The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
Actually, it's been proven that John Bolton has direct knowledge of the abuse of power charged in the articles of impeachment. As there is a crime, according to the Government Accountability Office, that the aid was illegally withheld, Bolton can speak to that illegal action, which should nullify any executive privilege claims.
Do you know how much money Trump received from Russia as well, Joey. Post a meme about that since you're not a Trump supporter.
I didn't realize ALL the kids of Democrats work for Ukrainian gas and oil companies. Wow, is this the truth, or are you simply as honest as Trump, Joey?
I'll wager it's the latter!
I remember when this happened and wonder if there's a connection? DOH!
If you have the money, you can buy a congressperson.
If true, we need no other witnesses to prove such a strong case. The Manager claim this daily. Perhaps time to believe them, and vote.
Even with the illegal action of withholding the aid, as concluded by the Government Accountability Office, and the numerous witnesses that concluded why Trump withheld it, people like you still need a witness that heard he actually said he withheld it to get Biden investigations. The rest of us know it from the mountain of circumstantial evidence that already exists, and from which you deny its conclusion.
This from someone who obviously didn’t listen to one minute of the defense’s case. Only a dishonest person would weigh hearsay over the facts.
I do enjoy how you slip an insult into every post you make. I am reporting each one to the site because you use it as a trolling technique to escalate into abusive conversations.
Your claim I haven't listened to both sides is false, for starters. Second, there's plenty of facts in there. The only thing really missing is someone testifying that Trump said that he ordered the illegal hold on the aid to get investigations on Biden. Which is now something Bolton claims.Valeant: It's interesting that everybody is under oath, except the accused and that being Trump himself. He says whatever he wants and his lawyers present it as fact in their arguments.
I don't think he is even a credible witness given that he has lied and/or misinformed over 16,000 times in three years in office. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw his lying fat a**Bless your heart. Good for you. Trolls are nasty, and we shouldn't have to be subjected to their vitriol.
GA
Just a thought, but of that "mountain" of circumstantial evidence (meaning opinions of people) how many of those opinions came from people supporting Trump as president outside of this one illegal action and how many came from those with an axe to grind? Fired employees, for example?
Is your "mountain" resting on the sand of people that highly dislike the President and want him gone, or from truly unbiased people that are simply giving a well thought out conclusion based solely on what they saw/heard?Mountain of dung is all it is and they all know it! But their peon subjects who are duped by everything the Democrat leadership says don’t know anything but how to parrot the media propaganda.
So, if EVERY potential witness has it out for Trump what evidence will you accept outside of Trump's own account of events.
The point was "where are the witnesses that DON'T have it in for him?" What was THEIR opinion of what happened? Not every person in the US is biased; where are the opinions of those that are in that group?
It seems that if the witness doesn't have an axe to grind, if they don't want Trump ousted, their testimony was never asked for and never heard. Why not? Are not opinions from the other side valuable in determining whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict?Wilderness: So how do you find the witnesses that don't have it in for Trump? Do they fill out a questionnaire? Who interviews them? Are they under oath? Don't forget all of the witnesses so far have been under oath.
None of this matters because Dershowitz said that he can do anything he wants and it will not be grounds for removal as long as it is in the public interest. In other words he is above the law. Hail King Trump and kiss our republic away. But what Trump did was not in the public interest, it was in his own personal interest, according to the house.
His lawyers don't care that they are setting that precedent for future presidents. They just want Trump acquitted because they are being paid big bucks by the GOP and Trump contributors. Who knows we as tax payers may be paying for the lawyers.
All of this happens because there is a controlling majority of dems in the house and a controlling majority of GOP in the senate. They each have their own set of rules and they don't interface very well with each other. But it all ends up in the senate, they have the final say. However, don't forget, Trump has already been impeached. Now it's up to the senate if he gets removed.
I believe that the criteria for impeachment in the constitution is like reading scripture, it is subject to interpretation by the reader and is ruled upon by whomever has the highest authority and power in the process."Don't forget all of the witnesses so far have been under oath."
Are you suggesting they lied under oath when people disliking Trump gave an opinion of what they thought he was thinking of? I don't see that being under oath would affect pure opinions one way or the other. But being angry with the President surely will, for strong bias has a way of changing conclusions and rationales in our own minds without us realizing it.
"None of this matters because Dershowitz said that he can do anything he wants and it will not be grounds for removal as long as it is in the public interest."
Now, I see this being repeated by many liberal sources, all of which don't want to think that a vague "abuse of power" is insufficient grounds for impeachment. The problem is that Dershowitz never said that at all; it is purely spin from those that didn't like his testimony as to the legality of the articles of impeachment. Contrary to your statement, Dershowitz made it very, very plain that the president cannot perform illegal acts; that such acts (when they rise to the level of Treason or Bribery) are impeachable. Spitting on the sidewalk is not, though.
"His lawyers don't care that they are setting that precedent for future presidents. They just want Trump acquitted because they are being paid big bucks by the GOP and Trump contributors."
Is that not the job of a lawyer? Do you expect a defense lawyer to promote evidence of guilt because they think a verdict of innocent will harm the country? Do you truly see the job of a defense lawyer as anything but work towards, and get, a verdict of "not guilty"? If so, we have a VERY different view of their appointed task, and really need to revisit the work of Hillary Clinton in getting a rapist set free as a court appointed Public Defender. I have faith you will back off of this particular complaint; it is ill considered in the extreme.
Yes, it is because of differing power levels in the congress, and because of nearly total, 100% bi-partisan voting. The next question can only be: "Given that the matter is NOT black and white, cut and dried, how is it that we see a near total partisan vote if it isn't about politics rather than constitutional law"? Do you think that having a "D" in front of their name gives them an avenue to Truth with a capital T, or did those 200 Democrats vote the party line without regard to Truth as they believed it, just as Republicans must have done (their "R" makes everything they believe to be false, right?)?
Yes, he has been impeached. And the verdict from the Trial body is almost certainly going to be that that impeachment should never have happened, for he is innocent. What will future generations think of a Democrat House that voted a partisan line for an impeachment without evidence to support it?
Yes, the criteria is like reading scripture. But, after saying a dozen times or more that the criteria was whatever the House wanted it to be I've changed my mind. A crime is necessary, for the President is not serving at the will of Congress, but at the will of the people. If we allow subjective claims to be the criteria we have a truly MAJOR problem (far, far greater than a president that cheats in an election), whereas if Treason, Bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors means exactly what it says ((other high crimes, not forgetting that a misdemeanor IS a crime) the worse we get is a President that could rule for 8 years vs a political ploy to impeach every president without a political majority in the House for the life of the country. And removal if they are unlucky enough to have both House and Senate on the other side of the partisan table.Oh hell, I really hate 'hell yeah' accolades, but I agree with your response.
GA'A vague abuse of power'
Illegally (as confirmed by the Government Accountability Office) withholding military aid to the country in a war with the country that attacked our 2016 elections in order to solicit foreign interference (a violation of campaign laws) to smear his 2020 election rival is hardly vague.
Sondland gave a million to Trumps inauguration party. Does this count as supporting him?
Wilderness is taking the very Trumpian stance that if they aren't for me, they are an enemy. Even though every single person who testified works for the administration. Dan is just setting himself up to discount the testimony of Bolton, who is the only one not currently in the employ of the government, because he understands that's the missing piece to the puzzle where he won't be able to excuse the abuse of power when he says Trump told him he withheld the aid for a Biden investigation - which is what Bolton has claimed in his book had happened.
Randy, if you were given the point of Bolten's testimony, that he would corroborate the Democrat House contentions, would that be proof for you that his actions warrant removal from office?
Would that clarity rise to the level of a High Crime or Misdemeanor? Obviously I don't think so, but I am asking if you do.
Here is a clue to what comes next; can you use the same rationale to defend Pres. Obama's 'hot mic' moment with the Russians?
What is the 'crime', or corrupt motive that you can point to that differentiates between the two?
GA
Not sure if you realize human beings all have thought processes. It is very clear the country is well divided on what they think about this impeachment. I don't quote polls because they change on a moment's notice or a media report. For us to argue about this impeachment proceeding would be futile, it would not benefit either of us. It is clear we have very different ways of looking at what should be considered reasons for impeachment.
And you are correct I would need factual firsthand evidence to condemn anyone of wrongdoing. And yes it is your prerogative to come to a conclusion solely by believing the witnesses that the
House has provided., all very solid well versed in their fields.
My comment was just actually agreeing with the point you have tried to make. Your comment clearly provides the opinion the House has built a strong case. All I pointed out if it is believed to be so strong, we do not need to hear from any further witnesses. I certainly do not need to hear from any other witnesses. I have believed from the first days of this procedure that it was unconstitutional. I still do. The case seems weak, and ill-prepared. The manager seems ill-prepared to answer questions from their own party, and just don't address most questions in the proper context.
Just my opinion, after watching the trial for days, the managers are under water, and it's time to pull the plug.You keep beating a dead horse. We get it, you don't believe the testimony and evidence that was presented.
You are willing to excuse obstructing an investigation to get that direct testimony that all the other evidence points to, that Trump withheld aid to get an announcement of an investigation in the Bidens to smear his chief political rival in 2020. According to reports from what he claims in his book, Bolton's testimony would be that Trump admits withholding the aid for just that reason.
Why you don't want to hear that testimony before coming to your conclusion is odd to me. It's directly relevant to the charges, and Bolton has said he's willing to testify now, where as he was willing to stall in the courts previously. So there is now no reason to block him from telling what he knows.What is there not to believe? Trump said he called and asked for an investigation; all that's left is to disbelieve that some people have an opinion that the call was to affect the next election; hard not to believe they think that, or at least SAY they do. I guess one could disbelieve that they actually hold that opinion, but that would be hard to do when they have such obvious reasons for bias.
Only if it's an opinion that Trump legally withheld the aid, which it is not. Only if you see bias in anyone that stands up to Trump's lawlessness, which you seem to be making the argument for. I guess when it's your cult leader, you'd see everyone against your cult.
"You keep beating a dead horse. We get it, you don't believe the testimony and evidence that was presented. "
And let me repeat once more. I have nothing derogatory to say about any of the witnesses. I have said I found them truthful, and all had exemplary reputations in their fields. None sought to lie or distort their testimony. Once again, The evidence they offered I am sure is true. The problem is it is second-hand, hearsay, and opinion-oriented.
I am very willing at this point after listening to all of this trial to agree with your sentiment, no I do not feel I need any further witnesses. I feel the House should have done their job correctly. As the defense has pointed out the House did not follow protocol and rushed to trail.
" According to reports from what he claims in his book, Bolton's testimony would be that Trump admits withholding the aid for just that reason."
"According to," "claims" "would be"... This is where we truly think differently, those words have no place in condemning someone of a crime.
In previous posts, I have expressed that to be fair this book should be looked at by both House managers and the defense team in a closed setting. And if there is first-hand evidence that is relevant to the articles of impeachment it should be heard in the trial. An impeachment trial is not meant to be the discover phase.
In my opinion, this was a political ploy that just went terribly bad. Yes, we all knew ultimately where this would all end up. But please keep in mind so did they.'As the defense has pointed out the House did not follow protocol and rushed to trail.'
So, you feel it is acceptable to stall in the courts, nine months in the case of Don McGahn, which would have meant this impeachment would have occurred during the final stages of the Presidential election?
Now Bolton is not taking McGhan's stance, he said he is willing to testify in the Senate. Reports are out that his book has made a claim that proves the central motive of Trump's abuse.
You don't believe a trial is where witnesses should come to testify? That as new evidence that has been discovered since the House conducted their inquiry, should be applicable, because the House did not 'discover' it.
I'm glad you believe the contents of the book should be accessible to the Senate. Why not just let Bolton be deposed? His information has come out since the trial began, and it is clearly relevant.
And this political ploy as you call it, where the House has said it is not permissible to violate campaign laws to solicit foreign interference in our elections by illegally withholding aid to a country at war with the country that attacked our elections in 2016, is showing the GOP for what it is - A party that cares not for holding Trump accountable for his clear crimes or for having fair elections. Think of how many of the 80% of the country that wants Bolton called they will alienate by not calling him to be complicit in this cover up."So, you feel it is acceptable to stall in the courts, nine months in the case of Don McGahn, which would have meant this impeachment would have occurred during the final stages of the Presidential election?"
Yes, with something as important as impeaching a president--- Yes.
As I said, I think the Bolton book should be read behind closed doors by Managers and the defense team. If information is firsthand it should be considered evidence.
What I have learned over the past days is an impeachment trial is not like a criminal trial. The House was responsible for the investigation as well as charging the articles of impeachment. Only after building a strong case are the articles to be brought to the Senate for the trial. The trail can have witnesses that pertain to the evidence that has been presented. It is not a time for discovery. If new information does come up it is up to the Senate to vote if they feel the evidence further proves the articles.
Do you not feel the House expected the Senate majority would vote against witnesses? This is the reason it disappoints me the House did not go the mile to hear all witnesses they felt would prove their case. It also makes me very suspicious that this was an orchestrated political ploy. A ploy that I don't feel needs to be prolonged.
Sorry I don't at all buy the concern of the Dems in regards to "poor Ukraine" and the withholding the aid.
"Three of the Managers voted not to even provide that aid "In its time of need, these three impeachment managers told Ukraine to go to Hell. The vote was a lopsided 359-54, with Nadler, Lofgren, and Jeffries among the minority who just said no to this bill and its aid to Ukraine." So the facts show these three Congressmen could have cared less about the Ukrians defending themselves...
And all three of them for two days now have given the sad tale of how Trump prevented the Ukrain from defending themselves. Trump, has been very generous with Ukraine, as well as providing them with Javelins.
Just my opinion, Trump just did not or does not need anyone's help to win the next election. But, you know what this impeachment procedure has done nothing but bolster his chances.
The one thing that I am most curious about. Why didn't the realize after Trump won they needed to redo their playbook, and just come up with a good candidate with an attractive agenda? Please do not take this as sarcastic, this comment was not in any respect meant to be sarcastic.So you don't buy into the fact that the Government Accountability Office says that the withholding of the aid was illegal? Who cares what the vote was, it was approved and Trump withholding it was illegal.
Why would the Senate vote against witnesses when every Impeachment ever held there, all 15 of them, have had witnesses?
And with Bolton's information, you want it where the American people cannot hear it for themselves?
And when every poll had Trump getting beat by Biden, the only opinion that mattered was Trump's believing he needed to smear Biden to win, the same way he smeared Clinton. She locked up yet, by the way? Oh, that's right, his administration found no criminality.
Biden's a moderate with a history of service to this country. He will appeal to all the Democrats, many independents, and those non-cult Trumpers. He's clearly the biggest threat to Trump and the polls reflect that."Oh, that's right, his administration found no criminality."
You're kidding, right? Trump is on trial for asking some people to ignore a subpoena, which they did with no repercussions. The defense in the trial has made an excellent case in that the subpoenas were illegal because the House never voted on passing their authority to a small committee, as required - they appear to be correct as there haven't been any repercussions to those that refused.
Clinton on the other hand, had hard drives physically destroyed - hard drives that had been legally subpoenaed. Is it your opinion that that action was legal - it is OK to avoid a legal subpoena by destruction of the property demanded?
Nor does that even begin to address the hundred plus emails found put illegally on a private server, or the erasure of more thousands. No criminality, right!Try to read my statements more closely buddy. Did the Trump administration find criminality? Did they lock her up? If you're claiming she broke all those laws, why didn't they charge her? Because they did not find that it rose to the level of a criminal offense.
You can certainly make your case, but I'm not talking about a Trump loyalist like you, I was talking about the Trump administration.
"Think of how many of the 80% of the country that wants Bolton called they will alienate by not calling him to be complicit in this cover up.'
In the end, the election will give some meaning to your thought. It would be hard to determine how the impeachment outcome will affect the election. Too many variables to consider. The Dem's gambled, and we all know there are winners and losers with any gamble. Just my opinion, but I think Trump will win due to his job performance. Many have become accustomed to his personality, and just ignore it or love it.Yes, indeed they have, Shar. More's the pity. I can neither ignore or love a crook.
I respect that. You believe in your convictions and have every right to do so. You are certainly not alone.
Thanks Shar, and get ready for the fit to hit the shan when Bolton finally speaks. It should be around the time the House gets Trump's tax returns. Better tighten your seat belt for rough ride.
Randy, I will be first in line to get that book. You do realize Bolton has the right to give a statement or better yet an interview. I believe it won't be long before he does do an interview. I am not sure what we will hear from Bolton, but I would think it will be damming. I mean one on one with Trump...
I don't think Trump's taxes will reveal any form of fraud or illegal dealings with foreign nations. I think they may reveal he paid little taxes due to our tax laws. However, this would not be a crime. I know I try to pay the least taxes using any and all the breaks I can get.
Hey, I am hopeful the IRS has been doing their job.The assumption is that the IRS, the agency used to target conservative charities under a Democratic president, has ignored massive tax cheating in the primary Republican target.
So another whatabout? Trump's appointed IRS dude has already exhibited a penchant for refusing to release any of the required audits of the POTUS. This hasn't happened before. But then, we didn't have a king until now.
Long Live King Trump! And an even longer life to the United States, where the Law rules rather than curiosity and desire for what you have no right to.
Well, Prince Dan, you sound right pleased a criminal escaped justice. I'll bet you felt the same way after OJ's trial, right?
You got the first part right, Wilderness. Come Wednesday, the Trumplicans will anoint Trump King.
As to the second part, the United State's Constitution will become defunct was will the idea of America with it.
Go figure. What will be next? It seems like the Dems are just rushing to their own destruction.
They are, IMO. They have refused to acknowledge the message that was sent with Trump's election - while their massive political and media effort to discredit anything and everything he has accomplished will undoubtedly show results, it's hard to believe that it will be successful in more than a relatively few minds.
Just remember that the 2018 midterms soundly rejected Trump and most of the women that were for him have turned against the bullying misogynist.
Also remember, it took the Russians and Comey to change relatively few minds that got him elected in the first place - less than 90,000 or .5% to be more specific.
Here is how Wilderness sees things.
1. IF 100% of the applications for a tax free organization came from Republicans and the IRS investigated even ONE of them, they targeted conservative charities.
2. IF 80% (closer to the truth) came from conservative organizations and 20% from liberal ones and assuming the each side tried to cheat in equal proportions and the IRS investigated the suspicious ones meaning 8 out of 10 were from conservative cheaters and 2 out of 10 were from liberal cheaters, THEN Wilderness would STILL say the IRS was picking on the conservatives.
3. I suspect that if the IRS only picked on ONE conservative application, he would probably say the IRS was picking on the conservatives.Different subject, but why do you think most (80%) of charitable organizations are from conservatives rather than the "party of the people"? Not enough money in it for Democrats? They would rather use the IRS for their donations than freely given help? Because charities don't buy votes?
Because that is something close to what that IRS reported was the breakdown of applications for that type of exemption. It might have been 70/30 but the point is the same.
Hopefully you don't devalue your properties for Tax purposes, and then list them as valuable assets for the purpose of borrowing money as Trump has.
But then, now he's immune from oversight from Congress. So no big deal.No, I don't get that fancy... LOL
Immune? I think if they go after him again, they will dot all their i's.It wouldn't make any difference to the Cons in the Senate. As long as Trump can prevent any oversight, he's home free. You really don't think it will embolden him even further? BWAHAHAHA!
I thought you were serious for a minute there, Shar!They will go after more information again, for sure. And Trump will simply ignore them since there is no consequence.
So long as there are enough Trumplicans in the Senate, he won't be convicted no matter what he does.
Shar,
The tax forms don't require you reveal specifically the kinds of things that are going to get Trump in trouble.
They don't require him to show specifically his dealing with Russian oligarchs - the foreign angle
They don't require him to show he kept two sets of property valuation books, one for tax purposes and one for loan purposes - for the domestic angle which you didn't mention.
What they will show is plenty of fodder for investigation when put together with other information the tax man doesn't get.
Actually, if investigation showed he paid too little taxes on purpose, that IS fraud which could get him tossed in jail. That is how they got Al Capone.
Given his personality, which you certainly have the right to disregard, how could you not think he would 1) cheat on his taxes like he has cheated on everything else in his life and 2) deal with nefarious people for fraudulent goals. Everything about him screams that he would.
It doesn't all come down to your misperception that he has done a lot of good things for America. It comes down to his total lack of moral character.
