Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
I rewrote it so you can understand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
SECOND, there's a big gap between a small offense and an offense big enough to remove a president. Yanno, like the gap between littering and murder.

Get a grip already. Those senators are saying what Trump did was too little to remove him over it.

And, from (somewhat) following the proceedings, I think the democrats knew it. The testimony was a bust. NO ONE could testify they heard Trump firsthand say anything about anything, except *I WANT NOTHING*. So the democrats had to fall back to the transcript itself which was a big, fat nothing burger. Which they also knew. So they had to make up (with the help of the NYTimes) a Bolt-on moment, kind of like what they did with Kavanaugh. Which worked about as well as it did with Kavanaugh.

I know Trump is your personal bête noire. Yanno he's richer than you, more famous than you, he's a republican, and he's even president. And he's NONE of those things you think about yourself when you recite to yourself why being rich means you're better than everyone.

But dooood, get over yourself.

---

Quote:

---

"The President’s behavior was shameful and wrong.

---

Quote:

---

His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation. The president has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and honor of the office.

---

Quote:

---

Not just for himself but for all future presidents. Degrading the office, by actions or even name calling,

---

Quote:

---

weakens it for future presidents, and weakens our country."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
All I read there is a deficiency of the Congress itself for decades now.

Congress can, and should, take back the power over making war decisions. We can agree on that.

Trump isn't guilty of anything he was impeached for. If Congress wants that power back after it has abdicated it since the early years of GWB, then it better get to work on that after Trump is acquitted.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

I rewrote it so you can understand. This is the key paragraph from Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska):

"The President’s behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation. The president has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and honor of the office. Not just for himself but for all future presidents. Degrading the office, by actions or even name calling, weakens it for future presidents, and weakens our country."

www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/speech/speech-senator-murkowski-on-impe
achment-trial

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

SECOND: I rewrote it so you can understand

SIX: I don't need a perpetual man-child to talk to me in his baby talk language.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Seriously, wipe the spittle off your mouth and go watch The Biggest Little Farm. It's a delightful and inspiring movie, I think you'd like it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

I'm ecstatic the democrats failed! You can tell by the way democrats structured it, this whole process was a malodorous coup attempt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Nothing you post can change my mind, SECOND. Because unlike you, I actually listened to the testimony. Let me rephrase that - the SWORN testimony. Not the rumor from the NYTimes. Not Schifty's fantasizing. Not Pelosi's mean-girls high school reprisal. Not Romney's political grandstanding. The actual SWORN testimony of record. And I've watched the process. There was no overarching investigation into all the facts. There was no defense.

This was a biased political lynching based on rumor and opinion.

My reasons are sound.

---

Quote:

---

The Senate did NOT try to amass a full public record of Trump’s misconduct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

The Senate did NOT try to amass a full public record of Trump’s misconduct.

---

Per the constitution, that's not its job - remember? The Senate is the jury. It can't be both the investigators AND the jury.

The House democrats blew it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I'm sorry, but your babbling changes nothing.

The Senate is the jury. It's not the prosecution. It's not the defense. It's not a grand jury.

The House presented its case to the jury. But the case was weak, and the Senate decided 'not guilty'.

The House democrats blew it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Wrong again, 1kiki. 48% of the Senate voted that Trump was guilty. Trump only received 46% of the popular vote in 2016. More justification to remove him than to elect him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

If you want a re-do of 2016 I suggest you look to 2020 and try to figure out how the democrats could win this time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot. You can't be an asshole loser who's always wrong because you're rich. You must have to tell yourself that a lot.

/snicker

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Well, after a couple days of treating myself at home with non-scrip medicines and therapies: cough syrup(cold), postural drainage(pneumonia), deep-breathing(asthma), pursed-lip exhaling(COPD), and cupped-hand percussion(cystic fibrosis), 1hour each, 2x/day, my symptoms are 80% improved.

But I still intend to not catch anything else this year if I can at all help it. Having 'just' a flu took nearly a month out of my life. And this whole coronavirus thing is a good opportunity to perfect my anti-viral practices.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
And there you are - wrong again. Remember what I've posted at least a dozen times by now? I don't vote for Trump. I did vote against Hillary.

Perfect health - does that include mental? How about that limp? Are you not counting that either?

And is your argument NOW that you can't be a loser asshole who's always wrong because you're rich and 'healthy'? That's pathetic.

