The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 ?‍♀️  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? 

 

 

The matter was put on hold because, you know, someone is running for office. 

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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.   

Bernie has been an avowed socialist/communist all of his life. He even honeymooned in Russia in the seventies when the cold war was going strong. When Comrade Bernie's little picadillos come out he will be ridiculed by those not on the far left. Being ridiculed is a candidates biggest enemy. 

[Rob's House]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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.   

 

Bernie would likely be more formidable than most of the pack, but he's got some heavy obstacles in his path to the nomination.

 

The DNC doesn't want him anywhere near this. President Trump was able to overcome similar sentiment from the RNC, but it doesn't have as much control over the process as the DNC does. Also, the Clinton loyalists still resent him for, as they see it, costing Hillary the election.

 

Were he to get it though the general election would be interesting. Bernie's far left policies would scare some moderates and Never Trumpers into voting Trump, but he'd pick up a lot of liberals who have gravitated to the right, despite policy differences, due to the wacky PC, social justice wing taking over the Democrat party.

 

I don't think the feminist/Hillary crowd would sit out because anyone in that crowd that's still harboring resentment are so rabidly anti-Trump that they'll learn to get over it and show up in droves anyway.

 

I think Tulsi Gabbard would be the most formidable. She has similar challenges and strengths to Bernie wrt what I described above, but she comes off as more sensible and she's a lot more pleasant to look at. Also, Trump would alpha Bernie in a big way. If he tried that on Tulsi he'd look like a bully. And she's pretty tough; the optics of a tough attractive woman standing up to Trump could cause problems for him.

 

I still think President Trump wins regardless of who they run, but those two would have the best chance in the general IMO.

 

[dubs]

11 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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.   

bernie has never had a job outside of government and his first job in government was narrowly winning a small mayoral race in VT in his 40s. His policies are directly taken from the 12 pillars of communism, and he’s an angry old Soviet. 
 

while I think there are a lot of fools in this country, there’s not enough of them to elect Comrade Bernie. He’d get demolished. 

Edited December 7, 2019 by dubs

[3rdnlng]

Meet the Left's point man who is using their idea of the impeachment process to affect an election. I give you Jerry The Hut:

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, dubs said:

bernie has never had a job outside of government and his first job in government was narrowly winning a small mayoral race in VT in his 40s. His policies are directly taken from the 12 pillars of communism, and he’s an angry old Soviet. 
 

while I think there are a lot of fools in this country, there’s not enough of them to elect Comrade Bernie. He’d get demolished. 

Then who’s it going to be. Liz sounds like a really angry retired teacher. Joe is well...Joe. Pete is doing his best but his own ‘diversity prone’ party is going to reject him because of his diversity. They have a REAL problem. 

[dubs]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Then who’s it going to be. Liz sounds like a really angry retired teacher. Joe is well...Joe. Pete is doing his best but his own ‘diversity prone’ party is going to reject him because of his diversity. They have a REAL problem. 

well, I’m not saying Bernie won’t win the primary, but he definitely wouldn’t win the general. 
 

I think the Dems try and duplicate the Obama formula and Mayor Pete wins. Anytime you can elect a small town mayor in his 30s to be president of the United States, you gotta do it. 
 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Then who’s it going to be. Liz sounds like a really angry retired teacher. Joe is well...Joe. Pete is doing his best but his own ‘diversity prone’ party is going to reject him because of his diversity. They have a REAL problem. 

I think that is why the rumors of Hillary or Michelle O jumping in are so strong... the current field of Democratic candidate hopefuls are even worse than Hillary Clinton or John Kerry. 

 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Then who’s it going to be. Liz sounds like a really angry retired teacher. Joe is well...Joe. Pete is doing his best but his own ‘diversity prone’ party is going to reject him because of his diversity. They have a REAL problem. 

If the dems had a viable candidate capable of beating Trump then they wouldn't be going through this charade of impeachment. They've used up all of their ammunition and now are throwing the gun as a last ditch effort to have relevance. 

[row_33]

Michelle? C‘’mom....  

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, dubs said:

well, I’m not saying Bernie won’t win the primary, but he definitely wouldn’t win the general. 
 

I think the Dems try and duplicate the Obama formula and Mayor Pete wins. Anytime you can elect a small town mayor in his 30s to be president of the United States, you gotta do it. 
 

 

Mayor Pete is not getting by the African American fire wall. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, row_33 said:

Michelle? C‘’mom....  

I'm not saying it it logical. If you go over to a lefty site they are wishin' and hopin' (not for Hillary, for Michelle). 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I think that is why the rumors of Hillary or Michelle O jumping in are so strong... the current field of Democratic candidate hopefuls are even worse than Hillary Clinton or John Kerry. 

