Bob in Mich

A Repub Senator criticizing Romney for breaking Repub ranks and supporting the call for witnesses? That is things crumbling for the left? How did you get there from this criticism?

OMG, the pens again!!! Talk about some true pertinent facts just for something different. Why does it matter in the case that on July 25th the Ukrainians didn't yet realize they were being extorted? Immaterial! Also immaterial is that Trump gave lethal aid and Obama did not. Nothing to do with this issue. And they eventually got the aid.......Why do these idiots keep repeating immaterial gibberish? I am going to spill some paint on the floor so I can watch something more exciting. No pizazz at all. I mean there is boring and then there is this crap. Awful entertainment!

Don't try confusing 3rdRate by stating facts. You are going to mess up his whole narrative. He and the others just need an explanation that could possibly be true. They most definitely don't want the actual truth to come out. Tibs, we should all just take it on faith that King Donnie was looking out for our best interests, in spite of how it looks. After all, has he ever lied to protect his butt before? Oh, he has?

Gawd this impeachment hearing is the most boring thing I think I have ever heard. Can't they entertain me better? Sheeesh!

I asked for you to state your point because 'go back and study the Kavanaugh hearing' was too vague. One could probably draw many conclusions from that review. How many should I guess at and attempt to reply to? Only an pompous prick would persist that it is beneath them to clarify their point because....well, just because you should be able to guess it. Get bent, fool!

Gosh, do I feel silly. Here I thought you were being a simple jerk but I see now that you were just trying to fill in for Tom. Well done, sir! The role of pompous prick is all yours.

Certainly nothing proven at this point. You are right too that past 'bombshells' have failed to impress very many. I think today the Repub Senators are in a worse position. If they choose to hear from witnesses I think they will hear more evidence that Trump abused his power and tried to obstruct the investigation. If that were to happen, it would be tougher to simply vote to acquit. If they vote to ignore possible evidence, they look like they are protecting the President regardless of facts. Neither option is very good for them though I still assume they will vote to ignore witnesses.

Well, good for you. Your clever comeback is very clever indeed. I mean, you even got 2 morons to like it. Perhaps that was your goal, rather than a discussion? Though to be fair, DR likes every comment or joke. It's a way to garner supporters I guess. Just to review though, you respond to my post with a question, I answer, you make a vague statement, I ask for clarity, you refuse to clarify your point, you give up, and you make your clever comeback with attempted insult. Good job!

You forgot to mention the big oval surrounding the title words on the book cover. Hmmm, that may be a clue....what could that oval mean?

This is familiar. I think you and I discussed this somewhere before. The point isn't that Trump made a mistake by using 'old' information. Mistakes happen. The point was what then happened after the mistake. Rather than admitting his mistake, Trump and his administration went to great lengths to cover for his mistake.....to save face, including pressuring the national weather service..

Rob, I didn't say the guilty should not be defended. What I said is I couldn't do that job as my conscience would bother me if I knowingly set the guilty free....especially violent criminals.

No, please don't make up my words. What I am saying is exactly what I typed. Nothing more or less. If you want to discuss something, why make it a project for others to engage? Again, if you have a point for discussion, what is it?

To be fair, Democrats reject the Framers and the Constitution for a whole lot of things. . I know full well that a defense lawyer's job is to offer up the best possible defense for his client. That is the job. I couldn't do that job. It would bother my conscience to no end to know I let a guilty person walk away unpunished, especially a violent criminal. I would love to hear Dershowitz' reply as to whether he ever feels any responsibility for allowing people he knows are guilty to escape justice. If the freed criminal victimizes innocent folks again, would he ever have second thoughts? Did he ever fear OJ may repeat?

No, I will not go back to Kavanaugh hearing articles looking for some vague connection. If you want to make a point for discussion, please just state your point.

I don't know your views well enough to know if the bolded above was sincere or ironic. I think we do now have a government that is very much less truthful than past administrations. They are terribly dishonest, when it benefits them. Recall the Alabama hurricane? That was administration efforts to lie to the public in order to save face. This administration is not above being dishonest. Not the least bit.

