[Cardfan1]

Whereas I am certain that I would be standing on granite resting on bedrock, that you have feasted on the monkey puke with relish.

The impeachment managers have done nothing but repeat the same drivel they dreamed up in the House. Thankfully, the founders were much smarter than today's House majority. They envisioned the possible scenario where the House majority may be tempted to use their power to weaponize the impeachment process for light and/or transient cause; say like not liking his policy decisions such as they have in this day for example. And further in the ultimate irony, have tried to illegally use impeachment to get rid of a political foe. Thus they (the founders) included the necessary language to preclude same in the Constitution.

Your first three paragraphs are great examples of liberal revisionist malarkey.

If you weren’t watching how do you know what was said? The piecemeal case that was displayed in the Impeachment inquiry was very different than what was presented over the last three days.

I found it interesting that the President had no opposition to the same aid his prior two years in office, but a week after Biden entered the race the ball started rolling as he sent Giuliani and US diplomats to encourage Ukraine to investigate Russian propaganda.

Then in the summer, after much motivation, Ukraine still seemed to not want to participate Trump made the call on July 25th, or the day after Mueller testified in Congress. Probably realizing since he was safe from the Russia probe, he could now take a pivotal role in leveraging Ukraine.

By August 25th the news of the whistleblower complaint was out, and by Sept. 11th the Trump administration was forced to release the aid or be in violation of the law.

Way too much evidence pointing to Trump’s intentions and involvement to sweep away. I guess my phrasing was wrong; it is corruption even he didn’t succeed.

The obstruction charge comes down to the fact that Trump didn’t do what other presidents under investigation had done. IMO, the House should have subpoenaed the documents and testimony, and If Trump felt it was it was executive privilege he should have done that.

The drip, drip of information outside of the trial is undermining some of the defense of the president. I do wonder when that will spill over into the trial, or if there will be enough to compel House Democrats to start right back over.

Nixon’s wall crumbled in 7 days after the “smoking gun tapes” existence was revealed.

Impeachment is not being used illegally. You may not support it, but thus far everything has followed the Constitution.

Have we ever seen a President’s party open impeachment proceedings?

Liberal revisions? I don’t use liberal sources when I review, so no, not liberal revision.

FWIW, I don’t know how you handle Iran. I’m not interested in a war. JCPOA was meant to eliminate the Nuclear threat. It didn’t last long enough to know if it was successful, or not. We now have nothing, but sanctions on the rogue nation: no inspectors, no leverage, and no diplomacy.

[Cardfan1]

I always find it ironic when we Kentuckians makes jokes about unemployed people.

[TheRealThing]

If you weren’t watching how do you know what was said? The piecemeal case that was displayed in the Impeachment inquiry was very different than what was presented over the last three days.

I found it interesting that the President had no opposition to the same aid his prior two years in office, but a week after Biden entered the race the ball started rolling as he sent Giuliani and US diplomats to encourage Ukraine to investigate Russian propaganda.

Then in the summer, after much motivation, Ukraine still seemed to not want to participate Trump made the call on July 25th, or the day after Mueller testified in Congress. Probably realizing since he was safe from the Russia probe, he could now take a pivotal role in leveraging Ukraine.

By August 25th the news of the whistleblower complaint was out, and by Sept. 11th the Trump administration was forced to release the aid or be in violation of the law.

Way too much evidence pointing to Trump’s intentions and involvement to sweep away. I guess my phrasing was wrong; it is corruption even he didn’t succeed.

The obstruction charge comes down to the fact that Trump didn’t do what other presidents under investigation had done. IMO, the House should have subpoenaed the documents and testimony, and If Trump felt it was it was executive privilege he should have done that.

The drip, drip of information outside of the trial is undermining some of the defense of the president. I do wonder when that will spill over into the trial, or if there will be enough to compel House Democrats to start right back over.

Nixon’s wall crumbled in 7 days after the “smoking gun tapes” existence was revealed.

Impeachment is not being used illegally. You may not support it, but thus far everything has followed the Constitution.

Have we ever seen a President’s party open impeachment proceedings?

Liberal revisions? I don’t use liberal sources when I review, so no, not liberal revision.

FWIW, I don’t know how you handle Iran. I’m not interested in a war. JCPOA was meant to eliminate the Nuclear threat. It didn’t last long enough to know if it was successful, or not. We now have nothing, but sanctions on the rogue nation: no inspectors, no leverage, and no diplomacy.

You deal with Iran and any other military threat with the US military. That is unless you're too scared to live free.

But who are you supposedly convincing here with all this baloney? It certainly wouldn't be me, or Seger, or jetpilot, or Hoot Gibson. There are those who formulate their own opinion based on factual observations. And then there are those such as yourself who parrot talking points and get their opinions handed to them. People like you my friend are the Dem's best friend. And I'm not buying for the first second that your sources are not ALL liberal.

The fact is I do listen to the leftist media and the Dems (until an overwhelming urge to throw up starts to wash over) because I want to hear them declare themselves. And may I say that I am never surprised by their outrageous and immoral blather.

The House case might have been a piecemeal compilation of fabrications based on what if's and conspiracies, and lacking in polished transitory linkages. And the Senate presentation may have in fact included a more polished and seamless progression through said fabrication. The whole thing nonetheless runs in direct contravention to the facts of the case.

Soap operas depict characters who dress and live impeccably superficial lifestyles. Thus the greater the offender, the better he would want his appearance to be. In other words if you're going to act like a social Vlad the Impaler, you would want to dress up in the best suits. But even gas station attendant's appearance is always flawless. That was Schiff and Nadler's attempt. Polished as possible, just not the truth. Nobody with an ounce of discretion was fooled by either version of the play. Just as nobody is fooled by your interpretive prowess where the US Constitution is concerned.

The impeachment, like the endless investigations shamelessly and unabashedly called for by Maxine Waters and Al Green, is a farcical vendetta based in lies. And is therefore illegal. But keep your fingers crossed, and earnestly dream on. :Thumbs:

[Cardfan1]

You deal with Iran and any other military threat with the US military. That is unless you're too scared to live free.