I doubt they will see his tax returns. Even thought Roberts and the liberals will vote to release them, since Trump doesn't believe in the rule of law he will simply file another lawsuit and different grounds to prevent that from happening.
There will be more and more drips each day, Scott. I want to see it rubbed in the faces of the Republican Senators and their enablers. I'll do my part as a patriot and not a Trumplican.
"Many have become accustomed to his personality, and just ignore it or love it."
I am tempted to leave America because of what his personality does to this country and that so many people think that is a good thing. I want to live in a country I am proud of and fought for. If Trump is what that is, I want to take back my service and tax dollars and give them to a nation that deserves them.
A Trump America is not an America worth giving my life for. His personality has disgraced us.That is your opinion. It's apparent many do not feel the way you do. Trump will be the president perhaps for five more years, and then another will take his place. It would be your prerogative to leave the country. It seems very dramatic to me. In my opinion, his years in office have served me well, as it did my family and many of my friends.
"A Trump America is not an America worth giving my life for. His personality has disgraced us."
That is also your opinion. The election will be telling.It's apparent many more disagree with your opinion, Shar. Over 75%, with some polls having it up in the 80's, for new witnesses and documents to be included in the Senate trial.
Do you really think they'll be happy with what the Republicans in the Senate did? Seriously? Even a large number of those on the Right wanted new evidence as well.
The cover-up stinks, as many realized after the vote to exclude new evidence was tallied. What will be their excuse for not hearing evidence after Bolton speaks and the documents come out? Do you have any suggestions for them?My comment was dealing with or I should say in response to MY ESOTERIC feelings about Trump's personality. He expressed he feels like leaving the country due to Trump.
In regard to the general publics' feelings on seeing documents and hearing some added witnesses, the polls have indicated 75% wanted to hear more witnesses. Polls also show almost split down the middle that many felt Trump should have not been impeached. The election will tell all.
I did not want to hear new witnesses in the trial. But, I did hope that we would hear them during the investigation phase. I think we needed to look much deeper into the allegations.
I can't come to call this a cover-up. I call it our Government. The same one that had me so disillusioned in 2016. The one that still thinks they can continue down that same old path. Many of us just won't be satisfied with the status quo anymore. As I said the election will be all telling.
In regards to the Boltin info. I want to wait to see what he has to say before commenting too much. So much over the past few years has been hyped, and then fizzles out. Keep in mind the House can always impeach him again or at least censure his actions.Again, do have any suggestions for excuses the Senate Republicans can use,when Bolton blows the whistle on Trump, and other evidence comes out proving he indeed bribed the Ukraine?
Randy, Trumplicans don't need excuses - Trump can do no wrong. Look at how he tore up McConnell yet McConnell still kisses his ass. Sessions, Sass, Graham, Rubio and a host of others fall into the same category. The only two who are true Republicans who will soon see his God-like wrath again are Romney and Collins.
Hell, even Alexander agreed that Trump did bribe the Ukrainians and he said "so what"
"Polls also show almost split down the middle that many felt Trump should have not been impeached. " - AND that they do Shar.
But those same polls are up from 36% six months ago; quite an increase. I have to wonder what they would have increased to had the testimony and documents been allowed? I think it might have gotten as high as 65% to 70%. Why no higher? Because people like Wilderness, and I suppose you, will never think he is guilty of anything unless he gets on a stage and says "I did it".
I don't think the House will impeach him again unless he does get reelected; then they will have four years to get things through the court system. I do think (hope) they will Censure him Maybe even the Senate will since it only takes a simple majority.
Rather than give you the whole article, here is what Wikipedia had to say:
There have been four cases in U.S. history where the House of Representatives or the Senate adopted a resolution that, in its original form, would censure the president. However, the censure of President Andrew Jackson "remains the clearest case of presidential censure by resolution."[4] In 1834, while under Whig control, the Senate censured Jackson, a member of the Democratic Party, for withholding documents relating to his actions in defunding the Bank of the United States.[5] During the waning months of Jackson's term, his Democratic allies succeeded in expunging the censure.[6]
In 1860, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution admonishing both President James Buchanan and Secretary of the Navy Isaac Toucey for allegedly rewarding contracts on the basis of "party relations." The House may have intended this resolution as a lesser reprimand than a formal censure.[7]
In two other cases, the Senate adopted a resolution that was originally introduced to censure the president, but that, in its final form, did not overtly censure the president.[4] In 1864, during the American Civil War, Senator Garrett Davis introduced a resolution to censure President Abraham Lincoln for allowing two individuals to resume their service as generals after winning election to Congress. The final resolution adopted by the Senate required generals to be "re-appointed in the manner provided by the Constitution," but did not overtly censure Lincoln. In 1912, Senator Joseph Weldon Bailey introduced a resolution censuring President William Howard Taft for allegedly interfering with a disputed Senate election. The final Senate resolution did not specifically refer to Taft, but stated that presidential interference in a disputed Senate race would warrant censure.[7]"Because people like Wilderness, and I suppose you, will never think he is guilty of anything unless he gets on a stage and says "I did it"."
You are correct in part. I am not accustomed to calling anyone guilty without factual evidence. As I have expressed I would have appreciated the House do a better job with their investigation. I will never know any more than I know today. I blame the House for that... But no I am not jumping on let's burn the president without any real evidence or if come evidence.I suspect you will vote not guilty in most jury trials given the very high bar you set for what you think are facts.
For me:
Sondland's testimony was factual
"In his original opening statement, he said "inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the purpose of influencing an upcoming U.S. election would be wrong. Withholding foreign aid in order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong. And then, as we will see, he lied "I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings.""
He initially told congressional investigators that he, Volker and Energy Secretary Rick Perry disagreed with Trump’s request for them to work with Giuliani, but said he felt he could not ignore a directive from the commander-in-chief.
"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.” This is where Sondland corrects the previous lie and links Trump directly to the corrupt quid pro quo.
Hill's testimony was factual
"She called Sondland’s efforts in Ukraine a “domestic political errand” greenlighted by the president’s top advisers and which “diverged” from official U.S. policy in the region." Why would she say such a thing?? What had she heard before the call to lead her to that drastic conclusion?
"In her public hearing, Hill said the idea that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election -- which has been pushed by Trump and some Republicans -- was a “fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.” This is not opinion, she is an expert on Russia.
Vindman's testimony was factual
Volker's testimony and text messages were factual
Why would he text “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Why do so many of the witnesses say the same thing?
The emails saying Trump withheld the aid for unknown reasons are factual.
The fact that he did not report the hold to Congress is factual
Kent's testimony was factual
"During his public hearing, Democratic Rep. Jim Himes asked Kent if he witnessed Trump engaging in policy focused on countering corruption in Ukraine, to which Kent responded, “I do not.”
McKinley's testimony was factual
In transcripts released by House investigators, McKinley said he was disturbed by a push to use U.S. diplomatic missions "to procure negative political information for domestic purposes," as well as a "failure" at the State Department to support the American diplomatic corps. - Here is another case of an experienced diplomat in Ukrainian affairs who has the same concerns as everyone else. What has he seen and heard from Pompeo, Trump, and others to make him draw that logical conclusion?
And there is so much more.It's hopeless to cite facts, Scott. Believe me....I've tried that route. I'm giving up on her until Bolton speaks. Then I'll engage her in a discussion again.
You can lead a horse...
It seems that 'polls' might be getting a lot more attention than they deserve—for both parties.
GANot when all of them, pro and con, agree somewhat.
I am glad Trump has served you and yours well; I would argue that Clinton would have done you better.
But the fact is that, beyond you, he has not served America well.
Personally, I care about America more than myself. That is why I once risked my life for her. Today, I wouldn't do it again, if I could.
The house has already impeached Trump. His lawyers argue that abuse of power and obstruction of congress don't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Since he has already been impeached, this argument is really about should he be removed from office?
The senate and his lawyers say no and the only reason the house wants him removed from office is to take him out of the election. But they have no proof this is the case.
His lawyers also say that are not going to allow any further witnesses because the house didn't use the proper subpoena procedures In fact, they even wrote an eight page letter to Pelosi telling her they were not going to cooperate with the investigation. This was followed by McConnell saying that the senators would be in lock-step with whatever Trump wanted.
And then they have the gall to say the house didn't do their job properly, therefore, they are not going to allow any further witnesses.
I believe if a disinterested third party had been watching the house proceedings and then the senate, they would say this is a a very one sided process that is a cover up for Trump. It goes back to one thing, if Trump is innocent, why are they not coming forth with witnesses that can prove that? Instead, they are attacking the messenger.Is it possible that an unbiased observer might also ask that if the House has built the solid case they claim, then why are more witnesses necessary?
Why is it now proclaimed to be the Senate's duty to investigate the "crime" rather than sit in judgment of the charges presented, as is their Constitutional duty?
GAGA: The house did the job they were supposed to do. It was one of oversight. They were restricted by Trump, his lawyers and the GOP senate from getting the witnesses they wanted.
They were stonewalled at every request. Then they tell the house, they didn't do a good enough job. It's like giving a mechanic a screwdriver to overhaul an engine in so much time when he needs a full set of tools. And when the time runs out and he didn't overhaul the engine, they tell him sorry you failed.
Further, the lawyers said that even if Trump did all the things that he was charged with, it doesn't matter because he did it for his election which is in the best interest of the people.
That means any future president can do the same thing in an election year and be immune from prosecution because their effort does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office. What's wrong with this picture as it is the new normal?I am of the hope the overreach by the Republicans leads to the same fate for their party that happened to the Federalists when they went overboard - dissolution.
I can see it now - all of the ads coming out against the Republicans showing they told most of America to go screw ourselves because we wanted a FAIR TRIAL. Instead, they got a phony one.Yep. The Senate reared up on its hind legs and defied a completely partisan House that had grossly abused its power and demanded it continue to do the same by forcing the Senate to ignore the constitution and follow the edicts of the House.
A day of infamy for the Senate that defied the will of the Pelosi and the House. Not - although badly scarred and smudged by their own (expected) partisanship, still a shining example of how the constitution works compared to the political machinations of the House Democrats.The Republicans denied the will of most Americans according to several polls. I hope they strike back in November.
They didn't rear up at all, they knelt to the new king and kissed his ass. Bravo for them and their party!If they knelt, then they weren't kissing his ass. Instead, they are sucking his ...
Don't think I didn't consider using that phrase, Scott.
:-)
Do you think when Trump shows up at the State of the Union that 51 Republican Senators will stand-up at their desks and then kneel to their king?Not sure why you would think he would not show up. He has so much great news to share with fellow. American's. the speech most likely will run over.
You avoided commenting on the Senators kneeling to their new king, Shar. Was this on purpose?
I was avoiding that part of the comment. I don't believe the Senate bowed to the king. I think they followed protocol and stood by the Constitution. Plus the Defense presented a very good case against impeachment.
So why did several Republican Senators say the House proved its case, but it wasn't enough to remove the cretin?
Yes, they indeed bowed to the king. I hope they lose their seats for such duplicity. I;m sure gonna try my best to remove them because they refuse to take their oversight duty seriously.
Rand Paul showed how much he took his duty seriously. he and other were reading a magazine or doing something else during the semi-trial. Shame on them! Is this what you consider a Senator should do? Probably!Semi-Trial? You are being too kind, Randy. It was no trial at all.
I give up Randy. Shar just didn't get the sarcasm.
That should say something about resorting to sarcasm.
GAOr those who don't understand the sarcasm, right Gus?
hehe.
I guess Alice and Wonderland or Gulliver's Travels should not have been written. Conservatives probably didn't get it.[EDITED]
Hmm . . . Satire, Metaphorical writing, Sarcasm. Are they synonymous?
GA
Read my reply again, Shar. Your comment had nothing to with it.
If Trump is going to talk about all the great things he did in 2019, he might as well not show up at all. There were none.
What is he going to say?
- The economy is doing as well as Obama's?
- The stock market is slightly outperforming Omaba's?
- The total job openings have been declining?
- That Fires are almost equal to Hires now?
- Manufacturing job growth is flat?
- Farm bankruptcies are rising?
- The trade deficit is the worst since at least 2000? (You know, that thing Trump promised to turn into a surplus)
- That GDP remained flat at 2.1% in the 4th Quarter 2019?
- That the National Debt is skyrocketing at the fastest rate since the Great Republican Recession of 2018?
- That net business investment is flat?
- That the deficit and deficit to GDP ratio are higher than it was in 2012 and growing fast?
- That Real Median Family Income has yet to reach the GOPTaxScam goal?
- That his Average Weekly Earnings growth is less than the last three years of Obama's?
- That the Participation Rate has improved marginally above Obama's?
- He can say that his unemployment rates got even better than the low rates Obama left him
- That the Average Weeks out of Work is increasing? (although a couple of more reports are need to see if that is a trend)
- He can say the Weeks out of Work are continuing the decline Obama started across all categories except the 5 - 14 week group
- That Food Stamp usage appears to be on the rise? (unless he carries through with his plans to limit eligibility and make people more food insecure - something I know Wilderness approves of)
- That Manufacturing is in a recession right now?
- That the Consumer Sentiment Index has been declining for the last two years?
- The Consumer Confidence Index has been declining since June 2018?
- That total Auto Sales have been declining since Oct 2017?
- That the uninsured American rate has been steadily increasing since he took office?
Where do I rate Trump Blue (doing better than Obama)?
- Dow Jones
- Participation Rate
- UE Rate
- U6 Rate
Where do I rate Trump Yellow or Red?
- GDP: Net Trade
- Deficit
- Public Debt
- Avg Weeks out of Work
- Food Stamp Use
- Manufacturing Index
- Auto Sales
- Avg Weekly Earning: All (b/c his growth rate is lower than Obama's)
- Avg Weekly Earning: Workers (b/c his growth rate is lower than Obama's)
TELL me again what Trump can really brag about that he has done better than Obama?All I can say is we certainly look at Trump's job record differently. I honestly feel Trump's job performance is the best I have ever realized in my lifetime.
It isn't a matter of opinion, I can back mine up with facts, Shar, what have you got to match my list above?
All I have heard from you is that your personal retirement account is doing well (which it probably would have under Clinton, if not better - no trade war to hold it down).
Damn Scott! I wouldn't be talking about sinking to new lows.
GADid you see the NYT article where in Bolton's book he claims Cipollone was in the room with him, Trump, Mulvaney, and Rudy in early May when Trump told them to investigate the Bidens.
Cipollone, as you know, is the WH counsel arguing his case in the Senate trial. This makes him a fact witness in the case. Remember when Schiff said he needed to recuse himself from the case?No, I haven't seen that article. I have heard blurbs in the trial today, but I am unfamiliar with the details.
I understand it to be based on more leaked manuscript quotes. Is that right? If so, doesn't that require a judgment to accept or deny uncorroborated hearsay?
I think I will wait. But, I am inclined to believe it. For all the criticisms lobbed at Bolten—in the past, I don't remember being a liar or self-promoter being included.
GADo you think, Randy, that somebody might go after Cipollone's law license? I have a feeling he has broken a dozen professional ethics laws and maybe a couple of criminal laws to boot.
Sorry, GA, just calling it as I see it. That is how low the Republicans have sunk. I am probably being too polite on the group that is willfully tossing our Constitution into the trash bin. But the Constitution means to much to me to be polite any longer. Especially since the dark side sees politeness as being a weakness.
At this point in time, I look on the Republican party as the Federalists looked on the Tories.
No, the Cover-Up Republicans reared up on their hind legs and will let a criminal continue to destroy America while at the same time ceding their constitutional authority to the Executive Branch.
Our last hope is that Roberts doesn't want a King (although his four conservative members do).
Worse, the Republicans in the impeachment said the Ds should have gone to court. The Republicans in court argued the court cannot rule on such a request.
Which Republican is right?I like your mechanic comparison. It's as if that mechanic didn't use the right wrench to remove the engine heads and instead spent his time polishing the engine and making it look pretty. Still the same old, broken engine, but it's pretty and shiny now.
Had the House used the proper tools (giving its committees the power of subpoena, making counsel available to administration members), they might have "gotten the heads off the engine"; instead they used a screwdrive to try and remove bolts. Didn't work, did it?
Nor did it help when a gaping 6" hole was found in the side of the engine, making it unrepairable - the House answer was to simply pretend the hole isn't there and proceed with their polishing. Had the House found actual impeachable crimes it might have been different, but they didn't so all that was left was unconstitutionally vague mutterings about how the house thinks it was "abuse of power".
If you don't want future presidents exercising their power, remove it. Either make a law they can't do whatever it is you don't like (and face the inevitable constitutional challenges) or change the constitution to make the President subordinate to the House. You might have a little trouble there, too, given the opinion of most Americans as to the ethics of our legislature.Wilderness: Please show me in the constitution where it says that because in an election year that the president is immune to any wrong doing because no matter what he does, it is in the best interest of the public.
The facts are Trump's lawyers presented that as law, when it was nothing more than Dershowitz's theory that was presented as law.
He even said it was because he learned something new. Great, he learns something new and now we have a new normal where a president can operate above the law as a king. Dershowitz is a teacher and the senate trial is not a classroom where he can try out his new found theory. But that is precisely what they did.
As I said before, high crimes and misdemeanors is like reading scripture, it can be interpreted to mean many things. And who ever has the higher power wins in their interpretation.I see Wilderness entirely missed your point again. Not surprising though.
It doesn't make any difference now. Tomorrow will become a day of infamy - the worst day in American history - the day America became an autocracy with the acquittal of TraitorTrump. It will be a long time, if ever, before we ever recover our self-respect and have three co-equal branches of government.
Even if, and I think they will, the Democrats take the White House and the Senate, the Republicans will have turned over all power to the executive branch; Congress no longer can investigate the executive branch. Further, the Republicans, who have become mindless rubber stamps, have told the president "if he does it, it is not illegal".
Assume that the Ds do sweep it all. I have no fear that the Ds will abuse the system, but I can guarantee you the next Republican will take full advantage of the opening created for them.
Makes me sick to my stomach.
Sharlee, I can agree with your comment. If the House case is as strong and complete as they proclaim, then there is no need for more witnesses.
Of course, there are still unanswered questions, but if the House has decided they don't need those answers for impeachment, then why are they needed now. The Senate's job is to judge the House's case, not make or refute their claims.
GASo in trials, no new evidence should ever be added if it's discovered after the grand jury. That's your argument? Seriously?
51% of the country can see that the House case leads to removal. Getting Bolton to confirm Trump told him the illegal withholding of aid was tied to Biden investigations is designed to sway the 19% of Americans that wanted him impeached but not removed from office. The last 32% like Shar and Dan are unreachable by whatever evidence exists."51% of the country can see that the House case leads to removal."
LOL Again, "Most of the country agrees with me; we should do what I think should be done! First, such a claim is worthless without actually asking those people. Second, it doesn't matter what 51% of the people think; it is up to the 100 people sitting in the Senate. We don't throw out the constitution because you don't like what it says, or because <an assumed> 51% of the people don't like it. Not even if a large majority don't like it - consider how many people wish term limits for congress but it still hasn't happened and isn't likely to.What? We should throw out the constitution because you don't like what it says? We should simply poll the people (while presuming polls are always accurate) as to what the constitution means every time such an issue comes up and use that opinion to define the meaning of that document?
Trump and his Republican Kool-Aide drinkers have already torn up the Constitution. Come later today, will lay at their feet in tatters because they pronounced Trump King.
I like how you make a 51% majority all about me. Very stalkerish of you. There you go putting words into people's mouths again. Reminds me of that time you supported sending minorities 'back to where they came from.'
And what I think is that 100 people sitting in the senate worry about the percentages of their constituents who view their individual choices with their voting. And this will be the second extremely unpopular choice they've backed regarding Trump, as his tax cut for the rich was criticized by those on both sides of the aisle because everyone has seen how trickle down does not pay for itself.I think it is 51 senators who have sold their souls to Trump.
No Valeant, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that the Senate's job was to judge the House's charges.
GAYes, the House made charges. In judging, evidence should be allowed to be presented, no? A claim Bolton makes pertinent to the charges became public after the trial started. Bolton testimony would provide evidence. You are saying that they should not seek that evidence if it comes after the charges are filed. Maybe you don't realize it, but that's the case you are making.
Perhaps I don't realize it. Then or now.
I recall the House claiming Bolten's testimony was important and would support their case well before the recent leak of his manuscript statement.
So it isn't really new evidence, and the House could have pursued his testimony prior to putting their charges to the Senate for judgment.
GANot knowing what he would say, but believing it could help explain it is a little different than it coming out in public and confirming the central charge of the case. The new evidence is that Bolton testimony would prove the case, as opposed to thinking it might.
