snafu

I saw this after I posted... I don't know what anyone else's thoughts are on the matter, but I would think that all Congressmembers should be embarrassed by this "investigation", and that standing up against it shows more backbone than anything else. If it turns out that something rises to the (high) level of being impeachable after permitting all testimony they can get their hands on, then you might have a valid question about "backbone".

There's zero evidence of a crime, whether it is a high crime or a misdemeanor. That makes this strictly political. Saying this is political is not a "chaff" statement. When Schiff analogized the "investigation" to a Grand Jury, he brought a criminal element into the process. Partisans have been banging the "attempted extortion" and "attempted bribery" drum. So expecting things to go like a criminal proceeding isn't a "chaff" statement, either. The fact that the two most recent Impeachments were run in a totally different, bipartisan way is also a disheartening contrast to what's going on now. When you've got "investigators" knocking on your door looking at what you've done, wouldn't you want them to talk to anyone and everyone involved in the matter? Maybe they figure out that what they suspect you of doing isn't worthy of pursuing. That's not what's happening here. This is a one-sided kabuki show meant to influence 2020 voters. Nothing more. Like I said in my prior post, this is meant to carry on as long as possible in order to run as deep as possible into the election cycle. Republicans on the Committee have requested several witnesses to be called. Schiff shot down every one of them. These are supposed to be people investigating the matter -- NOT building a case. Otherwise, Pelosi and Schiff should stop lying about the process and stop calling it an "investigation". There are many reasons why someone would not come forward, but refusals are mainly based upon privilege. You can read whatever you want into a refusal to testify, but the focus is foreign policy. That's not coffee talk. Also, and more important, the phone transcript speaks for itself. It has been out in the public for nearly two months. In fact, I think the White House released another transcript related to a prior phone call. Do you know what might help us understand things a bit more clearly: the Whistleblower. Who did he get his information from about the call? He never heard it. Someone thought it was a funky situation and reported his or her concerns to THAT guy? Why him? There were 14 or so people on the call. How many thought it was a big deal? Too bad we won't get to hear from the Whistleblower, huh? Funny how it is only Schiff who controls whether he testifies or not. Too many people in Congress have concluded that Trump did something wrong, even though there's an "investigation" going on. The "investigation" is more designed to be confirmation of partisan conclusions. I think Congress should just issue Articles already and get to the vote. I disagree with your statement here, completely. Stop clutching your pearls over this. Is election interference wrong -- of course. Has that stopped anyone before -- no. Off the top of my head, I can think of four historical examples of calling on a foreign nation or individual to assist a Presidential candidate: Nixon/Vietnam; Ted Kennedy/Soviets; Obama/Russians; Hillary/Steele-Russians. Only if it turns out to be true, the only difference this time is #orangemanbad. What "spine" do you want Congressional Republicans to assert? Rolling over to this absolute sham would be spineless. Standing up to it is commendable.

Reminder: One does not need to be a member of Congress to be Speaker of the House. Scary thought for the day.

Not so fast. Those are perfect jurors for a nonconformist.

So, since we can't suffocate you with the back of a jury lounge chair. How would you like to go?

This whole, so called: “public portion of the investigative phase” feels so strange. It is so one-sided. It is likely to hit a dead end even if it progresses to an impeachment vote and on to the Senate. It has all the earmarks of a political show to smear the President ahead of the full blown election season — and actually deep into the 2020 race. I think that’s part of the ploy here — roll out this first part slowly and partisan so that the process takes even longer to play out. The people who already hate the President will dig deeper into their position. I suppose the Democrats in Congress are also hoping to sway independents against Trump, that’s why the press keeps reporting poll numbers about independents. But if that’s their goal, it would seem that they take inspdependents for fools. Nobody should be comfortable with the way this obviously tilted process is playing out. Dems might win over independents if (I) the process was fair and (ii)if it allowed the President or his proxies to mount any sort of defense and (iii) in conclusion the President did something wrong. Im open to that. Unfortunately, since (so far) this is a railroad job, nobody is going to be swayed, not yet. It also occurs to me that the House Democrats are being hypocritical. They can’t make any coherent case that an actual crime has occurred. They can repeat the words “extortion” and “bribery” all they want, but that’s not what happened here. And if it is what happened here, then I’m sure that there are innumerable cases when prior Presidents used leverage in dealing with foreign heads of state. A fair response to that is that impeachment doesn’t require a criminal act. Well if that’s true (and I don’t deny it) then impeachment is much more of a political act. And since the Senate is not going to convict unless there’s more than what’s being presented by the House, this turns out to be a political act to smear the President during his re-election cycle. That’s exactly the charge against Trump (smearing the former VP). If this his post sounds obvious to you, then it is probably obvious to a lot of the country that’s following along. And if that’s the case, I really don’t know why the Democrats in the House are traveling this road. It smacks of desperation. And if they stop now, they look like fools — so they have to play this game right out to the end.