 

I agree! Biden looks and smells like John McCain. Old and tired. And the analogy to Sarah Palin would obviously have to be Kamala Harris!

[row_33]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I'm not saying it it logical. If you go over to a lefty site they are wishin' and hopin' (not for Hillary, for Michelle). 

i can’t see her wanting to waste her time, a campaign is a serious drain when you have hope in the first place 

she has no time or patience to stand there while Grievance Theatre takes over every Dem speech on the campaign trail

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by row_33

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

We’re about to see what the Art of the Deal looks like in real time. Trump knows he’s going to win in the Senate. It’s time for Nancy to blink.

[Albwan]

       Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in

regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is

Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing.

     I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory.

 

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, Albwan said:

       Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in

regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is

Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing.

     I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory.

 

Those folks are completely unmasked by this point.

[3rdnlng]

30 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Trump's lawyers did send a letter about 4:30 pm to the House basically telling them to ***** off and we'll all see how it goes in a fair Senate trial. Dems are like moths drawn to the flame of impeachment. 

31 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

We’re about to see what the Art of the Deal looks like in real time. Trump knows he’s going to win in the Senate. It’s time for Nancy to blink.

Sorry to tell you this, but Nancy is incapable of blinking. I mean really, she can't physically blink. She would make a great Jeff Dunham dummy though if he could get up the courage to have her sit on his lap.

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, Albwan said:

       Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in

regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is

Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing.

     I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory.

 

Don’t be troubled or confused. Let me simplify this for you. The facts are indeed undisputed. The transcript is the only fact! The debate is solely on the INTENT of the transcript...but void of a single witness who has any personal knowledge of the INTENT....the prosecution has literally nothing.

[Foxx]

48 minutes ago, Albwan said:

       Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in

regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is

Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing.

     I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory.

 

don't forget all the talking points when it comes to allegations against anything Dem... 'debunked' is my favorite but we also have 'unproven' and 'conspiracy theories' amongst others.

[RochesterRob]

1 hour ago, Albwan said:

       Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in

regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is

Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing.

     I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory.

 

  Yes, the word smithing may well push beyond simple declarations of confidence such as with "undisputed."  

[Koko78]

7 hours ago, Albwan said:

       Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in

regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is

Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing.

     I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory.

 

 

They also like to use the phrase "without evidence" whenever anyone challenges the "undisputed" and "uncontested" "debunkings" of any argument they don't like. Of course, just don't ask them to prove these "undisputed" things with actual evidence...

[Foxx]

On 12/5/2019 at 5:02 PM, Foxx said:

 

right, two thirds of the complete Senate are needed to convict.

 

however.... there is a little known loophole here that not too many are aware of. only two thirds of senators in attendance at the vote is required to convict. thus, 67 is not the immovable object everyone might think. if only 75 Senators show up to vote, a mere 50 votes are required to convict. not that i think that will/would happen but, i do have a severe distrust of all things elite so....

The Impeachment Loophole No One’s Talking About

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

The Impeachment Loophole No One’s Talking About

I saw another  post somewhere that if a Senator did not attend the trial, they could be arrested. ?‍♀️  That article was in reference to Bernie and Lizzy campaigning instead of attending the trial, but I assume  the same would apply to any Republicans trying to duck the trial. 

Now, I am not sure Mitch would send out the Sergeant at Arms to round up anyone, but you never know...
 

Here's an article about Harry Reid considering it:
 

</snip>
 

In rare circumstances, the majority leader can request a "live" quorum call because he actually wants all senators present for debate. If a majority of senators are not present in the chamber, the majority leader can make a motion, which if agreed to by a plurality of senators, would direct the sergeant at arms to request the presence of absent senators. Usually this works, and a majority of senators come to the floor.
 

If it doesn't work, however, that's where things get dicey. The Senate can then direct the sergeant at arms to compel — or even arrest — senators to bring them to the floor.
 

</snip>

[Nanker]

I’d pay good money to see Mitt frog-marched into the Senate Chamber. 

[Gavin in Va Beach]

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

I’d pay good money to see Mitt frog-marched into the Senate Chamber. 

 

I'm in for $20

[Foxx]

32 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I saw another  post somewhere that if a Senator did not attend the trial, they could be arrested. ?‍♀️  That article was in reference to Bernie and Lizzy campaigning instead of attending the trial, but I assume  the same would apply to any Republicans trying to duck the trial. 

Now, I am not sure Mitch would send out the Sergeant at Arms to round up anyone, but you never know...
 

