The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

23 of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs in 2020 are GOP

 

26 of the 35 were Dem in 2018

 

it's hard to gain in a year where you have the majority of the seats.

 

True, but remember: Even during their "blue wave", they still lost seats in the Senate.

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1202696969551921152

 

 

If they try that, it might be time to amend the Constitution to require that all members of the House must immediately resign if they pass Articles of Impeachment against a sitting president. If they're all about protecting the nation from a tyrant, then they shouldn't have any problem giving up their seats in Congress for the greater good.

[Chef Jim]

9 hours ago, GG said:

 

Always brings me back to this oldie but goodie

 

 

Why trying to work with clients in the Bay Area was so frustrating. “I have a PhD!  I don’t need your help. I can do this myself!”   As they were trying to figure out in 2013 when they should move their portfolio, that had been in cash since March 2009, back into the market. I met with a guy in 2014 who bad been in cash since the market bottom. He was convinced that as soon as he went back in the market it was going to crash. Yeah you don’t need me. ?  Degrees don’t teach emotional behaviors. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Nanker]

From the above’s replies... I had to look it up on giphy. 

 

 

 

 

[Capco]

On 12/5/2019 at 10:29 AM, Capco said:

At Wednesday’s session, three legal experts called by Democrats said impeachment was merited.

 

Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor, said he considered it clear that the president’s conduct met the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable … then nothing is impeachable.”

 

The only Republican witness, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, dissented from the other legal experts. He said the Democrats were bringing a “slipshod impeachment” case against the president, but he didn’t excuse Trump’s behavior.

 

“It is not wrong because President Trump is right,” Turley said. “A case for impeachment could be made, but it cannot be made on this record.”

 

Kind of weird... but right before I posted this snippet, the article was edited at 10:08 AM to remove and replace the above lines with the following:

 

Three leading legal scholars testified Wednesday to the House Judiciary Committee that Trump’s attempts to have Ukraine investigate Democratic rivals are grounds for impeachment, bolstering the Democrats’ case.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pelosi-gives-approval-for-drafting-impeachment-articles-against-trump

 

I had the page open in my tabs for a while and never refreshed it, so the original was still there for me to copy/paste at 10:29 AM.  

 

Why do you think they changed it?

Edited December 6, 2019 by Capco

[row_33]

19 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

True.
 

Big difference between 18 and 20 is that Trump will be on the ballot. That will increase turnout in key areas. 

 

it had freakin' better bring out Trump supports in droves

 

[Warren Zevon]

3 hours ago, Nanker said:

 

 

 

Do you wear a nankle bracelet? 

[Foxx]

7 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Kind of weird... but right before I posted this snippet, the article was edited at 10:08 AM to remove and replace the above lines with the following:

 

Three leading legal scholars testified Wednesday to the House Judiciary Committee that Trump’s attempts to have Ukraine investigate Democratic rivals are grounds for impeachment, bolstering the Democrats’ case.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pelosi-gives-approval-for-drafting-impeachment-articles-against-trump

 

I had the page open in my tabs for a while and never refreshed it, so the original was still there for me to copy/paste at 10:29 AM.  

 

Why do you think they changed it?

ummm.... because they're honest and want simple facts out there for $.02, Alex?

[row_33]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

ummm.... because they're honest and want simple facts out there for $.02, Alex?

 

Reduced to his smallest dimension, the thinker survived the strom

 

 

[Capco]

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

ummm.... because they're honest and want simple facts out there for $.02, Alex?

 

Seriously though, there's several ways to look at it.  

 

1.) It's a lot less wordy.  Maybe they were trying to trim the length a bit?  That's kinda weak sauce since the whole article is somewhat lengthy, but I'm never been an editor so I have no idea what the standards are.

2.) It omits the slight dissent of the 3rd professor from the other two by categorizing them all as offering testimony "bolstering the Democrats' case".

3.) It omits the direct quotes from all 3 professors who support impeachment in some form and if read at face value are particularly damaging to Trump.  

 

They could have just as easily been trying to remove bias as insert it.  

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Capco said:

 

Seriously though, there's several ways to look at it.  

 

1.) It's a lot less wordy.  Maybe they were trying to trim the length a bit?  That's kinda weak sauce since the whole article is somewhat lengthy, but I'm never been an editor so I have no idea what the standards are.