But who are you supposedly convincing here with all this baloney? It certainly wouldn't be me, or Seger, or jetpilot, or Hoot Gibson. There are those who formulate their own opinion based on factual observations. And then there are those such as yourself who parrot talking points and get their opinions handed to them. People like you my friend are the Dem's best friend. And I'm not buying for the first second that your sources are not ALL liberal.

The fact is I do listen to the leftist media and the Dems (until an overwhelming urge to throw up starts to wash over) because I want to hear them declare themselves. And may I say that I am never surprised by their outrageous and immoral blather.

The House case might have been a piecemeal compilation of fabrications based on what if's and conspiracies, and lacking in polished transitory linkages. And the Senate presentation may have in fact included a more polished and seamless progression through said fabrication. The whole thing nonetheless runs in direct contravention to the facts of the case.

Soap operas depict characters who dress and live impeccably superficial lifestyles. Thus the greater the offender, the better he would want his appearance to be. In other words if you're going to act like a social Vlad the Impaler, you would want to dress up in the best suits. But even gas station attendant's appearance is always flawless. That was Schiff and Nadler's attempt. Polished as possible, just not the truth. Nobody with an ounce of discretion was fooled by either version of the play. Just as nobody is fooled by your interpretive prowess where the US Constitution is concerned.

The impeachment, like the endless investigations shamelessly and unabashedly called for by Maxine Waters and Al Green, is a farcical vendetta based in lies. And is therefore illegal. But keep your fingers crossed, and earnestly dream on. :Thumbs:

Scared to leave free? Iran threatening the Freedom of the USA is hyperbole and fear-mongering.
Now if you defend the policies it all has to do with interests in the region; not the freedom of the US citizens.

I like participating in discussions rather than just yelling into a vacuum. I’m sorry if you’re offended. I was under the assumption this was a discussion board for all political opinions not just those that lie in the far right conservative wing of the political spectrum.

What facts are a contravention?
TBH you haven’t discussed the facts in this thread.

You have done what the president’s most ardent supporters have done which is complain about the process, which has followed the Constitution. As far as lacking representation from the president’s side, that was his choice.

It’s a good thing the president doesn’t need a strong representation or case, because if the first hour of his defense is any indication.

[TheRealThing]

Scared to leave free? Iran threatening the Freedom of the USA is hyperbole and fear-mongering.
Now if you defend the policies it all has to do with interests in the region; not the freedom of the US citizens.

I like participating in discussions rather than just yelling into a vacuum. I’m sorry if you’re offended. I was under the assumption this was a discussion board for all political opinions not just those that lie in the far right conservative wing of the political spectrum.

What facts are a contravention?
TBH you haven’t discussed the facts in this thread.

You have done what the president’s most ardent supporters have done which is complain about the process, which has followed the Constitution. As far as lacking representation from the president’s side, that was his choice.

It’s a good thing the president doesn’t need a strong representation or case, because if the first hour of his defense is any indication.

I said too scared to LIVE free. But who in their right mind would ever want a war? Well other than Iran, the leadership of which verbalize their intent to wipe Israel off the map daily, and have sword to be enemies of the US to the death. Oh, and let's not forget the annual "Death to America Day," an official Iranian national holiday. :please:

Sovereign nations defend themselves against all threats, "foreign and domestic," with eyes wide open. Thus they require sober minded leadership, not liberal snowflakes. They don't deny or hide from threats, chew their fingernails or lament over the failed JCPOA. An agreement BTW, that no lucid minded patriot ever believed could "eliminate the Nuclear threat." Why? Because while the astute John Kerry with confidence yet negotiated with an Iran, which openly mocked his efforts; they were at the same time out on global TV saying they would never cooperate with the Great Satan. Anybody else see a disconnect there? Oh they took our money alright, but they never had any intent to comply. In like fashion Bill Clinton came out with confidence to announce that the North Koreans had capitulated to US diplomacy, and would go forth from that day in obeyance to live responsibly in the global community. John Kerry made a similarly confident announcement regarding Iran. Both were miserable let downs, but my how desperately hopeful were the libs. One would have thought they could have willed the desired outcome.

We tried to buy off North Korea, then we tried to buy off Iran. The result is that we are presently staring down a nuclear capable North Korea, and a no less determined Iran. Whom BTW did not abide by the terms of the 'nuke deal' at any point, despite the handsome payoff. You can trust in such blissful naivete if you choose, but I prefer to take the facts at face value, speak softly, and carry a big stick. Appeasement does not work.

Participate away Cardfan. Sounds like you're taking a page out an "emotional" Adam Schiff's playbook. If I was offended by talking points I might need counseling by now.

[Hoot Gibson]

If you weren’t watching how do you know what was said? The piecemeal case that was displayed in the Impeachment inquiry was very different than what was presented over the last three days.

I found it interesting that the President had no opposition to the same aid his prior two years in office, but a week after Biden entered the race the ball started rolling as he sent Giuliani and US diplomats to encourage Ukraine to investigate Russian propaganda.

Then in the summer, after much motivation, Ukraine still seemed to not want to participate Trump made the call on July 25th, or the day after Mueller testified in Congress. Probably realizing since he was safe from the Russia probe, he could now take a pivotal role in leveraging Ukraine.

By August 25th the news of the whistleblower complaint was out, and by Sept. 11th the Trump administration was forced to release the aid or be in violation of the law.

Way too much evidence pointing to Trump’s intentions and involvement to sweep away. I guess my phrasing was wrong; it is corruption even he didn’t succeed.

The obstruction charge comes down to the fact that Trump didn’t do what other presidents under investigation had done. IMO, the House should have subpoenaed the documents and testimony, and If Trump felt it was it was executive privilege he should have done that.

The drip, drip of information outside of the trial is undermining some of the defense of the president. I do wonder when that will spill over into the trial, or if there will be enough to compel House Democrats to start right back over.

Nixon’s wall crumbled in 7 days after the “smoking gun tapes” existence was revealed.

Impeachment is not being used illegally. You may not support it, but thus far everything has followed the Constitution.

Have we ever seen a President’s party open impeachment proceedings?

Liberal revisions? I don’t use liberal sources when I review, so no, not liberal revision.

