The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Lacy, that take is a bit unfair, especially if you read any of that 1999 email I posted a page or so back.  Given that I have been for impeaching both Clinton and Trump, that last sentence is a little odd. You may think I am too naive for expecting a higher standard but my views have been consistent as I have opposed misdeeds in both Presidencies. 

 

I have not heard many here that stated they were either for impeaching both times or acquitting both but I have more respect for those that can be consistent and see right and wrong, in spite of the party of the President. 

 

What were your 1999 impeachment thoughts......for or against removing BillyC?  Why or why not?

 

http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/a-matter-of-principles-keeping-the-new-joe-mccarthys-at-bay-by-learning-the-lessons-of-our-past/

 

I didn’t say it, it was T. L. Skin-erd. The guy is notoriously closed-minded and judgmental. I’ll take a shot at answering though. 
 

I applaud your consistency on the impeachment issue if, upon reflection, you feel it was the right position.  I was not particularly politically woke during the lead up to the Clinton impeachment, and had a rather heated argument with my father-in-law in defense of Clinton and against the  political shenanigans that lead up to it.  I thought at the time his biggest crime was exposing his throat to his adversaries, but the perjury was a colossal mistake and impeachment-worthy. At the time, I called him the Dumbest Smart guy in the world.
 

It seems T.L.’s last statement was just reflection on the current state of affairs with respect to impeachment, pointing out the obvious:  regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, there were checks, balances and a resolution. Complaining because the desired outcome wasn’t achieved seems, well, contrary to the concept of “checks and balances”.  I’m speculating of course, because not only is the guy closed-minded and judgmental, he’s not a good texter and has not replied to an inquiry on your behalf. 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Westside]

16 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 I was as wrong as possible.

Yes bob, you are wrong as usual. 

[B-Man]

                             

 

 

 

 

 

                           

 

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

That is funny.  I am certain it was because I recently watched some Lord of the Rings but when I saw those two side by side marching the Impeachment docs to the Senate, I was struck with short, Gimli and the Lanky Legolis grimly taking on their quest.  Nadler must put double face tape around his 'waist' to hold those pants up

 

...thought I read his water should break any day now...........

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

 

 

http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/a-matter-of-principles-keeping-the-new-joe-mccarthys-at-bay-by-learning-the-lessons-of-our-past/

 

Btw Bob, on the column you linked from the other Bob in Mich.

 

i agree wholeheartedly with the premise, and we can both agree that Joe McCarthy was a bad guy.  We can also agree on the willing participants who went along with the scheme being a massive part of the problem.

 

Personally, I see the application of this sentiment applying equally and forceful to Russia/Kavanaugh/Ukraine.   By that, I mean those who supported that type of tyrannical governmental corruption by Obama, Biden, Comey, DOJFBICIA Schumer McCain Harris et al are precisely the type of scoundrels he is writing about.  I realize you do not feel the same and this post ain’t about that.
 

This goes to my point on the moral high ground issue, and why, when someone attempts to assert in support of any of these clowns and schemes, and wants to discuss Trump personally, my response is typically to laugh and say how cute it is that they think their liar is less liarly than the guy I support.  

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

I was just busting your balls because of your typo but blaming it on autocorrect is kind of weakshit. 

What's your point?

I was wondering as well, but got distracted by the nice looking lady in the middle.

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Btw Bob, on the column you linked from the other Bob in Mich.

 

i agree wholeheartedly with the premise, and we can both agree that Joe McCarthy was a bad guy.  We can also agree on the willing participants who went along with the scheme being a massive part of the problem.

 

Personally, I see the application of this sentiment applying equally and forceful to Russia/Kavanaugh/Ukraine.   By that, I mean those who supported that type of tyrannical governmental corruption by Obama, Biden, Comey, DOJFBICIA Schumer McCain Harris et al are precisely the type of scoundrels he is writing about.  I realize you do not feel the same and this post ain’t about that.
 

This goes to my point on the moral high ground issue, and why, when someone attempts to assert in support of any of these clowns and schemes, and wants to discuss Trump personally, my response is typically to laugh and say how cute it is that they think their liar is less liarly than the guy I support.  

I was wondering as well, but got distracted by the nice looking lady in the middle.

