I have followed the process pretty closely. Being retired during the dreary days of winter leaves plenty of free time, lol. In my opinion there has been enough evidence already shown what trumps intent was. I also don't see any connection between trump and the Bidens to make a difference if it is impeachable or not as to me it was clear trump was using his position of power to smear a political opponent and asked a foreign country to assist in that. trump also abused his power by misusing his executive privileges by stonewalling all the evidence that should have been made available and demanding that witnesses not testify. If you are innocent and have nothing to hide, then let the evidence speak. It's the same with how he continues to hide his tax returns as I would bet a pretty penny that it would disclose plenty of corruption as well.
I agree about the political theater aspect as this whole thing is about the next election and gaining m0re/protecting house or senate seats. I think Trump is what you get when there are not palatable other candidates. I still think Im beginning to think that Pete and/or Amy are the two that could de-thrown him as they appeal to a broader segment of undecideds. Dem's really blew it with Sanders and Clinton in 2016.
Agree completely. I'd probably vote for either one of those two over Trump. If it's Warren or Sanders, I'll probably do a write-in or maybe vote independent if there's a viable choice.
Oh yeah, I'm very familiar with Buffalo Springfield...I was just kidding. Coincidently, I pulled Silk Degrees out of my album stack and played it this past weekend...I have several hundred LPs. I play them on my old school JVC 4vn990 amp, Technics direct drive manual turntable, and Sansui SP 1700 speakers with super tweeters added. Great "warm" sound. I have a modern surround sound system too (Onkyo amp, Bose speakers) for movies and CDs, but for old vinyl records, I rely on old school stuff. Edit; "For What it's Worth" is often wrongly connected with the Viet Nam War.
As with all the previous hoaxes, so absurd that no grown-up would even attempt to pawn it off on other grown-ups. But the Deep State really doesn't view libs as grown-ups, certainly not as intelligent ones.
Just stating a fact based upon our fundamental judicial principle of innocent until proven guilty. Not saying that's my personal belief.
These type of comments are hard to take seriously for me. The notion that either of the political parties are noble institutions that could somehow be further compromised is almost laughable. I'm sure you have nothing but good intentions in mind, but goddamn man. You’re trying to raise the Titanic talking about salvaging either of the political parties in this country. They’re so far gone it’s not even funny. Even if a good person got elected they’d be stabbed in the back like Caesar. Or more accurately, shot like Kennedy.
One thing this has exposed is that new laws need to be written to protect the people from such corruption. trump has lowered the bar about as low as it can go and still be a "democracy" as we are now reaching dangerous territory. It also really concerns me that our presidents best allies are actually our adversaries and the republican party has allowed him to be that way. I prefer our allies be Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany etc. Not Russia, North Korea, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia etc.
Mark Meadows on impeachment trial: Schiff's contact with Ukraine whistleblower is the 'real cover-up' By Julia Musto | Fox News Rep. Meadows accuses Democrats of 'intentionally misleading' the American people in impeachment trial Republican Rep. Mark Meadows, a member of President Trump's impeachment team, argues the Democrats' case is 'built on a corrupt foundation.' Lead House manager in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., perpetrated the real "cover-up" by coordinating with the whistleblower, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said Thursday. Appearing on "America's Newsroom" with hosts Sandra Smith and Ed Henry, Meadows said the trial was "built on a corrupt foundation." "This is just a repeat of things that we heard in the House," said Meadows. On day two of the impeachment trial, Schiff drew criticism for making the head-turning argument that Trump must be removed from office by the Senate – rather than by voters in the 2020 election – because it is impossible to be sure the 2020 election won't be compromised. "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won," Schiff remarked. Additionally, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman – who had previously claimed to have evidence that the Trump campaign secretly colluded with Russia – outlined what the Democrats contended was the president's "corrupt scheme" to abuse his power and obstruct Congress' investigation. "The House impeachment managers are actually not only making false statements, but they're intentionally misleading the American people," Meadows told Henry and Smith. "How do we know that?" Meadows asked. "Because they are cherry-picking certain parts of testimony and it's all built on their narrative to try to impune the facts of the case." Meadows said that the American people need to understand that "everything that the House impeachment managers are going to say" on the third day of the trial is going to be "based on second and thirdhand knowledge" and that any firsthand witnesses have already exonerated the president. "So, we are going to continue to hear allegations of [a] 'cover-up.' The only 'cover-up' that I've seen is actually Adam Schiff and his team's cover-up on their coordination with the whistleblower," he stated. "This is like [the movie] 'Groundhog Day.' The only difference is Bill Murray's days kept getting better; Adam Schiff's are not getting any better," Meadows concluded.
Not sure that's true. If the Chief Justice is sitting around waiting on the court, the lower court might be just a bit more motivated to expedite. Also (I do not know) but it's possible that the CJ could make a binding ruling himself on some issues. 'Well, the Republicans are completely corrupt and therefore there is no evidence that could possibly sway them'. I do tend to agree with that, but it does not logically follow that both sides are acting in bad faith. barfo
No he hasn't. The House vote is essentially the same as a grand jury voting to indict someone based on evidence presented by the prosecutor. The Senate trial determines whether he's convicted of the charge.
In the Nixon case over EP, it only took 3 weeks after oral arguments for the court to issue a decision; less than the time than Nancy sat on the articles of impeachment. IMO, the House bungled the case in not pursuing a similar action against Trump. Now, not having done that, they're forced to rely on a Republican Senate to try to get the witnesses they say they need to prove their charges. How stupid is that?
