The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Taro T]

17 hours ago, Margarita said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/human-trafficking-is-not-an-immigration-enforcement-problem-2019-3#nostatistical-evidence-4 read this and tell me what you think. About the other issues I think my own personal opinions are really moot as far as he being impeached. Do Republican values align with mine regarding abortion Definitey. Do I think he is in favor of being a man of Christian values and loving your neighbor as yourself...absolutely Not.  I dont mean to hijack and make this a thread on soley what margarita thinks though to be honest who cares what margarita thinks I dont expect internet chatters  to thats for sure.

 

Not ignoring you.  Haven't had a chance to read the article yet, and likely won't tonight.  Will respond after reading it.

[muppy]

Quote

Quote

Just now, Taro T said:

 

Not ignoring you.  Haven't had a chance to read the article yet, and likely won't tonight.  Will respond after reading it.

no worries its been panned pretty hard but I posted it for discussion,,its a post contrary to Trump rhetoric just for discussion purposes

 

 

[GG]

Could get more interesting in next few days, witnesses may be called.  

 

Careful what you wish for, as always.  

[muppy]

 

okay this was posted at a different chatroom....posted with permission

 

Quote

 

This is so important and overlooked by most. Democrats don't care about removing tRump. Again no one wants President Pence. What they want to do is establish new executive level precedents. There will be a Democrat in office again and everything tRump did will be used again. Just not for causes some may like.

 

 

 

Quote

This is why I believe very firmly that these egregious acts by Congress, and the POTUS are really hands shaking. DEMs and REPs (not the people so foolishly thinking there is a discernible difference) are the same party. One big circle jerk who puts on a show of not liking the other side, but doing nothing to really change the problems with either.

Obama claims Patriot act was unconsititutional, but then adds more to it. He claims Gitmo is inhumane and keeps it around.
Trump claims the swamp needs cleaning, but his own people stab him in the back at every turn and he lies like the rest of us breathe.

 

you may not agree with all of this Rhino but at least partly Im guessing. I thought it was very interesting and had asked if I could repost it after I read it last night and was told yes. what do you think? anybody?

Edited January 28, 2020 by Margarita

[Hedge]

 

 

[njbuff]

23 minutes ago, Margarita said:

Speaking of internet communication I wonder how much more civil it could be in chat rooms if folks tried to communicate as if they were actually face to face and not hiding behind the anonymity of a keyboard. I’ve been labeled a troll, fake, stupid , trolling for dates LOL that one I laughed...anyway I’m not innocent I came in hard and said trump voters were brainwashed (cultish) I shouldn’t have said that I don’t know people in here personally nor do u me it was wrong but I have a really hard to me with folks I DO know personally who literally think Trump can do no wrong and that’s why I said what I did. It does appear that here he is widely supported but not in 100% everything and I can appreciate this place more knowing that. Anyway.....

TRIPLE LIKE THIS totally agree ??? I read something recently I’ll get off my phone to post it I think it’ll strike a chord...

Trolling for dates was a joke.

 

I would think you wouldn’t take that seriously.

[Tiberius]

6:07 p.m.

McConnell tells GOP senators he does not have the votes to block witnesses

McConnell indicated in a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans that he did not yet have enough votes to defeat an effort, expected later this week, to call additional witnesses and evidence in the trial.

His remarks were confirmed by people familiar with them who spoke anonymously to discuss a private meeting. At least four Republicans would have to vote with all Democrats in the key vote later this week to allow witnesses. The vote will be on whether witnesses should be called. Votes on specific witnesses would come later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/impeachment-trial-live-updates/2020/01/28/8fadd30e-41bd-11ea-aa6a-083d01b3ed18_story.html#link-2U45HFFYOQ3VRI46RGQKVCLJPU

[Deranged Rhino]

26 minutes ago, Margarita said:

 

okay this was posted at a different chatroom....posted with permission

 

you may not agree with all of this Rhino but at least partly Im guessing. I thought it was very interesting and had asked if I could repost it after I read it last night and was told yes. what do you think? anybody?