LSHEAB is trying to take something totally out of context to prove a point with the posting of that video with "Hot Ainsley" front and center.

 

[Bob in Mich]

48 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I didn’t say it, it was T. L. Skin-erd. The guy is notoriously closed-minded and judgmental. I’ll take a shot at answering though. 
 

I applaud your consistency on the impeachment issue if, upon reflection, you feel it was the right position.  I was not particularly politically woke during the lead up to the Clinton impeachment, and had a rather heated argument with my father-in-law in defense of Clinton and against the  political shenanigans that lead up to it.  I thought at the time his biggest crime was exposing his throat to his adversaries, but the perjury was a colossal mistake and impeachment-worthy.
 

It seems T.L.’s last statement was just reflection on the current state of affairs with respect to impeachment, pointing out the obvious:  regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, there were checks, balances and a resolution. Complaining because the desired outcome wasn’t achieved seems, well, contrary to the concept of “checks and balances”.  I’m speculating of course, because not only is the guy closed-minded and judgmental, he’s not a good texter and has not replied to an inquiry on your behalf. 

 

 

T.L., mornin.  Slept well I expect.

 

Upon reflection and time....and, no, actually given what now passes for no prob, the fact that Bill lied, seems like, eh, so who doesn't?  Times have changed on lying for sure.  In 1999 my buddy was a big deal in Human Resources.  It stuck when he opined that the Pres would be fired from any large public company if that behavior with an intern and subsequent lying became public.  He thought any board would replace the guy pronto.  I kept thinking that BillC should be held to higher standards.  Apparently you too thought the perjury too much.  Again though, times have changed that we were aghast at lying..  Seems today if the Pres did it, we likely would not agree as to how 'bad' that was.

 

33 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Btw Bob, on the column you linked from the other Bob in Mich.

 

i agree wholeheartedly with the premise, and we can both agree that Joe McCarthy was a bad guy.  We can also agree on the willing participants who went along with the scheme being a massive part of the problem.

 

Personally, I see the application of this sentiment applying equally and forceful to Russia/Kavanaugh/Ukraine.   By that, I mean those who supported that type of tyrannical governmental corruption by Obama, Biden, Comey, DOJFBICIA Schumer McCain Harris et al are precisely the type of scoundrels he is writing about.  I realize you do not feel the same and this post ain’t about that.
 

This goes to my point on the moral high ground issue, and why, when someone attempts to assert in support of any of these clowns and schemes, and wants to discuss Trump personally, my response is typically to laugh and say how cute it is that they think their liar is less liarly than the guy I support.  

I was wondering as well, but got distracted by the nice looking lady in the middle.

 

Sure, I can see the McCarthy angle from the hyper prosecution angle.  I just don't agree that holding Trump accountable for the Ukraine scheme is hyper.  I realize too that you see it differently.

 

The lying thing, c'mon Len, Trump can not be trusted to tell the truth every day of every week.  He lies so much more so than (on my honor) than any politician I have ever heard speak.  His only rivals are his staff.  Holy crap that Kelly Ann Conway can spit out 3 lies before any normal person could interrupt or interject.  But I digress.....To say there is any level of equivalence cuz you can find a lie for them is not being sincere, imo. 

 

Question: Can you tell his lies from his truths when they happen?  If so, what is the tell or the clue?

 

If Trump were impeached of course Mr Pence is in the wings.  He is possibly worse than Trump on several issues from my perspective.  His 'faith' may guide him and that, if it wasn't fake, would be an improvement but the separation of church and state issues concern me.  This 'overturn the election' seems less outrageous though when you consider it was Trump/Pence and it would become Pence

Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Deranged Rhino]

It's hilarious to watch someone who blindly supported and applauded McCarthyian tactics come back months later and denounce McCarthy as a bad guy.  

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

31 minutes ago, B-Man said:

                             

 

 

 

 

 

                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Smitten Mitt.......another irrelevant whiny loser just like Hillary.......get effin' lost................

[Deranged Rhino]

 

When you lose Rolling Stone... 