2.) It omits the slight dissent of the 3rd professor from the other two by categorizing them all as offering testimony "bolstering the Democrats' case".

3.) It omits the direct quotes from all 3 professors who support impeachment in some form and if read at face value are particularly damaging to Trump.  

 

They could have just as easily been trying to remove bias as insert it.  

 

It's not complicated. 

 

We are in an (dis)information war. PBS is not immune to it, and in fact have been clearly promoting one side's agenda over the other. 

[3rdnlng]

I don't know what the problem is here. It's been proven that the FBI did not place a plant in the Trump campaign so let's just drop all the investigations. Move along, nothing to see here. 

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

 

Kind of weird... but right before I posted this snippet, the article was edited at 10:08 AM to remove and replace the above lines with the following:

 

Three leading legal scholars testified Wednesday to the House Judiciary Committee that Trump’s attempts to have Ukraine investigate Democratic rivals are grounds for impeachment, bolstering the Democrats’ case.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pelosi-gives-approval-for-drafting-impeachment-articles-against-trump

 

I had the page open in my tabs for a while and never refreshed it, so the original was still there for me to copy/paste at 10:29 AM.  

 

Why do you think they changed it?

 

Why did that article take out any reference to anyone who has an opposing opinion?
Why did that article take out any nuance?

 

This is what you're asking?

 

 

 

 

[Nanker]

3 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Do you wear a nankle bracelet? 

 

[IDBillzFan]

Is it over?

 

Is he impeached yet?

 

No?

 

Not yet?

 

Weird. I keep getting told the evidence is overwhelming, and yet here we sit.

 

Oh, well.

 

Maybe tomorrow.

 

[row_33]

it's not like there's a time limit or rule of law on the Dem House to DO SOMETHING

 

 

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

 

Seriously though, there's several ways to look at it.  

 

1.) It's a lot less wordy.  Maybe they were trying to trim the length a bit?  That's kinda weak sauce since the whole article is somewhat lengthy, but I'm never been an editor so I have no idea what the standards are.

2.) It omits the slight dissent of the 3rd professor from the other two by categorizing them all as offering testimony "bolstering the Democrats' case".

3.) It omits the direct quotes from all 3 professors who support impeachment in some form and if read at face value are particularly damaging to Trump.  

 

They could have just as easily been trying to remove bias as insert it.  

 

 

They could have swapped out that language AND added "...and a fourth scholar thinks that based upon the evidence presented, there's no case for impeachment."  But they didn't do that.  by re-wording the three and deleting the one, that's not really an accurate edit.

 

Edit:  not only that, but if reporting really wanted to be unbiased (some have done this -- most haven't), they would make sure people know that Democrats chose the three professors, and republicans only got to select one to show up.  Not reporting this leads to a false conclusion that 3 out of 4 law professors agree.  That might not be true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by snafu

[row_33]

so in a nutshell for this Canadian conservative...

 

I don't buy that he didn't have some offer or plan in mind and at best we have a circumstantial case presented, and the grand effect of it is boo-bugger-all anyway, and the public could not care less

 

at least you get to vote out a politician directly, we have to wait for the losing party to dither and agonize for 2 years unless the leader resigns after a bad election... 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by row_33

[keepthefaith]

25 minutes ago, row_33 said:

it's not like there's a time limit or rule of law on the Dem House to DO SOMETHING

 

 

 

Well sure there is and if Mueller hadn't taken so ***** long they could have done this a long time ago.    Now they need to move this into the Senate before RBG waves goodbye. 

[row_33]

25 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Well sure there is and if Mueller hadn't taken so ***** long they could have done this a long time ago.    Now they need to move this into the Senate before RBG waves goodbye. 

 

i am fine with leaving the 2020 election as a mandate of The People on this jejeune topic

 

 

[RochesterRob]

31 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Well sure there is and if Mueller hadn't taken so ***** long they could have done this a long time ago.    Now they need to move this into the Senate before RBG waves goodbye. 

  The Dems thought Trump was just going to disappear into the night when the Russia gate episode started.  I guess we found out whose balls were brassier.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I don't know what the problem is here. It's been proven that the FBI did not place a plant in the Trump campaign so let's just drop all the investigations. Move along, nothing to see here. 

