The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[RoyBatty is alive]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Friday night or Saturday morning is the best bet right now. Only thing that would change that would be if they vote for witnesses, which would drag this out for months. Mitch says he has the votes now to move to acquittal, several Senators in the presidential race have already made plans to be in Iowa Saturday (which they wouldn't be able to do if they thought it was going to go on beyond that). 

 

It's all over but for the crying by the usual TDS addled brains.

 

 

Thanks.

 

I suspect there wil be some "bombshell" leaked to either the NYT or the WasPo just before that vote try and prolong it as long and painful as possible.

[Bray Wyatt]

4 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

So is he 100% a dick 100% of the time?  Sounds redundant to me, also not too conducive to an adult conversation.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

14 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Fat, drunk, and stupid is a fantastic way to go through life.

 

….counselor, can you explain how or why Justice Roberts can do this?.....thought he was more of a civility referee......

 

...excerpt from The Hill article:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question submitted by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) during Thursday's question-and-answer session in President Trump's impeachment trial.

Paul and Roberts have been battling over the question, which was expected to be about the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Because the question is thought to name the whistleblower and Roberts is responsible for reading the questions aloud, that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the floor of the Senate.

A Senate page brought the question from Paul to Roberts, who appeared to pause to read it. 

"The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” Roberts said. 

Edited January 30, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Deranged Rhino]

In 2016 the fear on the left was that Trump would protest if he lost the election, claim it was rigged, and thus do great damage to our transition of power and republic as a whole. 

Once he won, the left immediately cried foul, claimed the election was rigged, and that the incoming President was an active agent of Russia. 

 

Now, facing another L, the left is going to claim that despite being cleared of their sham charges, Trump is still not proven innocent -- doing untold damage to our republic and the rule of law, not to mention the Senate and House itself. 

 

Have they no shame? Of course not. They're partisan hacks. 

 

But where's the outrage from the posters who know better despite not liking Trump? 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

I take exception to this. His football days were over. He would need to be tried by actors, bad actors if you want him to be tried by a jury of his peers. 

Life is about acknowledging mistakes. Yiu are 100% correct. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Sort of implies all just a coincidence that Bidens were going to be involved in his requested investigation? 

 

I have to leave shortly but thought I would ask a question to you.  Check back later...or tomorrow

 

Do you honestly believe that he was primarily motivated in this Ukraine scheme by the country's interests or are you let's say, content, that it could be true?

Your supposition runs against the entire centuries old premise of liberal jurisprudence.

 

You’re beginning with the assumption of guilt, that it’s possible that someone may have had corrupt intent, demanding that it be proven that the accused motives were pure, and insisting “because it’s possible, and hasn’t been proven otherwise” that it’s reasonable to report to your confirmation biases, which of course label the President a scoundrel and assume his guilt.

 

That is backwards and dangerous.  You’re proposing to remove a duly elected President from office, undoing the foundational principle that the very concept of democratic governance relies on in order to be just:  self-determination, based on your own biases and feelings about possible motives for an act that in-and-of itself is not criminal.

 

Think of how this sort of precedent will be used going forward:  the party holding the majority in the House will always move to impeach on these grounds, and God forbid they get convicted in the Senate... the entire concept of representative government justified by free elections is undone.

[RoyBatty is alive]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

In 2016 the fear on the left was that Trump would protest if he lost the election, claim it was rigged, and thus do great damage to our transition of power and republic as a whole. 

Once he won, the left immediately cried foul, claimed the election was rigged, and that the incoming President was an active agent of Russia. 

 

Now, facing another L, the left is going to claim that despite being cleared of their sham charges, Trump is still not proven innocent -- doing untold damage to our republic and the rule of law, not to mention the Senate and House itself. 

 

Have they no shame? Of course not. They're partisan hacks. 

 

But where's the outrage from the posters who know better despite not liking Trump? 

 

 

 

 

 

I would love to watch the Baldwin family reunion betweenAlec and Adam.  Make James Carville and his wife, (the nasally hag i cant recall her name) look compatible.

[njbuff]

25 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I see you've been spending time with Bob, getting high and watching Animal House over and over. 

Bob spends his time with Neal.

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Your supposition runs against the entire centuries old premise of liberal jurisprudence.

 

You’re beginning with the assumption of guilt, that it’s possible that someone may have had corrupt intent, demanding that it be proven that the accused motives were pure, and insisting “because it’s possible, and hasn’t been proven otherwise” that it’s reasonable to report to your confirmation biases, which of course label the President a scoundrel and assume his guilt.

 

That is backwards and dangerous.  You’re proposing to remove a duly elected President from office, undoing the foundational principle that the very concept of democratic governance relies on in order to be just:  self-determination, based on your own biases and feelings about possible motives for an act that in-and-of itself is not criminal.