 

While I appreciate the sentiment that there's a uniparty, I don't find it a compelling argument or analysis of the past 4 years. You have to look at the impeachment in full context of what's been happening. 

 

What's happening is global, it's not confined to this country alone or its institutions.  

25 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

44 should be called. Let's do it.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

This has been posted before. It will be posted again. But it's perfect for what's actually happening right now. 

[Hedge]

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

While I appreciate the sentiment that there's a uniparty, I don't find it a compelling argument or analysis of the past 4 years. You have to look at the impeachment in full context of what's been happening. 

 

What's happening is global, it's not confined to this country alone or its institutions.  

 

44 should be called. Let's do it.

 

I agree. I am proponent of burning it all down. I think the only way we can move forward, with confidence, is to air all the dirty laundry, regardless of who is implicated. I do wonder, however, if any specific witnesses may not be considered, should their testimony affect any sitting (or future) grand juries in Durham's probe.

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Hedge

[IDBillzFan]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

It's funny to me that the left thinks this will be good for them. So far as I can tell, they're planning to go with their already-failed REO Speedwagon testimony.

 

Tough times being a Democrat these days. The embarrassment is never-ending.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Hedge said:

 

I agree, I am proponent of burning it all down. I think the only way we can move forward, with confidence, is to air all the dirty laundry, regardless of who is implicated. I do wonder. however, if any specific witnesses may not be considered, should their testimony affect any sitting (or future) grand juries in Durham's probe.

 

It's a valid point to consider... 

 

The rally tonight will be interesting in terms of gauging the temperature of the administration. 

Just now, IDBillzFan said:

 

 

It's funny to me that the left thinks this will be good for them. So far as I can tell, they're planning to go with their already-failed REO Speedwagon testimony.

 

Tough times being a Democrat these days. The embarrassment is never-ending.

 

 

 

 

They (the people/base/voters on the left) have been led astray by a nefarious media complex and the coup plotters in the IC/DC. They don't know up from down at the moment. Just look at Bob's posts as evidence. 

 

Our reality has bifurcated, it's really an amazing (and dangerous) thing to be aware of. There are two separate realities in existence right now, both convinced their side is right and the other is wrong. But facts are stubborn things, and one side has all the facts while the other has "mind reading" and innuendo mixed with painful cognitive dissonance. 

 

We're at a tipping point. The next 10 months will determine a lot in terms of the longevity of the republic itself, let alone the bigger issue of globalism v nationalism.

[muppy]

48 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Trolling for dates was a joke.

 

I would think you wouldn’t take that seriously.

I laughed...intent is hard to assess on the internet i was being slammed pretty hard previously anyway it’s all good. I told hubby and he asked if I got any bites LOL 

32 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

While I appreciate the sentiment that there's a uniparty, I don't find it a compelling argument or analysis of the past 4 years. You have to look at the impeachment in full context of what's been happening. 

 

What's happening is global, it's not confined to this country alone or its institutions.  

 

44 should be called. Let's do it.

Fair enough

[njbuff]

What’s more fun?????

 

This impeachment nonsense, or.............

 

the nonsensical debate on the Bills passing on Mahomes?

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Rob's House said:

 

That's the Democrat way. If they don't get what they want (power) they scream & throw a fit, assail your character, call you every name in the book, then accuse you of being divisive.

 

It's been like that since GWB. Maybe longer.

 

It started before Trump, but it is worse now.

Dems lose in 2016 and call for the Electoral College to be abolished.

Hate the President, the “steady state” Obama holdovers manufacture a bogus investigation into collusion.

Trump puts a couple Supremes in place and Dems call for the Court to be enlarged to 15.

Dems can’t find a viable candidate so they lower the impeachment threshold and shove it through by a partisan vote.

 

Can’t win by following the rules so they go for complete rules change in response.

 

Clinton tried to bully Trump into saying he’d accept the results of the election and then freaked out when he said “let’s see”. Then she lost and she still hasn’t accepted the results. Half the country has followed her lead and thrown a temper tantrum since November 2016. The hate and rhetoric actually comes from the left.  Same happened with Bush in his first term to a much lesser extent. Dems wouldn’t legitimize him because of the Florida mess.