I have a questions for the forum. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. But at least he showed up. Was Trump not subpoenaed because his people could not trust him to tell the truth, given he already has over 16,000 lies and misinformation on the books?
Guilanni advised him not to testify because he could get caught in a perjury trap. Why wasn't the house represented by legal council like the senate?
Trump has done what he always has done when he gets into trouble. He lawyers up and settles out of court. That's precisely what this trial was about, he surrounded himself with his group of high paid lawyers and settled out of court.
Jay Sekulow and Pat Cippollini are even his private council and might be in violation of conflict of interest. . And where was Guilianni in this whole mess? I know Trump doesn't know who he is. He might have met him once.
The constitution needs to specify exactly what high crimes and misdemeanors means to rise to the level of impeachment without interpretation by the prosecution and the defense. Otherwise, it is just subject to interpretation.I suppose Clinton wanted to give his side of the story. He still got caught lying, but can you Imagine Honest Don on the stand?
I agree there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution to clear things up. There wasn't a list of crimes listed at the time because there wasn't yet legal statutes for our young country. This needs to be seen to, or else we can never have an impeachment again for anything illegal or unethical."Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath <which is a crime>. " Those 4 words you left out seem relevant.
"Was Trump not subpoenaed because his people could not trust him to tell the truth, given he already has over 16,000 lies and misinformation on the books?"
Hard to say - you would have to ask Pelosi and the House. But whatever the reason, the fact is that he was not legally subpoenaed.
"That's precisely what this trial was about, he surrounded himself with his group of high paid lawyers and settled out of court."
Perhaps, if you don't accept the Senate trial as a "court". It isn't, of course, but neither has anything been "settled out of court".
"The constitution needs to specify exactly what high crimes and misdemeanors means to rise to the level of impeachment without interpretation by the prosecution and the defense. Otherwise, it is just subject to interpretation."
That would be nice, of course, but it would be rather difficult to expect the founders to know what each and every law that would ever be written would say, and then decide on an individual basis which ones rise to the level of Treason and Bribery. On the other hand they left it to us to determine which "other crimes" rise to the level of Treason and Bribery - that doesn't seem that difficult if only we are honest in the evaluation rather than using it as an opportunity to play political games. As a relevant example, is "abuse of power" in asking foreign help in investigating corruption equal to waging war against the US? Is refusal to answer illegal subpoena's equal to waging war against the US? I personally would suggest that we ask the survivors of Pearl Harbor that question and see what they would have to say about it, or maybe those that stormed the beaches of Normandy. If you want a wider selection, the survivors of Auschwitz might give an opinion.Or we could see the documents and hear from Bolton before they come out in public. And you know they will.
Trump has already given false or misleading answers to Mueller, so he damn sure don't want to be questioned as to his Ukraine extortion scheme.Wilderness: The message we are left with is that if there was a republican controlled house and republican controlled senate with a sitting democrat president who did what Trump did, he would be impeached and removed from office in a blink of an eye.
There is not a doubt in my mind. This is all about partisan politics. It's not about moral justice.
Senator Alexander, one of the republican senate swing voters said that what Trump did was improper, but it didn't rise to the level of capital punishment. The last time I looked capital punishment meant punishment by death. This is what I mean by interpretation of what is impeachable and what isn't. It's in the eye of the beholder and subject to political bias.
That clause in the constitution might have been O.K. for colonial times, but it doesn't work for modern times, in my humble opinion. Their focus was more on protecting the republic from tyranny and monarchy. As Randy said, there weren't even legal statutes or a list for crimes."There is not a doubt in my mind. This is all about partisan politics. It's not about moral justice."
We certainly agree on that! Although I would add that your "moral justice" is completely irrelevant; our constitution deals in law not the moral justice that changes every year and with every change in the power structure. Given the nearly completely partisan vote in the House, and the expected one in the Senate, there is no other conclusion available - it's not about truth, law or anything else but partisan politics.
You are correct; the framers were very concerned about tyranny and monarchy. As we should be, and that is exactly what we are seeing in this partisan folly. There is a very good reason those framers spent so much time and effort producing a government that was as limited as they could manage but still able to run a country, and that reason has changed not one iota. Indeed, if anything it has become ever more important to limit our government as we watch it grow every larger and submit to ever more control (and tyranny) by the rich and powerful that control our government. We even see this in the interpretation of "Treason, Bribery and other crimes..." to mean pretty much whatever politicians don't like, whether a crime or not.I guess Wilderness forgot that our Constitution was founded on moral and ethical principals. Try reading the Preamble Wilderness! They attempted to write laws and a process that enhanced morality and ethical behavior.
It is up to the People, through our representatives, behave in a moral and ethical behavior if they want to keep the Republic the founders created for them. The Democrats are trying to do that while it appears most of the Trumplicans are not.
We want our Flag to stand for something good. Trumplicans want it to stand for Trump.
What YOU left out with ""Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath <which is a crime>. " Those 4 words you left out seem relevant." is that "Lying under oath in a civil matter is NOT and abuse of power." and therefore not impeachable.
Consequently, what the Republicans did to Clinton as PURELY political. While what the Democrats did to Trump, while partly political was mostly required to be done by the Constitution - attempt to get a criminal out of office. Of course if McConnell hadn't turned his trial into a sham, who knows, there might have been enough patriotic Republicans to make the vote close.
At least the People would have known. Now all we can hope for is that they make McConnell and is group of Trumpicans pay for their duplicity at the voting booth.
And as we just saw "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has no meaning at all given nothing qualifies anymore.
You might be right. I guess we will know when his book comes out because I don't think he will be testifying.
GAWhich could become interesting. Should we expect a libel case against Bolton if he publishes? Will he publish at all if he can't testify, and have his accusations accepted as true and factual? Will the accusations in reference to the impeachment trial be simply deleted and then published?
I think he will still publish. Whether there are any administration-mandated revisions, or even any Bolten-driven revisions is another question.
I would guess that he will receive a lot of Democrat support—monetary or otherwise, to continue on the path to publication.
GAActually, I don't foresee a libel case. That would open up the entire thing to witnesses, proving who said what, and that is something that I doubt either side wants to happen.
But yes, he will receive Democrat support, both monetary and otherwise. It is a gem in the dirt filled elections we now produce.I can't see why Bolton would mind, beyond the delay in publication, witnesses testifying - it would only boost sales and bolster his statements.
Trump, on the other hand, would live in great fear.Uh huh. Unless he actually DID say that Trump told him the goal was to affect the election, whereupon he's in deep doo doo. I know that's what everybody thinks he's going to put in print, but unless he disappoints lots of people he could have a problem.
Why would that make any difference, Dan. Bolton resigned because Trump wanted him involved in his "drug deal."
What "deep doo doo" are you speaking of? Oh okay, you mean't Trump instead of Bolton.I wish I could live in Wilderness's Polyanna alternate reality.
Why?? Bolton would have to be lying - but we know who the real liar is; Trump has created an empire on lies.
DOJ tells court that Congress can't sue to enforce subpoenas
The Trump administration told a federal judge on Thursday that Congress cannot sue the executive branch.
James Burnham, an attorney with the Justice Department, argued that Congress cannot use the courts to enforce its subpoenas. It can only use the legislative tools it has at its disposal, he said.
"It seems to be kind of remarkable to suggest that Congress as an institution can't enforce its subpoenas," DC Distric Judge Randolph D. Moss said, adding that, without that right, congressional subpoenas would be little more than requests.
Burnham responded that Congress has plenty of legislative powers, from appropriations to impeachment, to provide leverage for its subpoenas.
SMHI don't think this argument will get off the ground. Didn't the courts say just the opposite in the Nixon case regarding subpoenas for the tapes? (my memory is a bit fuzzy on this)
ps. neither of us should be surprised at these types of administration claims by now. ;-)
GAI think Island Bites was pointing out the massive hypocrisy with the Republicans arguing out of one side of their mouth castigating the Democrats for NOT going to court while, out the other side of their mouth, saying the Democrats do not have a right to go court.
That is pure Trumpian illogic that he as 30% of Americans believing in.And I thought I was agreeing with her inferred point.
GA
Yes, they could've gotten what they wanted if they''d waited a couple of years of various courts and appeals. But when a POTUS is meddling oi our elections and wanting other countries to do the same, there's a bit of a time factor involved.
I suppose you're okay with running out the clock to avoid being found guilty?I don't buy the 'we didn't have time to do it right', (a couple of years?), rationale Randy. I think I recollect instances of expedited judicial actions, including presentation and decision at the Supreme Court level, that were concluded in weeks, or months at the worst.
So you suppose wrong. Again.
GAThey've been trying to get Don McGhan since last April, Gus. Does this sound like an expedited process? The Senate could get everything in a very short time though. But the Republicans are terrified of doing so because of their fear of retribution from the soon-to-be corronated king.
I heard about the McGhan timeline on the Senate floor. Do I need to look to see if it is in the judicial pipeline? Or whether it was just a challenge that hasn't been pursued?
GAIt has been pursued since the Mueller Report came out, Gus. You do remember he played a role in the report, right?
The House has sought his testimony since April of last year. After bouncing around in the courts in the interlude, it's scheduled to be okayed sometime in March. Coincidentally, the same time frame for his tax returns to be released to the House.
It just keeps on getting better and better. Depending on your point of view, of course.I don't think the SC is going to rule on the taxes until June. They are hearing arguments in March, if I am not mistaken.
The McGahn case hasn't even made it to the SC yet.Yes, and they still wonder why the House filed articles of impeachment for obstructing Congress. It boggles the mind they can't figure it out, Scott.
There have been RARE instances of so-called "expedited justice". Any good set of lawyer can drag these proceeding out four years or more. Schiff gave a good synopsis.
Judgements rely on all parties playing by the rules. When you have a Trump in the mix. he has never played by the rules.
Assume the Supreme Court sides with the House in the tax return case. What is to stop Trump from going back and starting a new set arguments based on other fanciful legal theories and starting the process over again.
End the end, the Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce their rulings - they rely of DOJ and the military for that. What are the chances that Trump's supplicant Barr will enforce a ruling against Trump?"Judgements rely on all parties playing by the rules. When you have a Trump in the mix. he has never played by the rules. "
And yet you are arguing that Democrats shouldn't have to play by the rules; that the rule book doesn't apply to them because it might take longer than they wish.
After suing Trump over the travel ban that was to last 3 months, knowing it would take longer than that to remove the temporary stay their suit (that ultimately failed) produced - you can complain that courts take time? When the shoe is on the other foot, the rules suddenly don't apply, right?Wilderness: It took three years for the courts to come to the conclusion of no wrongdoing in Hillary's email case purported by Trump. Michael Flynn shouted "Lock her Up" and now he is going to be locked up.
Isn't it funny how fate works when you are a hypocrite?
https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinto … be-1466426Yeah, yeah. I keep seeing in this forum that there was "no wrongdoing" found in Hillary's case...with a complete refusal to acknowledge the hundreds of emails either destroyed or found to be illegal. No wrongdoing at all!
And now, as I pointed out, although the slowness of the courts was used to bypass Trump as a "legitimate" ploy it is suddenly a reason to bypass the courts entirely when the shoe is on the other foot. You want to talk about hypocrisy, look no further than the actions taken against Trump.
(Has it occurred to you that Trump, being neither stupid nor mentally ill, CAN learn - that he is quite capable of using the same tactics the Democrats have used against him?)I didn't see you complaining when Ivanka was using an unsecured phone to do govt. business. Didn't this really make you angry as well?
Trump being mentally ill and stupid is subjective at best, Dan."I keep seeing in this forum that there was "no wrongdoing" found in Hillary's case." - Yeah, Yeah, just keep ignoring DOJ and the Courts why don't you.
As to mentally ill - I believe the professionals, not you. And most of them who feel they have a duty to warn says he is absolutely mentally ill. If you would bother to read their book, you would understand why - but you hate to be contradicted by experts.
As to Learning - It is obvious to anybody with open eyes that he is incapable of learning. Why? Because he never accepts that he is wrong about something from which to learn.
And when haven't played by the rules regarding the impeachment? (
I expect crickets on that question)
The Ds didn't do the suing, btwDidn't mention impeachment, now did I? Instead it was made very clear that liberals used court delays to stall some (notably the ban on travel) of Trumps efforts until they ran out naturally.
So...how was that different than what Trump did, requiring legal subpoenas and such before complying? Trump didn't file suit as Democrats did, but other than that how was using strict legal machinations any different?So now it is liberals instead of Democrats, I see.
Yes, because liberals actually care about others it makes sense they would go to court to stop an inhumane EO. Didn't you support conservatives going to court to stop people from getting insurance which you think is wrong?An inhumane EO. You mean like the one banning travel from countries rampant with terrorists and that refuse to vet their travelers? That kind of "inhumane", that exposes our country to additional terrorism?
If they don't like Trump following the laws that congress wrote, write different ones. The answer is NOT to force the President into illegal activities (like setting illegal aliens free) or into treating them any different than American criminals.
Still sticking with that 'the ends justifies the means' argument I see.
Of course, both of our thoughts are only guesses, but I would suppose that AG Barr would comply with and enforce a Supreme Court ruling and directive.
GABarr wouldn't even appoint a Special Prosecutor to examine whether Trump extorted the Ukraine, Gus. He's already stated the POTUS has more power than the other branches of govt, so why should the SCOTUS be any different?
From the looks of the coming Senate vote, maybe Barr was right. Congress has the authority to act as its own Special Prosecutor, and that is what they did with their hearings. They just did a poor job of it.
GAWhat could they have done differently Gus, other than wait until Trump left office and the court cases are finally settled? Do tell!
And we all realize there's nothing Trump can do wrong according to Jabba the Barr. It's the reason Trump and the Republicans wanted him as AG in the first place.
Sessions knew his job. That's why he was ousted. McGahn and others saved Trump's ass from firing the SP and the AG by not carrying out his demands. They prevented another Saturday Night Massacre by doing so.
Now Jabba refuses to appoint a SP with the House being attacked for the process they chose. Even so,they found enough evidence to show he abused his power and obstructed Congress. Once again, the Senate Cons chose to abase themselves and not "search for the truth".I think the Democrats started the Nixon investigation and impeachment process prior to an oncoming election period, (1973?). However, rather than rush the process because they 'didn't have time', they used the court process, and if not for the resignation would have been successful.
Do you see a difference in the two House processes?
GAYou cannot compare politics in the Nixon era with today. The stonewall partisanship simply did not exist in the same way.
If memory serves, did not the court activity center around Nixon's insistence that information found in his tape recordings that revealed evidence of wrongdoing could not be protected under Executive Privilege in the face of an House investigation?
As a result, groups of Republicans came to Nixon to tell him that he was through.
I can't envision any circumstance where the GOP rank and file would go against Trump, regardless of what he did.
The lockstep partisanship on both sides will be the undoing of representative government in this country. There appears to be no one reasonable taking the middle ground from either side.Exactly how long do you estimate the court cases would last, Gus? The House still hasn't got McGahn's testimony, and we already know what he told Mueller.
Give me time frame of some sort, Gus.It was started in his second term which began Jan 1973. The proceedings started in Oct although the investigation began in Feb.
Except for one set of document, the tapes, they didn't need to go to court because Nixon complied with all other subpoenas for documents and witnesses. The House filed an order of certiorari which the Supreme Court accepted (this is your rare circumstance)
Most other documents came by way of the Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury testimony (which the House had no problem obtaining like they are having today). Since Barr wouldn't appoint a Special Prosecutor, the House was forced to do it itself as others have mentioned.
Also, had they needed it, they had four years, not one.
This is what the Trumplicans are ignoring from the Nixon impeachment:
As a result of an in-depth study of how the constitutional language about impeachment came to be adopted during the 1787 Constitutional Convention and of the long history of British impeachment cases, the staff produced a guide for the Judiciary Committee, a 64-page report, entitled "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment."[59] A key determination made in the report was that there did not need to be a criminal act on the part of the president to justify impeachment.[72][76] It stated: "The Framers did not write a fixed standard. Instead they adopted from English history a standard sufficiently general and flexible to meet future circumstances and events, the nature and character of which they could not foresee."[74] It further concluded that impeachable offenses could fall into three categories: "exceeding the powers of the office in derogation of those of another branch of government," "behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper functions and purpose of the office," and "employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or personal gain."[77]
So I must ask You - do you see the difference between the two House processes?The Senate would normally "search for the truth" in an Impeachment trial. In this one, they simply searched for a way to hide the truth, and succeeded partially.
It was easier to get the evidence in the Senate than in the House. The Senate had Roberts to cosign the subpoenas issued by the Senate. The Senate Cons knew this and blocked the vote for witnesses.
The only explanation for this is they didn't want the American citizens to hear the real story of the cretin's scheme.Perhaps my emphasis on the timing is misplaced. I understand that the investigation that led to the official impeachment investigation started in June of 1972, shortly after the break-in.
I understood it was that 7-month 'pre-investigation' that led to the actual Special Prosecutor's officially authorized investigation. Maybe I should only consider the official investigation timeline since there were only four months before the '72 election.
If that is the case, then it would bear on the discussion of a years-long court battle over subpoenas. It only took about 4 months for the Supreme Court to get and rule on the Nixon Tapes subpoena.
So, do I see a difference between the two processes? Technically yes, but realistically, no.
Both started without officially declared authorization, (I don't see that as a problem), and the House took on the duties of the Special Prosecutor.
GABecause the AG refused to do his duty, Wonder why?
Because the AG refused to do his duty. Wonder why?
Unless, GA, you mean the House must have acted as Judge and Jury, then I think they did a fine job.
I do think they presumed too much by thinking the Trumplicans could understand that Bribery was an included offense in Abuse of Power. I personally think they should have 1) included a bribery article or 2) specify that bribery was part of the Abuse of Power charge so as to take that misdirection off the table.Well, if your determination of bribery is valid in Trump's quid pro quo, isn't it also valid in Biden's quid pro quo?
Of course, you will argue that the motives are different, but will you argue that both were not an "ASK"? Was not Biden's "ask" also a quid pro quo? If so, does that also make it an example of bribery and extortion?
And, if you must admit that Biden's "ask" amounted to a quid pro quo, (albeit from a different political directive), can you defend that Biden's request didn't also amount to bribery and extortion? The effect was the same—if the Ukrainian government didn't do something we wanted then they wouldn't get the money we offered?
Biden/Trump, show me the difference My Esoteric. But remember, we are addressing actions, not motivations.
GA"Well, if your determination of bribery is valid in Trump's quid pro quo, isn't it also valid in Biden's quid pro quo?" - Absolutely Not!
What makes it bribery in Trump's case is trading an official act for personal gain. And No, you cannot separate out motive from action. Motive is an integral part of the Bribery Statute.
"The federal bribery statute requires the government to prove that the defendants acted with corrupt intent to engage in a quid pro quo, that is, “a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” "
In Biden's case, he was following official policy for national security purposes which was not corrupt by any stretch. Trump's was corrupt as it was in part (I would argue "entirely") to get a foreign nation to interfere in our 2020 election on his behalf - Big difference.
Trump had to trump up a nexus between Biden following official US policy and Ukrainian corruption.
Hunter Biden was never investigated for corruption because he got a sweetheart deal, something millions of Americans get every day, from an Ukrainian energy company hoping to use his connections to gain a benefit. It is legal and done all the time by Trump's kids. So there was no connection between him and Ukrainian corruption. That is just something Trump created out of thin air.
And Trump pushed Putin's talking points, something that conservatives don't seem to have a problem with for some reason, about the Ukrainians interfering with our elections and not the Russians. That is just more Fake News Trump took as truth.Correct, having Rudy screw around in the Ukraine was not US policy. It does make a difference. In fact, Biden-along with the EU and Republicans--wanted the corrupt AG out because he WASN'T ridding the country of corruption.
This made it ever more difficult for Hunter to escape an investigation if he were corrupt.We are both predictable, aren't we My Esoteric.
I say that to begin a discussion, relative to the meaning of a term, in this case 'quid pro quo', that you can separate motive from the action because it is the action I compared.
If the term means, essentially, this for that, then I think it is true that the actions were the same thing. You say not, but then offer this point as validation: “a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.”
Doesn't that exactly define Biden's action—an offer of $1 billion in exchange for an official act of discharging a government official?
It would be the next step to consider the comparison of equal bribery or extortion effect, but we still can't seem to agree on that first step.
