snafu

Why does this matter? Serious question. Oh but I heard on NPR Radio this afternoon that the Managers will ask Roberts to be a tie breaker. Because, you know, they want to bend the rules. If you don’t get to 51 votes, you lose the vote. Pretty ***** simple for honest minds.

Yes, yes,... let the hate flow through you!!!

^^^^^ Indeed... Let's go, on with the show.

You really have a pattern here. When things aren't going your way, you lash out with accusations against posters that you *wish* were true. Sucks to be you.

I almost did it!

Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence. The people who accuse him need to prove he's guilty. If those people do a slipshod job or an incomplete job it isn't up to the accused to help them. So far there has been no smoking gun. There's also no smoking gun on the horizon. You mind won't be changed. My mind won't be changed. This is over.

I believe what Dershowitz said is that you'd need an underlying crime to attach to the "abuse of power" accusation. Something like "the President abused his power because he committed bribery, treason or some other high crime and misdemeanor" (he particularly stressed the word other). What Schiff argued is that the underlying "crime" is extortion/bribery.

I could be a superstar in Oregon and Missouri!

You gotta hand at least this to him, he can make a good “in your face” speech.

And I would add that there's a difference in trying and succeeding (in the instances he succeeded) in the face of an openly hostile opposition party, a half-hostile "supporting" party. Those two elements tried their hardest to refuse to legitimize him. Add to that at least half of the electorate that hates him. Pile on the fact that there were active collusion investigations for the first three years, and a national press that pisses on him every chance they get. I don't even like the guy, but that's pretty impressive. I can think of one policy reversal (though I don't remember him making it a huge part of his platform): spending. He spends too much and (to me) it is a problem.

Give him 4 more years???

Do you think we should be okay with allowing a Presidential candidate to run without looking into his past performance when we was an elected official? Do you think we should just ignore Joe Biden's potential corruption just because he's declared himself a candidate for President? Do you think it was okay to investigate Trump/Russia when he was running for President? Do you remember who was the progenitor of Trump/Russia, and where SHE got her information? Do you think it was okay to investigate Trump/Russia while ha's a sitting President? Do you think that these Trump investigations were used as political tools for candidates who ran for Congress in 2018? Your slip is showing. You're looking and sounding more and more like a partisan hack.

I thought I'd switch it up today. No Ethel Merman. A little early, too. Gotta run in a few minutes. Might not get back in time for the 1:00 curtain.

I know you didn't direct this at me, but here's a snarky answer: Don't worry, Trump is a one hit wonder. No other politician would ever do this.

Agreed, and why did he join the Board of THAT particularly corrupt company?

You mis-used interregnum. Then you went and typed "money wrench".

I believe that anyone who's paid attention can agree on the events in a broad sense. I believe that no more information is necessary to change anyone's mind about this. I've never been against more witnesses and evidence to come out. I'm more a stickler for the process, though. I wanted that to have happened in the House. What I saw in those proceedings was embarrassingly one-sided. And for the Democrats in the House -- who were the embarrassingly one-sided actors -- to now come and demand that more evidence is necessary to make THEIR CASE is awful. It makes a complete mockery of the situation. The entire thing, since September, is a transparent political ploy. This does not comport with the facts as I know them. As far as I know, the Judge in the Subpoena dispute (I forget the Executive Dept. employee who was fighting the Subpoena) said that he would make a quick ruling. I pointed out last week that when U.S. vs. Nixon was decided, that Subpoena fact pattern went from beginning to end in three months. That means from the day the Subpoena was issued to a Supreme Court ruling. The House Democrats lied to you about the "long drawn out Court battle". I'm not going to dig too deep, but I am 99% positive that Presidents have used their office to pressure other foreign leaders in foreign affairs for months, years, decades and centuries.

The question didn’t have anything to do with whether an investigation was performed or a conclusion was made. Go back and read Bob’s question. It had to to with lobbying not to see the truth.

Hillary Clinton’s emails. Benghasi. Fast and Furious. But thats not not even the issue. What you fail to see is that the Hiuse Democrats had every opportunity to get to the “truth” and they puked on themselves. And then when they realized that they screwed up, they began to crow about more witnesses in the Senate. This came after holding the Articles for a month and after Bolton said he’d comply with a Senate Subpoena. Bolton was being disingenuous. If he’d comply with a Senate Suppbpoena don’t you think he’d show up for a House Subpoena? There’s nothing preventing the House from gathering more witnesses. They said so themselves. Perhaps they don’t want the “truth” like you do. Perhaps they just want to score political points against Senate Republicans by making them look like obstructionists. That ploy has worked on a lot of people. You’re never going to get the full story. And I’d add to that you’ve been presented with enough. So have I. See. You’ve apparently seen enough. I think all you want is irrefutable confirmation about what you suspect. As for your speculation about Trump doing this over and over with other countries, I can’t help you. Just don’t vote for him. Democrats’ mission accomplished. This happens with both parties. But I will give you an example in Trump’s Presidency: the Congressional Freedom Caucus killed Trump’s first attempt to re-do ADA if I recall correctly. Your last sentence doesn’t make sense. I blame the House Democrats for this nonsense, yes. It is a thinly veiled (latest attempt) to “get him”. I’ll answer your question with some questions of my own: how do you feel about Trump and Netanyahu having a major press conference/announcement regarding an Israeli/Palestinian peace plan? Perfectly normal Presidential activity, right? He’s going to use that with his campaign, yes? Can you think of any other President that has used foreign relations and international policy as campaign points? Yes, of course Trump is ham-handed and a narcissistic ass. No, the phone call wasn’t “perfect”, but it wasn’t impeachable either. To me, there should be no doubt about the fact that the President committed a crime. In this case, the House Democrats have run with a weak case and haven’t come up with any crime. Then while doing so, they’ve tripped over themselves. And when they realized that there isn’t much to the case, they manipulated the entire process to extend the dog and pony show to impress people who already hate the President.

Yep. Unless the reports of fatalities are completely wrong, this doesn’t seem to be all that awful. And Is it super contagious?

Interesting to say the least. If there will be one, then there should be all witnesses. They will have to vote on each of Schumer’s amendments, I’d imagine. And I think McConnell has said that there won’t be any witnesses without depositions being done first. I could actually imagine Warren, Klobuchar, and Sanders going nuts over this.

It started before Trump, but it is worse now. Dems lose in 2016 and call for the Electoral College to be abolished. Hate the President, the “steady state” Obama holdovers manufacture a bogus investigation into collusion. Trump puts a couple Supremes in place and Dems call for the Court to be enlarged to 15. Dems can’t find a viable candidate so they lower the impeachment threshold and shove it through by a partisan vote. Can’t win by following the rules so they go for complete rules change in response. Clinton tried to bully Trump into saying he’d accept the results of the election and then freaked out when he said “let’s see”. Then she lost and she still hasn’t accepted the results. Half the country has followed her lead and thrown a temper tantrum since November 2016. The hate and rhetoric actually comes from the left. Same happened with Bush in his first term to a much lesser extent. Dems wouldn’t legitimize him because of the Florida mess.

Not screwed?

He will. And at the same time he sadly exposes what a partisan shill he is. I try to keep it brief.

I watched the White House Counsel play a clip of Sondland's testimony this past Saturday. Sondland said over and over and over that it was his own speculation about what Trump wanted. It was a great summary. I heard Sondland's testimony live when he was in the House hearing. I'm not lying and I'm not misinformed. I'm done with replying to you.