 

[snafu]

3 hours ago, GG said:

Could get more interesting in next few days, witnesses may be called.  

 

Careful what you wish for, as always.  

 

Interesting to say the least. If there will be one, then there should be all witnesses.

They will have to vote on each of Schumer’s amendments, I’d imagine.  And I think McConnell has said that there won’t be any witnesses without depositions being done first.

 

I could actually imagine Warren, Klobuchar, and Sanders going nuts over this.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

9 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Interesting to say the least. If there will be one, then there should be all witnesses.

They will have to vote on each of Schumer’s amendments, I’d imagine.  And I think McConnell has said that there won’t be any witnesses without depositions being done first.

 

I could actually imagine Warren, Klobuchar, and Sanders going nuts over this.

 

 

 

If there will be witnesses, call Comey. Call Clapper. Call Obama. Call Clinton.

 

Call them ALL.

 

And force them to lie under oath. Then imprison them.

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Joe in Winslow

[Rob's House]

2 hours ago, Margarita said:

 

okay this was posted at a different chatroom....posted with permission

 

 

 

you may not agree with all of this Rhino but at least partly Im guessing. I thought it was very interesting and had asked if I could repost it after I read it last night and was told yes. what do you think? anybody?

 

I agree with the theory that establishment Rs & Ds are all in it together to a point, but I think it's loosely analogous to the NFL.

 

The fans (supporters) love their team (party), think winning is the most important thing, and hate the rival team.

 

The players/coaches (politicians) want to win for personal benefits - money/job security (power) & prestige, but the team winning isn't as important as long as they have personal success. And they might talk ***** during the week but they're friends with half the guys on the other team.

 

The owners, who collectively comprise the league (power players) all in it together. Sure, they want to win, but even if they lose they still win. It matters far less to them than the fans.

 

That said, Everyone still wants to hoist the Lombardi.

 

It's a flawed and overly simplistic analogy, but I think it illustrates the point.

 

 

To the other point (I think) was made, I don't agree that Dems have a genuine concern for the expansion of executive power, because history betrays that assertion.

 

None of them had the slightest concern when Obama was taking extra constitutional actions. The common refrain was that he wouldn't have to do that if the "obstructionist" Congress would "do its job." (Apparently the job of the legislature is to pass the legislation the executive wants).

 

Before you say "whataboutism," I'm not arguing that executive power should not be reigned in (I think it should), but rather

that I doubt the sincerity of those on the left claiming it as a goal.

 

Moreover, underneath all the rhetoric, President Trump really hasn't done much to expand executive power beyond that of his predecessors.

 

There's just not a lot of evidence to support that assertion.

 

 

[B-Man]

McConnell doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses yet — but it sounds like he will by Friday
 

The headlines going around this evening, all to the effect that “McConnell doesn’t have the votes!”, are misleading when you read down into the stories themselves. Republicans sound much calmer and more resolute about ramming through an acquittal verdict without witnesses than they did 24 hours ago, in the first flush of the NYT’s story on Sunday night about Bolton’s book. McConnell doesn’t have the votes yet but as of Tuesday night Collins and Romney remain the only two Republicans willing to say it’s highly likely they’ll vote to call witnesses. Murkowski is interested in hearing from Bolton but won’t go any further than that now. And no one thinks Lamar Alexander’s going to blow up his buddy Mitch’s plans for a quick ending to the trial.
 

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/01/28/mcconnell-doesnt-votes-block-witnesses-yet-sounds-like-will-friday/

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

IF the mainstream republicans fail here, they need to be punished at the ballot box and by the party.