Here's an article about Harry Reid considering it:
 

</snip>
 

In rare circumstances, the majority leader can request a "live" quorum call because he actually wants all senators present for debate. If a majority of senators are not present in the chamber, the majority leader can make a motion, which if agreed to by a plurality of senators, would direct the sergeant at arms to request the presence of absent senators. Usually this works, and a majority of senators come to the floor.
 

If it doesn't work, however, that's where things get dicey. The Senate can then direct the sergeant at arms to compel — or even arrest — senators to bring them to the floor.
 

</snip>

from the linked article:

...And the Senate could, in theory, exercise its power for compulsory attendance, directing the sergeant-at-arms to arrest fugitive senators and haul them back to the chamber for the vote. But such power is only used in cases where a quorum is missing—to go from, say, 49 to 51—but never from 70 to 100, making its use in such a scenario unprecedented, and likely an abuse of power. (Frumin thinks it would violate the rules.) Of course, that hasn’t stopped Mitch McConnell before. But any measure to enlist the sergeant-at-arms would require a majority of the senators who were—well, present. (See how useful this word is?) If 30 members were absent, Democrats would presumably defeat the motion to compel the missing senators’ attendance, 47-23. ...

[keepthefaith]

On 12/7/2019 at 9:00 AM, 3rdnlng said:

Trump's lawyers did send a letter about 4:30 pm to the House basically telling them to ***** off and we'll all see how it goes in a fair Senate trial. Dems are like moths drawn to the flame of impeachment. 

Sorry to tell you this, but Nancy is incapable of blinking. I mean really, she can't physically blink. She would make a great Jeff Dunham dummy though if he could get up the courage to have her sit on his lap.

 

Wouldn't it be simpler and more direct if the President's lawyer's simply sent a very short letter that says:  "***** Off"?

[Tiberius]

Why hasn't Trump called for his own witnesses to testify? 

 

Oh that's right, they would have incriminating evidence, that's why 

[keepthefaith]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Why hasn't Trump called for his own witnesses to testify? 

 

Oh that's right, they would have incriminating evidence, that's why 

 

Why should he?  If this gets to a trial in the Senate, that's when both sides will call people who are actual witnesses. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

from the linked article:

...And the Senate could, in theory, exercise its power for compulsory attendance, directing the sergeant-at-arms to arrest fugitive senators and haul them back to the chamber for the vote. But such power is only used in cases where a quorum is missing—to go from, say, 49 to 51—but never from 70 to 100, making its use in such a scenario unprecedented, and likely an abuse of power. (Frumin thinks it would violate the rules.) Of course, that hasn’t stopped Mitch McConnell before. But any measure to enlist the sergeant-at-arms would require a majority of the senators who were—well, present. (See how useful this word is?) If 30 members were absent, Democrats would presumably defeat the motion to compel the missing senators’ attendance, 47-23. ...

This  article I linked to reported when it was utilized in  the past. Obviously in the days before the outrage media and the internet. 



 

[row_33]

52 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Wouldn't it be simpler and more direct if the President's lawyer's simply sent a very short letter that says:  "***** Off"?

 

[US Egg]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Why hasn't Trump called for his own witnesses to testify? 

 

Oh that's right, they would have incriminating evidence, that's why 

A self portrait of ones own brain exploding, hope all is well.  

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

A self portrait of ones own brain exploding, hope all is well.  

There really isn't all that much to blow up. That is a picture of what was seen under the microscope. 

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

A self portrait of ones own brain exploding, hope all is well.  

You are a stupid idiot. Have you ever made any decent contribution to this board? No, you are just a parasite 

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

There really isn't all that much to blow up. That is a picture of what was seen under the microscope. 

Lol, I'm way smarter than you, but I don't really need to point that out

Trump supporters trying to say regular people are not that smart. Unreal 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You are a stupid idiot. Have you ever made any decent contribution to this board? No, you are just a parasite 

Lol, I'm way smarter than you, but I don't really need to point that out

LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 

[US Egg]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You are a stupid idiot. Have you ever made any decent contribution to this board? No, you are just a parasite 

Still hoping for that participation trophy for most comments in a forum ?

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 

 

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 

 

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 

Lol, still repeating that lie? Trump was born from lies and you were made for each other. 

 

Lies

4 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

Still hoping for that participation trophy for most comments in a forum ?

Wow, you are so funny, not. 

 

Go away d-bag. 

[3rdnlng]

HAHA Gator is claiming that he didn't laugh at the Benghazi deaths of Americans. Wow. Does anyone know how that could be true?