 

...Tibs does NOT approve of this message....YAWN.........

[row_33]

4 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  The Dems thought Trump was just going to disappear into the night when the Russia gate episode started.  I guess we found out whose balls were brassier.

 

it's like they never heard of Trump until he won the election

 

they were so arrogant thinking Hillary would take 44 states

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....well there you have it......only place this one belongs is with an apple in her mouth at a pig roast.......

Rosie O’Donnell defends law professor over Barron Trump joke: ‘I don’t think she did anything wrong’

By Melissa Roberto | Fox News

Rosie O’Donnell does not think Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan owed the First Family an apology after she made a joke about the president’s son at a House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing this week.

O’Donnell, 58, said Karlan’s words were “taken out of context.” Karlan initially received backlash on Wednesday for using Barron Trump’s first name as an example while discussing the Constitution.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rosie-odonnell-defends-professor-pamela-karlan-barron-trump-joke

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

....well there you have it......only place this one belongs is with an apple in her mouth at a pig roast.......

Rosie O’Donnell defends law professor over Barron Trump joke: ‘I don’t think she did anything wrong’

By Melissa Roberto | Fox News

Rosie O’Donnell does not think Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan owed the First Family an apology after she made a joke about the president’s son at a House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing this week.

O’Donnell, 58, said Karlan’s words were “taken out of context.” Karlan initially received backlash on Wednesday for using Barron Trump’s first name as an example while discussing the Constitution.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rosie-odonnell-defends-professor-pamela-karlan-barron-trump-joke

 

For once, I agree with her.

 

Someone explain how Barron Trump was "attacked."  Be sure, when you do, to explain how I just attacked him.

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

For once, I agree with her.

 

Someone explain how Barron Trump was "attacked."  Be sure, when you do, to explain how I just attacked him.

(Devil's advocate, because I agree)
 

It's not an attack in the sense that the words she used were an attack. But it was a rehearsed line and joke which she (and her writers) knew would be the viral moment of her testimony and played over and over again on every media outlet -- and the subject of the joke was a 13 year old boy who has nothing to do with the situation. It guaranteed that his name would be brought up, endlessly, for the next news cycle -- and other kids are *****, as you know, he was going to get ***** for it from everyone in his life even though she didn't "attack" him with her statement. 

 

It's just classless in the sense that she could have gotten a viral moment any number of different ways without dragging the kid into it.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Deranged Rhino
phone cut me off mid post...

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

(Devil's advocate, because I agree)
 

It's not an attack in the sense that the words she used were an attack. But it was a rehearsed line and joke which she (and her writers) knew would be the viral moment of her testimony and played over and over again on every media outlet -- and the subject of the joke was a 13 year old boy who has nothing to do with the situation. It guaranteed that his name would be brought up, endlessly, for the next news cycle -- and other kids are *****, as you know, he was going to get ***** for it from everyone in his life even though she didn't "attack" him with her statement. 

 

It's just classless in the sense that she could have gotten a viral moment any number of different ways without dragging the kid into it.

 

 

...WHOA!!!.....you're contradicting DC Tom?.....this could be blasphemy in the making......

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...WHOA!!!.....you're contradicting DC Tom?.....this could be blasphemy in the making......

 

What part of "I agree" did you misunderstand? 

[Koko78]

Yahoo lets cat out of bag. Cat scared.

 

Quote

Yet the poll also shows that Democrats have failed to translate that belief into broader support for impeachment, and that Americans remain too polarized and uncertain about key details to back Trump’s removal from office in the kind of numbers that could create real momentum as the process heads toward a Senate trial.

...

In other words, Trump’s presidency could end a little more than a year from now regardless of what happens in the Senate. If the revelations around the impeachment inquiry inspire 5 percent of his voters to abandon him next November, Trump would have a very hard time winning a second term.

 

[Golden Goat]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

In other words, Trump’s presidency could end a little more than a year from now regardless of what happens in the Senate. If the revelations around the impeachment inquiry inspire 5 percent of his voters to abandon him next November, Trump would have a very hard time winning a second term.

Sure, if you don't take into account the 5%+++ votes they'll lose for nominating a socialist lunatic.

