Crow now cawing on about how late it is for those Ukrainian soldiers fighting the dirty Ruskies. No this isn’t political- the Left banging the Russia drum again.
And now he’s complaining about all the documents the Senate just can’t get, but they know are damning!
“We just know it!”
“We can’t see those documents, but this is what they probably say!”
It’s probably best Crow can’t get those documents so he can just continue to make up what is on said documents.
Crow appears to be keen on editorializing. He seems to know what all the evidence would say if he could actually see it.
But again, the Dems want a “fair trial.” They didn’t come to the guilty Impeachment conclusion on Nov 3 2016.
Trump's Russian Collusion
-
- Posts: 6380
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:01 pm
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
Since those documents are exculpatory, why doesn't Trump just release those documents as a F-U to all the Dem's as evidence of his innocence and walk away with the 2020 and 2024 wins whistling dixie? He keeps saying he's got nothing to hide and the American public deserves the truth.kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:15 pm Crow now cawing on about how late it is for those Ukrainian soldiers fighting the dirty Ruskies. No this isn’t political- the Left banging the Russia drum again.
And now he’s complaining about all the documents the Senate just can’t get, but they know are damning!
“We just know it!”
“We can’t see those documents, but this is what they probably say!”
It’s probably best Crow can’t get those documents so he can just continue to make up what is on said documents.
Crow appears to be keen on editorializing. He seems to know what all the evidence would say if he could actually see it.
But again, the Dems want a “fair trial.” They didn’t come to the guilty Impeachment conclusion on Nov 3 2016.
Last edited by holmes435 on Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
This is torture. Senator's don't normally have to sit through this dreck.kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:04 pm Watching the impeachment manager Val Demings blather on now, just Blindly reading the notes she was handed- It’s all a political show. A self-aggrandizing waste of time.
After a solid week of this, how many will vote to sit longer for witnesses, when they know the outcome ?
This is worse than Green Eggs & Ham filibuster.
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
We need to hurry up & get them another shipment of Javelins, to join last year's shipment still sitting in a warehouse, hundreds of miles behind the trench lines.kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:15 pm Crow now cawing on about how late it is for those Ukrainian soldiers fighting the dirty Ruskies. No this isn’t political- the Left banging the Russia drum again.
-
- Posts: 6380
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:01 pm
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
Torture is right. But I guess the Dems can spend their time however they deem fit.
Now we've got Gonzalez or whoever is talking from Texas- She can't even pronounce names correctly. Her reading skills are turrible. And she was a judge?
The bar is low for our US elected officals. It's no surprise that Al Franken got a chance. At least he could keep it together while speaking to a crowd or in front of a camera.
Now we've got Gonzalez or whoever is talking from Texas- She can't even pronounce names correctly. Her reading skills are turrible. And she was a judge?
The bar is low for our US elected officals. It's no surprise that Al Franken got a chance. At least he could keep it together while speaking to a crowd or in front of a camera.
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
Well at nearly 1 a.m. a little excitement. OK, the bar for what constitutes excitement is pretty low. Roberts admonishes both sides to keep the punches above the belt. I agree with his remarks 100%. Glad to see him stepping in. Will be interesting to see if does so again as the trial progresses.
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
I think we can be pretty sure that Crow has it absolutely right:
https://www.americanoversight.org/docum ... ce-funding
The redactions basically tell us that the fix continues to be in. It was a perfect call? Not a single piece of exculpatory evidence was produced or discussed yesterday, and you guys are talking about how bored you are. You're perfect for this presidency; you need shiny objects to stay awake.
https://www.americanoversight.org/docum ... ce-funding
The redactions basically tell us that the fix continues to be in. It was a perfect call? Not a single piece of exculpatory evidence was produced or discussed yesterday, and you guys are talking about how bored you are. You're perfect for this presidency; you need shiny objects to stay awake.
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
I’ve gone to school without doing my homework. I recognize the look. Trump’s team had that look. Good thing he won’t pay them because they earned it.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
-
- Posts: 12878
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
The delusion is strong on this thread. Like a talking-in-tongues revivalist gathering, the idolatry of partisan Democrats is a sight to behold.
Meanwhile the economy keeps rocking.
Meanwhile the economy keeps rocking.
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
I see Republican Senators walking the plank for a bum. Please proceed.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
Yup. Nothing really surprising yesterday, other than the early afternoon retreat of McConnell on the rules. I don't think anyone saw that coming. Vulnerable republican senators have chosen to make their beds with Trump. They will lose in November 2020. Trump was never going to be found guilty, no matter what this handful of senators did. Project Lincoln with a big new AD up this morning targeting Collins. Dems so far have not hit her over her impeachment choices, been keeping their powder dry. Two weeks from now that will change.