Look at all the possible ways we have addressed this, and how many more could come, and we still haven't made even the basic progress of agreeing what a term means.
Maybe it's time to let this one go.
GA
"Still sticking with that 'the ends justifies the means' argument I see." - Not sure what that means unless you were making fun of my "End the end" misspelling.
I wouldn't bet on that. Any other AG that I know of would, but not Barr.No, I wan;t making fun of a typo. I was pointing out that your argument seems to be an "the ends justify the means" argument.
Am I wrong? Was that not the gist of your argument?
GAThen show me where I suggested that. Generally, my understanding of the term is "it is OK to do anything bad so long as you get a good outcome." What "bad" did the House do?
Did they not provide a Probable Cause or Clear and Convincing case? Four Republicans thought they did.And 49 Republicans thought they didn't.
The "bad" that the House did was top decide to do a rush job rather than a complete job. They have said this themselves.
They have also said they have provided a solid, undebatable proven case. Are both statements true; a rush job and a proven result?
GA
It is new evidence to the People and maybe, if there are any, to wavering Republicans like Alexander who see that what Trump did was wrong, but rising the level of impeachment. Maybe Bolton could have convinced him how pernicious Trump's behavior was.
The silver lining of course is now Biden and the rest have a free hand to get help from foreign intel services and gov'ts to get the dirt they hold on Trump. I suspect Biden has a few friends that would love to dish the dirt.
And if somehow the Republicans retain control of the Senate, who ever the Democratic president is, they can simply tell Graham NO, when he asks for documents and testimony.I'll ask you GA, like I asked Shar, why should the House wasted time on going to court after they already established a case of "probable cause" to send the case to trial. In fact, the words I heard used a couple of days ago is that all the House needed to do was present "Clear and Convincing" evidence that an impeachable offence and been committed (notice I didn't say crime - modern day Dershowitz is flat wrong)
By "wasted time" do you mean they only had time to do their job fast, but not time to do it right? My answer would that they should have 'wasted' that time to ensure they fulfilled their responsibility.
Also, I think "probable cause" only relates to investigation or filing charges. Usually, the next step is the effort to prove those probable cause charges. It wasn't the Senate's job to do that proving step. It was their job to judge the presented charges.
Regarding your "clear and convincing," it appears that the Senate will judge them to also have failed in that responsibility.
GAOK, if all the House had to do was make a Probable Cause or Clear and Convincing case to create the Articles of Impeachment and it is NOT the prosecutors job in the Senate trial to perfect the case, where exactly is that supposed to happen?
I will agree that it was not the Senators job to prove the case; it was the prosecutors. Unfortunately, the Trumplicans prevented that from happening.You offer a question with an easy answer: ". . . where exactly is that supposed to happen?
"
As I mentioned in another comment, for all of your angst that this House impeachment process did not have the luxury of time to complete their impeachment case objectives, (which requires ignoring the House's Nixon impeachment process efforts), there is a very similar and attributable example in the tH Nixon impeachment process.
Do you think the two incidences are incompatible? Is the comparison invalid?
GAWhere was the "search for Truth" in the Senate trial, Gus? Can you point to a particular instance?
What are you expecting Randy? A reference to the House efforts, or a reference to the Senate's judgment?
If the House failed in its responsibilities, are you expecting me to blame the senate?
GAWas it it a search for the truth as is described as a trial should be, or not? Did the Senate search for the truth?
They searched carefully through the mountain of irrefutable proof brought before them by the House, yes. And found it wanting to the point that there was zero proof of anything except Democrats do not like Donald John Trump. The Senate found the truth of the Democrat presentations, all right, but it wasn't very pretty and certainly not what they have liked the Senate to believe.
Do you actually believe that drivel or have you become so accustomed to spinning for Trump that the lies just roll off your keyboard like the nasty snake oil he peddles?
*shrug* That's we keep hearing on these forums. A mountain of proof. Over and over, the House insisted the proof was total and complete.
And the Senate found that their molehill of witness opinions didn't rise to the point of conviction. Which is what I said - do you disbelieve that the claim has been for "mountains of evidence" or that it was presented as a "maybe" instead of "absolute proof beyond doubt"?"there was zero proof of anything except Democrats do not like Donald"
During the impeachment of Bill Clinton Alan Dershowitz stated no proof of a crime was required to impeach a president. Now in Trump’s senate trial, he claims he learned something new and he espouses proof of a crime is required to impeach a president.
So now he comes on the scene and lectures about his theory that in an election year, the president has the right to withhold aid to a foreign government until they found dirt on his opponent and tried to get them to make an announcement to the world of said dirt.
And this did not rise to level of impeachment because it is not a crime for the president because he was doing this in the best interest of the nation.
The GOP senate and Trump’s lawyers bought into to this theory, even after admitting it was wrong for the president to do that, but it did not rise to the level of impeachment because it was not a crime
So now any president has the right to exercise the Dershowitz theory in an election year and be free from impeachment because they can claim: even though it was wrong and improper it would not rise to the level of impeachment. It also gives them the right to exercise executive privilege to block any witnesses from coming before the senate body because it is not a crime to obstruct congress.
Do you see what they have created? They have created a king that can operate with impunity. This is what the framers were afraid of. But they could not see somebody as cunning as Trump and his lawyers who have distorted the constitution and the impeachment clause to mean anything, they want it to mean.
They could not see that more power is given to the executive branch as power is being shifted away from the judicial and legislative branches and that we are not operating as a true republic as they intended, but as a monarchy.
If the next president is a democrat and he or she is not afforded the same rights as Trump, then that means Trump has been afforded preferential treatment and the Dershowitz theory is not law or has set a precedent, but it is just that; a theory that was use to get Trump off the hook. Do you see how dangerous this is?Even Sen Alexander, Collins, Murkowski, and Romney said that the Democrats proved their case. Only Trumplicans said they did not. (Alexander also said that the crime didn't rise to the level of impeachment - I guess he didn't want to get really yelled at by Trump and would rather have his name go down in the history books as having let a criminal get away with it)
I presume the Trumplicans won't bitch when Iran interferes in our elections against Trump. - NOT. (Remember, Trump left the door wide open for them when he did nothing to stop a second round of Russian attacks.)
Yes, they have lots of good evidence; enough to make the case to any thinking person - but not Trumpican Senators who are so biased they need more. They want proof far beyond a reasonable doubt.
They needed the documents Trump is hiding. They needed to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney (assuming he wouldn't lie) and Duffy. If they heard and read that damning testimony (if it had been good testimony, Trump would have released him) then they would be alone in the world with only the 30% of brainwashed Trump supporters to support them. As each comes up for election, the Democrats (or primary opponents) will clobber them over the head with their duplicity.
And when did they do that Wilderness? Was it when Graham said he was biased? Was it when McConnell rigged the trial? Was it when Paul paid more attention to the magazine in front of him than the proceedings?
Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney certainly disagree with you. Of course the Trumplicans who are violating their oath would agree with you.
Even Jonathon Turley, the Republican constitutional scholar thought the Senate should call witnesses. Where Turley disagreed with the House is he thought (the other three didn't agree) the House should have taken a couple more months to add more evidence to their case. Even he said they had a case, just a "thin" one.
My rebuttal to him, is it wouldn't have been "just a couple of months". My question to him would be "if the timeline were six months or eight months, would he be of the same mind?" Should we continue to wait while Trump continues to rig the election in his favor?
Randy, The House offered thousands of pages of depositions, as well as transcripts from 17 witnesses. The defense was not permitted to participate in the Depositions or the Basement bunker testimony. The defense was invited in by Nadler in the last 8 days of open witnesses. In which they had not had the privilege of having any of the deposition or testimony documents.
The Senate did their job with the information they were provided. The information the House put forth was all second-hand, and hearsay evidence. They made the only decision they could. I would have been furious if they accepted the witness testimony, and impeached the president without any form of factual evidence.
It was the House that was in charge of the investigation, they should have done their job. Put the blame where it should be, the House. I would think you would be furious at them. Because of the search for truth was cut short by the House. I certainly would have appreciated it If they had done their job. I for one would have appreciated not having another unsolved mystery. But, that's out the government is it not?You still don't understand the House process was legal, Shar. And apparently none of your party's members do either.
Randy, I have never claimed it was illegal. I said it was not conducted fairly. And I must add, it was not complete, due to the House not taking the time to collect factual evidence. I am not saying they broke any laws, I am not in any respect sure they did or didn't. I am very sure with the power of the House the investigation could have been completed to include each witness they desired.
You keep suggesting the House did something wrong in the GJ process, Shar. If the AG had appointed a SP, he/she would have held the GJ behind closed doors with no one from the defense allowed in, the same way the House did it.
You still claim they didn't finish the evidence collecting, ignoring this would take perhaps years with Trump Stonewalling. The Senate can get this evidence easily with Roberts co-signing the subpoenas.
But the House had no idea the Senate would continue to help Trump escape his crimes by covering up for him and refusing to have a real trial which searched for the truth.
So we have the first Senate Impeachment trial--out of 17 in our history--which refused to allow new witnesses and documents to be entered into evidence.
This Senate trial will go down in history as the first cover-up of presidential abuse of office and obstruction of Congress. Be proud of your party, Shar. This will be a permanent stain on the once great Senate.
Tell me Shar, why did the Senate in Johnson's trial need to hear witnesses? Why did the Senators in Clinton's want and hear more witnesses? Why is this trial so different. Did the only other two impeachments do it wrong, in your view?
The House did its job, they provided enough proof to bring the obvious charges. As they did in the other two impeachments. Then the Senate let the prosecutors do their job and call witnesses. They didn't have to introduce new documents because neither Johnson nor Clinton held them up like Trump.Shar knows it's a cover-up Scott, as anyone with one eye and half sense would. They made a mistake by choosing this criminal ,but they'll never admit it no matter what comes out in the near future.
I'll be sure to remind them though, as I hope many will do.This is a very simple question to answer. The Senate can call witnesses in impeachment trials. I have not disputed that fact. The keyword is Senate. The Senate in both cases made the decision to hear more witnesses they felt they needed to hear from. In this impeachment, the Senate voted not to hear any new witnesses. They made the decision they needed no further information on the articles that were charged.
In my opinion, the Senate in the Trump case just felt that there was no case due to the Constitution, and lack of factual evidence. This is the direction the defense presented their case.
We could argue all day, it will not change the outcome. In my opinion, the outcome was known from the very first thought the House had in regard to impeaching Trump. One would think you might be mad or disappointed with the House for going down such an obvious road, located at Political Ploy. and Looking Foolish.
I will never agree that the House did their job to build a case. Just no factual evidence. How did they expect to burn Trump with only smoke?
I can't think of a "real" trial where the judge or jurors join in the efforts of the prosecution or defense. Their 'search for the truth' is in their determination of the pros and cons presented to them.
GASo why did all of the past Senate Impeachment trials search for the truth by having new witnesses and documents in the process then, Gus? Why was this one different than all of the others?
The witnesses in the previous impeachment trials had the witnesses the House provide from their investigations. And yes they were recalled during the trial to be cross-examined by the defense. If the president's defense felt they needed to cross-examine the witnesses that the House presented they could have during the trial and would have if they felt the need. It was clear the defense was well aware of all the witness testimony, all but one person that they had never been able to obtain the transcript of that testimony.
They decided not call any of the House witnesses. That was their prerogative. I would though they only needed to use bits and pieces of the witnesses testified that gave context to the statements the House chose to present in the trial. Showing that much of the information the House was presenting was out of context. They just did not need to pull in the witnesses to prove the context of their testimony was based on second-hand, hearsay, and just their opinions.
keep in mind the Defense also had the right to call any witnesse they wanted to. They did not need to, the case was weak without factual evidence.During the impeachment of Bill Clinton Alan Dershowitz stated no proof of a crime was required to impeach a president. Now in Trump’s senate trial, he claims he learned something new and he espouses proof of a crime is required to impeach a president.
So now he comes on the scene and lectures about his theory that in an election year, the president has the right to withhold aid to a foreign government until they found dirt on his opponent and tried to get them to make an announcement to the world of said dirt.
And this did not rise to level of impeachment because it is not a crime for the president because he was doing this in the best interest of the nation.
The GOP senate and Trump’s lawyers bought into to this theory, even after admitting it was wrong for the president to do that, but it did not rise to the level of impeachment because it was not a crime
So now any president has the right to exercise the Dershowitz theory in an election year and be free from impeachment because they can claim: even though it was wrong and improper it would not rise to the level of impeachment. It also gives them the right to exercise executive privilege to block any witnesses from coming before the senate body because it is not a crime to obstruct congress.
Do you see what they have created? They have created a king that can operate with impunity. This is what the framers were afraid of. But they could not see somebody as cunning as Trump and his lawyers who have distorted the constitution and the impeachment clause to mean anything, they want it to mean.
They could not see that more power is given to the executive branch as power is being shifted away from the judicial and legislative branches and that we are not operating as a true republic as they intended, but as a monarchy.
If the next president is a democrat and he or she is not afforded the same rights as Trump, then that means Trump has been afforded preferential treatment and the Dershowitz theory is not law or has set a precedent, but it is just that; a theory that was use to get Trump off the hook. Do you see how dangerous this is?I respect your opinion. However, in the end, he will be in the office for 5 more years. I hope he will continue to solve more problems. And then I pray for someone that won't destroy all the goos he has done.
I do not see any impending doom, only positive change. I have never witnessed a man that works so hard on solving the countries long time problems.
They also had new witnesses and documents in EVERY Senate Impeachment trial, unlike this one, Shar. Not just those in the House investigation. Jeeze, how many times must I point this out?
At any rate, the House proved its case with several Republican Senators saying so. Do you really believe Trump
didn't try to extort Zellensky? Seriously? Do you think he's learned his lesson and won't try again after learning the Senate will cover for him every time?You mean in ALL TWO of them, right? EVERY ONE of those TWO impeachment trials used witnesses in the Senate. Perhaps because ALL TWO of them had actual evidence brought forth in the House hearings, evidence that the President's counsel found worthy of cross examination rather than just tossing it in file 13.
"At any rate, the House proved its case with several Republican Senators saying so."
And those Senators said so with a vote to convict, right?
Wrong again as usual, Dan. There have been 17 impeachment trials in the Senate. Some were for crooked Judges as well.
All with new documents and witnesses.How odd. There have only been 3 that were impeached by the House. Were the other 14 subjected to a trial without impeachment?
Randy, I am just trying to point out new witnesses are ultimately up to the Senate if in the Trial phase. If the House would have done their job all duck would have been in a row. Do you think it realistic that the House really thought the Senate would vote to allow new witnesses? Just my opinion but this impeachment all looks to be a bad political ploy. The House knew this would end up just where it has.
The Senate that tried Clinton had three witnesses deposed, though it did not insist on live testimony. And it was the Senate that requested the witnesses, not the House. That is their opinion. Trump's defense noted that this trial differs from Clinton’s because the witnesses who appeared in 1999 had already testified in prior depositions by the house phase of the investigation. The Senate has the sole option to call new witnesses, and they vote to ascertain the wishes of the Senate. The House has no right to call witnesses at the trial phase.
In regards to the Defense asking for new witnesses let me clarify they also would need to ask the Senate for a vote to produce witnesses.
The House keeps talking about witnesses being heard in the Clinton trial, but they just don't add the context, who requested them. That's an important fact. The House has made the mistake of being dishonest through this entire procedure. Sinning a tale, that they just could not prove.
I have read the call transcript several times, and it was very clear that Trump was concerned about how much aid other countries provided Ukraine and corruption. What is unfortunate is that the Biden's just may have been part of the corruption. And note I use the words may have. Biden and his son need to be investigated, and should not be looked at as guilty of anything until this is sorted out.I hope you take the same stance after the truth comes out to the public. I don't want to hear, the house didn't prove its case again. There was plenty of evidence Trump, didn't care about the Ukraine. Sondland--Trump's hand-picked million dollar campaign donor, said so.
A complete cover-up by the enablers which will come back to bite them on the butt as the truth slowly comes to light.
I think this one is different because it is more political than the others.
GAYes, an Impeachment trial where the POTUS succeeded in blocking all evidence pointing to his guilt with the help of his party. Shameful at the very least! Kick the bums out!
Was the Senate even impartial as their oath required of them? At least two said they would not be -McConnell and Graham.
Did you really expect these two to be impartial, Scott? They've sold their souls to the devil!
The search for truth should have been in the Senate's judgment of The House and defense's presentations. But I can't find an instance of that search. The House failed, the defense didn't try, and it was all politics with the Senate.
GAIf that were true, GA, why would this have been included in the Senate rules for Johnson:
VI The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its order, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of and disobedience to its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice; and the Sergeant-at-Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.
XVI. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.
XVII. If a Senator is called as a witness, he shall be sworn and give his testimony standing in his place.
No vote was needed to call witnesses
In Clinton's trial, a vote was required and witnesses were heard, but probably not needed given that Clinton allowed all relevant witnesses and documents to be presented to either the Special Prosecutor (which Barr wouldn't allow) or the House.
In Trump's case, Barr blocked a special prosecutor for Ukraine and Trump did a total stonewall of witnesses and documents (an actual crime in and of itself). The only witnesses that came forward were proud, patriotic civil servants who held America above Trump.You present valid and pertinent information, but which of the statements you responded to are proven untrue by your information?
Do you disagree that; "The search for truth should have been in the Senate's judgment of The House and defense's presentations"
Did you find an instance of that search in the Senate's exercise of its judgment? I noted that I hadn't.
Do you think that the House did the best job it could, without conditioning your answer?
Do you think the defense offered a search for the truth? I noted that I didn't think they tried.
And do you disagree that this Senate trial is all about politics rather than fact-finding, (truth)?
GA
GA, you didn't provide an answer as to where the job that happens in normal trials to be done.
With Johnson, much of it was done during the Senate impeachment trial
With Nixon, much of it was done with the special prosecutor. The only important piece they had to go directly to the Supreme Court for was his tapes. Even then, the Senate heard witnesses, just not new ones.
With Trump, the House asked for a special prosecutor and Barr denied it. Trump was actively breaking the law, and still is, in trying to get foreign help with his 2020 election. What you are suggesting is the House sit on its hands and let him do it. (Going to court after the House had already established a Probable Cause case is the equivalent of sitting on ones hands). Also, the precedent set by the two previous trials would have led the House to think witnesses would be called during the Senate proceedings.
That is how they are different.
So I repeat my question - If the House couldn't get the most important witnesses and you say that is not the Senates job (although in the previous two occasions they thought it was their job) then who exactly was supposed to get those witnesses in a timely enough fashion to stop Trump from continuing to break the law?In your Nixon comparison, you seem to be saying that this trial didn't hear any witnesses. The House furnished witness testimony in a similar manner—via video and transcript presentations. If Nixon's trial didn't add any new witnesses, how is it different, in that aspect, from Trump's trial?
GANixon resigned shortly after the articles reached the House, Gus. When they subpoenaed the tapes it was pretty much over. Not really a good comparison to this trial.
Check these other Senate trials out to see all of them had witnesses, some not used in the House inquiry.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … witnesses/
What the other side believes, Valeant, is that if the DA doesn't investigate each and every document and witness before they prefer charges, then the judge and jury are not allowed to see any new evidence or be allowed to call any new witnesses. That is the way it works in Russia. I guess i the age of Trump, that is the way it works in America as well.
Why do they call the Senate proceeding a trial? Did the framers not understand the word?
I would bet that they did. I would also bet that in Hamilton's capitalization of the word POLITICAL in his Federalist writings about impeachment suggested, (as do most scholars), that an impeachment trial is not the animal of civil or criminal trials, and that the job of the Senate is to be the 'judge' in the trial. Not the prosecutor, which presents the case of charges, nor the defense, which presents a counter-case to the prosecutor's charges.
That is also how the Senate itself describes its job in an impeachment trial. They are to act as the judge of the case presented, not be a party to the presentation, pro or con, of that case.
Hence my argument.
What is the intent of your question? Are you insisting that an impeachment trial was in the Framers' mind the same as a civil or criminal trial? As there is much historical documentation that they clearly thought otherwise, I would be surprised if that was your intention.
GAJudges don't vote, GA, nor are they prosecutors. Jurors vote as does the Senators - that effectively makes them jurors in spite of Sen Harkin's opinion and Rehnquist's determination (while he agreed with Harkin that the word "Juror" be avoided, he was silent on the word "Judge".)
