Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

Jeff B - shoot me a txt- seems you've changed #s.

Just PM'ed you.

[lineygoblue]

Liney is a fellow Trumpista?

Cool.

Well, Loopy considers me to be a 'trump boy', so I guess that's relatively the same as a Trumpista.

I ended up voting for Mr. Trump, because in the words of Mrs. Clinton, she considered me, and people like me, to be "deplorable", and she didn't want my vote. So, I voted for the guy who wanted my vote. I turned out to be one of 20,000 voters in Michigan that put Mr. Trump over the top. I do not regret the fact that Mrs. Clinton is still not the president.

Trump is arguing anything goes for him and it's not impeachable. I'm sure you are on board with that.

And once again, you continue to repeat a lie, thinking that the more you repeat it, the better chance it has to become the truth.

You do not know me, sir. You are in no position to make this assertion.

But, I'm sure that you'll keep trying.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[froot loops]

[froot loops]

Line says, "What's wrong with this?"

[froot loops]

[Whitley]

So when the Democratic president takes over in 2021 just so we are clear...the Republicans are going to be okay with the following:

1) Holding up aid for personal political gain

2) Asking other countries to interfere in American elections for their personal benefit

3) Denying Congress has an authority over the executive branch on anything in regards to documents and witnesses

4) Moving around money already earmarked by Congress to wherever the executive sees fit

5) Declaring a national emergency whether or not there is proof of it

6) Obstructing Justice and witness intimidation tatics

7) As long as the president thinks it is in the national interest and president he cannot be charged with a crime (ie he is above the law)


And while the Democrats absolutely bungled impeachment make no mistake---the current Republican party does not care what Trump does as long as they can have their personal power (and tax cuts). They have allowed themselves to be made into the party of Trump and will dance on as he pulls on their strings. Meanwhile, Corporate America (and the super rich) pull on the strings of nearly all in both parties (on the national level) laughing as we hunker more and more down into the Republican and Democrat tribes.

[Ghengis Jon]

Ribbit.

[froot loops]

So when the Democratic president takes over in 2021 just so we are clear...the Republicans are going to be okay with the following:

1) Holding up aid for personal political gain

2) Asking other countries to interfere in American elections for their personal benefit

3) Denying Congress has an authority over the executive branch on anything in regards to documents and witnesses

4) Moving around money already earmarked by Congress to wherever the executive sees fit

5) Declaring a national emergency whether or not there is proof of it

6) Obstructing Justice and witness intimidation tatics

7) As long as the president thinks it is in the national interest and president he cannot be charged with a crime (ie he is above the law)


And while the Democrats absolutely bungled impeachment make no mistake---the current Republican party does not care what Trump does as long as they can have their personal power (and tax cuts). They have allowed themselves to be made into the party of Trump and will dance on as he pulls on their strings. Meanwhile, Corporate America (and the super rich) pull on the strings of nearly all in both parties (on the national level) laughing as we hunker more and more down into the Republican and Democrat tribes.

There was nothing to bungle on impeachment Whitley.

[Jeff Buchanan]

It's likely that the Senate will vote to acquit Trump today or tomorrow ...... the clown show - on both sides of the isle - is over with the Lamar Alexander's announcement last night that he would not vote for witness testimony.

Froot and DSL will be apoplectic.

On a serious note, the Constitution, yet again, serves to protect the Republic from the dangers of partisanship that the founders rightfully feared.

...... and to be clear, I think Trump has acted inappropriately as president, not just in the Ukraine affair but in multiple past occasions. However, the place to remedy that is at the ballot box in November not at the direction of a partisan House.

[lineygoblue]

On a serious note, the Constitution, yet again, serves to protect the Republic from the dangers of partisanship that the founders rightfully feared.

...... and to be clear, I think Trump has acted inappropriately as president, not just in the Ukraine affair but in multiple past occasions. However, the place to remedy that is at the ballot box in November not at the direction of a partisan House.

I believe that as well.

If the Senate acquitted Bill Clinton, and they do so again with Donald Trump, they either got it right both times, or they got it wrong both times. No way can it be, "they got it right in one case but wrong in the other".

In my opinion, even though Bill Clinton was acquitted in the Senate, the law eventually caught up with him when he lost his law license, and the Constitution finally caught up with him via the 22nd Amendment.

We'll see where Trump ends up. He's not a lock to win in November. A lot of democratic voters hold that key in their hands right now.

[iam416]

Senator Alexander is 100% correct. The Obstruction of Congress Article a fucking joke -- a horrible precedent. The Ukraine Article was borderline, but at the end of the day it was inchoate AND election is 10 months away.

The Senate did a nice job acting a judge here -- if a judge believes that a case, even if accepted a true, is insufficient then they dismiss on summary judgment. Well done.

[iam416]

1) Holding up aid for personal political gain

He received no personal political gain.

2) Asking other countries to interfere in American elections for their personal benefit

This never happened.

3) Denying Congress has an authority over the executive branch on anything in regards to documents and witnesses

Contesting the congressional subpoena power IN COURT. As they should have one. As, you know, ERIC FUCKING HOLDER did. So, yeah, challenging Congressional subpoenas ain't fucking new.

4) Moving around money already earmarked by Congress to wherever the executive sees fit

I assume this is the wall and has nothing to do with the impeachment. PDJT's executive overreach (and Obama's executive overreach) is not good.

5) Declaring a national emergency whether or not there is proof of it

Assuming the worst case scenario, this is the same area as #4 -- and the Executive overreach is a real problem. Fortunately, there are justices on the Supreme Court who agree and we may eventually see some sort of constraint put on the preposterous Administrative State and nonsense declarations by the President or, even worse, Agencies coming up with preposterous definitions that completely rework the authorizing legislation -- like, say, "sex discrimination" means "sexual orientation" or the 1972 Clean Air Act said that carbon dioxide was a pollutant.

6) Obstructing Justice and witness intimidation tatics

I'm not aware of a charges of obstruction of justice against PDJT. That's a serious crime if proven.

7) As long as the president thinks it is in the national interest and president he cannot be charged with a crime (ie he is above the law)

LOL. No.

What I'm puzzled by is why any D thought that this was going to go any differently. You knew this was a 50/50 partisan issue. That's never going to warrant removal. Ever.

[Jeff Buchanan]

talent states .......Executive overreach is a real problem. Fortunately, there are justices on the Supreme Court who agree and we may eventually see some sort of constraint put on the preposterous Administrative State and nonsense declarations by the President or, even worse, Agencies coming up with preposterous definitions that completely rework the authorizing legislation -- like, say, "sex discrimination" means "sexual orientation" or the 1972 Clean Air Act said that carbon dioxide was a pollutant.

I agree that executive overreach is a problem. But isn't it the roll of Congress re executive oversight to constrain the president or agencies under his authority. They've done that most recently with rescinding the War Powers act involving Iraq to constrain Trump's ability to authorize military ops v. Iran. Why is this up to SCOTUS?

[iam416]

Mr. Dershowitz responds to criticism that he argued "the president can do anything to get re-elected." https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-get-reelected

I gotta say, when I heard the breathless reporting on this argument, I thought it sounded fishy. However, given some of the other arguments PDJT's team have asserted, I wasn't sure. I still haven't seen the actual question and actual response. However, Dersh's piece is very compelling and 100% correct. Again, I don't know if the Q&A accords with his account and argument, but I suspect it does. I should know better than to blindly follow reporting -- especially on Jussie Smollet Day.

EDIT -- I read the transcript. Jussie Smollet it is.

That said, the argument that he asserts with conviction and without apology is that the President cannot be impeached if he does not commit a crime. That is a total crock of shit.