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
Yes it is, particularly by those who see the Prez as unfit for office but turn a blind eye to that because....well, because the econonmy is good. Kinda like Bobby Knight choking and kicking his players and carrying on like an aszhole. Both consider themselves bigger than the game and can do whatever they want but the record's good (economy) and that's all that matters. Some of us don't see it that way, who you are is the record that matters to some of us and who this Prez is isn't okay with me.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:03 am The delusion is strong on this thread. Like a talking-in-tongues revivalist gathering, the idolatry of partisan Democrats is a sight to behold.
Meanwhile the economy keeps rocking.
Last edited by DMac on Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
The Obama Recovery has great legs. So Trump can cheat lie and steal.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
-
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:21 pm
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
Pettifogging!!kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:53 pm Torture is right. But I guess the Dems can spend their time however they deem fit.
Now we've got Gonzalez or whoever is talking from Texas- She can't even pronounce names correctly. Her reading skills are turrible. And she was a judge?
The bar is low for our US elected officals. It's no surprise that Al Franken got a chance. At least he could keep it together while speaking to a crowd or in front of a camera.
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
Here is something from Barrons.com that might interest you:Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:03 am The delusion is strong on this thread. Like a talking-in-tongues revivalist gathering, the idolatry of partisan Democrats is a sight to behold.
Meanwhile the economy keeps rocking.
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin Says the Economy Is ‘Outperforming’ the Rest of the World. Not For Long, Expert Says.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/us-tre ... emailShare
And then there's this...
What ever happened to Trump’s boast of 4%, 5% or even 6% growth?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-t ... 2019-09-27
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
+1 DMac. Delusional means having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. One is totally delusional -- when they reject the facts that they could read, that they could hear, and neglect the information that might cure the delusion.DMac wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:24 amYes it is, particularly by those who see the Prez as unfit for office but turn a blind eye to that because....well, because the econonmy is good. Kinda like Bobby Knight choking and kicking his players and carrying on like an aszhole. Both consider themselves bigger than the game and can do whatever they want but the record's good (economy) and that's all that matters. Some of us don't see it that way, who you are is the record that matters to some of us and who this Prez is isn't okay with me.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:03 am The delusion is strong on this thread. Like a talking-in-tongues revivalist gathering, the idolatry of partisan Democrats is a sight to behold.
Meanwhile the economy keeps rocking.
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
Moving on from the Land of Stupid, here's an article by Jonathon Turley, the House GOP's expert on impeachment -- scorching the President's legal team and position:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... FqFX4o3x1N
"The trial of President Trump starts this week, and there is no mistaking who is the architect of the defense: Trump himself. The White House declared that Trump’s calls and actions on the Ukrainian aid were “constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our national interest.” In other words, perfect. The call was perfect. The hold on aid was perfect. The eventual release of the aid after the whistleblower complaint was perfect.
In my December testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, I raised objections to the House rushing the impeachment forward on an incomplete and inferential case. There are ample defenses to be raised on both articles without claiming, implausibly, that this was handled perfectly.
This is probably why presidents and professors run in different circles. Where professors see this trial as a teachable moment, Trump sees it as a television moment. Trump knows television and may know his audience. He is staging a trial that portrays the impeachment as the equivalent of a drive-by shooting and himself as the victim. He knows that nuance can destroy such a narrative.
This defense is anything but nuanced. It appears premised on two highly contested points.
First, there is the position that there was nothing even remotely inappropriate in the president asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival. This position can be accepted or not accepted by senators.
However, the second point presents a far more difficult problem for senators concerned about the interpretation of the Constitution. The White House is arguing that you cannot impeach a president without a crime
It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution. While Framers did not want terms such as “maladministration” in the standard as dangerously too broad, they often spoke of impeachable conduct in noncriminal terms, such as Justice Joseph Story referring to “public wrongs,” “great offenses against the Constitution” or acts of “malfeasance or abuse of office.” Alexander Hamilton spoke of impeachment trials as addressing “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
In the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, both sides accepted that the presidents had committed criminal acts.
In this impeachment, the House has decided to go forward on the narrowest articles with the thinnest record of a presidential impeachment in history. However, many senators may be legitimately leery of buying what the White House is selling with its categorical approach. There is a vast array of harmful and corrupt acts that a president can commit outside of the criminal code
While I believe that articles of impeachment are ideally based on well-defined criminal conduct, I do not believe that the criminal code is the effective limit or scope of possible impeachable offenses. If some of the president’s critics are adopting a far too broad understanding of impeachable offenses, the White House is adopting a far too narrow one.