You mean exactly like what Mike Bloomberg (and Putin) did when his term limit was supposed to be up?

Well I’d consider trading Montour if he’s got any value. I hate his game. If anything (and I’m mostly serious) maybe they can send him to Rochester for half a season to convert him into a RW.

That would be actually very funny if Epstein had killed himself.

Well, if I REALLY want to get my butt clean, I use my toothbrush. Can we add an option on the poll for "toothbrush"?

Agreed. I slid 5 spots and lost my survivor pick — to say nothing of the Bills, whose loss is 100x more painful to me than this.

That’s one badass banner in the second photo!

Well, if he's paying me, he can set the rules. But as a schmo walking the streets of the City, then it becomes very lame, very quick.

Should be no new threads for 24 hours after a loss.

Cheers, bro!

Holy tone deaf! I suppose they can just act like a Democrat has for the past three years, huh? Maybe Republicans will be able to buy all the #resist bumper stickers and pink pu$$y hats.

He tried to ban soft drinks larger than 16 ounces in NYC while he was mayor. It was litigated and the Court of Appeals shot him down. He's called "Nanny Bloomberg" for good reason.

The cave dwellers in Plato's allegory are surmised to be likely to kill the guy who got free, went to see sunlight and shadows and reflections, and came back to tell them about it. So in your post, people in groups (1) and (2) would likely be disposed to kill people in group (3) . https://web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf There are a lot of (1)'s and (2)'s on either side of politics and social Justice. It kind of goes along with the trend these days of D's calling R's "cultists", and at the same time R's calling D's "cultists". Too many people on each side have a strict orthodoxy to protect, and unless one orthodoxy or another gets totally discredited, there will be no peace between the two poles. And even then, whatever legit side there is will likely be smacked by the discredited side for being right.

All of his iterations, or just the Gary iteration?

Yes, it is... Brennan accuses Trump of Treason

I’d have challenged “ti” as a word.

Wait, since Biden has spent most of his time in Iowa, and his numbers there have gone down by a ton, how could that implication be incorrect? The more Iowans saw of Biden, it seems, the more they were turned off. I’d leave N.H. out of it because it is obviously Warren/Sanders country. I think it is safe to leave SC out, too, because that’s been seen as solidly for Biden. I honestly don’t think he will be the eventual nominee, and I’m not making any predictions. I’m just focused on this quoted part of your article you linked. It seems to be the main premise.

Not remotely similar. I considered deleting the contents of the posts I quoted to coddle the sensibilities of those who have him on ignore, but it would have been hollow. And I'm not going to repeat my point 18 times.

This is one week of trolling...and it is 100% trolling because you keep bringing it up when nobody else is talking about it. Holy crap. Say it once or twice. You also like to b!tch about "whataboutisms". WTF makes this different? Stop being an #######.

I saw the Bills beat the Browns 42-0 in the old Cleveland Stadium in 1990. My buddy's truck broke down on the Thruway halfway home. Had to get a ride in a Trooper's car to the nearest exit. That game started at 4:00, so it must have been around 2 or 3AM when I finally got home. So, yeah, weird stuff does happen when the Bills play the Browns.