The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Dante]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No.

 

No one with a sense of humor would....................Like the President.

 

 

.

He certainly does have fun with this stuff. 

[KD in CA]

Well, that was worth 3 years of pure hysteria!

[Juror#8]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Apparently, Mitt is not running in 2024 or he hopes Utah forgets. What a tool.

 

I am surprised about Manchin. Anyhoooo on to the real lawbreakers. 

Why? Why is he a tool?

 

Because he heard the evidence and voted, by all accounts, his conviction? 
 

Or is there another reason?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Len, I agree with your take that most of this has been discussed but in the spirit of the last word......

 

Healthcare - just seems that the Dems and Repubs differ on the availability of healthcare to poor people.  Even for those people that cannot afford it, Dems have been aspiring to provide some level of care before the sick/poor drop over on their way to an emergency room.  Repubs seem content with the current employer based care.  The ACA had several big issues but it appeared the plan was taking a first swipe at covering all....and personally, the pre-existing condition coverage was important to me. 

 

Any legislated program of that size is going to need fixes as we see the problems in practice.  If I recall, the Repubs have blocked improvement attempts and are well on the way to undoing it.  I have no problem with anyone that wants to point out the flaws with the ACA.  Philosophically, I disagree with those that are content with the pre-ACA med insurance practices. 

 

Funny how you so vehemently opposed my description of what happened with Trump/Russia.  As most know, I think there was enough actual smoke there to investigate but that is not my point here.  I was trying to lay out your side of what happened and somehow you saw something totally different in my question.  For discussion, I was allowing that there was a deep state plot and that they totally framed a saintly Trump.  BRB, gotta go puke....lol

 

So, bearing in mind that I am attempting, for discussion purposes, to agree that some deep state FBI/CIA types manufactured the evidence to produce the above mentioned smoke, how can you blame the average person for believing the story the deep state put together?

 

This is the original text from above:

Now, this is tougher to follow.....If there was a subset of FBI and/or CIA  officials that were behind the supposed 'coup plot' in 2016, they manipulated/manufactured the whole tale that Trump was involved with Russians to get himself elected.  They made him look like a possible traitor, is that basically correct?

 

If that is what happened, how can you blame people, posters, politicians, or even media outlets for seeing the publicly available evidence and concluding that he might, in fact, be involved with the Russians.  If what we saw on the surface was true, not investigating would be irresponsible.  I don't agree that Mueller produced nothing.  I don't agree that every bit of Trump-Russia evidence was innocent or manufactured but if that is the story you believe, concluding that everyone that bought the story was hateful or unreasonably out to get Donnie, is not really logical.

 

I won't be hurt if you are talked out on these issues.  Reply or not, I will manage.

You won’t be hurt, but you would not be enlightened!
 

Healthcare...I could write on this for hours.  The bottom line—the ACA was designed to fail, it was established under false pretenses, and “improving” a substandard program of that magnitude is akin to putting lipstick on a pig. The blame for the failure rests with the architect, not those who came after.  Had the program broad national appeal, it would not have been susceptible to being dismantled, That does not excuse the Rs for letting this become a mess.

 

Your reasoning is understandable, but math matters.  The ACA treats a financial issue as a political one, that always ends badly on a balance sheet.  
 

I didn’t vehemently oppose your description.  I think it’s wrong.  I never suggested that Trump was saintly, quite the opposite in fact.  I acknowledged the fundamental issue you brought up, and placed it in context.  I mention that a lot, because it’s important to understanding how the world works. 
 

I don’t blame the average person for being duped, but I think they have been duped nonetheless.  I do not think of Obama et al as the average person, nor do I think most journalists covering the story are average people either.  

 

One of the more fascinating parts of this whole thing has been following the links posted here, reading the thoughts shared and looking at the time/date stamps.  I know you’ll hate this one, but here’s a question:  How come a handful of posters on a message board were able to scoop the national media on a story as colossal as Trump = Russian = Treason = Bull Thit a couple years before they got there?  I’d credit all but would likely will miss a few...but a certain Psychotic Rhinocerotidae called this game two years+ ago.  How the $&#@ did the world of investigate journalism miss all the signs?  The only story bigger than “THE PREZ IS A RUSSIAN!” Would normally be “HOW THE &$#@ DID THESE NITWITS COME TO THINK THE PREZ WAS A COMMIE??”. 
 

