The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Foxx]

[Orlando Buffalo]

10 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

He was a witness for the Republicans in the House impeachment hearing regarding the constitutionality of their charges. He is considered a constitutional scholar. Don't call him Turkey, his name is Turley.

The Turkey I think was an autocorrect- I was not bashing him- I think he was missing the reason.

[Bob in Mich]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think it was the great philosophizer T. L. Skin-erd who said, while quoting Bob while quoting Faber “Checks and balances” work best when you recognize the “checks” and embrace the “balances”. They should not be viewed as sacrosanct  when they support your view and inconvenient when they do not.” 

 

Lacy, that take is a bit unfair, especially if you read any of that 1999 email I posted a page or so back.  Given that I have been for impeaching both Clinton and Trump, that last sentence is a little odd. You may think I am too naive for expecting a higher standard but my views have been consistent as I have opposed misdeeds in both Presidencies. 

 

I have not heard many here that stated they were either for impeaching both times or acquitting both but I have more respect for those that can be consistent and see right and wrong, in spite of the party of the President. 

 

What were your 1999 impeachment thoughts......for or against removing BillyC?  Why or why not?

 

http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/a-matter-of-principles-keeping-the-new-joe-mccarthys-at-bay-by-learning-the-lessons-of-our-past/

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[/dev/null]

46 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The Turkey I think was an autocorrect

 

 

[snafu]

6 hours ago, TtownBillsFan said:

Snafu-  how could the right 'lift themselves out of the muck' in this instance?  You seem a generally levelheaded person. But in this matter,  how could the 'right ' have made you happy/demonstrated they were rising above?  I contend,  there's nothing they could have reasonably done to make you happy.   I think you're a  contrarian,  happiest when you can  complain about both sides.

 

I was speaking in general tones.  That was a rant. I don’t do that often.

You’re correct that this sham bus is driven by the Left. The Right couldn’t do much but complain, and complain they did every chance they got. I would have done the same thing, except perhaps use different people to complain — and focus on different things to complain about. Truth be told, I’m not at all unhappy about what the Right did. And I’m wayyyyy more pissed off about what the Left is doing. 

You’re also correct that I do complain about both sides but that’s because both Left and Right do things that annoy me. It annoys me that our elected officials in Washington focus more on scoring political points than governing.  That goes for both the Left and the Right. It’s the reason I kept posting that Ethel Merman quote every day. It’s a show where all they do is take your money and it shouldn’t be a money-grabbing show.  I wouldn’t go do far as to call myself a contrarian.  If that’s the worst I get around here, I’ll take it. I’ll do me, you do you. It makes this forum interesting. 

 

 

[Albwan]

6 hours ago, TtownBillsFan said:

Wtf, why?  Why draw this bs out?  Why would the r's agree to anything of the sort?!!

It gives the 'rats time to plan and drop more bombshells

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

caption this:

 

 

where's Willie?

That's a huge blunt bro!!!!

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Albwan

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The Turkey I think was an autocorrect- I was not bashing him- I think he was missing the reason.

I was just busting your balls because of your typo but blaming it on autocorrect is kind of weakshit. 

9 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

 

What's your point?

[Bob in Mich]

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

Good God!  

The witnesses are needed in spite of impossible conviction in order to find out the truth so we can agree going forward what is legal and what is illegal. 

 

You should consider a name change to Pootie Tang in Mich. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Got so busy trying to reply to posts yesterday and I didn't take time to watch this.  Pretty funny. 

 

The name change though.....I may consider it.  I have thought of that before but then I have seen others get jumped on as trying to hide from past identities. 

 

Given that 'much revered' cannabis thread that I began, I don't want to lose all that good will and board admiration that I had ...er, I mean, I think I would never hear the end from the 'running away are ya?' idiots.  So, probably stuck with this handle and , btw, I see we have similar taste in avatars. 

 

Did ya get that brain rest last night?   lol

Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Bob in Mich]

23 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I was just busting your balls because of your typo but blaming it on autocorrect is kind of weakshit. 

What's your point?