FWIW, I don’t know how you handle Iran. I’m not interested in a war. JCPOA was meant to eliminate the Nuclear threat. It didn’t last long enough to know if it was successful, or not. We now have nothing, but sanctions on the rogue nation: no inspectors, no leverage, and no diplomacy.

What high crime or misdemeanor do you believe President Trump has committed? From my more objective perspective, having been the President's most vocal critic on BGR, the biggest abuse of power (which is not, IMO, constitutionally impeachable offense) has been exercised by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House's impeachment of a sitting president, in the absence of an allegation of any high crime or misdemeanor, is the equivalent of an unfounded frivolous civil lawsuit.

The House had the opportunity to subpoena documents and testimony from Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, or any other individual whom they believed might provide evidence of the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor, but they declined to do so.

There is no provision in the Constitution to allow Articles of Impeachment to be amended or corrected during the Senate trial. The House had no intention of removing Donald Trump from office. Their goal was to weaken him politically to allow one Democrats' extremely weak candidates to win the 2020 presidential election.

The bottom line is Democrats began working to overturn the results of the 2016 election before Donald Trump took the oath of office.

Elections have consequences and rejecting the results of fair elections is as bad as rigging the results of an election. Democrats did both in 2016. Just ask Bernie Sanders whether Hillary Clinton won her party's nomination in a fair process.

[Hoot Gibson]

Scared to leave free? Iran threatening the Freedom of the USA is hyperbole and fear-mongering.
Now if you defend the policies it all has to do with interests in the region; not the freedom of the US citizens.

I like participating in discussions rather than just yelling into a vacuum. I’m sorry if you’re offended. I was under the assumption this was a discussion board for all political opinions not just those that lie in the far right conservative wing of the political spectrum.

What facts are a contravention?
TBH you haven’t discussed the facts in this thread.

You have done what the president’s most ardent supporters have done which is complain about the process, which has followed the Constitution. As far as lacking representation from the president’s side, that was his choice.

It’s a good thing the president doesn’t need a strong representation or case, because if the first hour of his defense is any indication.

You are as clueless about the nation of Iran as former President Jimmy Carter was.

[TheRealThing]

What high crime or misdemeanor do you believe President Trump has committed? From my more objective perspective, having been the President's most vocal critic on BGR, the biggest abuse of power (which is not, IMO, constitutionally impeachable offense) has been exercised by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House's impeachment of a sitting president, in the absence of an allegation of any high crime or misdemeanor, is the equivalent of an unfounded frivolous civil lawsuit.

The House had the opportunity to subpoena documents and testimony from Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, or any other individual whom they believed might provide evidence of the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor, but they declined to do so.

There is no provision in the Constitution to allow Articles of Impeachment to be amended or corrected during the Senate trial. The House had no intention of removing Donald Trump from office. Their goal was to weaken him politically to allow one Democrats' extremely weak candidates to win the 2020 presidential election.

The bottom line is Democrats began working to overturn the results of the 2016 election before Donald Trump took the oath of office.

Elections have consequences and rejecting the results of fair elections is as bad as rigging the results of an election. Democrats did both in 2016. Just ask Bernie Sanders whether Hillary Clinton won her party's nomination in a fair process.

Exactly right Hoot. There is established procedural precedent for the House to compel witnesses and obtain any documentation they see fit. It's just that they tried to scare the people into thinking some kind of constitutional crisis loomed with immediate consequence. And that being their allege, the country and therefore the House, did not have time to go by established precedent. Like you said, their intent was to amend the impeachment process on the fly, on sky-is-falling grounds. But of course that tack did not work. So now all they have left is to besmirch the Senate of all things, and all indications are that Senate Dems are all-in if you listen to what they have to say.

The President's defense team revelatory opening to that end, was devastating to the House's case. And all the so-called Republican Senate 'leaners' like Mike Lee, have stated firmly that they ain't buying.

In the end though I've heard many talking heads say this is all about 2020; But I believe the Dems are giving impeachment their best possible shot. And failing that, they will use the sham proceedings to taint the Republican Presidential campaign. Tainting efforts the like of which will unquestionably prove to be as toxic as they will be epic.

[Hoot Gibson]

Exactly right Hoot. There is established procedural precedent for the House to compel witnesses and obtain any documentation they see fit. It's just that they tried to scare the people into thinking some kind of constitutional crisis loomed with immediate consequence. And that being their allege, the country and therefore the House, did not have time to go by established precedent. Like you said, their intent was to amend the impeachment process on the fly, on sky-is-falling grounds. But of course that tack did not work. So now all they have left is to besmirch the Senate of all things, and all indications are that Senate Dems are all-in if you listen to what they have to say.

The President's defense team revelatory opening to that end, was devastating to the House's case. And all the so-called Republican Senate 'leaners' like Mike Lee, have stated firmly that they ain't buying.

In the end though I've heard many talking heads say this is all about 2020; But I believe the Dems are giving impeachment their best possible shot. And failing that, they will use the sham proceedings to taint the Republican Presidential campaign. Tainting efforts the like of which will unquestionably prove to be as toxic as they will be epic.

The House Democrats have always known that there is no chance that the Senate will convict and remove President Trump from office. IMO, the reason that they did not subpoena Bolton and other potential witnesses who were members of Trump's inner circle is that they were afraid that Trump's claim of executive privilege would have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

This way, Democrats get to complain that Senate Republicans are engaging in a cover up by not allowing Bolton and other close presidential advisers to be called as witnesses and then allege that Trump was acquitted because evidence was suppressed in the Senate.

I don't think that Democrats are giving impeachment a best shot because there is no case to be made. There is very little legal precedent for presidential impeachments, so I wonder how Chief Justice Roberts would respond to a motion to dismiss because no high crime or misdemeanor has been alleged. Democrats have failed to meet the Constitutional threshold for removing a president from office. I doubt that Roberts would grant such a motion, but judges entertain motions to dismiss charges in other types of trials.

[TheRealThing]

The House Democrats have always known that there is no chance that the Senate will convict and remove President Trump from office. IMO, the reason that they did not subpoena Bolton and other potential witnesses who were members of Trump's inner circle is that they were afraid that Trump's claim of executive privilege would have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

This way, Democrats get to complain that Senate Republicans are engaging in a cover up by not allowing Bolton and other close presidential advisers to be called as witnesses and then allege that Trump was acquitted because evidence was suppressed in the Senate.