 

They can't be trusted.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

42 minutes ago, B-Man said:

McConnell doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses yet — but it sounds like he will by Friday
 

The headlines going around this evening, all to the effect that “McConnell doesn’t have the votes!”, are misleading when you read down into the stories themselves. Republicans sound much calmer and more resolute about ramming through an acquittal verdict without witnesses than they did 24 hours ago, in the first flush of the NYT’s story on Sunday night about Bolton’s book. McConnell doesn’t have the votes yet but as of Tuesday night Collins and Romney remain the only two Republicans willing to say it’s highly likely they’ll vote to call witnesses. Murkowski is interested in hearing from Bolton but won’t go any further than that now. And no one thinks Lamar Alexander’s going to blow up his buddy Mitch’s plans for a quick ending to the trial.
 

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/01/28/mcconnell-doesnt-votes-block-witnesses-yet-sounds-like-will-friday/

At one time I thought Romney a decent human being.  Now I see him as a cross between Eddie Haskel and the kid from Cobra Kai who cheapshotted Daniel-San in Karate Kid.  He’s basically a 3rd rate actress promising multiple  points of entry on the political version of Harvey Weinsteins casting couch. 

[Just Joshin']

2 hours ago, njbuff said:

What’s more fun?????

 

This impeachment nonsense, or.............

 

the nonsensical debate on the Bills passing on Mahomes?

I find it interesting that the lefties here never post on football.  Why then come to PPP other then to stir things up?

[njbuff]

I’ve seen Gary in football threads.

 

Other than that, I am not so sure.

Edited January 29, 2020 by njbuff

[Bob in Mich]

8 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well here's the point. You find truth where you see it. You see references to a constitutional scholar as a "backslap", I see it a ls reference to a constitutional scholar.  You see this whole debacle as a pursuit of truth, I see it as a debacle of the highest order. You see Adam Schiff as a seeker of truth, I see him simply as a partisan who likely is pursuit of something, but the truth ain't it. 

 

Finally, being a natural born skeptic, I look at every president in the history of the country as having been impeachable if this is the standard we're going to use moving forward.  If that's the case, so be it. 

 

Lonny, again, you seem like a nice guy and if you ever get out this way, look me up and we can get a bite and a few beers.  Sounds like an enjoyable evening.

 

I just disagree with your political views by the maximum possible amount.  lol

 

[Bob in Mich]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

At one time I thought Romney a decent human being.  Now I see him as a cross between Eddie Haskel and the kid from Cobra Kai who cheapshotted Daniel-San in Karate Kid.  He’s basically a 3rd rate actress promising multiple  points of entry on the political version of Harvey Weinsteins casting couch. 

 

He was the Repub nominee.  Just asking but did it ever strike you as odd that so many formerly 'deemed reasonable folks' become a-holes once they speak against Trump?  In fact immediately upon talking against Trump the transformation seems to take place.  Odd to me

[B-Man]

 

Well thanks Chuck...............that gives the GOP "leaners" an out now  ?

 

 

 

Of course, he could know about this:

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

He was the Repub nominee.  Just asking but did it ever strike you as odd that so many formerly 'deemed reasonable folks' become a-holes once they speak against Trump?  In fact immediately upon talking against Trump the transformation seems to take place.  Odd to me

 

Romney's always been a quisling.

 

Totally without any kind of backbone. Just look at his time in Mass.

 

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Romney's always been a quisling.

 

Totally without any kind of backbone. Just look at his time in Mass.

 

 

The last time I had any real respect for Romney was during that first debate against Obama. After that, he just sort of fizzled out. Once it looked like Trump was going to win the nomination, Romney went full McCain against Trump, proving to me that he was just another uniparty douche. As far as I'm concerned, Romney can go ***** himself.

[sabrecrazed]

4 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

The last time I had any real respect for Romney was during that first debate against Obama. After that, he just sort of fizzled out. Once it looked like Trump was going to win the nomination, Romney went full McCain against Trump, proving to me that he was just another uniparty douche. As far as I'm concerned, Romney can go ***** himself.

Makes me wonder what Obama found on him while spying during that election. 