 

Morning, Hank.  Can I call you Hank or do you insist on Henry?    lol

 

It is about 2 minute but if short on time, the 1 minute 40 second mark approximately is kinda funny given where they have gone after that point.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

[Foxx]

 

https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/1223427807067484161

 

[Bob in Mich]

7 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

That is funny.  I am certain it was because I recently watched some Lord of the Rings but when I saw those two side by side marching the Impeachment docs to the Senate, I was struck with short, Gimli and the Lanky Legolis grimly taking on their quest.  Nadler must put double face tape around his 'waist' to hold those pants up

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Lacy, that take is a bit unfair, especially if you read any of that 1999 email I posted a page or so back.  Given that I have been for impeaching both Clinton and Trump, that last sentence is a little odd. You may think I am too naive for expecting a higher standard but my views have been consistent as I have opposed misdeeds in both Presidencies. 

 

I have not heard many here that stated they were either for impeaching both times or acquitting both but I have more respect for those that can be consistent and see right and wrong, in spite of the party of the President. 

 

What were your 1999 impeachment thoughts......for or against removing BillyC?  Why or why not?

 

http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/a-matter-of-principles-keeping-the-new-joe-mccarthys-at-bay-by-learning-the-lessons-of-our-past/

 

I didn’t say it, it was T. L. Skin-erd. The guy is notoriously closed-minded and judgmental. I’ll take a shot at answering though. 
 

I applaud your consistency on the impeachment issue if, upon reflection, you feel it was the right position.  I was not particularly politically woke during the lead up to the Clinton impeachment, and had a rather heated argument with my father-in-law in defense of Clinton and against the  political shenanigans that lead up to it.  I thought at the time his biggest crime was exposing his throat to his adversaries, but the perjury was a colossal mistake and impeachment-worthy. At the time, I called him the Dumbest Smart guy in the world.
 

It seems T.L.’s last statement was just reflection on the current state of affairs with respect to impeachment, pointing out the obvious:  regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, there were checks, balances and a resolution. Complaining because the desired outcome wasn’t achieved seems, well, contrary to the concept of “checks and balances”.  I’m speculating of course, because not only is the guy closed-minded and judgmental, he’s not a good texter and has not replied to an inquiry on your behalf. 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[IYKYK]

16 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 I was as wrong as possible.

Yes bob, you are wrong as usual. 

[B-Man]

                             

 

 

 

 

 

                           

 

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

That is funny.  I am certain it was because I recently watched some Lord of the Rings but when I saw those two side by side marching the Impeachment docs to the Senate, I was struck with short, Gimli and the Lanky Legolis grimly taking on their quest.  Nadler must put double face tape around his 'waist' to hold those pants up

 

...thought I read his water should break any day now...........

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

 

 

http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/a-matter-of-principles-keeping-the-new-joe-mccarthys-at-bay-by-learning-the-lessons-of-our-past/

 

Btw Bob, on the column you linked from the other Bob in Mich.

 

i agree wholeheartedly with the premise, and we can both agree that Joe McCarthy was a bad guy.  We can also agree on the willing participants who went along with the scheme being a massive part of the problem.

 

Personally, I see the application of this sentiment applying equally and forceful to Russia/Kavanaugh/Ukraine.   By that, I mean those who supported that type of tyrannical governmental corruption by Obama, Biden, Comey, DOJFBICIA Schumer McCain Harris et al are precisely the type of scoundrels he is writing about.  I realize you do not feel the same and this post ain’t about that.
 

This goes to my point on the moral high ground issue, and why, when someone attempts to assert in support of any of these clowns and schemes, and wants to discuss Trump personally, my response is typically to laugh and say how cute it is that they think their liar is less liarly than the guy I support.  

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

I was just busting your balls because of your typo but blaming it on autocorrect is kind of weakshit. 

What's your point?

I was wondering as well, but got distracted by the nice looking lady in the middle.

[3rdnlng]

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

Btw Bob, on the column you linked from the other Bob in Mich.

 

i agree wholeheartedly with the premise, and we can both agree that Joe McCarthy was a bad guy.  We can also agree on the willing participants who went along with the scheme being a massive part of the problem.

 

Personally, I see the application of this sentiment applying equally and forceful to Russia/Kavanaugh/Ukraine.   By that, I mean those who supported that type of tyrannical governmental corruption by Obama, Biden, Comey, DOJFBICIA Schumer McCain Harris et al are precisely the type of scoundrels he is writing about.  I realize you do not feel the same and this post ain’t about that.
 