I don't think that Democrats are giving impeachment a best shot because there is no case to be made. There is very little legal precedent for presidential impeachments, so I wonder how Chief Justice Roberts would respond to a motion to dismiss because no high crime or misdemeanor has been alleged. Democrats have failed to meet the Constitutional threshold for removing a president from office. I doubt that Roberts would grant such a motion, but judges entertain motions to dismiss charges in other types of trials.

Me and you both. I still don't know how to take him, especially after his "there are no Republican and no Democrat judges" declaration. I know that's how it's supposed to be, but as anyone with two brain cells that have said 'howdy' in the recent past knows, the stays imposed on the Trump Administration's efforts to enforce border law smack of liberal activism.

[Spirit100]

I couldn't watch the news for three days this past week with Shift Schiff talking non stop for 24 + hours. Hoping he is put on the stand and held accountable for his lies and failed coup!!!

And as much fun as it would be to put the Bidens on the stand as well. I don't think it will go that far!

[TheRealThing]

I couldn't watch the news for three days this past week with Shift Schiff talking non stop for 24 + hours. Hoping he is put on the stand and held accountable for his lies and failed coup!!!

And as much fun as it would be to put the Bidens on the stand as well. I don't think it will go that far!

Yeah I know what you mean. When Lindsey Graham offered his praises to Schifty I was afraid things were going to get a little weird, but in listening to his reasons for not dragging the impeachment sham out I found myself in agreement. Dragging things out is exactly what the Dems want anyway, and there is nothing to be gained in helping them to that end.

[Cardfan1]

What high crime or misdemeanor do you believe President Trump has committed? From my more objective perspective, having been the President's most vocal critic on BGR, the biggest abuse of power (which is not, IMO, constitutionally impeachable offense) has been exercised by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House's impeachment of a sitting president, in the absence of an allegation of any high crime or misdemeanor, is the equivalent of an unfounded frivolous civil lawsuit.

The House had the opportunity to subpoena documents and testimony from Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, or any other individual whom they believed might provide evidence of the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor, but they declined to do so.

There is no provision in the Constitution to allow Articles of Impeachment to be amended or corrected during the Senate trial. The House had no intention of removing Donald Trump from office. Their goal was to weaken him politically to allow one Democrats' extremely weak candidates to win the 2020 presidential election.

The bottom line is Democrats began working to overturn the results of the 2016 election before Donald Trump took the oath of office.

Elections have consequences and rejecting the results of fair elections is as bad as rigging the results of an election. Democrats did both in 2016. Just ask Bernie Sanders whether Hillary Clinton won her party's nomination in a fair process.

IMHO the founding fathers' interpretation of "high crime or misdemeanor" is a catch-all that basically means the government official is abusing public trust. We could probably debate this one until the cows come home, but if we look at the past impeachments they haven't always been based in criminal acts affecting the office. Clinton broke the law, but it didn't have anything to do with his presidency. Nixon's articles were not written up like he had broken the law, (which he had) but he was charged with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress all crimes against his oath.
Heck, Johnson's impeachment was based on his firing of people in the executive branch. In hindsight, looks like an extreme overreach by Congress when they passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867 to keep Johnson from putting in bureaucrats that supported his view of Reconstruction.
Then there are the impeachment of judges which run the gambit.
When it comes down to it,as Gerald Ford said, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

The president instigated a scheme of coercion/bribery using taxpayer money to solicit information from a foreign nation that would assist him in the upcoming election. All kinds of dirty there, and to be honest, probably a few election laws broken; however, let's remember the president is not going to jail, for now, he will just lose his job.

There is no provision in the Constitution for/or against amending the articles of impeachment, so if the Senate chooses to dismiss they are following the Constitution, if they choose to tack on Treason due to some bombshell allegation also following the Constitution. House has sole power. Senate has sole power.

I think the House should have subpoenaed it all back in October if they really wanted to get to the truth, and if their goal was to smear Trump with the process they would have killed two birds with one stone. Maybe they know more than I know, but if the last election tells us anything, corruption drags at a candidate. HRC's emails rose from the dead about 3 times to hurt her. If the goal is to destroy Trump's chances the best thing would be a lingering stink of corruption, and the longer he stonewalled on the release of documents the longer the stink would be around.

The President has served 3 years. We are passed the overturning of an election argument. In the most unlikely occurrence of his removal the VP takes over who won the same election Trump did.

In all honesty, he handed his own head on a silver platter. These are all his actions. The House was able to put this together while being absolutely stonewalled by the president. The case tends to get stronger by the day with other actors in the Trump scandal beginning to spill the beans.

I thought political parties made their own rules on primaries. I mean didn't Republicans cancel some state primaries across the nation this year. Democrats have done that in the past.

It's a crafty argument against Democrats, but both parties are always working to get the opposing party out. I doubt there has been any opposing House Majority in history that would have hesitated to start the impeachment process if they felt they could get by with it. Trump's polarizing style insured this House could get support even if they didn't have a case, but they have one, which may be why we are seeing independents start to support removal in recent polls.

I guess this is a different argument and off topic, but you mentioned the weakness of Dem candidates, which I agree with. Biden struggles to create a movement and he voted for the Iraq War. Sanders has created a movement, but is labeled a Socialist by those that aren't in the movement. I don't see the others as serious candidates at this time. These two would struggle to beat any Republican or Democrat in the past 30 years, but on the flipside they are also running against a weak candidate. The President has a base and that is it. Since 2016 he hasn't done much to add to his base, so we have an entire group of people who are maybe not supportive of Democrats policies, but are voting for somebody that isn't Trump. I see that as similar to 2016 when some of the same people voted Not Hillary.

[TheRealThing]

^^If one is willing to leapfrog the facts of the case, and concentrate solely on the emotional blather which constitutes the House's justification for impeaching the President, then you might have a point. Oh but there is the one nagging fly in the ointment. The House prosecutors rested their case.