[/dev/null]

6 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

He was the Repub nominee.  Just asking but did it ever strike you as odd that so many formerly 'deemed reasonable folks' become a-holes once they speak against Trump?  In fact immediately upon talking against Trump the transformation seems to take place.  Odd to me

 

did you ever notice that the MSM portrays some Republicans as moderates or mavericks and the kind that even Liberals could vote for?  Until those Republicans are actually on the Presidential ballot, and then they become raysis warmonger super mecha literal Hitlers that take peoples jobs and give them Cancer.  Then when those Republicans are no longer a threat, they are painted as the moderate and reasonable Republicans again?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

did you ever notice that the MSM portrays some Republicans as moderates or mavericks and the kind that even Liberals could vote for?  Until those Republicans are actually on the Presidential ballot, and then they become raysis warmonger super mecha literal Hitlers that take peoples jobs and give them Cancer.  Then when those Republicans are no longer a threat, they are painted as the moderate and reasonable Republicans again?

 

YUPPPPPPPP

 

[fansince88]

8 hours ago, snafu said:

 

It started before Trump, but it is worse now.

Dems lose in 2016 and call for the Electoral College to be abolished.

Hate the President, the “steady state” Obama holdovers manufacture a bogus investigation into collusion.

Trump puts a couple Supremes in place and Dems call for the Court to be enlarged to 15.

Dems can’t find a viable candidate so they lower the impeachment threshold and shove it through by a partisan vote.

 

Can’t win by following the rules so they go for complete rules change in response.

 

Clinton tried to bully Trump into saying he’d accept the results of the election and then freaked out when he said “let’s see”. Then she lost and she still hasn’t accepted the results. Half the country has followed her lead and thrown a temper tantrum since November 2016. The hate and rhetoric actually comes from the left.  Same happened with Bush in his first term to a much lesser extent. Dems wouldn’t legitimize him because of the Florida mess.

 

If ever I was going to plagiarize someones writings......this would be it. Last 4 years in a nutshell. My biggest fear is when are they planning assassination? The hate is unbelievable. 

[Albwan]

25 minutes ago, fansince88 said:

If ever I was going to plagiarize someones writings......this would be it. Last 4 years in a nutshell. My biggest fear is when are they planning assassination? The hate is unbelievable. 

I bet this is the break the glass plan 2020

[Tiberius]

Bolton now being smeared across the dummy right wing media 

 

“John Bolton Took Money From Banks Tied To Cartels, Terrorists, Iran,” 

[Bob in Mich]

23 hours ago, snafu said:

 

What more do you need to know?

Would it confirm what you suspect, or change your mind?

 

 

 

The answer is, I want to know the truth.  What other investigations have you seen where people lobbied to not learn the truth?  Aside from not wanting to hear grisly details of violent attacks or accidents, I can't think where folks want to turn away from available case facts.  I suppose there are various legal issues with concealing facts from juries, but that is not what we have here.  In this case we have Bolton, a key player, that has information and claims to be willing to tell us all what he knows.

 

I want all of us to agree on what actually happened and whether or not that behavior is now legal going forward.  Right now, without any further evidence or witnesses, can we agree on what happened?  I don't think we can at this point.  And, can we now determine whether that behavior is legal going forward?   Well, once we know the actual truth, we maybe can but certainly we can't at this time.

 

I see Trump as trying to tilt the 2020 election playing field by soliciting help from foreign countries.  He continues to fall into this.  Told by George Stephanopoulos that the FBI says he shouldn't accept election aid from foreign countries, he claims the FBI is wrong.  There is no doubt in my mind that if the Ukraine scheme worked out for Trump, he would replay the scheme with other countries and with future opponents.

 

Who in the Republican Congress can control Trump's actions if and when he starts to get out of line or when he goes too far with his tweets?  Which Republicans consistently stand up to Trump?  I will tell you.....I can't think of any.  Sure, on various issues some have voiced occasional squeaky protestations but by and large, the Repubs in Congress have been bullied and clearly fear crossing Trump.

 

So, how do you think, if not by using impeachment inquiry, could the Dems keep Trump from repeating this scheme with future countries/candidates?  Nearly everyone blames House Dems for this impeachment saga.  I would suggest that if Congressional Republicans showed any ability to stand up to Trump's shady inclinations, there would be no impeachment happening right now.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[BillsFanNC]

7 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The answer is, I want to know the truth.  What other investigations have you seen where people lobbied to not learn the truth?  Aside from not wanting to hear grisly details of violent attacks or accidents, I can't think where folks want to turn away from available case facts.  I suppose there are various legal issues with concealing facts from juries, but that is not what we have here.  In this case we have Bolton, a key player, that has information and claims to be willing to tell us all what he knows.