Not too closely but some. Why is that relevant to my Bolton book comments?

I have been watching Fox this morning to see how the Bolton book has been covered. They are hammering the point that the timing is aligned with the book release. Step 1 - attack credibility. Step 2 - focus on the evil leaker to the NYT rather than issue. In addition, they say the President is denying it. If Trump denies something, I think it was Ainsley claimed we have to believe him. After all with his record of honesty above all else, no one could question his side of the story, right? I don't think this Bolton news moves the needle for the Republican Senators. They just need to find a defensible position. If they keep their eyes and ears closed, there are still a lot of those. I am coming around to the idea though that this Senate Hearing may end up hurting Republican Senators in the longer run. It seems to me that over time more evidence of these misdeeds surfaces. It looks worse and worse for those that claim that they don't want to hear any more possible evidence. Seems political opponents of the Repub Senators will point out the dishonesty of this willful blindness during future campaigns.

Yeah, no, regarding Tom you don't speak for me. I surely don't need him here nor have I ever felt lucky to interact with him. Folks that appreciated Tom have had significantly different experiences with him apparently. The guy was a consistent prick to me at every opportunity - uncannily consistent. I hope he decides to take years away from here. I believe however he will return soon because as I said, he is a prick and seems to need to insult others. For now I will hum that munchkin tune.......DingDong the prick is gone. The prick is gone. The prick is gone. DingDong, the pompous prick is gone.

These ones may be cheaper https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vtg-1991-Buffalo-Bills-NFL-Tall-Beer-Mug-Glass-Slim-Jim-Logo-Advertising-NFL/133280300136?_trkparms=aid%3D1110001%26algo%3DSPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D40719%26meid%3Ded915048fa9941a3bc2db463bc0a78e3%26pid%3D100010%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D193071017229%26itm%3D133280300136%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100010.m2109 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Set-2-Vintage-Buffalo-Bills-Mafia-NFL-Beer-Mugs-Liqour-Glasses-Slim-Jim-Logo/143489016222?_trkparms=aid%3D1110001%26algo%3DSPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D40719%26meid%3Db5ef4954513a4170909ad1e2d53908e9%26pid%3D100010%26rk%3D8%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D133280300136%26itm%3D143489016222%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100010.m2109

No patriotic American could disagree with those goals. But, again, what was gained by tearing up the agreement? A solution for one of those goals was in place for the next 10 years or so before Trump tore up the nuclear deal, recreating the original problem. Why didn't Trump get back the pallets of cash if we gave back the limitations?. Right, he couldn't. So, why not keep what we had gained then too? The answer you want I think is : EGO.

That is a possibility I guess. It seems pretty weak and fairly unlikely to me but about the best excuse I have read. Thanks for the response

So, the advantage of tearing up the Obama Iran nuclear deal was what? You made a nice pro Trump statement but didn't answer the question. Please, try again. Except for the satisfaction of undoing Obama's presidency, what was the advantage of tearing up the agreement?

Probably your Russian leaders shut down the internet again. Are they rioting in Moscow perhaps?

I get that folks hated the Obama Iran nuclear deal. I have read several posts talking about Obama's folly and pallets of cash. The deal included a lot of hope and prayers on how Iran would react to the invitation to 'normalize'. Over time they didn't seem to be normalizing however as their regional agitation persisted or arguably worsened. On the plus side though, it did buy some time to deal with their nuclear program short of attacking Iran. With the agreed upon oversight, their nuclear program was frozen to a large extent. Then, Trump decided to make a big splash and tear up the agreement. If you thought the Iran nuclear deal was a terrible deal from the US perspective, how does it look now after giving them their pallets of cash WITHOUT any current oversight or agreed upon limitations to their nuclear program? If you thought Obama's administration screwed up by making the original deal, don't you have to really hate the Trump administration's alterations? As it is today, we gave all that we gave and in return, we now have what in exchange? Nada? Wouldn't it have been better to keep the existing nuclear deal and to work to improve the other areas of disagreement? Except for the satisfaction of undoing Obama's presidency, what was the advantage of tearing up the agreement?

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!