Past that IMHO, your historical impeachment synopsis is nothing more than a liberal talking point version of same. Matter of record; > Adam Schiff lied, over and over again. >The so-called whistle blower is by all reports an employee of the intelligence community with a demonstrated ax to grind against the Administration. >The entire case is a matter of highly debatable interpretive slander based in assumptions. I. E. the testimony of Ambassador Sondland, whom had to admit under oath that said testimony was based entirely on his own "presumption." I mean, we all got an opinion here.

I believe the argument being made about the Constitution (that you keep ducking BTW) is in order to legally impeach a President it takes more than a political ax to grind. It takes proven transgressions of the high crime and misdemeanor category. Not a bunch of self absorbed sniping subordinates with delusions of grandeur. All willing to forfeit their last remaining shred of personal integrity for an opportunity in the impeachment limelight. There is no proof at all. Again. The prosecution rested their case when they transmitted the articles to the Senate. Now demands are being made to have the Senate extend the prosecution. The President was denied due process in the House, and now the calls are being made to continue to deny due process in the Senate.

The impeachment process was meant to be the picture of due process, in classical trial format. With the Senate filling the role of the silent deliberative jury. Enter today's Democrat drama queens and their supporters and you get the circus presently afoot. But I'll tell you something we actually do have with regard to all of this should the Dems prevail. An existential Constitutional crisis.

President Trump's so-called polarizing style is 100% a mischaracterization, front to back--- top to bottom. Unlike Obama, the true special interest President, Trump is guilty of nothing more than representing all Americans equally, that and border security, economic boom times, a resurgent military, historically low minority unemployment rates, resuscitated retirement programs, and generally putting America first. Everything the Dems are spouting to the contrary are manifestations of 'the resistance,' and just about as un-American as one could get.

[Cardfan1]

^^If one is willing to leapfrog the facts of the case, and concentrate solely on the emotional blather which constitutes the House's justification for impeaching the President, then you might have a point. Oh but there is the one nagging fly in the ointment. The House prosecutors rested their case.

Past that IMHO, your historical impeachment synopsis is nothing more than a liberal talking point version of same. Matter of record; > Adam Schiff lied, over and over again. >The so-called whistle blower is by all reports an employee of the intelligence community with a demonstrated ax to grind against the Administration. >The entire case is a matter of highly debatable interpretive slander based in assumptions. I. E. the testimony of Ambassador Sondland, whom had to admit under oath that said testimony was based entirely on his own "presumption." I mean, we all got an opinion here.

I believe the argument being made about the Constitution (that you keep ducking BTW) is in order to legally impeach a President it takes more than a political ax to grind. It takes proven transgressions of the high crime and misdemeanor category. Not a bunch of self absorbed sniping subordinates with delusions of grandeur. All willing to forfeit their last remaining shred of personal integrity for an opportunity in the impeachment limelight. There is no proof at all. Again. The prosecution rested their case when they transmitted the articles to the Senate. Now demands are being made to have the Senate extend the prosecution. The President was denied due process in the House, and now the calls are being made to continue to deny due process in the Senate.

The impeachment process was meant to be the picture of due process, in classical trial format. With the Senate filling the role of the silent deliberative jury. Enter today's Democrat drama queens and their supporters and you get the circus presently afoot. But I'll tell you something we actually do have with regard to all of this should the Dems prevail. An existential Constitutional crisis.

President Trump's so-called polarizing style is 100% a mischaracterization, front to back--- top to bottom. Unlike Obama, the true special interest President, Trump is guilty of nothing more than representing all Americans equally, that and border security, economic boom times, a resurgent military, historically low minority unemployment rates, resuscitated retirement programs, and generally putting America first. Everything the Dems are spouting to the contrary are manifestations of 'the resistance,' and just about as un-American as one could get.

Sondland, Vindman, Hill, Taylor, Morrison, etc. all testified to what they felt was the expectation from the Trump administration. I imagine this mission statement wasn't written down and put on White House letterhead considering the corrupt nature of the action.

Like I've said many times on here Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo are probably the only ones who can testify Trump's definite purpose. Well...Giuliani, but he has attorney-client privilege.

Coercion or bribery would not fit as a high crime or misdemeanor? What about soliciting foreign interference? Both seem to fit here. High misdemeanor in governmental terminology has to do with maladministration.

Due process is in a criminal trial.

I wasn't debating any of the Trump administration's accomplishments. Just speaking on him as a candidate versus the Democratic candidates.

[TheRealThing]

Sondland, Vindman, Hill, Taylor, Morrison, etc. all testified to what they felt was the expectation from the Trump administration. I imagine this mission statement wasn't written down and put on White House letterhead considering the corrupt nature of the action.

Like I've said many times on here Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo are probably the only ones who can testify Trump's definite purpose. Well...Giuliani, but he has attorney-client privilege.

Coercion or bribery would not fit as a high crime or misdemeanor? What about soliciting foreign interference? Both seem to fit here. High misdemeanor in governmental terminology has to do with maladministration.

Due process is in a criminal trial.

I wasn't debating any of the Trump administration's accomplishments. Just speaking on him as a candidate versus the Democratic candidates.

Didn't seem to hurt anything when the Obama administration were waving the people's checkbook at every problem they faced, now did it? Nobody, and I mean nobody could establish foreign interference without evidence. Say like when Bill and Hill were raking in millions during her term as Secretary of State. Oh and let's not forget that nagging inconvenience with the Uranium shenanigans. All that gets nary a peep out of libs. But you're all world class mind readers where it comes to Donald John Trump.

[Cardfan1]

Didn't seem to hurt anything when the Obama administration were waving the people's checkbook at every problem they faced, now did it? Nobody, and I mean nobody could establish foreign interference without evidence. Say like when Bill and Hill were raking in millions during her term as Secretary of State. Oh and let's not forget that nagging inconvenience with the Uranium shenanigans. All that gets nary a peep out of libs. But you're all world class mind readers where it comes to Donald John Trump.

I've never seen an argument won using others' wrongdoings to justify to action of an innocent person. It's not working now either.