 

I want all of us to agree on what actually happened and whether or not that behavior is now legal going forward.  Right now, without any further evidence or witnesses, can we agree on what happened?  I don't think we can at this point.  And, can we now determine whether that behavior is legal going forward?   Well, once we know the actual truth, we maybe can but certainly we can't at this time.

 

I see Trump as trying to tilt the 2020 election playing field by soliciting help from foreign countries.  He continues to fall into this.  Told by George Stephanopoulos that the FBI says he shouldn't accept election aid from foreign countries, he clams the FBI is wrong.  There is no doubt in my mind that if the Ukraine scheme worked out for Trump, he would replay the scheme with other countries and with future opponents.

 

Who in the Republican Congress can control Trump's actions if and when he starts to get out of line or when he goes too far with his tweets?  Which Republicans consistently stand up to Trump?  I will tell you.....I can't think of any.  Sure, on various issues some have voiced occasional squeaky protestations but by and large, the Repubs in Congress have been bullied and clearly fear crossing Trump.

 

So, how do you think, if not by using impeachment inquiry, could the Dems keep Trump from repeating this scheme with future countries/candidates?  Nearly everyone blames House Dems for this impeachment saga.  I would suggest that if Congressional Republicans showed any ability to stand up to Trump's shady inclinations, there would be no impeachment happening right now.

 

Fast and Furious.  Eric Holder. Stop being a hypocrite.

[Bob in Mich]

6 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Fast and Furious.  Eric Holder. Stop being a hypocrite.

 

Not being a hypocrite.  I said I couldn't think of a case and you pointed out where it apparently happened.  OK. 

 

I never paid attention to that issue back then.  I guess I had a life then.  I seem to recall the Republicans jumping up and down about a lot of things that seemed to, after investigation, turn out to be not much.  Again, I didn't pay very close attention then though so maybe I was wrong to think this a small issue.

 

So, Congressional Dems wanted to hide the truth?  OK, lets accept that for discussion purposes.  Do you think that hiding truth back then was appropriate?  If not, then do you think the hiding is appropriate now?  Is your position consistent ?

[Warren Zevon]

It should be noted Eric Holder  was cleared of wrong doing by IG Michael Horowitz

[Westside]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Not being a hypocrite.  I said I couldn't think of a case and you pointed out where it apparently happened.  OK. 

 

I never paid attention to that issue back then.  I guess I had a life then.  I seem to recall the Republicans jumping up and down about a lot of things that seemed to, after investigation, turn out to be not much.  Again, I didn't pay very close attention then though so maybe I was wrong to think this a small issue.

 

So, Congressional Dems wanted to hide the truth?  OK, lets accept that for discussion purposes.  Do you think that hiding truth back then was appropriate?  If not, then do you think the hiding is appropriate now?  Is your position consistent ?

Did you think hiding was ok when the house ran there impeachment trial? Did you think that was wrong as well?

[BillsFanNC]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Not being a hypocrite.  I said I couldn't think of a case and you pointed out where it apparently happened.  OK. 

 

I never paid attention to that issue back then.  I guess I had a life then.  I seem to recall the Republicans jumping up and down about a lot of things that seemed to, after investigation, turn out to be not much.  Again, I didn't pay very close attention then though so maybe I was wrong to think this a small issue.

 

So, Congressional Dems wanted to hide the truth?  OK, lets accept that for discussion purposes.  Do you think that hiding truth back then was appropriate?  If not, then do you think the hiding is appropriate now?  Is your position consistent ?

 

I dont think hiding the truth is appropriate then, now or in the future. 

 

To keep things contemporary are the Dems currently hiding the truth by sealing the testimony of Michael Atkinson? Is your position on Bolton AND Atkinson consistent?