snafu

We have that. They haven’t stolen it yet.

Yep, people are happy not to have to see Brady for once, and there he is on a commercial.

Maybe. That’s the argument made by Cipollone in his October 8 letter. We will never know until that’s brought to Court, which is exactly what the House Democrats refused to do.

No. The remedy is only removal from office, but that shouldn’t prevent the Senate from allowing the President to have Counsel, or cross examine witnesses, etc. If there was a crime, then the removed President can be charged and tried later in a judicial proceeding. As for the political nature of it, that’s actually a check on the a House and Senate to keep within their lanes and not overreach. If they do, then the electorate can vote them out.

I agree with your take. Individuals have constitutional rights, period. There’s no debate about it.

Just like when Bloomberg came after Rudy and stayed for three terms because he deemed himself too indispensable to leave after 8 years.

Great post. The person you’re responding to has had this explained to him several times in this thread.

Haha. That’s funny! Even if Trump wins the popular vote, he already stole our votes by asking Ukraine to meddle. He will do it again, dontcha know. I wish we could go back to 2012 when I could just vote for whomever I wanted without being brainwashed by Trump and his foreign brainwashers.

Reminds me of this:

The fault of this mindset lies with individuals. If they abdicate their thoughts to others, it's their own fault. If they stop and ask themselves exactly what's different about their lives after three years of this President, they wouldn't have to abdicate their thoughts to the press. The press wouldn't be a scapegoat, nor would the press be an effective propaganda tool.

Here is a nice, detailed article that describes this issue. This border crossing fence/barrier/wall has been an issue since 2007 (and most likely before). https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/14/border-land-grab-government-abused-power-seize-property-fence/ Your entire thread premise is that THIS President is dragging us toward "dictatorship". Your example is the border wall. As to the bold and underlined part of your post, that's what I'd like to ask you...why, when this has been done by two prior administrations, is it different to you that this current administration does it? Just be honest. You don't like him. Few people do. That doesn't make him a dictator. It is people with attitudes like yours that inspire actual violence and groups like antifa to show up at Grand Central Station to protest perfectly acceptable government behavior -- or to practically take over cities like Portland, because the "perception" of Trump to be an existential threat to our Democracy. Your fear and loathing of this President causes you and people like you to lash out at anyone who challenges your orthodoxy, as evidenced by the responses you've made in this thread.

^^^^^ SQL-2003, huh? I’m no tekkie. Is that the gold standard SQL?

I’d be shocked it some unverified story doesn’t get released.

Could you do the spray thing and leave the car outside of the garage, and set the traps inside the garage? I think I’d try that. Or...keep the car running in the garage for awhile. Maybe you’ll aspxyiate them.

The Mueller investigation was 100% a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane. Crossfire Hurricane should have ended in November, 2016 at the latest. Continuing Mueller’s investigation and looking into FISA issues is absolute B.S. Mueller’s team knew the warrants were flawed and didn’t give a rats ass.

Dershowitz explained himself the next morning in an interview. https://www.npr.org/2020/01/31/801515969/alan-dershowitz-clarifies-a-point-made-in-the-trump-impeachment-trial And to your larger point, why do you think that any President *not* named Donald Trump is going to behave just like Donald Trump?

Too. Much. Orange!

Your opinions are always in line with Democrat talking points. Always. It’s exactly like the 51 FISA “errors” that all went against against Trump. What a striking coincidence.

I was speaking in general tones. That was a rant. I don’t do that often. You’re correct that this sham bus is driven by the Left. The Right couldn’t do much but complain, and complain they did every chance they got. I would have done the same thing, except perhaps use different people to complain — and focus on different things to complain about. Truth be told, I’m not at all unhappy about what the Right did. And I’m wayyyyy more pissed off about what the Left is doing. You’re also correct that I do complain about both sides but that’s because both Left and Right do things that annoy me. It annoys me that our elected officials in Washington focus more on scoring political points than governing. That goes for both the Left and the Right. It’s the reason I kept posting that Ethel Merman quote every day. It’s a show where all they do is take your money and it shouldn’t be a money-grabbing show. I wouldn’t go do far as to call myself a contrarian. If that’s the worst I get around here, I’ll take it. I’ll do me, you do you. It makes this forum interesting.

But, but, but....facemasks were outlawed in Hong Kong.

Aretha Franklin. Shane of Fools.

There's no difference when someone asserts a Constitutional right. Cippolone asserted the President's rights in his letter Congress dated October 8. Disputes go to Court. The House Democrats chose not to go to Court. That's their problem and can't complain about it now. Corrupt purposes, standing alone, may be a proper inquiry (I stress may). Look up the case of Dean Skelos. That's "corruption", standing alone. This matter isn't. That's not the case here. The House Managers are misleading you and you're buying their line. The only answer here is "so what if there may be more". It isn't the President's job to help the people who want to put him out of office. This is so easy to understand that I am coming to the conclusion that you're bored and trolling. Yes, this is a purely political proceeding. Everyone here knows that. Every Congress member, Senator, and the President will have to answer to their respective constituents on election day. If you're coming to this realization now then I don't know what to say. But also consider the hypocrisy of the Democrats: each one of them is using their political power (the power to impeach) for purely political purposes. Every single one of them knows that the Senate was never going to get to 67 votes to convict the President. But they pressed on in an election year for the sole purpose to make political points and damage the prospects of the President. That's what they are doing and that's what they are complaining about the President having done. I already discussed this. You can NOT weigh mixed motives. Assuming that Trump solicited foreign election help (which I am not doing), you're very sheltered if you think this is the first and only time something like this has ever happened before (look up Nixon, Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton -- those are the first four that come to my mind). If you did know about these four at the time and you didn't complain, then why are you so bent now? You don't like it, and you want to send a message about this being improper. People like you don't like this and want to send a message about this being improper. Go vote. Bob, we are beating this horse to death. I'm not going to respond to you any more about these matters.

Better late than never!

You’re being obtuse. Whether on purpose or not, I don’t know. I’m not going to go into your motives because it is irrelevant. To your second paragraph — the President has the right to do nothing. Just like you do if someone accuses you of something. Silence can not be used to imply guilt. This is as simple a Constitutional right as one can have. To your third paragraph — yes of course I’d want an investigation. And I’d want that investigation to be done by people who have the authority to investigate. And I’d want those people to respect my right to not be required to help them out. By the way, your third paragraph completely disproves your entire premise about motives when looking at the predicate for impeachment. If Trump thought Biden was corrupt, wouldn’t you want him to investigate that? Isn’t that a good motive? This is the problem with weighing motives when there’s more than one reason to do anything. This is why inquiring into motives isn’t really as important as you make them out to be.

Joe Cribbs. He was good, but I didn’t care. Never liked him.