I thought the President had a potential problem if Bolton, Mulvaney, or Pompeo were forced to testify under oath, but I didn't imagine he would make it worse by holding Bolton's manuscript for a month while Republicans went to bat for him. He has essentially made the Republican leadership look silly when he knew what Bolton would say if called.

[TheRealThing]

I've never seen an argument won using others' wrongdoings to justify to action of an innocent person. It's not working now either.

I thought the President had a potential problem if Bolton, Mulvaney, or Pompeo were forced to testify under oath, but I didn't imagine he would make it worse by holding Bolton's manuscript for a month while Republicans went to bat for him. He has essentially made the Republican leadership look silly when he knew what Bolton would say if called.

I guess I might not understand what your first paragraph is supposed to be saying.

Didn't take much of a crack in the armor for you to start crowing, did it? In times of desperation the slightest ray of hope can cause one to see a flood of glorious rapture. There are those however who've watched the left's soap opera of feelings, start playing on the evening of November 8, 2016. It's gone on daily, never having abated or diminished at any point. Rather, the crescendo of idiotics has only become more inflated and absurd. Lie after lie after lie. Until now, after over a year of surveillance shenanigans, clandestine investigations, and provable election interference prior to his election; All of which having continued on uninterrupted for the successive three year entirety of the Administration. Undermining every effort and suffering the bombastic pronouncements of the avowed undying resistance by some in Congress, their shameless attempts to foment civil unrest, all while they proceeded to perpetrate myriad fruitless taxpayer funded investigations and heaped general disdain at every oft occurring administrative achievement. So now you guys finally get a kindred self serving brother rat with an ax to grind from out of the deepstate woodpile, with some measure of perceived promise. Congratulations, and enjoy the moment. I say it will go nowhere.

But it is amazing to me to think that anyone would expect the resistance at this point, to in any way pull in it's horns. And to that end it is equally amazing that the people are yet so gullible where it comes to these manufactured daily revelations meant to confer guilt on our truly innocent President and are so easily duped. And because of this national bent to keep on taking the bait, you know the media and the Dems are going to keep retching up the monkey puke. Does anybody really believe that the New York Times release of the Bolton treachery wasn't timed to coincide with the President's defense team effort? Or that it has nothing to do with the helping to wrongly oust a sitting President? And is it me, or are all the headlines coming from the Senate trial, (which has been remarkable) or outside sources which suspiciously upstage and distract from the Senate trial?

Even if the President did say something like Bolton's reported allege, he is allowed to entertain these types of parallel asides, and shouldn't be impeached for thinking out loud at some point with one of his supposed loyal and therefore trusted advisors. Frankly if the left's hopes for Bolton do materialize anything like is hoped, he better darn well hope he got paid handsomely for selling his soul. Because his friends and his country will turn their backs on him as one. In any case, it's not a crime to use reasonable oversight in managing taxpayer dollars. And the left's willingness to ignore the foregoing administration's nose thumbing of the Budapest Memorandum, in favor of issuing blankets and MRE's, is in the best case as disingenuous as it is disgusting.

[Cardfan1]

Using Obama and Clinton sins doesn’t exonerate Trump sins. That’s a fallacy.

Maybe the NYT has it wrong, but at this point my bet is they’ve done their homework, and Bolton is ready to tell all.
A statement like this can’t be explained away as a “parallel aside” since there were so many accounts of the expectations. Bolton’s notes may turn out to be this impeachment’s smoking gun.

Some of his country will turn their backs. In all honesty, the Trump base didn’t buy into Bolton’s hawkish turn all that much, so I can’t see him losing many friends.

Trump’s actions are not what he was sent to office to do. There is no way I can believe any of his voters wanted him to dangle military aid over a struggling country until they opened an investigation into his rival in the next election. No American wants that to happen, because that action undermines our elections and allows a foreign nation to intervene.

I still believe the huge issue remains that Trump knew this was going to hit. Supporters have been campaigning and twisting themselves into pretzels to prohibit witnesses and protect the president just to be duped at the last minute by POTUS himself.

[TheRealThing]

Using Obama and Clinton sins doesn’t exonerate Trump sins. That’s a fallacy.

Maybe the NYT has it wrong, but at this point my bet is they’ve done their homework, and Bolton is ready to tell all.
A statement like this can’t be explained away as a “parallel aside” since there were so many accounts of the expectations. Bolton’s notes may turn out to be this impeachment’s smoking gun.

Some of his country will turn their backs. In all honesty, the Trump base didn’t buy into Bolton’s hawkish turn all that much, so I can’t see him losing many friends.

Trump’s actions are not what he was sent to office to do. There is no way I can believe any of his voters wanted him to dangle military aid over a struggling country until they opened an investigation into his rival in the next election. No American wants that to happen, because that action undermines our elections and allows a foreign nation to intervene.

I still believe the huge issue remains that Trump knew this was going to hit. Supporters have been campaigning and twisting themselves into pretzels to prohibit witnesses and protect the president just to be duped at the last minute by POTUS himself.

Yeah well getting your feathers and delicate sensitivities all riled up about Trump's doing absolutely nothing wrong these days, when you were able to easily skip around and ignore the lawlessness of the past administration constitutes selective outrage in my book. But as the revealed questionable exploits of Adam Schiff have adequately shown, when you get a liberal behind the eight ball he just plays dumb. Heck, just ignore what doesn't serve your narrow interests, everybody else will go along. Right? Don't count on it.

I didn't like past US policy where it came to a lot of issues. But where it came to using my tax dollars to prop up a decidedly hostile UN and giving money to those who overtly make attempts to kill us, I have always wanted to draw the line, there Cardfan. MR Trump has exceeded my expectations in not paying the world to continue as usual to stick it to us. And please don't tell me why my vote helped send MR Trump to office. I despise political correctness and he has been the lone ranger in exposing that rot. I despised the lies and rationalizations of the Obama administration, that is another reason my vote helped send him to office. Then there was our completely neutered military thanks to sequestration, that in the face of the taxpayer being forced to pay the lion's share to support NATO. Others were the Iran nuke fiasco, ObamaCare, and the rest of the innumerable scandals your ilk winked at and relished in. That is why MR Trump was sent to office. BTW, you can use the search tool if you like, but in addition have always despised NAFTA

Unlike the chinless Obama administration, the Trump Administration did manage to provide real and immediate lethal aid in obeyance and as outlined in the Budapest Memorandum. Where Obama lacked courage--- :notbad:

MR Trump has fairly shown like a super nova. And I say it was at worst, a parallel aside in which Schiff thought he saw potential to distort and use against the President.