The average person may/may not believe whatever they hear.  That’s life.  It’s on the President to tell the story moving forward, and it’s on AG Barr and his people to flush out the rats for all to see.  For the more politically woke, it’s not even close. I understand and accept that you feel the process was fair to all parties, that errors if made were the result of human flaws, not systemic, not corrupt and certainly not intentionally designed to unseat 45.  
 

I’ll be honest now—I’m poking fun at your perspective from here on down.  

 

Good news all around:  FBI Director Wray has committed to restructuring the steno pool to ensure no more typos.  Steps 1-8 deal with who orders the White Out:;https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-director-christopher-wray-announces-40-corrective-steps-in-response-to-failures-detailed-in-horowitz-report/. 

 

Further comment  by Wray:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wray-says-fbi-actions-to-obtain-carter-page-fisa-warrant-were-unacceptable-and-cannot-be-repeated

 

Wray is a real bug on grammar, furious with incorrect use of there/their/they’re when begging the Secret FISA court for free reign  to trample on the rights on an American citizen. 
 

Finally:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/01/23/its-official-the-fisa-warrants-issued-against-carter-page-were-not-valid-n2560007

 

I only read until I got to the part where the whole misunderstanding  boiled down to “I before e except after c”.  Apparently some backroom typist thought it was “...except after p”. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

Why? Why is he a tool?

 

Because he heard the evidence and voted, by all accounts, his conviction? 
 

Or is there another reason?

 

Because he didn't make his vote based on principle (or evidence), but out of his delusional desire to be embraced by the big media complex. The same ones who destroyed him during his presidential run... 

 

They'll never love him, or embrace him. But he can't help but pine for them all the same. That's why he'll forever be Mittens. 

[Juror#8]

For folks who talk about how the left being so intolerant of other opinions, and then to demonize Romney, who, by all accounts voted based on his interpretation of the evidence and his conviction is strange indeed. The man used his voice and performed his Constitutional responsibility to cast a vote that he felt was right. 
 

This is especially interesting given that there were other Republican senators who said that they feel what Trump did was wrong but punted to the voters to make the decision around whether the wrong justified removal from office.

 

Not that I’m a Constitutional purist or anything but I’ve never seen that assignment of responsibility in the four corners of the document.
 

But back to Romney ... why the hate for a good man?  

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Juror#8 said:

For folks who talk about how the left being so intolerant of other opinions, and then to demonize Romney, who, by all accounts voted based on his interpretation of the evidence and his conviction is strange indeed. The man used his voice and performed his Constitutional responsibility to cast a vote that he felt was right. 

 

All that only applies if one thinks he's being genuine. He's not. Hence the response. 

[keepthefaith]

29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Well they left as they arrived 2 weeks ago, somber but carrying less paper which was obviously torn up just before this clip.  

Edited February 6, 2020 by keepthefaith

[dubs]

6 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

For folks who talk about how the left being so intolerant of other opinions, and then to demonize Romney, who, by all accounts voted based on his interpretation of the evidence and his conviction is strange indeed. The man used his voice and performed his Constitutional responsibility to cast a vote that he felt was right. 
 

This is especially interesting given that there were other Republican senators who said that they feel what Trump did was wrong but punted to the voters to make the decision around whether the wrong justified removal from office.

 

Not that I’m a Constitutional purist or anything but I’ve never seen that assignment of responsibility in the four corners of the document.
 

But back to Romney ... why the hate for a good man?  

anyone who could listen to the story from the house Dems and be convinced that it’s a reason to remove an elected president (9 months before an election) is a tool or a complete moron. 
 

let me add to this. 
 

I don’t care one iota if President Trump’s motivation was 100% to dig up dirt on Biden and the DNC.  It’s irrelevant.  The fact is both the Biden’s behavior in Ukraine and any possibility to recover the DNC server demand investigations into those things. 
 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by dubs

[Juror#8]

I believe him when he says that he did it out of conviction. Mitt seems like a principled man of faith and conviction.
 

I didn’t agree with impeachment or removal because I don’t think the allegations, as I understood them, satisfied what I believe to be a very high bar (without some mental gymnastics and to be fair I didn’t think they did for Clinton either). But I don’t have any reason to believe that Romney didn’t appraise the evidence and vote in good conscious. 

[Juror#8]

8 minutes ago, dubs said:

anyone who could listen to the story from the house Dems and be convinced that it’s a reason to remove an elected president (9 months before an election) is a tool or a complete moron. 

If you want to name-call your way through this then ok.
 

If you want to discuss then all the better. 
 

I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step. 

 

The issue here though is why so much hate for Romney. He voted based on appraising the evidence. He knew the vote wouldn’t change the course of next steps. He voted independently and as per his Constitutional responsibility. In his explanation he names faith, conscious, and an agonizing appraisal of the evidence as the deciding factors. 
 

In this political climate of factions, vapidity, and popularity contests on both sides, I sorta, kinda dig independence and solemnity. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Juror#8

[GG]

2 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

If you want to name-call your way through this then ok.
 

If you want to discuss then all the better. 
 

I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step. 

 

The issue here though is why so much hate for Romney. He voted based on appraising the evidence. He knew the vote wouldn’t change the course of next steps. He voted independently and as per his Constitutional responsibility. In his explanation he names faith, conscious, and an agonizing appraisal of the evidence as the deciding factors. 
 

In this political climate of factions, vapidity, and popularity contests on both sides, I sorta, kinda dig independence and solemnity. 

The "hate" is there because of ulterior motives by Romney.  There probably wouldn't be as much vitriol if Murkowski, Collins or Alexander voted that way.  

 

 

[CoudyBills]

22 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

For folks who talk about how the left being so intolerant of other opinions, and then to demonize Romney, who, by all accounts voted based on his interpretation of the evidence and his conviction is strange indeed. The man used his voice and performed his Constitutional responsibility to cast a vote that he felt was right. 
 

This is especially interesting given that there were other Republican senators who said that they feel what Trump did was wrong but punted to the voters to make the decision around whether the wrong justified removal from office.

 

Not that I’m a Constitutional purist or anything but I’ve never seen that assignment of responsibility in the four corners of the document.
 

But back to Romney ... why the hate for a good man?  

Juror#8 The Pious,

 

Forgive me, the uneducated rube Trump supporter.  I ain't read no good, but I think those four corners specify grounds for impeachment.  You know, a crime.  As a hillbilly rube, I would think these brilliant lawyers put forth as house managers would list actual crimes in the articles of impeachment.  These brilliant, humble public servants, did not create articles around an actual crime.  No crime, no grounds for impeachment.  So, yeah, it should be "punted" to voters to decide.  Romney voting to impeach is a turd-person move.  

Edited February 6, 2020 by CoudyBills

[dubs]

4 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

If you want to name-call your way through this then ok.
 

If you want to discuss then all the better. 
 

I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step. 

 

The issue here though is why so much hate for Romney. He voted based on appraising the evidence. He knew the vote wouldn’t change the course of next steps. He voted independently and as per his Constitutional responsibility. In his explanation he names faith, conscious, and an agonizing appraisal of the evidence as the deciding factors. 
 

In this political climate of factions, vapidity, and popularity contests on both sides, I sorta, kinda dig independence and solemnity. 

I don’t hate Romney, I am just ridiculing him for such a misguided and wrongheaded decision.  even if he truly believes he’s voting the right way he is wrong based on both the facts of the situation and the standard in the constitution. 
 

 

[Juror#8]

31 minutes ago, GG said:

The "hate" is there because of ulterior motives by Romney.  There probably wouldn't be as much vitriol if Murkowski, Collins or Alexander voted that way.  

 

 

I think the ulterior motives are assumed based on disagreement with his vote. He voted and he provided a reason which I’m not prepared to say is a lie. 
 

I’ll say again, that *at least* one of those Senators that you mentioned went with the [paraphrasing] “what he did was very concerning but let’s let the voters make the call on removal at the ballot box” routine - for all intents and purposes punting their constitutional responsibility. With that in mind I’m not convinced that those three (or at least that one) should be the barometer for Romney’s ingeniousness. 

28 minutes ago, dubs said:

I don’t hate Romney, I am just ridiculing him for such a misguided and wrongheaded decision.  even if he truly believes he’s voting the right way he is wrong based on both the facts of the situation and the standard in the constitution. 
 

 

I agree with you that I don’t think Trump’s actions (though probably calculated and existing somewhere in the penumbra) met the high bar of removal from office. 
 

I just think Romney is a good man and I don’t think the vitriol that some have aimed squarely at them seems properly placed.

 

It’s also strange that some who are taking aim at Romney for voicing his opinion and voting consistently with it, are the same ones saying that the left is intolerant. 
 

We just should have a better, less accusatory, brand of politics. Are people really happy with these entrenched factions? 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Juror#8

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

If you want to name-call your way through this then ok.
 

If you want to discuss then all the better. 
 

I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step. 

 

The issue here though is why so much hate for Romney. He voted based on appraising the evidence. He knew the vote wouldn’t change the course of next steps. He voted independently and as per his Constitutional responsibility. In his explanation he names faith, conscious, and an agonizing appraisal of the evidence as the deciding factors. 
 

In this political climate of factions, vapidity, and popularity contests on both sides, I sorta, kinda dig independence and solemnity. 

Well, therein lies the point.  If, as some feel, the attempt to impeach was a bunch of political nonsense, one assumes a Republican senator would see it that way as well. Given his background with Trump, it’s fair to consider the level of personal animus he feels and whether or not that impacted his vote.  He rejected the Constitutional arguments made by the President’s lawyers, opted instead to believe the narrative laid out by the opposition, and voted accordingly.  When people feel betrayed, it’s natural to lash out at the betrayer. On the other hand, maybe he does feel like Trump will sell Alaska to the Russians in a WH Garage Sake as impeachment manager Schiff suggested. 
 

Had he the strength of his convictions during his presidential run, had he the courage to speak loudly and proudly, he might have appeared more presidential and less neutered. 

[Juror#8]

21 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Juror#8 The Pious,

 

Forgive me, the uneducated rube Trump supporter.  I ain't read no good, but I think those four corners specify grounds for impeachment.  You know, a crime.  As a hillbilly rube, I would think these brilliant lawyers put forth as house managers would list actual crimes in the articles of impeachment.  These brilliant, humble public servants, did not create articles around an actual crime.  No crime, no grounds for impeachment.  So, yeah, it should be "punted" to voters to decide.  Romney voting to impeach is a turd-person move.  

Cosmological constant. 

[CoudyBills]

2 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

Cosmological constant. 

Isn't that what the two party system is for?

[Juror#8]

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

Well, therein lies the point.  If, as some feel, the attempt to impeach was a bunch of political nonsense, one assumes a Republican senator would see it that way as well. Given his background with Trump, it’s fair to consider the level of personal animus he feels and whether or not that impacted his vote.  He rejected the Constitutional arguments made by the President’s lawyers, opted instead to believe the narrative laid out by the opposition, and voted accordingly.  When people feel betrayed, it’s natural to lash out at the betrayer. On the other hand, maybe he does feel like Trump will sell Alaska to the Russians in a WH Garage Sake as impeachment manager Schiff suggested. 
 

Had he the strength of his convictions during his presidential run, had he the courage to speak loudly and proudly, he might have appeared more presidential and less neutered. 

Well I voted for Romney (just wanted Buddy Roemer on the ticket too). So maybe I’m biased. 
 

And I also voted or wrote in B. Clinton, and Obama, and W. Bush and Kasich. 
 

So I’m a fan of the independent and politically unaffiliated. I dig it. 

4 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Isn't that what the two party system is for?

Indeed brother. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Juror#8