This goes to my point on the moral high ground issue, and why, when someone attempts to assert in support of any of these clowns and schemes, and wants to discuss Trump personally, my response is typically to laugh and say how cute it is that they think their liar is less liarly than the guy I support.  

I was wondering as well, but got distracted by the nice looking lady in the middle.

LSHEAB is trying to take something totally out of context to prove a point with the posting of that video with "Hot Ainsley" front and center.

 

[Bob in Mich]

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

I didn’t say it, it was T. L. Skin-erd. The guy is notoriously closed-minded and judgmental. I’ll take a shot at answering though. 
 

I applaud your consistency on the impeachment issue if, upon reflection, you feel it was the right position.  I was not particularly politically woke during the lead up to the Clinton impeachment, and had a rather heated argument with my father-in-law in defense of Clinton and against the  political shenanigans that lead up to it.  I thought at the time his biggest crime was exposing his throat to his adversaries, but the perjury was a colossal mistake and impeachment-worthy.
 

It seems T.L.’s last statement was just reflection on the current state of affairs with respect to impeachment, pointing out the obvious:  regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, there were checks, balances and a resolution. Complaining because the desired outcome wasn’t achieved seems, well, contrary to the concept of “checks and balances”.  I’m speculating of course, because not only is the guy closed-minded and judgmental, he’s not a good texter and has not replied to an inquiry on your behalf. 

 

 

T.L., mornin.  Slept well I expect.

 

Upon reflection and time....and, no, actually given what now passes for no prob, the fact that Bill lied, seems like, eh, so who doesn't?  Times have changed on lying for sure.  In 1999 my buddy was a big deal in Human Resources.  It stuck when he opined that the Pres would be fired from any large public company if that behavior with an intern and subsequent lying became public.  He thought any board would replace the guy pronto.  I kept thinking that BillC should be held to higher standards.  Apparently you too thought the perjury too much.  Again though, times have changed that we were aghast at lying..  Seems today if the Pres did it, we likely would not agree as to how 'bad' that was.

 

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

Btw Bob, on the column you linked from the other Bob in Mich.

 

i agree wholeheartedly with the premise, and we can both agree that Joe McCarthy was a bad guy.  We can also agree on the willing participants who went along with the scheme being a massive part of the problem.

 

Personally, I see the application of this sentiment applying equally and forceful to Russia/Kavanaugh/Ukraine.   By that, I mean those who supported that type of tyrannical governmental corruption by Obama, Biden, Comey, DOJFBICIA Schumer McCain Harris et al are precisely the type of scoundrels he is writing about.  I realize you do not feel the same and this post ain’t about that.
 

This goes to my point on the moral high ground issue, and why, when someone attempts to assert in support of any of these clowns and schemes, and wants to discuss Trump personally, my response is typically to laugh and say how cute it is that they think their liar is less liarly than the guy I support.  

I was wondering as well, but got distracted by the nice looking lady in the middle.

 

Sure, I can see the McCarthy angle from the hyper prosecution angle.  I just don't agree that holding Trump accountable for the Ukraine scheme is hyper.  I realize too that you see it differently.

 

The lying thing, c'mon Len, Trump can not be trusted to tell the truth every day of every week.  He lies so much more so than (on my honor) than any politician I have ever heard speak.  His only rivals are his staff.  Holy crap that Kelly Ann Conway can spit out 3 lies before any normal person could interrupt or interject.  But I digress.....To say there is any level of equivalence cuz you can find a lie for them is not being sincere, imo. 

 

Question: Can you tell his lies from his truths when they happen?  If so, what is the tell or the clue?

 

If Trump were impeached of course Mr Pence is in the wings.  He is possibly worse than Trump on several issues from my perspective.  His 'faith' may guide him and that, if it wasn't fake, would be an improvement but the separation of church and state issues concern me.  This 'overturn the election' seems less outrageous though when you consider it was Trump/Pence and it would become Pence

Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Deranged Rhino]

It's hilarious to watch someone who blindly supported and applauded McCarthyian tactics come back months later and denounce McCarthy as a bad guy.