Granted, Senators in an impeachment do have other duties than to simply vote, but vote they do. And no, the framers didn't think an impeachment trial was the same as a civil or criminal trial, but neither did they think it was a horse of different color either. If it were, why refer to it as a trial? Why not something entirely different if they didn't want it to have any vestiges of a normal trial? They were sophisticated enough to understand how the People would interpret the words "try" and "trial"To my mind, it is sim[ple. They used the word trial because it was a process of charges being judged. Is it your contention that the Senate should be participants rather than judges?
As a side note; I think it is clear from their debates that the Framers certainly did think a Senate impeachment trial was a horse of a different color. That was one of the reasons they shied away from using a judicial coterie of judges as the arbiter of the House charges.
Also, I think their use of "try" and "trial" are very clear in their intentions regarding impeachment. However, I am puzzled that you would try to diffuse their obvious distinction with your own interpretations.
Their words and intent are well documented, do you rate yourself a scholar above their credentials?
GANo, it is my contention that Senators who vote for or against impeachment should be thought of as Jurors because that is one of their functions in an impeachment trial.
Sorry GA, I can't conceive of another definition of "trial" other than what it means.
This was the bottom line from the debate on impeachment from Madison's notes.
Finally, there were many debates about the exact procedures that should be followed in cases of impeachment. Some delegates mistrusted the Senate, and some the House. Many were worried that neither branch would have enough firmness of purpose to oppose the president. A few were concerned that providing for impeachment would subordinate the president to the legislature. The Convention in fact could not reach agreement on most of the issues arising out of impeachment procedures. The Committee on Detail thus forged its own compromise provisions that appear in the Constitution. Although there was some grumbling, the Committee's basic ideas were accepted.
I found nothing about the debates on "process". So I am left with the common sense definition of "trial"
No, I don't rate myself above the framers - but "well documented" is beyond me since I can find but little documentation. One such is FP 65 which someone briefly referenced. In more detail it reads:
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. (apparently asking a foreign gov't to help you win an American election is not such a violation of public trust according to Trumplicans)
The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, [b ]will be least hasty in condemning that opinion[/b], and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it. (the convention guessed wrong in Trump's case)
What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? ( WHAT do you make of that, GA? Is Hamilton saying the Senate should be doing an Inquest?)
It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body.
Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS? (There is that word "impartiality" that Trumplicans don't recognize as applying to them)
The rest of 65 is devoted to explaining why any other tribunal would not work, including the Supreme Court.
FP 66 discusses Anti-Federalist objections to the Senate being the trying body.
If you have more documentation on the process of an impeachment trial, GA, I would love to read it.Kudos to you My Esoteric for a well-supported opinion. I am just finishing watching the Super Bowl, I will return to your comment,
GAI hear it was exciting. I was busy getting bronchitis in Las Vegas.
The House could have done it right instead of just fast. I am deciding that I don't completely agree with Dershowitz's "best interests" argument as it has been stretched, so I can't argue that point.
However, I would argue that such a defense will not become accepted as the 'New' normal. I think Dershowitz's point will have to be addressed as not just mixed motives—public vs. personal, but also for a determination of corrupt intent, which is where Dershowitz's criminal or criminal-type descriptions come in to play.
GATell me GA. Since there were no statutory crimes in existence for the USA at the time the impeachment clause was written, what statutory "crimes" do you think the founders had in mind besides treason and bribery. (Not charging bribery was a major tactical blunder by the Democrats. They should have known the other side doesn't believe in the concept of lesser included offences.)
That is a pretty weak challenge Scott. And in the readings I have been driven to dive into these past 7-10 days, one that has an easy answer.
Our near-new nation already embraced many common-laws. Do you think they were no crimes of treason or bribery before our nation was formed and official Federal Statutory laws were recognized? Could the Framers not have been aware of the prosecution, (and public understanding), of such common-laws as stealing, or murder, etc.?
Given the evidence of British common-law influence in the writing of our Constitution does your question infer that the framers had no idea what would constitute a statutory crime in both their and the public's mind?
We have both read Madison's notes. So you know as well as I do what crimes they had in mind while constructing the Impeachment mechanism.
Your question sounds like one I would have heard from a biased talking head on TV trying to informed the assumed uninformed. I give it as much seriousness as you would a similar talking head point from the 'other' biased side.
*Note: perhaps a sharp response, but I tried not to let any snark slip in. ;-)
GA"That is a pretty weak challenge Scott. And in the readings I have been driven to dive into these past 7-10 days, one that has an easy answer."
Personally, I think it is pretty strong, and your references help make it so.
If you dive into English common law, to which I agree the framers used a lot, you will find what Trump was charged with fits perfectly into what they thought was impeachable. If fact, they were far more liberal than our framers could allow.
Hence, the term "High Crime or Misdemeanor" to separate itself from any administrative malfeasance (such as Clinton lying to a grand jury), which English common law allowed.
Instead they limited to any violation that dealt with violating the Presidential oath of office - abuse of power in other words.
Maybe this will help - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crim … sdemeanorsReally? With the degree of contentious scholarly debate about High Crimes and Misdemeanors you want to point me to a Wikipedia page?
Come on My Esotreric, we are well beyond Wikipedia pages.
That we disagree is only natural. And that we disagree with equally-supportive sources is also only natural to an honest discussion. But, to refer to a Wikipedia page at this level of discussion is demeaning. Not to me, but to you.
Scott, I have reviewed sources of seemingly very credible Constitutional scholars that have nearly impeachable credentials for their research and opinions, and yet they still hold conflicting opinions.
I will incorporate their views, and the researched support of their views, in the formation of my own opinions. But, I will not ever allow a Wikipedia entry to sway my view of their scholarly efforts.
Geesh. I am struggling to resist the temptation to attribute the escalation of your rhetoric to the frustration of the failed House impeachment attempt, but you are making that a difficult task.
Prior to the end-scenario that the House impeachment attempt would fail, you maintained a semblance of civility in your arguments. But since the House failure became obvious, it appears you have abandoned any semblance of rational discussion.
Have at it bud. It's not my cup of tea so I will just stand on the sidelines until some ape-shit comment forces me back onto the game board.
GAI am sorry you don't like a well respected, well sourced internet encyclopedia - that surprises and disappoints me.
I must have missed where you provided documentation to back up your belief that the Senate need only to vote up or down on the impeachment; that they have no other role in the process.
If that is the case, why even have a prosecution and a defense team there. It should have all been done in the House and have the transcripts and reports sent over (oh yeah, McConnell attempted to block that as well) for the Senators to read.
And YES, the Republicans were allowed to and did call relevant witnesses and YES Trump was afforded the opportunity to present his side - he refused.
And my frustration comes from the Trumplicans violating their oath of impartiality and the sham trial they put on. It is exactly the opposite of what our founders wanted. They must all be vomiting in their coffins right now.Yeah, I was a bit hard on that Wikipedia reference wasn't I. That response must have been around the time the Chiefs started getting their winning touchdowns.
My contention regarding the Senate's purpose in this trial is that they are to set the rules and then act as jurors. I haven't seen any proof otherwise.
Your provided information validates that they have the authority and duty to initiate actions if they feel the need to do so to be able to perform their duty as jurors, but they are not required by your presented information to do so if their determination is that they don't need further actions.
Regarding this trial's probable outcome, did you feel the same way about Clinton's impeachment trial verdict?
GA
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago
0The Democrats delayed sending the impeachment papers to the Senate so Warren and Sanders would be tied up with the trial while Biden gets to hang out in Iowa for the caucus.
Enjoy your incompetent super-delegate libs...
That's as true as any of your posts, Joey.
LOL. The more I see of Trump, the more I am tempted to believe the more salacious parts of the Steele Dossier.
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago0
So the fake impeachment was a fail and the Dems are going to be too busy rigging their own primaries.
And the fake POTUS got away with his criminality with the help of his fake patriots in the Senate. No big surprise there, Joey!
What happened to lard ass Trump? Did he go on a diet?
Absolutely I support the impeachment of Trump. It is ridiculous that someone should hold the highest office in the land and not only behave so rudely for years, but finally behave criminally and then not be held accountable just because an election is coming up anyway. Yes, it is costly to follow procedures and have investigations and trials, but it is more costly to let illegal and treasonous acts ride, particularly in a would be dictator acting so high handed and scornful of our system of government and like a demagogue expecting people to feel personal loyalty to him or be called traitors, for that is precisely what dictators do.
https://sites.google.com/site/bestessay … icereview/Now the House is planning to have Bolton testify before them. Something the Senate was terrified of doing because Trump didn't want him telling the truth about the "drug deal," as Boleton so aptly put it.
This ought to show how corrupt Trump is, as if many of us didn't already know it.Do you not find it odd Bolton only now steps forward to testify? He could have complied at any time during the Houses investigation. That would have been his prerogative as it is now. He fought them putting statements that he would not cooperate. There was nothing to stop him, except Executive privilege which will still apply now.
It will be interesting to hear what he has to say. The House may not hear what they want to hear.No, I don't find it odd at all, as I understand why he didn't testify in the House. You, on the other hand, don't. This has been explained to you so many times, I'm not going to try anymore, Shar.
Those that voted against witnesses and documents will definitely not want to hear what he has to say. Donnie will try his best to stop him from testifying, watch!Rep. Adam Schiff won’t say if House will subpoena Bolton to testify...
https://nypost.com/2020/02/02/rep-adam- … o-testify/
Not sure what your comment pertains to? My comment was in regards to the fact I just found it odd that Bolton did not want to testify in the House, but now does, Bolton's comment was that he just would not appear before the house without a subpoena. Statement from his lawyer Mr. Cooper."Bolton will not appear without a subpoena".
The House clearly could have to subpoena him. Not sure what you are talking about when you claim was explained to me.
Do you have a resource that gives another explanation of why Bolton would not cooperate and talk with the House? Other than an opinion.
My comment -- Do you not find it odd Bolton only now steps forward to testify? He could have complied at any time during the Houses investigation. That would have been his prerogative as it is now. He fought them putting statements that he would not cooperate. There was nothing to stop him, except Executive privilege which will still apply now.
Bolton clearly did not want to testify.
"Former National Security Adviser John Bolton is not agreeing to a voluntarily interview in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
The House committees leading the impeachment investigation have asked Bolton to appear behind closed doors next week. But Bolton’s lawyer, Charles Cooper, says Bolton will not appear without a subpoena.
Democrats have issued subpoenas to several other witnesses who ended up testifying.
Lawmakers want to hear from Bolton after other witnesses told them of his concerns with Trump’s dealings in Ukraine and the backchannel activities of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer."
https://apnews.com/69c8401c909d467591b692c45e95d725
Let me also point out "Donnie" did not use his executive privilege at any point in this impeachment procedure or has anyone been given immunity. I think you are wrong about Trump stopping Bolton from talking to the House. Please make sure to read the article where Schiff is backsliding on the Nadler comment in regard to Bolton speaking with the house.Bolton wanted to testify in the House inquiry, but not without a subpoena for various legal reasons, Shar. If there had been more time before the elections they could held out afew years and may have gotten everything they needed.
But Trump's trying to meddle in the elections made it imperative to stop him now before he can do so. Bolton will tell all he knows, whether before the American people on tv, or in his book.
Those patriots who testified before the House were not in Trump's cabinet, so they testified because they thought it was their duty to do so. Bolton has to worry about EP if Trump asserts it. Big difference!
I see the Republicans are extinct now except for Mitt Romney. Trumplicans are all that's left of a once honorable party now."Bolton wanted to testify in the House inquiry, but not without a subpoena for various legal reasons, Shar."
What "various legal reasons" would there be not to testify before the House but happy to before the Senate? I might recognize a financial reason to do so just before publishing his book, but can't think of any legal reason.Bolton could voluntarily give testimony to the House is he wanted to. Yes, there would be a chance that the president would block his testimony. If he really wanted to he could testify, and just see what happens. Guess that is just too simple... Time to sit back, calm down, and just realize this was a well-orchestrated ploy by the Dems that has badly backfired. I won't be the first or last.
And yes, I am very sure the people that testified did it out of duty and told their truths.
Not sure why you feel Trump would have needed to interfere with the election. Mueller proved Trump did not interfere with the 2016 election. That's just a fact. I read the entire boring report. You are being groomed to once again think Trump will win the next election due to -- I don't know what! Wake up you are being kept in a state of hysteria that is being orchestrated and planned by a losing political party. These crazies have ruined a wonderful political party because of their lack of moving on and realizing most Americans just won't buy into their way of governing anymore. So simple, all they needed to do was come up with a good candidate that meets the needs of the people. Not a bunch of "let us take care of you, you were not meant to have much... We will give you what you need" Most American's find this kind of BS insulting.
Please, have a look at all the crazy that they have perpetrated. Common sense should prevail.Your facts are never really facts, Shar. Paul Manafort, part of Trump's campaign, supplied the Kremlin with the campaign's internal polling data to help the Russian hackers accurately target US voters to assist the campaign. That's clearly his campaign helping to get foreign interference in the 2016 election.
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago0
My two senators just voted "Guilty." They will be re-elected for doing the right thing.
I have some real asshole Senators in my state. But then, what does one expect on the very buckle of the Bible Belt?
They will be tossed out for doing what they knew was the wrong thing....if I have anything to do with it. This means wo-ah! As Yosemite Sam was wont to yell.
Russian Troll Farmer: "Our goal wasn’t to turn the Americans toward Russia," he added. "Our task was to set Americans against their own government: to provoke unrest and discontent, and to lower Obama’s support ratings."
https://www.businessinsider.com/former- … 5kiZzp_1zE
It seems by the posts here, so many bought into the Russian propaganda.Well the partisan impeachment nothingburger has ended. Wasting millions and millions of the taxpayers money
Just as predicted.
All the democrat party and their complicit msm goons -coup attempts have all failed. When they cant field a competent candidate, all they have are their dirty politics. But this time they have outdone themselves to their own undoing.
The Chosen One 2020How does the expenses compare to a total of the Hillary investigations, Phoe? You didn't mention this for some reason. Forget?
The difference is during the phone to the ukraine no one was left to die in Benghazi. Nor was the call blamed on YouTube.
Hey, there are 2 more reasons I would impeach for.You stink at answering queries put to you, Phoe. Afraid to answer, or not?
Oh. I think you are assuming anyone actually reads your posts, sandy.
Anywho, I have other obligations and commitments elsewhere.Yep, scared.....like the other trumpsters who does the same. They simply want to blather, and nothing else.Ask them a question and they ignore it or claim they have to go somewhere.
Yes, they have outdone themselves. This mess was the last nail.
Rejoice Shar, Trump got away with it. That's all that matters, right? Want to bet he hasn't learned his lesson?
I wonder why more Americans wanted Trump removed from office than those that wanted Nixon or Clinton removed? What does that tell you?
No it won't. Don't ya know - Trump is colluding with Martians, and has already fixed the election in his favor.
It doesn't matter how big a win Trump produces, liberals country wide will find excuses to say it wasn't real, wasn't fair, and Trump isn't the real president. Or isn't their president, as if they have already immigrated and given up American citizenship.Nope, just the Russians and Ukrainians now.
There is no question Trump is not a real president - he does nothing that real presidents do. He is already rated the worst president ever.
And yes, he is not my president. He is not even your president. He is Trump's president and nobody elses.I certainly always knew what a POS he was. Some cannot tell s**t from Shinola.
News from the latest employment numbers.
Participation Rate: Rose 0.2% to 63.4% - that's a good thing (high was 67.1% under Clinton
Unemployment Rate: Rose 0.1% to 3.6%
U-6 Unemployment Rate: Rose 0.2% to 6.9%
# Eligible to Work: Annual Growth Rate under Obama-1%; under Trump-0.54% - Not good because job growth can't be sustained in the long-term
Civilian Labor Force: Annual Growth Rate under Obama-.57%; under Trump-0.95% - Good The number of willing workers- More of those available to work, are.
Employment Level: # of Employed People - Annual Growth Rate under Obama-1.34%; under Trump-1.35% - No change: The rate of growth of employed people are the same under Obama and Trump
Full-Time Employment: Annual Growth Rate under Obama-1.71%; under Trump-1.58% - Not good, especially with an increasing Part-Time employment, because while employment is still increasing, full-time isn't as fast.
Part-Time Employment: Annual Growth Rate under Obama minus 0.16%; under Trump - a positive 0.60% - Not good because, coupled with a decline of growth of Full-Time jobs, it means FT jobs are being replaced by PT jobs.
Multiple Job Holder Rate: Rose 0.1% to 5.1% - Showing weakness
Average and Median Weeks Out of Work: Clearly on the rise - Not Good
Weeks out of Work: Less than 5 Weeks - Flat; 5 - 14 Weeks - Increasing; 14 - 27 Weeks - Increasing; More than 27 Weeks - Decreasing. Shows continuing slow down in job market.
Job Openings: In serious decline - not good although still higher than total hires.
Hires: Is Flat which is a sign of weakness
Fires: Less than Hires, but barely now which is also a sign of weakness.
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago0
Now that Trump has been acquitted, let the chorus of preening liberal meltdowns begin.
https://pluralist.com/trump-derangement … xOwymTmmhU The only problem with the thesis of your meme is that giving him a civilian award (the Presidential Medal of Freedom) would have been inappropriate--rather like giving him an award for his acumen in basketball.
The Tuskeegee Airman received MILITARY honors, and was promoted to Brigadier General in a properly MILITARY service, in which HE was the focus of the entire proceedings.“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins,” John Locke cautioned in his Two Treatises of Government. This is how autocracy comes to America: not with a declaration of martial law and tanks in the street, but by a roll-call vote in the Senate whipped by the leader of the Senate in violation of the Constitution.
If on the day the Senate returns its verdict, history records the failure to convict the president following a trial without witnesses, that will be the day the rule of law dies in America. The courts will remain open for business. Congress will be in session. Citizens will still be able to vote. And a free press will continue to launch withering attacks on President Trump. But the American people will no longer be living in a constitutional democracy."Liberals aren't the only ones calling the current GOP a cult....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ … y-is-cult/I've never been this embarrassed by such a POS representing our country before. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at this point.
Self promoting your hubs is against the rules, and can get you banned, if you didn't realize it.
My Esoteric, don't you find it odd that Trump's rallies fill stadiums to overflowing, with thousands attending and thousands more outside, because the facilities don't have room for them all? And odd too that there is no Democratic candidate whose rally can attract enough people to fill a high school cafeteria?
Is there a limit on the brainwashed, Sharon?
I can't wait for the opportunity to gloat when Trump makes his victory speech In regards to the crowd size, it's clear the Dem's can't raise crowds due to their candidate's lackluster agendas. This should point out to liberals that the polls you are touting are not much good.
Well go ahead and gloat now, Shar. What are you waiting for as you're so sure the cretin will win again.
And who's fault will it be? The Dem's bought and paid for this mess. Seems they should have just concentrated on finding a great candidate with a good agenda. Well, guess they just had to pay Trump back for winning... How is that working out?
Fine with me. I'd vote for a pig rather than the criminal in the WH. The right loves criminals though, especially when he brags and lies so much. Watch what happens to Roger Stone. Jabba the Barr sent his own aide to try and get Stone's sentence reduced. I hope the judge throws the book at him anyway despite the AG's interference.
I've never seen such a cast of criminals around a POTUS and working for him as well. Putin is certainly very proud of him for some odd reason. Any thoughts on that, Shar?Why be so mad? Why not demand more from your party? Perhaps if more Dems took an interest in change, they would get it or just go with the flow.
I'm angry because you can't see what a weasel this POTUS is. The two top prosecutors in the Roger Stone case just resigned in disgust after Barr decided Stone's sentence was too harsh. Right after Trump said the same in a tweet, coincidentally.
Barr got Flynn's sentenced reduced to probation as well. Trump is freeing his criminal cronies and being blatant about it. I told you he didn't learn his lesson and would be even worse. Barr is corrupting the entire Justice Department, and you guys don't care in the least.
And four senior, professional, patriotic prosecutors couldn't stomach Barr any longer and resigned in disgust. This is a pure sign that Trump is taking the Trumplican's permission to be the dictator he want's to be. We are no longer a democracy.
Hopefully, the Democrats will be able restore order and then pass laws to never let a Trump happen to America again.
The only people who will be responsible for Trump winning the presidency again will be those who vote for him. Be proud of your vote for the man you so consistently and enthusiastically defend and don't let those who don't even vote for him take any of the credit. Because it will all be in you and the other Trump voters.
Nope. Democrats, with their unceasing failures to show malfeasance will be partially responsible.