The adoption of this interpretation would create lasting harm for the constitutional system. In some ways, Republican senators should avoid the mistake made by Democratic senators during the Clinton impeachment. Clinton argued then that a president could commit criminal acts in office but not face impeachment so long as he committed the felonies for personal reasons. In my testimony roughly 20 years ago, I strongly opposed that theory and warned that, if perjury is allowed by presidents in some cases, “you will expand the space for executive conduct.” Indeed, the theory embraced by the Democrats would have allowed a President Harvey Weinstein to sexually harass dozens of interns in the White House and then lie about every incident to both Congress and an independent counsel. Yet, the Democrats signed off on the theory and thereby created a dangerous precedent for criminal, non-impeachable conduct.
The developing defense by the White House is also a mistake. It would again “expand the space for executive conduct” by reducing the definition of impeachable conduct to the criminal code. It is an argument that is as politically unwise as it is constitutionally shortsighted. There are a number of Democrats who might be willing to vote for acquittal, particularly on the highly flawed abuse of Congress article. Yet, the narrow White House definition of what is impeachable could well push them back into the Democratic fold while further pulling away a couple of moderate Republican senators.
Whatever benefit from the clarity of such a position will come at the cost of any possible consensus. If successful, it would also come at a considerable cost for the Constitution."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... FqFX4o3x1N
"The trial of President Trump starts this week, and there is no mistaking who is the architect of the defense: Trump himself. The White House declared that Trump’s calls and actions on the Ukrainian aid were “constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our national interest.” In other words, perfect. The call was perfect. The hold on aid was perfect. The eventual release of the aid after the whistleblower complaint was perfect.
In my December testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, I raised objections to the House rushing the impeachment forward on an incomplete and inferential case. There are ample defenses to be raised on both articles without claiming, implausibly, that this was handled perfectly.
This is probably why presidents and professors run in different circles. Where professors see this trial as a teachable moment, Trump sees it as a television moment. Trump knows television and may know his audience. He is staging a trial that portrays the impeachment as the equivalent of a drive-by shooting and himself as the victim. He knows that nuance can destroy such a narrative.
This defense is anything but nuanced. It appears premised on two highly contested points.
First, there is the position that there was nothing even remotely inappropriate in the president asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival. This position can be accepted or not accepted by senators.
However, the second point presents a far more difficult problem for senators concerned about the interpretation of the Constitution. The White House is arguing that you cannot impeach a president without a crime
It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution. While Framers did not want terms such as “maladministration” in the standard as dangerously too broad, they often spoke of impeachable conduct in noncriminal terms, such as Justice Joseph Story referring to “public wrongs,” “great offenses against the Constitution” or acts of “malfeasance or abuse of office.” Alexander Hamilton spoke of impeachment trials as addressing “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
In the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, both sides accepted that the presidents had committed criminal acts.
In this impeachment, the House has decided to go forward on the narrowest articles with the thinnest record of a presidential impeachment in history. However, many senators may be legitimately leery of buying what the White House is selling with its categorical approach. There is a vast array of harmful and corrupt acts that a president can commit outside of the criminal code
While I believe that articles of impeachment are ideally based on well-defined criminal conduct, I do not believe that the criminal code is the effective limit or scope of possible impeachable offenses. If some of the president’s critics are adopting a far too broad understanding of impeachable offenses, the White House is adopting a far too narrow one.
The adoption of this interpretation would create lasting harm for the constitutional system. In some ways, Republican senators should avoid the mistake made by Democratic senators during the Clinton impeachment. Clinton argued then that a president could commit criminal acts in office but not face impeachment so long as he committed the felonies for personal reasons. In my testimony roughly 20 years ago, I strongly opposed that theory and warned that, if perjury is allowed by presidents in some cases, “you will expand the space for executive conduct.” Indeed, the theory embraced by the Democrats would have allowed a President Harvey Weinstein to sexually harass dozens of interns in the White House and then lie about every incident to both Congress and an independent counsel. Yet, the Democrats signed off on the theory and thereby created a dangerous precedent for criminal, non-impeachable conduct.
The developing defense by the White House is also a mistake. It would again “expand the space for executive conduct” by reducing the definition of impeachable conduct to the criminal code. It is an argument that is as politically unwise as it is constitutionally shortsighted. There are a number of Democrats who might be willing to vote for acquittal, particularly on the highly flawed abuse of Congress article. Yet, the narrow White House definition of what is impeachable could well push them back into the Democratic fold while further pulling away a couple of moderate Republican senators.
Whatever benefit from the clarity of such a position will come at the cost of any possible consensus. If successful, it would also come at a considerable cost for the Constitution."
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk
Trying to distill the President's and Senate GOP's argument to its essence:
“How can we possibly vote to remove the President without seeing all the evidence we’re voting not to see?”
“How can we possibly vote to remove the President without seeing all the evidence we’re voting not to see?”