 

Think of how this sort of precedent will be used going forward:  the party holding the majority in the House will always move to impeach on these grounds, and God forbid they get convicted in the Senate... the entire concept of representative government justified by free elections is undone.

 

Dude, I just asked you for an opinion.  We aren't in court or the Senate.  Just looking for your opinion.

  Here again was the question:  Do you honestly believe that Trump was primarily motivated in this Ukraine scheme by the country's interests or are you let's say, content, that it could be true?

 

[RoyBatty is alive]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Your supposition runs against the entire centuries old premise of liberal jurisprudence.

 

You’re beginning with the assumption of guilt, that it’s possible that someone may have had corrupt intent, demanding that it be proven that the accused motives were pure, and insisting “because it’s possible, and hasn’t been proven otherwise” that it’s reasonable to report to your confirmation biases, which of course label the President a scoundrel and assume his guilt.

 

That is backwards and dangerous.  You’re proposing to remove a duly elected President from office, undoing the foundational principle that the very concept of democratic governance relies on in order to be just:  self-determination, based on your own biases and feelings about possible motives for an act that in-and-of itself is not criminal.

 

Think of how this sort of precedent will be used going forward:  the party holding the majority in the House will always move to impeach on these grounds, and God forbid they get convicted in the Senate... the entire concept of representative government justified by free elections is undone.

 

 

Post of the year, spot on.

 

I am stunned at what has been going on starting with the  abuse of the FBI, Fisa court abuse, violation of attorney client privilge, congressman blatantly lying and fabricating, hiding exculpatory evidence, staged raids with networks notified,   abuse of the "whistelblower protection act".  

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Dude, I just asked you for an opinion.  We aren't in court or the Senate.  Just looking for your opinion.

  Here again was the question:  Do you honestly believe that Trump was primarily motivated in this Ukraine scheme by the country's interests or are you let's say, content, that it could be true?

 

 

He did answer you, in a very eloquent and articulate way. You uare asking him to ASSUME what HE thinks was in the Presidents head, what was his  motivation. That is the entire point of his repsonse.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Dude, I just asked you for an opinion.  We aren't in court or the Senate.  Just looking for your opinion.

  Here again was the question:  Do you honestly believe that Trump was primarily motivated in this Ukraine scheme by the country's interests or are you let's say, content, that it could be true?

 

 

"Dude, I just asked you for an opinion, not to rhetorically destroy my point and make me look like the unmitigated moron that I actually am."

[IDBillzFan]

23 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

So is he 100% a dick 100% of the time?  Sounds redundant to me, also not too conducive to an adult conversation.

 

If history has taught us anything, the left likely has one more 'Kavanaugh' BREAKING! BOMBSHELL!! NAIL IN THE COFFIN!!! leak they'll trot out before they lose.

 

Again.

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Dude, I just asked you for an opinion.  We aren't in court or the Senate.  Just looking for your opinion.

  Here again was the question:  Do you honestly believe that Trump was primarily motivated in this Ukraine scheme by the country's interests or are you let's say, content, that it could be true?

 

I don’t do opinions, as you do.

 

I don’t stake out my positions based on how I feel about circumstances or individuals.

 

I do fact and consequence.

 

Of course it’s possible; but it doesn’t matter if it’s possible.

 

And you advocate undoing centuries of liberal governance and flinging is backwards into the days of politburo and monarchy, stripping away the fundamental right of the People to choose their form of government; all because you insist of reporting to your biases, and assume a man’s motives, in your desire to see him guilty of a crime for an act that isn’t otherwise criminal.

 

That’s the reality.

[Koko78]

26 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

….counselor, can you explain how or why Justice Roberts can do this?.....thought he was more of a civility referee......

 

...excerpt from The Hill article:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question submitted by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) during Thursday's question-and-answer session in President Trump's impeachment trial.

Paul and Roberts have been battling over the question, which was expected to be about the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Because the question is thought to name the whistleblower and Roberts is responsible for reading the questions aloud, that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the floor of the Senate.

A Senate page brought the question from Paul to Roberts, who appeared to pause to read it. 

"The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” Roberts said. 

 

I would presume that Roberts was given that authority in the rules the Senate passed governing the trial.

[Deranged Rhino]

Here you go, @RoyBatty is alive

 

 

 

 

A little more detail. 

[Nanker]

27 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

 

I would love to watch the Baldwin family reunion betweenAlec and Adam.  Make James Carville and his wife, (the nasally hag i cant recall her name) look compatible.

Mary Matalin. 
More contemporaneously you coul have employed Kelly Anne Conway and her Durff Never Trump husband. 

[Bob in Mich]

56 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Bob doesn't dodge the question. He's just too stoned to remember it.

 

Whacko, you are spot on today.  Good one brother!  Kinda getting a bit predictable though.

 

Aside to DR.  The question you have referenced for about 6 months now that you claim I won't face, has been answered likely a minimum of 15 times now by me to you or to others.  You clearly know that but just as clearly, you don''t agree with or like that answer.  In fact I recall one thread where you asked the same question 10 times in a few pages in spite of me answering it every time.  In addition I quoted the Mueller report and gave you a link that spelled out my views in detail.  You have my answer.  You know that.

 

If you are being a reasonable, honest person, as you constantly claim, you would consider people may hold opinions that differ from your opinions.  Those opinions may be correct or incorrect.  Is that true Mr Reasonable?  Are people allowed in your mind to think something that is different than you or even incorrect or must you continue to badger them until they agree with your take? 

 

You continue to try to claim you are just innocently trying to help educate when that stopped ages ago.  You are clearly simply harassing and not trying to help anything or anyone but your own ego. 

[Bob in Mich]

34 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

 

Post of the year, spot on.

 

I am stunned at what has been going on starting with the  abuse of the FBI, Fisa court abuse, violation of attorney client privilge, congressman blatantly lying and fabricating, hiding exculpatory evidence, staged raids with networks notified,   abuse of the "whistelblower protection act".  

 

He did answer you, in a very eloquent and articulate way. You uare asking him to ASSUME what HE thinks was in the Presidents head, what was his  motivation. That is the entire point of his repsonse.

Yes, I am asking him/you what, in your own personal, non-legal opinion, was his actual motivation.  I don't think the Senators or Managers are listening so I was hoping to just get an honest opinion.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Whacko, you are spot on today.  Good one brother!  Kinda getting a bit predictable though.

 

Aside to DR.  The question you have referenced for about 6 months now that you claim I won't face, has been answered likely a minimum of 15 times now by me to you or to others.  You clearly know that but just as clearly, you don''t agree with or like that answer.  In fact I recall one thread where you asked the same question 10 times in a few pages in spite of me answering it every time.  In addition I quoted the Mueller report and gave you a link that spelled out my views in detail.  You have my answer.  You know that.

 

Yes. Your answer is that you still believe that Trump/Russia collusion/conspiracy happened despite Mueller proving otherwise (and the House, Senate, and OIG). You believe in a conspiracy theory which is completely without evidence, merit or factual support. 

 

That's what your answer showed. 

 

And it's hilarious.  

 

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

If you are being a reasonable, honest person, as you constantly claim, you would consider people may hold opinions that differ from your opinions.  Those opinions may be correct or incorrect.  Is that true Mr Reasonable?  Are people allowed in your mind to think something that is different than you or even incorrect or must you continue to badger them until they agree with your take? 

 

 

You're the one who rode into this thread claiming that the ONLY reason people don't "see the truth" is because they're loyal to Trump. You're arguing against yourself. 

 

All I've said from the beginning, and it remains true to this day, is that you're too cowardly to think for yourself. If you would, you'd understand there's opinion and there's fact. It's a fact, not an opinion, that Trump/Russia was fiction created by the DNC/Clinton/Obama machine specifically designed to all the things you're (incorrectly) accusing Trump of having done in the Ukraine/Biden. 

 

It's not a matter of opinion that you're uninformed. It's a fact. And you keep proving it. 

 

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

You continue to try to claim you are just innocently trying to help educate when that stopped ages ago.  You are clearly simply harassing and not trying to help anything or anyone but your own ego. 

 

It has nothing to do with my ego. And everything to do with how you chose to respond when presented with information and material that ran counter to your preformed, and ignorant, opinions. My information was proven accurate -- yours was not. 

 

And rather than admit that, you became hostile. Angry. And belittling. 

 

That's on you. 

 

Now you're a cautionary tale. And, when you post inane, dishonest, and uninformed "opinions" on this board, I'll continue to highlight them and show those lurking and reading why your "opinions" are nonsense, and in this case, dangerous. 

 

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

5 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I have maintained that without more documents or witnesses Trump defenders can find a defensible position which will be near impossible to disprove.  Claiming his motivation was not for political purposes but was for the national good, is the story and they are sticking to it. 

 

The question I have is : how close are these defensible positions to the actual truth ?  I would like to know the actual truth and whether or not Trump will continue to use foreign governments to attack his political opponents.  Is that now OK for all candidates to do?

Bob I personally do not care if foreign entities enter out political fray- it has been happening for a long time and we can not stop it, but to investigate if the VP was selling access to the White House  is an appropriate thing for the president to do, the fact he might have timed it for the most oppurtunistic political advantage is expected of all candidates.