 

And the award for the best troll tweet of the weekend: 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

How Not to Impeach a President

by George Parry

 

Original Article

 

With the 51 to 49 vote not to call witnesses, the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump is on track to an acquittal. And so the Trump impeachment saga is coming to an end not with a bang but a whine. “We wuz robbed!” shriek the foot-stomping Democrats as they repeat their poll-tested mantra that the trial was rigged because no witnesses were called to testify. Consequently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decreed that the president will remain impeached forever, and his presidency and all that flows from it will be deemed unclean and illegitimate. Obviously, this latest failed effort to depose Trump has left the Democrats frustrated, bitterly disappointed

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

How Not to Impeach a President

by George Parry

 

Original Article

 

With the 51 to 49 vote not to call witnesses, the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump is on track to an acquittal. And so the Trump impeachment saga is coming to an end not with a bang but a whine. “We wuz robbed!” shriek the foot-stomping Democrats as they repeat their poll-tested mantra that the trial was rigged because no witnesses were called to testify. Consequently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decreed that the president will remain impeached forever, and his presidency and all that flows from it will be deemed unclean and illegitimate. Obviously, this latest failed effort to depose Trump has left the Democrats frustrated, bitterly disappointed

 

 

 

.

 

...such a pathetic hack azzclown...."we will not accept the impeachment acquittal of President Trump"........gonna sue Schmuck?.........recommend hiring Avenatti as your lead counsel.......

[Deranged Rhino]

Hmm...

2018:  https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article214974800.html

 

2019: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article237959369.html

 

 

 

*****************************

Yup. 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Deranged Rhino

[Bob in Mich]

20 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Whistle Blower

 

 

Question:  I see you like to push to publicize this whistle blower's name.  Do you think doing so could make him or his family a bigger target to some unstable political zealot?

 

Is that really fair or, do you think he and his family should be attacked for being a whistle blower?  I mean even if you think he is a political operative, which I have not seen proven but if he was, should he be put in increased danger?

Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[B-Man]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Question:  I see you like to push to publicize this whistle blower's name.  Do you think doing so could make him or his family a bigger target to some unstable political zealot?

 

Is that really fair or, do you think he and his family should be attacked for being a whistle blower?  I mean even if you think he is a political operative, which I have not seen proven but if he was, should he be be put in danger?

 

 

No, I do not.

 

and he does not meet the actual criteria for the category of whistleblower anyway.

 

Quote

 

Two former co-workers said they overheard Ciaramella and Misko, close friends and Democrats, discussing how to “take out,” or remove, the new president from office within days of Trump’s inauguration. These co-workers said the president’s controversial Ukraine phone call in July 2019 provided the pretext they and their Democratic allies had been looking for.

“They didn’t like his policies,” another former White House official said. "They had a political vendetta against him from Day One.” 

 

 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Question:  I see you like to push to publicize this whistle blower's name.  Do you think doing so could make him or his family a bigger target to some unstable political zealot?

 

Is that really fair or, do you think he and his family should be attacked for being a whistle blower?  I mean even if you think he is a political operative, which I have not seen proven but if he was, should he be be put in danger?

not B-Man, however...

 

Bob, there is considerable question whether he is 'legally' a whistle blower or not. no one should be put in danger but, there deserves to be a fact finding operation to find out the specifics of his motive, his coming forward and who he collaborated with. it is all relevant. he would be in no more danger than other operatives who are being outed for their duplicitous role in the #moderdaywatergate. stop regurgitating the propaganda press talking points, think for yourself, Bob.

[Deranged Rhino]

11 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Question:  I see you like to push to publicize this whistle blower's name.  Do you think doing so could make him or his family a bigger target to some unstable political zealot?

 

Is that really fair or, do you think he and his family should be attacked for being a whistle blower?  I mean even if you think he is a political operative, which I have not seen proven but if he was, should he be put in increased danger?

 

There goes Bob again, believing the spin pushed by proven liars and manipulators. 

 

I ask Bob, if he's so concerned about the safety of whistleblowers, why was he silent when Nunes was facing death threats for blowing the whistle on the biggest scandal in IC history? 

 

 

[Albwan]

Democrats are so bad they are on the brink of losing their party to socialism.

ouch.

We've heard it a hundred times.

All they had to do was not be god awful.

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Albwan

[Deranged Rhino]