[Cardfan1]

How the message has changed?!

“A parallel aside”

Sounds synonymous with Supporters on tv saying that Bolton provides no new information, so the trial should end. Just swallowing the entirety of the case the House presented. My how the message has changed.

So I guess we all accept the President was extorting a nation with tax dollars for election help? Cool...

[TheRealThing]

How the message has changed?!

“A parallel aside”

Sounds synonymous with Supporters on tv saying that Bolton provides no new information, so the trial should end. Just swallowing the entirety of the case the House presented. My how the message has changed.

So I guess we all accept the President was extorting a nation with tax dollars for election help? Cool...

A pox on the message, that is your department. I can assure you a lot of things have been [I]'said' [/I]that didn't make it into the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, down to your average Congressional bill. And certainly things are said with reliable regularity by every last administration. No law has been broken and that has not changed.

But to return to your messaging, not that it is at all your own idea. Reporting has it that Obama broke the law at least 7 times. Crickets. And Joe is on video tape, with certain notables such as Deputy National Security Advisor K T McFarland in the audience no less, freely admitting that he committed the very crime that you have charged the President with. You don't think she bore witness of what good ol Joe had to say back at the office? All of which having culminated among other things, with the firing of a Ukrainian official whom happened to be investigating the firm where Joe Biden's son worked. I remain an undeterred skeptic regarding the bombshell status of any coming Bolton revelations. Meanwhile we have the transcript of the now infamous Ukrainian phone call.

As I have mentioned before, where you are concerned mine was never to try and change your mind about anything. My only intention is to give those who might read your dirge of impeachment cheerleading the correct, or at least an objective view. There still is no evidence that the President has done anything illegal.

To that end, the lies and false allegations will never end and I am more than comfortable with that. The prosecutors of the House have presented their prosecution and have rested. The defense has presented it's defense and has rested. The jury (in this case the US Senate) meanwhile, seems to think they should call new witnesses. That's an aberration of the law that a lot of people will be very upset about should it come to pass. I mean, people like you will be overjoyed, but then I have seen people jumping up and down with tears of joy running down their faces because of a court ruling that upheld abortion rights too. Choices. They are what define us, and in the end they will show to damn us, or honor us.

[Cardfan1]

Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

John Dean: "Alan Dershowitz unimpeached Richard Nixon today. All Nixon was doing was obstructing justice and abusing power because he thought he was the best person for the USA to be POTUS."

We are in the upside-down.

[TheRealThing]

Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

John Dean: "Alan Dershowitz unimpeached Richard Nixon today. All Nixon was doing was obstructing justice and abusing power because he thought he was the best person for the USA to be POTUS."

We are in the upside-down.

Aww. The gush of giddiness and the curled lip of confident contempt gone?

But this leftist hero worship of converted conservatives has become a real pattern with the sour grapes crowd, has it not? John Bolton didn't save the mock impeachment so let's quote NeverTrumper John Dean by way of lament. :Thumbs:

Alan Dershowitz has personal integrity and has the character to put country ahead of party.

[Cardfan1]

Aww. The gush of giddiness and the curled lip of confident contempt gone?

But this leftist hero worship of converted conservatives has become a real pattern with the sour grapes crowd, has it not? John Bolton didn't save the mock impeachment so let's quote NeverTrumper John Dean by way of lament. :Thumbs:

Alan Dershowitz has personal integrity and has the character to put country ahead of party.

Dershowitz doesn’t have integrity. He does love representing high profile criminals and He does his job well, but integrity is not a quality he possesses. If what he said last night is where we are in this nation then we have a king not a president.

Like I said earlier, supporters have completely accepted the President’s guilt, but have decided it’s ok because it’s Trump.

Trump supporters better ask for witnesses and some bit of finality. If McConnell and the majority shut this down at the end of the 3rd quarter, there will be a dark cloud and possibly a drip of information all year.

[Hoot Gibson]

If John Dean was ever a conservative, his conversion to a bitter liberal still living off of Nixon's political demise took place decades ago. He is a never-Trumper in the same way that Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are never-Trumpers.

RIchard Nixon's alleged obstruction of Justice in the cover up of a blatantly criminal act is not remotely equivalent to President Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president. Nor is Bill Clinton's crimes, including lying under oath to a federal judge, which cost Clinton his law license and hefty fines. Perjury is a serious federal crime.

Conservatives are not the problem, TRT. The problem is that the Democrat Party that controls the House is devoid of any sign of statesmanship or patriotism.

Trump's impeachment was a ridiculous abuse of power but the President should stop hiring people into his inner circle and then turning them into bitter political enemies through publicly humiliating firings. I have no doubt that if Bolton is allowed to testify, his testimony will be very damaging to Trump's chances of reelection. When political appointments don't pan out, a quiet resignation is almost always the best way to handle the situation. There is nothing to be gained by alienating another politician's supporters by demonstrating a lack of class because you want everybody know that the departing employee was fired and not given the opportunity to resign.

The Senate should acquit Trump of the Articles of Impeachment tomorrow because no bribery, treason, or other high crimes or misdemeanors have been alleged. If the Senate allows testimony, then they must insist on calling creepy Joe Biden and his crooked son to testify to offset the damage that Bolton is likely to inflict.

[Hoot Gibson]

Dershowitz doesn’t have integrity. He does love representing high profile criminals and He does his job well, but integrity is not a quality he possesses. If what he said last night is where we are in this nation then we have a king not a president.

Like I said earlier, supporters have completely accepted the President’s guilt, but have decided it’s ok because it’s Trump.

Trump supporters better ask for witnesses and some bit of finality. If McConnell and the majority shut this down at the end of the 3rd quarter, there will be a dark cloud and possibly a drip of information all year.

No impeachable offense has been alleged. Did you feel this way when Dershowitz voted twice for Obama?

