still win. It matters far less to them than the fans. That said, Everyone still wants to hoist the Lombardi. It's a flawed and overly simplistic analogy, but I think it illustrates the point. To the other point (I think) was made, I don't agree that Dems have a genuine concern for the expansion of executive power, because history betrays that assertion. None of them had the slightest concern when Obama was taking extra constitutional actions. The common refrain was that he wouldn't have to do that if the "obstructionist" Congress would "do its job." (Apparently the job of the legislature is to pass the legislation the executive wants). Before you say "whataboutism," I'm not arguing that executive power should not be reigned in (I think it should), but rather that I doubt the sincerity of those on the left claiming it as a goal. Moreover, underneath all the rhetoric, President Trump really hasn't done much to expand executive power beyond that of his predecessors. There's just not a lot of evidence to support that assertion.

That's the Democrat way. If they don't get what they want (power) they scream & throw a fit, assail your character, call you every name in the book, then accuse you of being divisive. It's been like that since GWB. Maybe longer.

If you're not following this guy you should be.

Please tell us when a fact witness has ever been questioned for the first time in the Senate phase of an impeachment. I'll wait.

In fairness though, I think he comes by it honestly. We all suffer from cognitive bias. I don't put him in the same camp with the drive by dipshits like Gary, Tibs, & TH3.

No offense, Bob, but that's not something you want to be consistent with. Those are two of the most indefensible abuses of power in the modern era. You may not realize it, but you're saying you generally favor the legislature deposing the co-equal executive in derogation of the Constitution for partisan political purposes.

President Trump does extortion even worse than he does white supremacy.

Schumer just stepped on another landmine.

That's definitely what this is about. A few of them have all but admitted it. It doesn't seem to be working out for them though. I keep wondering if there's another act to this play (maybe the Bolton thing?) because this seems like an obvious unforced error. A real dumbass move. It's kind of mind boggling. These are people who had the intelligence and instincts to put themselves in positions of immense power, but they keep stepping on their own landmines. They're calling the game from the Wile E. Coyote playbook.

This, along with what appears to be unanimous acceptance from the left, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is all a partisan witch hunt. They claim we need to hear "the truth," but are happy to have the truth silenced when it's inconvenient to their agenda. They claim to be so pious that the slightest hint of impropriety must be met with the most extreme measures provided by law, yet cover their ears (and yours) and shriek when strong evidence of actual corruption by their ally (and presumptive Presidential nominee) is revealed. They claim we must leave no stone unturned after months of investigation has yielded next to nothing. Yet they actively resist any investigation into, or even consideration of, something we know happened and for which they have no explanation, and then have the audacity to scream "cover up" when the rules that have always been followed are not subverted for them to engage in trial by ambush. In one case guilt may be inferred from the flimsiest evidence based on conjecture as to what they assume the President might well have thought. In the other, a mountain of evidence of clear corruption can be summarily brushed away by an offhand statement to the effect of "nothing to see here". It's the most blatant and transparent case of selective prosecution, faux outrage, and yes, abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime.