Jump to content

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump


Nanker

Recommended Posts

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:

 

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Capco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by snafu
  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by row_33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...