This is not a sporting event. The framers of the Constitution's goal was to create three equally powerful branches of government. Democrats' abuse of power by impeaching a president who has not even been accused of an crime that the Constitution describes as grounds for impeachment, threatens to make the executive branch weaker than the House of Representatives, which is only half of a branch.

The type of political cheer leading in which people like you engage, without regard to our Constitution is disgusting. If this nation manages to survive the Democrats' sabotage of our form of government and Republicans ever regain the majority of House seats, I hope that they behave more responsibly than the clowns who voted for Trump's impeachment have.

Shame on you and your ilk for supporting the House's abuse of power and lack of regard for this country's long term stability.

[TheRealThing]

Dershowitz doesn’t have integrity. He does love representing high profile criminals and He does his job well, but integrity is not a quality he possesses. If what he said last night is where we are in this nation then we have a king not a president.

Like I said earlier, supporters have completely accepted the President’s guilt, but have decided it’s ok because it’s Trump.

Trump supporters better ask for witnesses and some bit of finality. If McConnell and the majority shut this down at the end of the 3rd quarter, there will be a dark cloud and possibly a drip of information all year.

What did Dershowitz say last night other than the President must have the space to operate and nothing about all this sham impeachment, even if the lion's share of the lies flip-flopped and somehow became true, would rise to the level of an impeachable offense? We had a king, and the people elected Trump to right the ship and get the taste of politically correct compromise out of their mouth.

You can say whatever you want, it isn't that Trump supporters have in any way accepted his guilt. Rather it is that your own biases have caused you accept his guilt on a whim. All Dershowitz and other more lucid minded folks have done is to point out the fatal flaw in the Dem's argument. There's no impeachable there-there, even if the worst of this made up stuff were true. It's a retro engineered farce. They like you, started at the bullseye with a guilty verdict, and worked their way backwards to the quiver in the vain attempt to shore it all up.

We don't need to ask for any more witnesses, we saw what happened in real time. We also saw the myriad other attempts, including several other impeachments, (one over the NFL if memory serves) prior to the present impeachment. The only finality we need, is to see through to the end all the investigations presently afoot. The truth has already come out about the treachery of the Democrat deepstate staffer dubbed 'the whistle blower' for example, whom is at the center of this whole affair. This guy is in deep doo-doo if the likes of Rand Paul has anything to say about it. And like I said, the longer President Trump sits the captain's chair the more will come to light. It won't be pretty, and for the guilty, it won't be easy to deal with.

As far as the drip is concerned, at this point who really believes it will ever end? I hope it drips away because 25% of those good folks in attendance (inside and outside in the cold) of the New Jersey Trump rally, were woke up Democrats. They won't be outside long, we got a very big tent. I know of what I speak, I used to be a Dem. Once those lights go on there's no returning to the dark side.

[Cardfan1]

No impeachable offense has been alleged. Did you feel this way when Dershowitz voted twice for Obama?

This is not a sporting event. The framers of the Constitution's goal was to create three equally powerful branches of government. Democrats' abuse of power by impeaching a president who has not even been accused of an crime that the Constitution describes as grounds for impeachment, threatens to make the executive branch weaker than the House of Representatives, which is only half of a branch.

The type of political cheer leading in which people like you engage, without regard to our Constitution is disgusting. If this nation manages to survive the Democrats' sabotage of our form of government and Republicans ever regain the majority of House seats, I hope that they behave more responsibly than the clowns who voted for Trump's impeachment have.

Shame on you and your ilk for supporting the House's abuse of power and lack of regard for this country's long term stability.

Dershowitz's choice of vote is between him and God. I am judging him on what he does in the light of day, and none of it can be described with integrity.

Both sides are guilty of political cheerleading. If you can't see that you may be a bit blind to those whom you follow.

The hyperbole that Trump supporters are using to describe the Democrats use if impeachment is absurd. The Democrats in the House followed the Constitution. The precedent that is being set is a president can now stonewall Congress and use taxpayer funds to solicit foreign interference in an American election.

Your "ilk" will love these new tools when a democrat is the president. Won't enough cheese in Wisconsin to go with that whine!

[Cardfan1]

What did Dershowitz say last night other than the President must have the space to operate and nothing about all this sham impeachment, even if the lion's share of the lies flip-flopped and somehow became true, would rise to the level of an impeachable offense? We had a king, and the people elected Trump to right the ship and get the taste of politically correct compromise out of their mouth.

You can say whatever you want, it isn't that Trump supporters have in any way accepted his guilt. Rather it is that your own biases have caused you accept his guilt on a whim. All Dershowitz and other more lucid minded folks have done is to point out the fatal flaw in the Dem's argument. There's no impeachable there-there, even if the worst of this made up stuff were true. It's a retro engineered farce. They like you, started at the bullseye with a guilty verdict, and worked their way backwards to the quiver in the vain attempt to shore it all up.

We don't need to ask for any more witnesses, we saw what happened in real time. We also saw the myriad other attempts, including several other impeachments, (one over the NFL if memory serves) prior to the present impeachment. The only finality we need, is to see through to the end all the investigations presently afoot. The truth has already come out about the treachery of the Democrat deepstate staffer dubbed 'the whistle blower' for example, whom is at the center of this whole affair. This guy is in deep doo-doo if the likes of Rand Paul has anything to say about it. And like I said, the longer President Trump sits the captain's chair the more will come to light. It won't be pretty, and for the guilty, it won't be easy to deal with.

As far as the drip is concerned, at this point who really believes it will ever end? I hope it drips away because 25% of those good folks in attendance (inside and outside in the cold) of the New Jersey Trump rally, were woke up Democrats. They won't be outside long, we got a very big tent. I know of what I speak, I used to be a Dem. Once those lights go on there's no returning to the dark side.

Rand Paul is trying to go to jail. If he outs the whistleblower, and they are retaliated upon by some "lucid" Trump supporter, or supporters, Senator Paul will be endorsing those checks he's receiving from that neighbor squabble and handing them straight to the whistleblower.

Drip will continue. It would have continued anyway; you're right about that, but Trump could have said everything was done appropriately and fairly in the Senate trial. A fair amount of closure would have been established. Instead there will be an extreme amount of what could have been.