Not only will people leave the party as a result of such inane activity, they are being shown, repeatedly, that there is nothing wrong with Trump as president. After all, when Democrats illustrate that time after time it says quite a bit.Yes, it is indeed inane to not want a criminal and his cronies wrecking the Justice Department and using it for the means of freeing said criminal cronies. But you seem to be fine with it.
Wilderness: The laws in this country are as good as the highest authority enforces them. And in America right now, the highest authority is Trump and Barr and they are both corrupt to the core.
So there you have it. We have two outlaws enforcing the laws of the country for their own self-dealings. God help us. I don't know how we are going to come out of this mafia-like administration and Hitler-like culture that Trump and his cohorts have created.
Just like Hitler, he has fooled the people into looking the other way as he re-frames the country to his agenda by lying over 16,000 times, keeping himself in the spotlight and by making outrageous claims on twitter and Fox News. It doesn't matter what he does or say as long as it keeps him in the spotlight as he sucks the oxygen out of the other side. That is his ultimate game plan.Now three--not two as was reported earlier--of the 4 prosecutors have resigned from the Roger Stone case, Mike. Trump and Barr are the law now.
Edit: All four of the prosecutors have now resigned.Speaking of Hitler, I have no doubt in my mind that if these Trumplicans had been alive in 1939, they would be Hitlerites.
It's the same type of brainwashing Hitler used, Scott. Trump's rallies remind me a lot of Hitler's gatherings with thousands shouting their anger and accolades.
No doubt Trump's enablers would have joined right in!Exactly. Now back to how NH is coming along. Klobuchar is killing it, behind Sanders and Buttigieg.
I do to, although if Biden folds, I will probably take a very look at Bloomberg
I'd vote for anyone but the charlatan in the WH!
He is truly a dictator now. There is no independent Senate. There is no independent Department of Justice. And the Courts are close to not being independent as is the Supreme Court. By the grace of God, RBG has a very strong constitution.
When a Democrat takes the WH in January, she can retire and they can put Merrick Garland in her place. When Thomas dies or retires, then he can be replaced with a fair minded Justice.
Your roids acting up again, Gus? Then get off that wooden rail and give them a bit of relief.
This has to be one of the funniest posts you've ever done.
Yes, I agree. I will gladly take credit for my vote, and how well the country is doing. Hopefully, he does well his next four years. If he does it will assure another Republican the next 8. Perhaps the Dem's will wake up and ask their party to get their act together.
Good. Glad to see you taking responsibility. Some like to blame Hilkary, as though she was standing in the voting booth with a gun at their heads.
Sharlee: What you and other Trumplicans are focusing on is a multi-candidate sorting out, just like the one that started out when Trump ran against 16 GOP candidates. However, he used name calling and every trick in the book to get elected.
At least there is a modicum of civility with the Dems. Trump doesn't believe in civility. He goes for the throat and the kill. That is one of the first things that I didn't like about him.
Fox news and Trump are exploiting what is a normal process when you have so many candidates running. But he and they are making it sound like pure chaos. Iowa was chaos, but it wasn't the candidates fault. It was the app that the caucus' were using.Just because the Trumplican senate won the trial does not make it right, when they are all so corrupt. They admitted what Trump did was wrong, but not wrong enough to be impeached based on the Dershowitz Theory.
I find it hypocritical that they wanted the house to take more time and yet McConnell rushed the senate to get through before Trump gave his state of the union speech. In other words as Doug Collins, Trumplican representative, said about the house, "They were on a calendar." So the strategy was either get it done before Trump's speech or if afterwards, let it go on until he is re-elected. McConnell is as cunning as Trump.I realize you feel any and all that even know Trump is corrupt. I get that. Are you saying Dershowitz is also corrupt or that perhaps you think you feel you know more about the Constitution? You do realize he is a Democrat so is Turley, and they had the same view that what Trump did was not impeachable.
In regard to the Senate's timeline, they gave both sides ample time to present their sides. Actually the House could have raped it up ina couple hours. All they did was a marathon of repeating themselves. The Defense had little to defend with such a weak case. I have finally finished watching every boring moment of the trial on CSpan. This trail literally could have taken half the time.
The House had the responsibility of proving their allegations, One should not blame the Senate for conducting the trail with what they offered up. I think it very sad some continue to make excuses for the House not doing their job. They either knew exactly what they were doing and what the outcome would be or they just did not do their job. I find it shocking you are willing to look the other way and make excuses for the House.
It's sort of funny you would bring up a timeline. The House rushed so they could take their Christmas break. This was the cheapest political ploy I have seen since Hillary and her Russian dossier.How could Dershowitz be wrong, Shar? Did you think OJ was innocent as well?
We don't think Dershowitz is corrupt; we do think, as does almost everyone else, is that Dershowitz #2 is wrong. Dershowitz #1 was right. Even Turley think Dershowitz #2 is wrong.
You asked me that yesterday. Is your memory going on you?
I don't remember you giving a concise answer, Shar. Was it a yes or a no?
Sharlee: Dershowitz just asserted his Theory. As far as I know there is nothing in the constitution that cites his theory. Look at it this way. If Dershowitz did not exist, would they still have found Trump innocent on the same legal grounds as Dershowitz?
The house did their job. They got Trump impeached. That is what they were supposed to do. The Trumplican senate did their job as well as ordered by Trump and McConnell. They got Trump off even though, they admitted to his guilt. So the senate did take a Christmas break...right?And they got Trump impeached with SOLID evidence.
The Senate was supposed to hold a trial - they didn't. Worse, MoscowMitch rigged whatever proceeding that was.
Shar and Co. are simply parroting what Hanity and Limbaugh say. It's difficult to listen to them, but find where the most Right of the Right get their excuses for Trump's criminal and dishonest behavior.
And its humorous to listen to them at times when they spin their latest conspiracy theories.Trump is a great example of how Putin, or Erdeon, or Assad, or Un run for office
Democrats are a great example of how Amricans run for office.
Not as odd as him paying for supporters to cheer at his rallies....
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump … ouncement/
https://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/20 … event.html
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo … 584350001/Those are just left-wing propaganda sites that post lies all the time.
When you have a reliable source, do post it.The Trump campaign paid one firm, Gotham, which seems to have gone on to pay a casting agency named Extra Mile to provide "administrative staff." This casting agency specializes in background extras according to its own Facebook page. Put a couple layers between, and some vague wording, and you have plausible deniability...not innocence.
https://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/17044405316.pdf Page 18 of 41 on the PDF is particularly telling.
The government PDF is remarkably similar to Snopes conclusions.Just to bring focus back to Trump's crime, here is a timeline:
1. Feb 15, 2019: Trump signs authorization bill giving Ukraine $141 million of non-military aid from the State Dept. This is one top of the $230 million from DoD HE PREVIOUSLY approved. WHY DID HE DO THAT if he was worried about corruption. (Clue-He wasn't)
2. Feb 28, 2019: DoD tells Congress they are going to start dispersing the 1st half of the aid to Ukraine.
3. Apr 21, 2019: Zelenskyy elected on an ANTI-CORRUPTION platform. Did you get the Anti-Corruption part??
4. May 3, 2019: 1st call to Zelenskyy where he passes on Putin's fake news about Russian not attacking America, but, beyond that doesn't mention corruption - even though that was part of the talking points he was given. Why did he PURPOSEFULLY leave corruption out when he "was SO concerned about it" CLUE - he wasn't.
5. May 13, 2019: Trump meets with fellow corrupt Right-wing strongman Orban, Hungarian Prime Minister, who criticizes Ukraine. By the way, no money for Ukraine yet - WHY?
6. May 14, 2019; The next day, Trump block's Pence's Ukraine trip - hmmmmmm.
7. May 23, 2019: The CIA tells Congress that Ukraine has MET the anti-corruption goals needed to release ALL of the aid. DoD prepared to release the aid. Ukraine knows this. Trump tells the Three Amigos to obey Rudy Giuliani.
8. Jun 18, 2019: DoD announces they are releasing the aid. The Ukrainians know this.
9. Jun 21, 2019: State Dept announces the release of their $141 million.
10. Jul 3, 2019: Trump blocks all aid. He didn't notify Congress as required by law. He kept it a secret. WHY?
11. Jul 10, 2019: Sondland illegally tells Ukraine they can't get a meeting with Trump unless they investigate the conspiracy theories abut the Bidens and Putin's propaganda about the 2016 election. DID SONDLAND make that up out of thin air?? NO. Trump told him to do it.
12. Jul 12, 2019: Trump blocks ALL aid
13. Jul 18, 2019: The interagency is told the block on aid is at the direction of Trump.
14. Jul 19, 2019: Sondland tells Zelenskyy he must announce the investigation into Trump's political opponents in order to get the meeting or the aid. (Ukraine has noticed no aid is coming by now and are asking questions)
14. Jul 23, 2019: Trump officials told by DoD the withholding of aid without notifying Congress is illegal.
15. Jul 25, 2019. Volker tells Zelenskyy that he MUST tell Trump on the upcoming call that he will announce an investigation into the conspiracy theory surrounding the Bidens and the 2016 election.
16. Jul 25, 2019: During the call, Zelenskyy asked for aid and a meeting. Trump conditioned that on conducting investigations on his political opponents, the Bidens, and the fake Ukraine 2016 interference. Zelenskyy already knows he has received no aid. THIS EXCHANGE WAS ILLEGAL.
17. Jul 26, 2019: The next day in a call with Sondland, Trump asks whether Zelenskyy will announce the investigations into his political opponents. Sondland says "yes" and later tells others at the meeting that Trump is not interested in corruption and ONLY interested in getting an announcement of an investigation.
18. July 30, 2019. Cooper once again tells Trump officials that to be legal, Trump must notify Congress on the hold.
19. Aug 2019: Ukrainian high level officials begin asking about the aid.
20. Aug 9, 2019: Congress tells Trump the hold on aid is illegal
21. Aug 12, 2019: A CIA official, through the Whistleblower Act, informs the IC IG of Trumps illegal acts.
22. Aug 9 - 13, 2019: Volker, Sondland, and Giuliani work with Ukrainians on a letter announcing an investigations. Ukraine says no.
23. Mid-Aug, 2019: Bolton meets with Trump to get him to release the aid. Trump says no and Bolton resigns.
24. Aug 19, 2019: Two other congressional committees tell OMB to release the aid that Congress approved. OMB refuses.
25. Aug 28, 2019: Politico publicly reveals the aid is on hold and the White House begins a series of differing reasons why.
26. Aug 30, 2019: Sondland privately tells Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., he thinks the reason for withholding the aid is Trump’s desire to force the investigations. "Trump privately CONFIRMS this" to Johnson the following day, according to Johnson.
27. Sep 1, 2019: Sondland tells a top Zelenskyy aide, Andriy Yermak, that U.S. assistance is unlikely to flow until Ukraine provided the desired public statement, according to Sondland.
28. Early Sep 2019: Zelensky makes an appointment to appear on CNN, where he plans to make the desired statement.
29. Sep 10, 2019: House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., demands to see the whistleblower complaint.
30. Sep 11, 2019: The aid is released. Surprise, surprise - Trump got caught.
31. Sep 19, 2019: Zelenskyy cancels interview.
32. Sep 30, 2019: The deadline for all 2019 federal spending, by which time all the Ukraine aid was supposed to be disbursed, or it would be automatically cancelled. Ultimately, $35 million was not spent in time but the deadline was extended in new legislation passed Sept. 19. - TRUMP VIOLATED THE Impoundment Control Act.Why do you think the House didn't impeach Trump for violating the Impoundment Control Act? Was that not a "high crime", just an ordinary crime? Not even a "misdemeanor"? Was it too complex to gain popular support in their purely political attempt at squashing election opposition?
Or did he not violate it at all, even though you claim he did?
It gets a little comical to see the increasingly desperate attempts to link Trump to an actual crime, the interminable claims of criminal activity with zero convictions. Not even a speeding ticket, just bales of claims that have no support in reality.Actually, the GAO said he did, don't pretend you don't know that. The Impoundment Control Act, as was Bribery, a lesser included offense of Abuse of Power. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
You said it not me... But never such a true statement.
Everybody wants facts about Trump. Here are some facts just from his State of the Union speech. I don't know how this man can sleep by taking credit for things he didn't do. But, If he actually believes he did those things, then that in itself speaks volumes of his mental state and how he is fooling his Trumplican supporters.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBZPhtk?m=en-us&a … InAppShareHis enablers don't care if he lies all day long, Mike. In fact it's part of their entertainment.
There are no reliable sources, except Trump, for his supporters. Go back to your alternate reality, the rest of us would like to discuss truths.
Hilarious how they don't like lies very much until Trump spins them. :LOL: So many sensitive Trump enablers...so little time.
Great idea, maybe the Dems should follow his lead. They certainly can't get many to attend their rallies. And come on it's not as creative or as expensive as paying for a crazy fake Russian dossier. Hillary still has Trump bat when it comes to political scams. She still the queen, just not the president.
Good point. Some choose to ignore that fact, and the fact that the Iowa caucus drew very few Dem's. They love polls, but can't see what is right in front of their eyes.
Neither of you ever attended a rally for dems. Correct?
No, but I have certainly seen some of them on the tube, and youtube. Plus they as a rule hold them at very small venues.
No, but I have certainly seen some of them on the tube, and youtube. Plus they, as a rule, hold them at very small venues.
Not really, Trump is a demagogue, that is is life's bread to be an entertainer.
The Democrats prefer a more personal approach with Americans. All Trump wants is crowd to supplicate to him.
As I have pointed out before, both charges against Trump were ludicrous on their face. It was and continues to be Trump's obligation, as per the mandate that the executive branch of the government, "to see that the laws are enforced." Where there is clear evidence of corruption, he MUST see that it is investigated and prosecuted. In reality, had he FAILED to pursue this matter, he would have been negligent in his responsibilities as head of the executive branch as well as his fiduciary responsibilities, as the law in this case would refer to the misappropriation of funds by the Bidens (and others).
Trump had/has an OBLIGATION to pursue this matter, just as your local sheriff has an obligation to pursue criminal activity. Any personal or political considerations are completely extraneous to this duty. It matters not at all whether the perp is his friend or enemy, or his political ally or opponent. The only thing that matters is the law, and whether the law has been broken. It is absurd to impeach or otherwise impugn a public official for investigating corruption and seeking to enforce the law--particularly when he is in a position that MANDATES that he do so.
As to the "obstruction of Congress" charge, the legislative and executive branches of government are co-equal. Neither can tell the other what to do, absent an appeal and subsequent intervention by the judicial branch. Should the legislative branch wish to make demands of the executive, they must do so through the Supreme Court. Period. End of story. The House failed to do so, or declined to do so.
The House didn't have a case under the law, and in fact failed to even pursue making its case, in the second instance. Turley has himself repeatedly pointed out this (and other) failures to pursue their supposed case.
Sorry, guys. "He-said/she-said" gossip and hearsay from second- and third-hand parties, conjecture, and "feelings" are not evidence--were one even to concede that there is something wrong with investigating corruption.
The Democrats' extraordinary vitriol in pursuit of Trump--including the impeachment itself--most probably arises from their awareness that there are a whole bunch of them who might well be looking down the barrel of investigation and prosecution for their many and varied crimes in, and related to, Ukraine. Besides the Bidens, Pelosi and the Kerrys have been implicated in this same racket. Pus of course the Russia hoax and the gross malfeasance related to the FISA court--in an attempt to rig the 2016 election, all of which has been pretty thoroughly exposed.
These are VERY serious charges. These people know that evidence is being gathered and investigations have long been underway. Barr and Giuliani have got the goods on them, and they know it."Trump had/has an OBLIGATION to pursue this matter, just as your local sheriff has an obligation to pursue criminal activity. " - IF TraitorTrump felt SO STRONGLY about that - why didn't he pursue it????
Did he put the FBI on the case? - NO!
Did he put DOJ on the case? - NO!
Did he ask the Trumplicans in the Senate to hold hearings? - NO!
He did Nothing. What did he do? He bribed a foreign leader to dig up non-existent dirt on his political opponent.
Somehow you think that unAmerican act is proper. Patriotic Americans don't think so.- Barr and Rudy are crooks themselves. Look how Barr is trying to get Roger Stone off when he tampered with witnesses, lied under oath, and put crosshairs on the judge's face online.
Indeed Trump and Co.are a pack of crooks.
Peoplepower: As for your normal, multi-candidate "sorting out," it looks like the Democrats are down to Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and (maybe)
Amy Klobuchar. There's some star quality for you. (I should probably give Klobuchar a pass on non-electabiity, as I don't know much about her.) Biden and Warren seem to be out of the running. Perhaps you could pin your hopes on Bloomberg.
I know the nation finds the Democratic platform--open borders, gun confiscation, late-term and even post-birth abortion, higher taxes, bigger and more intrusive government, etc.--riveting.
My impression is that blacks are not too thrilled with the Democrats' performance over the past 50 years either. If they are old enough to remember, they probably miss the high employment rates, stable families, good schools, and relatively safe neighborhoods that blacks enjoyed in 1955. They are perhaps not finding life in Baltimore to their taste.
Obviously, we all long for a late-night visit from a SWAT team coming around to shoot our dogs, and a couple of the kids, to confiscate our guns. And many are delighted by the vision of their very own late-term abortion. Because it's empowering.
There is doubtless a constituency for student-loan forgiveness--but probably not without pissing off those who would pay for this, as well as those who went to work and paid off their student loans. And there is doubtless a (very small) constituency for more gay rights, more tranny bathrooms, and tranny "story hours" for young children. There are even some people who want to hear more of what Greta has to say.
Perhaps Bernie--or Buttigieg--can enlighten us on these matters, during the presidential debates leading up to the election. Or perhaps Bloomberg will acquire a suitable box to stand on.As usual, she doesn't know what she is talking about.
Blue: What planet are you from? I'm pretty sure, you are a Russian troll.
"My impression is that blacks are not too thrilled with the Democrats' performance over the past 50 years either. If they are old enough to remember, they probably miss the high employment rates, stable families, good schools, and relatively safe neighborhoods that blacks enjoyed in 1955. They are perhaps not finding life in Baltimore to their taste."
How many black people do you see in Trump's rallies? He and Stephen Miller are racists to the core. In 1955 blacks were being beaten up on the streets by the republican Dixiecrats who's legacy is now in our senate.
"Obviously, we all long for a late-night visit from a SWAT team coming around to shoot our dogs, and a couple of the kids, to confiscate our guns. And many are delighted by the vision of their very own late-term abortion. Because it's empowering."
I think you have that mixed up with ICE (Trump Storm Troopers)
"There is doubtless a constituency for student-loan forgiveness--but probably not without pissing off those who would pay for this, as well as those who went to work and paid off their student loans. And there is doubtless a (very small) constituency for more gay rights, more tranny bathrooms, and tranny "story hours" for young children. There are even some people who want to hear more of what Greta has to say."
Student loans are just another way government exploits those who have the balls to get an education and end up paying for the rest of their lives.
"Perhaps Bernie--or Buttigieg--can enlighten us on these matters, during the presidential debates leading up to the election. Or perhaps Bloomberg will acquire a suitable box to stand on."
Blue good for you. You bought into Trump's propaganda piece. You win the prize, you are even more outrageous than Trump... Comrade Blue."Student loans are just another way government exploits those who have the balls to get an education and end up paying for the rest of their lives."
How is government "exploiting" someone that voluntarily borrows far more than they need? Because it is made available? Perhaps the answer is to limit the total available to each person, under the assumption that they are but children and incapable of making a good decision, rather than forcing a stranger in another state to pay for whatever was received in the loan?"How is government "exploiting" someone that voluntarily borrows far more than they need? " - and I suppose if they borrow $2, that is too much for their needs according to your conservative morality. How the hell do you know what is too much? Are you jealous or something?
When someone comes out of college $100,000 in debt they have borrowed too much, for they have borrowed far more than they can ever hope to pay back.
They would have been better off to learn a trade and have a life rather than spend their life paying off debt they didn't need. Can that really be so hard to understand? They borrowed according to their wants rather than their needs.Considering the average student debt is somewhere between 26k (state colleges), 32k (private non-profit) and 39k (private for-profit), the ones with 100k are just 6.2% of the population. Most of that 6.2% accumulated that total through grad school.
The average salary of those with a graduate degree will make an extra $17k per year over the course of their career than those with just an undergrad degree. Seems like that incurred debt will end up paying for itself in just over five years.
They borrowed to earn more. That is definitely not hard to understand for those who actually know higher education.And a college debt of 26k is reasonable. But you noted that that is only the average; that many borrow far more, and that's just for state college.