[RochesterRob]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Yahoo lets cat out of bag. Cat scared.

 

 

  Sounds like they are trying to rally the troops in that 5 percent the "right" way will lead to a Democratic victory in their minds.

[Koko78]

16 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

Sure, if you don't take into account the 5%+++ votes they'll lose for nominating a socialist lunatic.

 

Well, it's Yahoo. They don't recognize that possibility.

[Buffalo_Gal]

28 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Yahoo lets cat out of bag. Cat scared.

 

 

WTH did they get 15% of republicans want him removed?  No one has disputed that he has upper 90% support among registered Republicans, sooooooo....

And yeah, sure, 41% of registered Independents want him removed. 

I laughed out loud at that "poll". That is even more baked than most of the crap we see.


 

[billsfan89]

8 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

Sure, if you don't take into account the 5%+++ votes they'll lose for nominating a socialist lunatic.

 

The Dems running a moderate and Hillary did them such a great job. In a populist era you are better off nominating someone who is antiestablishment. Even Trump privately has acknowledged a populist would be harder to defeat. 

[Koko78]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

WTH did they get 15% of republicans want him removed?  No one has disputed that he has upper 90% support among registered Republicans, sooooooo....

And yeah, sure, 41% of registered Independents want him removed. 

I laughed out loud at that "poll". That is even more baked than most of the crap we see.


 

 

Yeah, the "polling" was quite funny. I just posted it for the pipe dream that these accusations would siphon off 5% of Trump's voters (which, of course, is the actual goal of this smear campaign.)

[Golden Goat]

40 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

The Dems running a moderate and Hillary did them such a great job. In a populist era you are better off nominating someone who is antiestablishment. Even Trump privately has acknowledged a populist would be harder to defeat. 

Hillary Clinton lost because she's a cold, unrelatable shrew of a candidate. Pretty much any other moderate would have won that election.

 

But bring on Bernie, by all means. 

[DC Tom]

31 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

Hillary Clinton lost because she's a cold, unrelatable shrew of a candidate. Pretty much any other moderate would have won that election.

 

But bring on Bernie, by all means. 

 

Anyone bright enough to not call half the country "deplorable" and campaign in Wisconsin would have won that election.

[billsfan89]

43 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

Hillary Clinton lost because she's a cold, unrelatable shrew of a candidate. Pretty much any other moderate would have won that election.

 

But bring on Bernie, by all means. 

 

I don't think Biden would have won in 2016 and that's the only other person who could have challenged the Clinton machine in the nomination. This is an anti-establishment era of politics. Any "Moderate" Dem is going to be viewed as a part of the establishment that Trump will just rip into. What is a more appealing message to voters, a true populist who doesn't take corporate money, has held the same positions since the 70's, has bold policy ideas and hasn't supported the ***** over of the country throughout his public life. Or a moderate who proposes slight changes around the edges? 

 

Trump is going to make the same attacks on Biden as he did on Hillary (Supported the Iraq war, supported NAFTA, takes a ton of corporate money and all the other awful stuff Washington has supported.) Trump can't do the same with Bernie because he doesn't take corporate money and didn't support those disasters and according to reports Trump has privately told people that he is most worried about Bernie. I think Trump is an egotistical buffoon but he does have a good sense of how to read what the people want politically and he knows he can't steamroll Bernie a true populist.   

[Buffalo_Gal]

23 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

Trump is going to make the same attacks on Biden as he did on Hillary (Supported the Iraq war, supported NAFTA, takes a ton of corporate money and all the other awful stuff Washington has supported.) Trump can't do the same with Bernie because he doesn't take corporate money and didn't support those disasters and according to reports Trump has privately told people that he is most worried about Bernie. I think Trump is an egotistical buffoon but he does have a good sense of how to read what the people want politically and he knows he can't steamroll Bernie a true populist.   

 There is this little thing called math that works against (nearly all) of Bernie's pipe dream policies. 

Bernie probably needs a fourth house so will accept another house in payoff from the DNC to go away if he isn't the sacrificial lamb in 2020. ?‍♀️  And there is that small matter of his wife being under FBI investigation - whatever happened to her being under federal investigation for bank fraud? Was she cleared? 

 

[ALF]

Which party controls the House and Senate after the 2020 election is a major deal no matter who is President.