If the earnings is up only 7-8k (beginning) then 26k can be paid off in a reasonable time frame. But if double that is borrowed for that same state college education the payoff time increases very quickly to the point that it is NOT a reasonable trade off anymore.
And that's the point. I don't hear people complaining they have 25k in debt; I hear that they have borrowed 50k, 70k and more. That those are the exception does not change that they are the ones complaining...because they borrowed far more than they needed, and far more than they can pay off in any reasonable time. They are also the complainants that are being heard in Congress and the ones that are being used for the "free" college tuition for everyone campaign.Well, I went ahead and disproved your 100k argument, so you decided to shift the goal posts. It's late, and I don't feel like taking the additional five minutes to disprove your latest statements with actual data instead of 'what you hear' which I believe as much as when Trump says 'people say.'
only a buzzard sort of a bird can really tell me that blacks, I living the during the period, were better off in 1955. De facto segregation in the North and legal Jim Crow in the South being subjected to terror daily. Who in the hell do you think that you are? In my opinion, that was pretty dumb thing to say.
Where do you people get these ideas, has anyone really bothered to ask US what was better? The sheer arrogance of conservatives is so annoying.
so, I tell you that I am black, lived during the period in question, and anyone that tries to tell me that we were better off then is full of you know what!!She needs to look at black sharecroppers during the 50's, Cred! It was worse than slavery in some instances.
I lived in Biloxi Mississippi in the 50's while in the Air Force. They had a saying there, " Do you know what the fastest thing is here? Emmitt Till riding a bicycle through town. He was 14 years old and was viciously murdered by the Klan for whistling at a white woman. I'm from Southern California and was not subject to race, prejudice, and segregation until then.
Here in the deep south the black sharecroppers were treated so bad, it was painful to watch. They lived in shacks without running water of electricity in many cases. They often worked all year and ended up owing the commissary more than they earned, forcing them to work for the same landowner another year.
Tennessee Ernie Ford sang, "I owe my soul to the company's toll."The lyrics were "I owe my soul to the company store" (title "Sixteen Tons, written by Merle Travis) and referred to coal miners, not sharecroppers. Don't really know much about them outside of a few PBS documentaries, but it doesn't seem like they had an easy life and did often end up owing more to the "company store" than they earned no matter how hard they worked. Virtual slavery, just as sharecroppers endured.
It was the same thing, Dan. The landowners had a company store which sold groceries and other supplies at an exorbitant price. The landowners paid their sharecroppers in tokens or script which could only be used in their own particular commissary.
The coal mines did the same with their company stores. There were many occasions where the landowner would refuse to pay the black sharecroppers what they were due at the end of the year and then have them evicted by the sheriff.
Some of the crooks would do this every year if they were friendly with the local politicians.Didn't know sharecroppers were limited to a specific store, but doesn't surprise me. I HAVE seen where they were not paid a price for their product that made it possible to survive, though, locking them into the job just as coal miners were.
There are a lot of things in our past that should never have happened, even by the lights and morals of the people then.
Didn't mean to imply the lyrics were not appropriate, just that they were wrong in detail and were not written or sung with sharecroppers in mind.I knew that Dan, but the parallels were the same as in the song. Too bad some want those days to return.
thank you, Peoplepower
I live in the South currently and it really is from this certain point of view no different than the rest of the nation, today. I am proud to say that I am comfortable with freedom to access any public accommodation without thinking twice. I have the right to vote and express my political perspective, although not as welcome in this part of the country. But, that is Ok, as we respect each other's space.
So, I will leave the DeLorean parked, as I have no desire to return to 1955.
Sorry, Randy. I just get emotional when I see so much love. Can't we all just get along?
GA ;-)
MyEsoteric:
Getting back to your earlier comment (re my comment):
Re pursuing the case against the Bidens and others, I said, "Trump had/has an OBLIGATION to pursue this matter, just as your local sheriff has an obligation to pursue criminal activity. " You said, "IF TraitorTrump felt SO STRONGLY about that - why didn't he pursue it????
"Did he put the FBI on the case? - NO! Did he put DOJ on the case? - NO!
Did he ask the Trumplicans in the Senate to hold hearings? - NO!"
Um....
Re your first point, he did and is pursuing this matter. Investigations (by Guiliani) have been underway for awhile and much of the information collected has been reported to Barr. (Traitors, by the way, are people who are stealing or misappropriating US taxpayers funds. Not those seeking to investigate and prosecute crimes against the US.)
Re your idea of Trump putting the FBI on the case, such could only be done at the invitation of Ukraine, acting as their host. Secondly, the crimes occurred in Ukraine, so the responsibility for investigation rests primarily with Ukraine and would have to be done in cooperation with Ukraine as related to the US's treaty agreement to share information in investigations of international criminal activity. Third of all, if you'd use your head it would be obvious to you that the FBI has, at a minimum, known about these criminal activities for years or decades. If did not, then they wouldn't be much of an "intelligence" agency, now would they?
Re your idea of asking the Senate to look into this, the same situation applies. Many, if not everyone, in both the House and the Senate, have long been aware of this. One way we know this is because quite a few of them have their fingers in the till. You are suggesting that Trump ask them to investigate themselves and their colleagues. Not a winning strategy.
The key strategy for getting things done in matters like this is to apply the pressure of public awareness and get somebody on the job who is not complicit--and has an extensive experience in RICO cases (like Guiliani).
My opinion is that Trump used the Ukraine call to bait a trap for known moles in his administration--knowing that Vindman and Ciaramella, along with their associates/handlers/co-conspirators, would blab it all over the place. (Which, by the way, suggests to me that they are not real good at espionage. By the standards of espionage, this would have been a rather crude ruse. Yet it appears they fell for it.)
I imagine that, prior to making the Ukraine call, Trump told his staff, "Oh, and by the way, make sure those moles, Vindman and Ciaramella are on the call." A very astute move.When did Giuliani join the FBI or DOJ?
Trump is a traitor of other reasons not connected with Ukraine specifically but by way of aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States who is at war with us. His withholding aid to Ukraine aided the Russian fight against Ukraine - an ally. There are many more things as well.
Why didn't Trump investigate the "sky is falling" conspiracy theory as well? Face it Blue, he contrived a reason (or passed on Russian propaganda - a traitorous act in itself) to investigate his political opponents. Why investigate ONLY his political opponents ONLY after it became apparent he was a threat and NOBODY else. I assume you have a brain capable of figuring that one out.She knows Trump was only interested in smearing Joe because he was beating Trump in the polls. Her excuses aren't worthy of any consideration at all.
"The only thing saving Trump is the office he holds, since you republicans deemed him above the law..... not Clinton tho... how strange! Once he’s gone, he’s not protected."
EVEN THOUGH Trump escaped Justice while president and can serve his last 10 months as a dictator, he is up for a host of charges, now including Witness Retaliation, once he leaves in 2021.
Rudy, Ivanka, Jared, Jr and maybe even Barr will join him in jail (in a cell next to Cohen). The Democratic winner better not have a moment of weakness and pardon Trump.
What do you think Trump is going to do with Barr who grew a ball (unless they were in cahoots t save more mass resignations from DOJ.
Has time goes by, more and more of Trump's mob is going to jail.
Manafort
Cohen
Papadopoulos
Flynn
Stone
Gates
And by Association
13 Russians and 3 Russian companies
Richard Pinedo
Alex van der Zwaan
Konstantin Kilimnik (who with Manafort actually Conspired, IMO)
12 Russian GRU officers
Sam Patten
Tell me again how innocent the mob boss is!TraitorTrump now says HE DID send Giuliani to Ukraine to collect dirt on a political opponent (not illegal) by having a foreign gov't investigate him in return for aid and a meeting (illegal).
Umm...can you link to the law that says a quid-pro-quo is illegal? Or, if this is based on the unproven idea that the investigation was to aid in the election, can you provide any proof beyond opinions that it is true?
When did Rudy become a government representative, Dan?
Did you read the questions before answering? Your answer has exactly zero to do with what was asked.
Yes, I read Scott's comment about Rudy you replied to, and your response. Is the question too difficult for you?
I can think of a law that using quid pro quo of an official act for personal gain - It is called Bribery.
Even many Republicans said there was PROOF Trump bribed Zelenskyy. So drop the act.
My Esoteric, I know you find the concept of a president going after corruption horrifying. I suppose if a kid holds up the local gas station and he happens to be in competition with the son of the county prosecuting attorney for captain of the high school football team, he should be untouchable.
This is a novel theory of jurisprudence.Why would I find that horrifying. What I find horrifying is that he does it for his own PERSONAL GAIN and NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.
Biden went after corruption in the national interest. Trump didn't even go after corruption, since none existed, he just wanted dirt on his political opponent - something it seem you approve of. That is what is done in your country - Russia.
My Esoteric, you claim that Trump aided and abetted an enemy of the US that the US is at war with. Um.... Who would that be? I know of no such "enemy" that Trump "aided and abetted."
Why are you the only one who doesn't know, Russian Troll? Let me spell it out to you R U S S I A and his friend Putin.
The judge in the McCabe trial--which coincidentally was dropped today--chewed the prosecutors a new @$$hole. As a former prosecutor, he told them they were going down the wrong path, among other unkind remarks.
We only have this info because a private group sued to have the transcript released. It's getting serious, boys and girls!My Esoteric, you seem unfamiliar with the facts of the case. They are well known.
The Bidens were stealing millions of dollar of US taxpayer foreign aid funds from Ukraine by laundering the money through Burisma, by means of Hunder Biden's position on the board of directors.
Joe Biden boasted to the CFR on videotape of halting the Ukrainian investigation into corruption related to Burisma, lest this little racketeering scheme come to light. Joe halted the investigation by threatening to withhold foreign aid funds unless the prosecutor were fire immediately.
There is no question that Hunter's position, paying $50,000 per month plus bonuses was in fact a misappropriation of US foreign aid funds.
Hence, the Bidens' "personal gain" amounted to millions in stolen US taxpayer funds.
Trump's supposed "personal gain" was that he would thus take out a political rival for the presidency. I should be obvious that Joe Biden is not a credible political rival to much of anybody and never was.
Trump did enjoy some justly earned political capital from the exposure of this corruption. As chief executive, that is his job under the Constitution--to see that the laws are enforced--which, in this case, are the laws against racketeering.
Quite appropriate, wouldn't you say, for the chief executive to go after thieves? An appropriate too that he should be praised and honored for it--just a would your local prosecuting attorney for going after your neighborhood drug ring. The accrual of political capital in such a case is justly earned.Each and every significant statement you made is a Trump and unsupported by any facts.
BTW, while still currying TraitorTrump's favor by saying (probably while gagging) nice things about him, Zelenskyy did deny one of Trump's core arguments - that Ukraine is not, has not, been fighting corruption. He said he told Trump that.
Do you have any proof of your claim about Biden laundering money through Burisma, Vile? What about a link?
Agreed, Trumping it seems to be popular for the Right these days, Scott.
Here is an excerpt from Jim Sciutto's book The Shadow War - a war, btw, we are losing to the Russians and Chinese - badly.
I find it appropriate for this forum because it speaks to the many unwitting (and some witting, I bet) Russian agents. He is quoting General Hayden from his book The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in the Age of Lies. (It is on my reading list.) He is speaking about how Russia uses cyber to divide America by sowing a message and letting the conservative media spread the word. This is just one example of many:
"Hayden tells a revealing story about the explosive growth of conservative outrage at NFL players' "take a knee" protest during the national anthem. Russian bots identified a valuable target for exploitation early on in the controversy and quickly began generating thousands of posts using the hashtags #takeakneee, #NFL, and -- in an interesting clue as to the origin fo the many of these posts -- grammatically incorrect hashtag #taketheknee.
' The most difficult things to translate are the definite articles,' Hayden explains with a smile, ' "Take the Knee" was the third trending hashtag, and when the alt-right picked it up, it goes to Fox, bleeds through Hannity, then from Hannity it goes to Fox & Friends, and then he (Trump) retweets it.
'They all do it for there own purposes, but they all take us to the same place, " Hayden said, "To a really important degree, we're our own worst enemies. We give them opportunities.' "
Hayden is one of the many, many generals who speaks out against Trump. Keep in mind, military officers by training and mentality, are apolitical. So, besides Hayden, you have:
General Mattis, who hasn't said much but did quit in protest
General Kelly
Admiral McRaven
General McCrystal
Admiral Stavridis
General Powell
General Votel
General McMaster (3)
General Dempsy
General Petraus
General Keane
Admiral Zukunft
General Dunford
General Brooks
General Clapper (3)
What is it these heroes and patriots know about Donald Trump to speak out against him when at no time in our history as more than one ever criticized a president in public. Note, every one of the above, except McMaster and Clapper, are at the 4-star rank.
That has got to tell you something. Either all of these ethical people are wrong or Trump and his supporters are.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … ls/601348/Yes it does tell US something Scott, but it doesn't tell his enablers anything they want to consider.
Geez, Randy, how have missed the dozens of stories about the Bidens? I think I've observed in the past that you do not seem to be following what is going on.
Tell me what they've been charged with, Vile? And give me a link to your claims, and not from a Right wing conspiracy site, like Fox News.
These issues with the Bidens, vis-a-vis impeachment, are extremely simple: Stealing foreign aid funds is illegal. Seeking to investigate a crime is not illegal. Seeking to investigate the crimes of supposed political rivals is not illegal.
Attempting to turn these simple matters on their head is--to those of us who are sane--a highly bizarre exercise.Did you not read my comment, Vile? Or did you purposely avoid responding to it? Or do those same "sane" people, who you claim to be one of, not deign to answer questions from the Left? It has to be one or the other, Vile.
Randy, you seem to have quite a bit more time on your hands than I.
Since you clearly have an interest in talking about political issues, your next logical step would be to inform yourself about them using widely available resources.
I have neither the time nor much inclination to write books about this.
It would be helpful to you to read a little about history, political theory, and fundamental economics. Few things (if any) are what you have been taught they are; you have been taught frauds, illusions, and nonsense all your life.
It would help you to gain an understanding of what "government" actually IS, from both a historical and practical perspective. The same is true of economics. What are the mechanisms by which class systems are created? Through what means are the great mass of people deprived of economic opportunity and systematically robbed of the products of their labor? What methods are used to train the great mass of people to cheerfully accept--and even promote--these systems?
I think much of leftist ideology is founded on a profound belief in "government" (more properly, "the State") as benefactor and savior. Liberalism is actually State-worship--a belief system (properly, a religion) that has been diligently instilled into you from the cradle. (Hmm.... Why do you suppose anyone would do that?)
This misapprehension of the world and the way it actually works leads to a mental condition wherein one does not know "straight up from straight down when it's raining," leading to other ills.
The book I would suggest, as a start is "Our Enemy, the State," by
Albert Jay Nock. It's a free download. It is not very long and includes many references that are worth pursuing. You can download it here: https://famguardian.org/Publications/Ou … JKnock.pdf
On economics, I would suggest "Progress and Poverty," by Henry George. It is REALLY long, but an excellent read. You can get it from the library.
In passing, I would also add that, in my opinion, all issues of conduct, great or small, are basic "right-and-wrong" issues.
While I can't think of any books that would help you out there, I think that making progress along the lines of moral formation requires, first and foremost, a devotion to truth. Secondly, I think that all moral foundations must be based on an understanding of what human beings are, in themselves--that each of us has an inestimable value and that each has a right to freedom, and even--maybe even especially--to reverence.
One of the more perspicacious views of the Founding Fathers was that human beings have certain inalienable rights--inalienable because not conferred by the State, but by the creator.
The primary thing that liberals need to get through their heads is that "the State" is inimical to all the above, being, in its whole character, inimical to human freedom. Liberals are Statists--even State worshippers--of the deepest dye. (It is my observation that they are almost invariably also on the State payroll.)
It is unwise (at multiple levels) to ally yourself with such forces.You have time to write this screed, but can't furnish a single link to your claims about the Bidens. Gotcha!
I think this is a wonderful example of PROJECTION.
Simply because I asked her for a link to her unfounded claims re the Bidens. I'm glad I didn't ask for a paragraph!
Randy, you ignorance of just about everything is wilful. You may inform yourself if you wish to.
Most of your problem is that your background knowledge is missing or faulty. It's kind of like a kid who didn't learn their math facts in grade school or learned them wrong. They will never be able to progress unless they go back and correct their knowledge base, but will forever argue with you that your long division is wrong, because they can't see how you arrived at your conclusion--and think the conclusion should be whatever they wish them to be.
My Esoteric's case is somewhat different. He seems very heavily invested in his faulty conclusions (and premises)--the result of spending a lifetime on the payroll, no doubt. His obliviousness to and rejection of objective reality is quite disturbing.I didn't think you'd back up your claim, Vile. No amount of insults toward Scott and I will save you.
Blue: So you think you have informed yourself by subscribing to Albert Jay Nock's idealistic views on life and politics? From what I read on Wikipedia, he was an antisemitic, non-conformists who changed his values and belief systems to fit changing issues occurring throughout his life.
And now you want to proselytize those views onto others who don't agree with you by insulting them.
In this day and age, conservative republicans, have devolved into a monolithic group of people who put party above morals and law.
While democratic liberals by their very nature are more diversified and scattered but still believe in the constitution and what it stands for and place law and moral values above the party.
Trump and his immorality, lack of ethics, and disregard for the law and the constitution happens to fit in very nicely into the new GOP agenda."From what I read on Wikipedia, he was an antisemitic, non-conformists who changed his values and belief systems to fit changing issues occurring throughout his life."
You mean like the non-comformists that instituted the end of slavery? Those that brought about the right to vote? The people that advocated for reasonable wages for coal miners or those that want coal mining stopped? Do you refer to the people crying about global warming?
Seems to me that it is the smarter people that are willing to modify their policies and attitudes according to changing conditions. Even changing mores and culture.First of all WIlderness, conservatives such as yourself opposed abolition, opposed blacks and women to get the right to vote, opposed reasonable wages for coal minors as well as safe working conditions. Those were progressive prerogatives.
While I don't look at "non-cnoformist" as being either good or bad, it what is done in the name of non-conformity that matters. If his anti-antisemitism is part of that, then it is bad. If ending slavery is part of it, then it is good.
"Seems to me that it is the smarter people that are willing to modify their policies and attitudes according to changing conditions. Even changing mores and culture." - AND THIS is what conservatives, by definition, don't want to do."First of all WIlderness, conservatives such as yourself opposed abolition, opposed blacks and women to get the right to vote, opposed reasonable wages for coal minors as well as safe working conditions. Those were progressive prerogatives."
Not sure what this has to do with anything I said, except perhaps to express your disdain for anyone or anything not considered liberal.
"While I don't look at "non-cnoformist" as being either good or bad, it what is done in the name of non-conformity that matters."
That goes without saying; if, for example, the desire to chain people to charity of liberals is bad. If it is to free people from both those chains and poverty then it is good.
"AND THIS is what conservatives, by definition, don't want to do."
Same response. Are you just wanting to express disdain or is there a point here?Yes, I do disdain Conservatives and conservatism. It is based on their actions throughout the history of America. Rarely has their positions been for the benefit of American society. It has almost always had the effect of suppressing the liberty of minorities and promoting the liberty of mostly white Protestants.
Show me a time in American history where that has not been true as a rule.
I followed your lead to Nock's Wiki page.
I didn't see your denigration that he was one "who changed his values and belief systems to fit changing issues occurring throughout his life."
It should be possible to disagree with a reference without feeling it must be denigrated because you don't agree with it.
To your credit, you are the exception to the insult-throwers. But I think Blue's insinuations, (which you viewed as insulting), are mild compared to what has been happening in these forums lately.
GA"More than 1,110 former Justice Department officials who served in Republican as well as Democratic administrations posted a statement Sunday calling on Attorney General Bill Barr to resign."
WOW! There is a vote of confidence. I hope he listens, but doubt he will. Maybe can impeach Barr; they have grounds.Hope they have better grounds than they did for impeaching the President!!
The grounds they had were good enough, Dan. You and Mitch just didn't like them, and wouldn't no matter how much evidence they had.
They had great grounds for impeaching Trump. The Trumplicans didn't have grounds for turning the trial into a sham.
They sure did - people with an axe to grind expressing an opinion without a shred of evidence to support that opinion.
Which is why I said what I did.What people had an axe to grind? I know of none so you must be making it up again.
Right. Being fired or publicly attacked does not mean the average person dislikes it and has an axe to grind.
Not if you're desperate to show the evil in Trump while excusing everyone else in the world, anyway.Which of the 17, besides the Ambassador who Trump smeared for no reason, were fired????
Nothing has to do with whatever Nock is; mine was more interesting I thought.
"From what I read on Wikipedia, he was an antisemitic, non-conformists who changed his values and belief systems to fit changing issues occurring throughout his life." - Sounds like Trump
You are becoming too predictable My Esoteric.
GA
Peoplepower, perhaps you should read Nock instead of Wikipedia. I provided a link to a free download.
No group of people is exempt from criticism. One of Nock's other books, "Memoirs of a Superfluous Man" (also excellent), reveals that he was also a bit of a misogynist. But since I am a bit of a misanthrope (or maybe the word is misandrist), I figure we're even. I suppose we both have our reasons.
I have had many long acquaintances with a shit-ton of Jews. They have some very admirable qualities, most notably their skepticism, but they are also often full of prunes. I could say the same about Italians and Native Americans, with whom I also go back a ways.
Nock also, by his own account, didn't like children. He remarked in one place that one of the purposes of public education--besides instilling "a servile reverence for a sacrosanct State"--was its value as a form of "social quarantine." I think he believed that puerility was best encysted somewhere away from regular folks. (Speaking for myself, I like children and young people.)
You ought, as an adult, to be able to receive other people's views with humor and detachment, however much they conflict with your own. You ought also to be willing to consider whether they might be right.Valeant, your post is (charitably) disingenuous. Uncharitably, it is puerile.
The proximate cause of the debt problem is the Federal Reserve System. Neither party has ever shown any interest in fixing that problem.
If you would like to know something about the Federal Reserve and the monetary system, I would suggest you read "The Creature from Jekyll Island." You would then have adequate background knowledge of our monetary system to be qualified to have an opinion.Oh, you've come back without the link to your claims re the Bidens. Do you believe your opinions are simply taken on your word?
I've read the Creature From Jekyll Island as I vacation there quite often and have studied the history of the island form the first European settler, Thomas Horton, to the later residents and the Millionaire's Club.
I even spent a few nights at the famous Jekyll Island Club in exchange for me writing an article about it.
How about the link, once again?Considering the amount of right-wing falsities and conspiracy theories we always have to spend time debunking from you, and have easily done in the past, I think I'll just continue to ignore any stances you take or the insults you veil from your Trumpian belief of educational superiority.
Everybody: In case you didn't watch 60 minutes tonight. Everything you wanted to know about "The CrowdStrike Server" and how it morphed into Trump's conspiracy theory about the Ukraine.
It's amazing how this man can cause upheaval in the world by saying, "That's what I heard/ many people have told me...". Where we have to have proof, Trump needs none to create turmoil...In fact he thrives on it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-crow … 020-02-16/He ONLY thrives on it because his followers lack any critical thinking capabilities (or more likely simply refuse to use them when it comes to Trump).
If they really thought through what he says and compare it to reality, they would realize he is a pathological liar who has no understanding what truth and facts are. To Trump, a fact is whatever he says it is.
"Neither party has ever shown any interest in fixing that problem." - IS A Demonstrably False statement. One of many proofs is the Clinton-Gingrich (I hate to give Conservatives credit for anything, but in this case I must because it took both of them) budget that actually reduced the federal debt in real terms.
Many Presidents and Congresses of both parties in history have attempted to eliminate the debt, some succeeded.
Randy, if you have read The Creature from Jekyll Island, it would be obvious to you that posts such as Valeant's are a bit silly. The Federal Reserve System essentially provides the US government with a credit card with no credit limit.
Since one of the main uses of money in our political system is to buy votes with handouts, both parties avail themselves equally of this opportunity. So you get out-of-control spending.
Out-of-control spending debases the currency, resulting in inflation. Low interest rates increase asset prices, so you get ever-increasing costs of things like housing. (There are other factors in play, of course, especially with housing costs.)
The main reason (perhaps the only reason) that the dollar is not in the toilet, Weimar-style, is the status of the dollar as the world reserve currency, and the use of the the US military to enforce this status, primarily by supporting the petro-dollar.
Most world conflicts that involve the US are best viewed through this lens.
The real issue that our MIC has with Russia is that it has vast energy resources and that most of our traditional allies in Europe are heavily dependent on Russia for gas (and I think oil as well). They would prefer to get along with the guys on whom they rely for fuel, and they seem to be getting increasingly restive about that.
The Ukraine situation has a lot to do with Russian pipelines passing through Ukraine and the Russians building a Baltic pipeline to circumvent Ukraine. The idea is to stop Russia from selling energy to Europe--along with the rather absurd hope that Europe will buy energy (at a vastly higher price) from the US.
The petro-dollar is what is at issue here, along with the dollar's status as the world reserve currency.
The conflicts in the Middle East arise from the same source. They are over who will control the gas pipelines and will profit from them, in both money and allegiances. If Russia gains significant control of the energy market, the petro-dollar and dollar's reserve currency status will eventually be toast.
Here again, there are other factors in play. Efforts have long been underway to circumvent the dollar as the world reserve currency by other means.
What we are seeing is an attempt to keep this system (where the dollar is the world reserve currency) in place by using military force. It won't work, long term, the main reason being that it costs more than it comes to. Plus of course the ability to finance these military adventures is due entirely to the Fed's willingness to extend unlimited credit. Thus debasing the currency (for you and me).
Now, consider the consequences of the dollar's loss of world reserve currency status. It is primarily this status that is preventing runaway inflation in the US. The loss of this status could mean Weimar-style currency collapse.
There is no comfortable way out of this pickle that I can see--though there are doubtless approaches that are more comfortable than others. E.g., WWIII is probably not a good option.Again, Blue proves that she would rather believe in conspiracy theories rather than facts. I studied the creation of the federal reserve system and wrote about it in my book A Short History of Significant American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics: Why Conservative Theory Does Not Work.
Do you mean Trump's out-of-control-spending and deficit creating tax cuts?
"The Ukraine situation has a lot to do with Russian pipelines passing through Ukraine and the Russians building a Baltic pipeline to circumvent Ukraine." - WHILE THIS is certainly a factor, the main reason is Putin's attempt to reassembly the old Soviet Union and to defeat the West.
Who would replace the dollar?A link to the vote buying you claim may help your argument, Vile. But then, I realize if you can't furnish a claim to the Biden's crimes in Ukraine, then you won't in this case either.
Blue, as you know, doesn't have links, she just have conspiracy theories in place of facts and truth.
I know Scott, but I'm gonna ask her every time she makes ridiculous claim. I've taught dogs not to suck eggs, but this is a bit more difficult.
Blue: Everything you said there is all well and good, but it is not clear are you for Trump or against him, or you don't care? What your comment covers is the geopolitical situation of the world. There is not much we can do about world politics. We need to know how you feel about Trump as president and perhaps for another term?
Randy, if you can't find the stories on Biden that were all over the news some weeks ago, you are, as usual, not following events. If you can't see the political process itself as being mostly a matter of vote buying by promising "free stuff," you are probably incapable of consecutive thought.
Basically, people vote for whichever candidate has promised to support their economic interests. You may recall the lady who proclaimed some years ago that, "O'bama gonna pay my mortgage!"
Most liberals are government employees whose expectation is that Democratic politicians and administrations will expand government, expand government programs, and increase taxation. This means greater job security and opportunities for them, as well as bigger paychecks and benefits.
Many if not most of the public sector pension funds are either insolvent or grossly underfunded. The public sector pension systems for Chicago and the state of Illinois are object lessons--though not isolated examples. Public sector employees/retirees can be counted on to vote for Democratic administrations, because they can be counted on to cover the ever-increasing public-sector costs by means of ever-increasing taxes. Property taxes in Illinois (as well as some other states where the same situation obtains) have long been punitive--yet without making much of a dent in the insolvency problem, while at the same time resulting in a lack of funds for actual public services. The public sector will pretty reliably vote to increase taxes to the moon (which means voting Democrat), rather than accept pension reductions or shrinking the pubic sector.
Private sector employees, businesses, and homeowners foot the bill for this through increased taxes--from which little or nothing accrues to them in the way of benefits or services. So, yeah, they would like to vote out the Democratic administrations.
In my own rather small rural community, the liberal/conservative divide is primarily along public sector/private sector lines. Both vote their paycheck (pretty much).
I think it was H.L. Mencken who observed that, "An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods."You made the claim, Vile. Give a me link showing Biden and Hunter were charged for illegal activity in the Ukraine. If there were many such articles with proof of your claim, it would be a simple matter to give me a link.
I can only come to the conclusion you can't find any reputable links for your claim, and I can't find any either. Help a brother out, Vile!
Or simply admit your claim was bogus.Randy can't find anything because there is nothing to see.
And of course "Most liberals are government employees " is a flat out Trump.
Here's the full Mencken quote: "The state—or, to make the matter more concrete, the government—consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."
"For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.” Robert Heinlein
A weak attempt at sarcasm would say something like; "What the hell do history's examples have to do with anything."
GA
And we care about Mencken why? What is his expertise?
Here's another (Hunter is a busy guy): https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hun … g-debunked
The payments to Hunter--or some of them--were banking records published in the New York Times in connection with the Devon Archer case.But of course, Randy, neither you nor My Esoteric know anything about any of this stuff. Beats me how anyone following the news might have missed these and dozens of other stories.
- I asked for a reputable site, Vile? All of theses are from a known right wing conspiracy site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … harassment
Got a reputable site?I think the Russian backed zerohedge is her only fake news site.
I said that wrong. What I meant to say is the Fake News site, Zerohedge, is her ONLY news source.
I myself would not consider corporate monopolist news organizations to be reliable or reputable information sources. Particularly since the main thing they are noted for is outright fabrications--in which they have been caught innumerable times.
One of the more glaring examples is the libel perpetuated against Nick Sandmann by several MSM behemoths. This resulted in several lawsuits--one against CNN for $275 million. CNN has settled with Sandmann for an undisclosed amount. Other lawsuits are still pending.
Here's a list of 51 instances of MSM lies re Russiagate, although there were of course many more--and historically been many more on many other subjects. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04- … spread-msm
Hence, I would venture to say that most Americans view the MSM as our own domestic version of the old Pravda newspaper of the old Soviet Union. They have wholly discredited themselves. (The Russians didn't believe Pravda either.)
Fortunately, we do have independent journalists.Blue: Here is what zerohedge is about and who runs it. Are you sure you are not a Russian Mole and your soap making business is just a cover for your real job?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/"I myself would not consider corporate monopolist news organizations to be reliable or reputable information sources. Particularly since the main thing they are noted for is outright fabrications--in which they have been caught innumerable times." - YOU MUST be talking about FAKE Fox News and far-right Brietbart and other Fake news media like them.
It is only the small percentage which comprise Trumplicans and believers in conspiracy theories which view MSM that way. In fact, Shar's source shows most American's trust ABC, NBC, CBS (not necessarily in that order), then BBC and CNN, and finally Fox.
If you read the rebuttal to the Bloomberg interview, their source was a disgruntled former employee: "Bloomberg had no problems running a sole-sourced piece by a disgruntled former employee who not only admitted he had major psychological problems, a checkered past, was unstable, but had also made clear his motive to 'out' this website with hopes of crushing it and even issued death threats to Zero Hedge workers." https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04- … zero-hedge
Bloomberg was able to unearth a disgruntled former employee, who was also "an emotionally unstable, psychologically troubled alcoholic with a drug dealer past, as per his own disclosures" to present the website in a bad light. Every organization has such people--or has had them.
I see no other objections of any substance in your link.
If you take issue with the facts or information offered there, I would suggest that you give your reasons for doubting these. To object to the source of information, rather than offering reasoned objections to the veracity of the information itself, is merely a variation of the ad hominem fallacy.There you go with the Russian-backed propaganda fake news site zerohedge. Please offer up something that isn't from your master Russia.
Am I sure that I'm not a Russian mole and my soap making business is just a cover? Well, soap making is admittedly a pretty shady, back-alley kind of business. I only do it because the entire artisan soap making world is a cover for international espionage. What a shrewd devil you are for finding me out.
Blue: You seemed to skip over what is relevant in my reply. I think the fact that they are based in Bulgaria and the head of Zero hedge has many pseudo names is quite relevant to their agenda of being a right wing, pro-Russian conspiracy site.
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Bulgaria
World Press Freedom Rank: Bulgaria 45/180
History
Launched in 2009, Zero Hedge is a finance blog founded by Colin Lokey also known with the pseudonym “Tyler Durden,” Daniel Ivandjiiski, and Tim Backshall. According to a Bloomberg Interview the Zero Hedge founders/authors were anonymous until 2016. A Professional Service Subscription is required to read the rest of the interview from Bloomberg, however a New Yorker article also covered their history.
Zero Hedge wrote a rebuttal article regarding the Bloomberg interview that can be found here. A quote from the rebuttal reads: “Zero Hedge hired Colin when he approached us over a year ago begging for a job after he was fired with cause from Seeking Alpha, following a fight with a co-worker.”
Funded by / Ownership
The website is registered in Bulgaria under the name Georgi Georgiev, a business partner of Krassimir Ivandjiiski.
According to Rationalwiki the only writer “conclusively” identified is “Dan Ivandjiiski, who conducts public interviews on behalf of Zero Hedge.” The blog generates revenue from online advertising.
Analysis / Bias
In a quote from the above New Yorker article they summarize the political stance of the blog, which Lokey told Bloomberg is: “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft.”
Zero Hedge’s content has been classified as “alt-right” and has been criticized for presenting conspiracy theories.
In review, Zero Hedge publishes pro-right wing/Trump articles such as Pat Buchanan: “Trump Calls Off Cold War II.” As well as fake news stories regarding liberals: Anti-Trump Protesters Bused Into Austin, Chicago.
Editorial content is written under the pseudonym Tyler Durden and usually focuses on conspiracies related to economic collapse. Zero Hedge sources to factually mixed think tanks such as the The Mises Institute, which promotes Austrian (Anarcho-Capitalism) economics.
A factual search reveals a terrible track record with IFCN fact checkers. Below is just a small sample of the numerous failed fact checks by Zero Hedge.
Says China “stole Coronavirus from Canada and weaponized it into a Bioweapon.” – False
Is a Craigslist ad proof that counterprotesters at a white nationalist rally were “paid to make chaos”? – False
It’s now against the law in California to shower and do laundry on the same day. – Mostly False
A “newly uncovered” photograph reveals Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was crying over an empty parking lot, not detained migrant children, at a protest in Texas. – False
“The Ukrainian government just indicted the Burisma gas company & named Hunter Biden for accepting millions of dollars from a slush fund.” – False
Overall, we rate Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left. (8/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 1/29/2020)
Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/Vile can't find any reputable site which agrees with her views, Mike. Ergo, zerohedge, the Russian propaganda outlet.
And then there is this -
I seems Trump has taken to pardoning like-minded criminals or campaign donors.
Hopefully, there are state charges that can be assessed against these crooks.
While that is expected of a crook like Trump, what is despicable and decrepit by this hinged maniac was his order to change the rule against sharing confidential therapist notes with ICE. They, in turn, use this information against the patients in court.
The case in hand is a 17-year old Honduran trying to seek asylum in America. MS-13 killed his parents in Honduras, so he went to live with his grandmother. She died and the MS-13 took over his hovel and forced him into their drug trade. They also used his house to conduct executions, including dismemberments. Once in detention, the law requires him/them to undergo weekly therapy to deal with the extreme trauma he/they were under.
Under Obama, those notes were actually confidential. Trump. on the other hand, doesn't believe in confidentiality so he changed the guidance and ordered the therapist notes turned over to ICE to use against the patients. Very Trumpian.
To be honest, I bet if he thought he could get away it, he would put these people in concentration camps along with any Muslims he could corral. I bet secretly he agrees with China's crack down on the Muslims in China.Coincidentally, an investigation into Trump Org was paused when Barr became the new AG. Ivanka and other Family members were slated to be interviewed about the infamous organisation, but Barr seems to have took care of this. The investigation has literally "fell off a cliff," according to one prosecutor.
Blatant corruption, no matter what anyone says. This should awaken anyone with a patriotic bone in their body. Sadly, Trump's enablers have none.
I've experienced this often from the Right.
Not sure your blurb rings true... Trump supporter or not, I like to see a bit of proof to back up any statements that are meant to represent facts. A face, a name, a quote, any or all can go along way to back up a comment.
Otherwise, I consider the comment opinion-oriented. I guess it's apparent many don't need facts. That's a problem for me. Just saying
I have also noted that most conservatives here on this forum do make every attempt to secure their own facts. Not sure if your sentiment fits here on this forum.
I understand it can be a burden to seek facts. Much easier to tune into media for the news. However, that can lead to hearing only opinions of however the network could dig up for any given day, and a talk jock.
( Not meaning to be snarky, but in this case, your sentiment called for a bit of snarky. You get what you project.)Are you saying you don't give opinion-oriented facts, such as, Biden did the same as Trump in Ukraine?
You and I live in two different realities currently, Shar. Once people started to buy into the statement that there are 'alternate facts' and any credible source that criticizes Trump is 'fake news,' those people joined the reality set up for them by Trump, where what he says, those people believe.
I'm not sure there's much point debating people that can no longer objectively discern when they are being lied to, as the thousands that cheer obviously false statements at Trump rallies."I have also noted that most conservatives here on this forum do make every attempt to secure their own facts. " - OH Give me a break Shar, that is not true and you know it. (Also, isn't that an example of your factless opinion?)
The only people that do most of the time is me, Randy, Valeant, Credence, and other like-minded commenters.I do believe Shar phrased it as "opinion-oriented," Scott.
That is true.
Sold another book today - I think I am up to a whopping 34, lol.Cool beans, Scott! That's 34 more than my non-existent book has sold.
Although I do have a few audiobooks I sold years ago.I am thinking about trying to turn a hub I am writing about the fall of American constitutional democracy in the age of Trump into a book; with lots of history.
I see the corrupt "president" fired his acting DNI for telling Congress the truth about intel showing Russia is interfering with the 2020 election on Trump's behalf. I am guessing Trump's prefered intelligence agency, Russia, didn't agree.
First, let me point out the comment was addressing Valeant.
At the sake of sounding rude, I have to point something out. You sound overly righteous. One only has to read any given comment to realize who backs up what they are stating and who does not. I don't feel it my place to point at any one person as you have. I would actually appreciate it if you would not respond to my post. I will be honest I have no respect for how you conduct yourself or take it upon yourself to critique others, mere strangers. I find that very odd. Just my opinion.
Meanwhile, what's being testified to in the UK:
Assange’s barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, referred to evidence alleging that the former US Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher had been to see Assange, now 48, while he was still in the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017.
A statement from Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows “Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks”, Fitzgerald told Westminster magistrates court.Not surprising in the least, Val. The cretin will extort anyone, as we've already discovered with the Ukraine scheme.
Putin said no. So that's that!
I wonder how much Trump is in to Russia? With Deutsche Bank the only entity which will loan Trump money--because of his many failing enterprises--he's bound to be up to his neck in loans.
I hope he didn't put the US up as collateral!I wouldn't be surprised if he did give away America in those secret meetings he has with #MurderingPutin.
Related Discussions
- 175
What Democrats Have Taught Me About Losing an Election
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
- 110
Biden Impeachment Inquiry - The Logical Next Step
by Sharlee 3 weeks ago
I'd love to hear your perspective on this current political matter. It's worth noting that the topic doesn't revolve around Trump, but it's intriguing because President Biden is seeking re-election for another four years in office."Fox News Digital has confirmed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,...
- 639
Impeaching Donald Trump - Again
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
- 117
Trump Tribunals: Predict An Impeachment Article / Indictment Charge
by JAKE Earthshine 6 years ago
There is no other acceptable choice and or remedy other than his resignation which would conceivably still lead to immediate criminal indictment given the trove of damning evidence which currently exists: The political END must be near for this most absurdly unqualified and mentally shackled...
- 66
Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.
by jeff61b 4 years ago
We know there are political extremists on both sides who can be encouraged to do dangerous and violent things, but until now, every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has been careful in their rhetoric to avoid inciting the extremists in their party to commit violence.But Donald Trump...
- 137
Re-instateing 'real' Donald Trump as President Again
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 3 years ago
The American nation is on the boil! It's law enacting body or Legislation is likewise on the boil on impeaching biden. Both Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are target to be impeached as not to compromise the Presidency! So Biden, Kamala, and...