---

Quote:

---

You spend a great deal of energy defending Trump when you won't even vote for him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Look at his posts from three years ago. They are identical to the posts he makes today. Some of them almost verbatim. In three years he has not grown one single inch as a person compared to the "man" he was in 2016.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
blah blah blah ... something ... mumble ... more blah blah blah ... and more blah blah blah

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
blah blah blah ... something ... mumble ... more blah blah blah ... and more blah blah blah

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, if you have to make points by picking on someone for their teeth or their health then your "arguments" have sunk to the level of "You've got boogers in your nose!".

Don't you have anything more on-point to post?

Just remember, son ... one day, you will be old and sick* (*Not counting the limp and other possible injuries.) Do you want to get treated the way you've treated others? Because THAT would be karma.

---

Quote:

---

blah blah blah ... something ... mumble ... more blah blah blah ... and more blah blah blah

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

blah blah blah ... something ... mumble ... more blah blah blah ... and more blah blah blah

---

So Trump should have been impeached because of his views on the environment and Israel/ Iran?

Sounds like a case for making sure the democratic candidate is better instead!

---

Quote:

---

SIGNY: SECOND, if you have to make points by picking on someone for their teeth or their health then your "arguments" have sunk to the level of "You've got boogers in your nose!".
Don't you have anything more on-point to post?
Just remember, son ... one day, you will be old and sick* (*Not counting the limp and other possible injuries.) Do you want to get treated the way you've treated others? Because THAT would be karma.

SECOND: Trump’s lawyers dismissed nearly all of that testimony as hearsay.

---

Quote:

---

hearsay
n.Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
n. Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.
n. Information communicated by another; report; common talk; rumor; gossip.

---

Quote:

---

Sondland’s “mistaken belief does not become proof because he repeated it many times,” Trump lawyer Mike Purpura said at the impeachment trial.

---

Quote:

---

Democratic prosecutors retorted that senators should then subpoena Bolton and others who dealt directly with Trump. Republicans blocked that in a 51-49 vote against hearing from additional witnesses, leaving unresolved the question of precisely what Trump said and did.

---

Quote:

---

Johnathan Turley
[synopsis: Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the continued effort to ignore the obvious and catastrophic decision of the House leadership to rush the impeachment vote by Christmas rather than complete the record against President Donald Trump. This denial continues despite the fact that, after saying that they had no time to seek witnesses or favorable court orders, the House leadership then waited a month before released the articles of impeachment. Clearly, the record would have been stronger if the House waited and sought to compel witnesses. It also would have kept control of the record and the case. I encouraged them to vote in March or April, which would have given them plenty of time to secure additional testimony and certainly a number of favorable court orders. However, recognizing this obvious blunder would take away from the narrative that the case failed only because the Republicans were protecting Trump in the Senate.

Here is the column:end synopsis ]

---

Quote:

---

... After the Senate rejected witnesses and effectively ended the impeachment trial on Friday, the media ignored the primary reason for the defeat, which is the insistence of House leaders to impeach Trump by Christmas. Critics of the president simply do not want to hear that the blind rush to impeach guaranteed not only an acquittal but an easy case for acquittal. It is after all important for some members of the media to maintain that fools dwell only in Republican red states.

When I appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in November, I opposed four proposed articles of impeachment as legally flawed and explained that two would be legitimate if they were proven. The House Judiciary Committee rejected the challenged articles and accepted the two articles on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That left one fundamental area of disagreement. I warned the panel that it was rushing to a failed impeachment by insisting on a vote by Christmas.

---

Quote:

---

This was the shortest impeachment investigation in American history. It was also the narrowest grounds and thinnest record for trial. I have previously noted that witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton indicated that they were willing to testify if subpoenaed, and that a couple months would have likely secured more testimony and supportive court orders....

... So absent such a delay, the impeachment of Trump was guaranteed to fail, due to an incomplete and insufficient record. Yet the House insisted this was a “crime in progress” and there was no time to delay a submission to the Senate. It then immediately contradicted its rationale by waiting more than a month to submit articles of impeachment to the Senate. The House simply could not have made it easier on the president and his legal team.

The media ignored the obvious catastrophic blunder by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership. The media instead suggested that it was all some grand and brilliant scheme. They even credited the strategy with Bolton eventually coming forward to say he would testify with a subpoena, even though the same offer was made during the House investigation. The media also ignored the unexplained decision by the House to withdraw a subpoena for top Bolton aide Charles Kupperman, who went to court as a prerequisite for testimony, the same position taken by Bolton. Before the courts could even rule, the House mooted the case by withdrawing the subpoena. That made no sense, and the court dismissed the case after concluding that the House appeared to have no interest in the witness.

No harm would have come from pursuing testimony by Kupperman. Yet lead House manager Adam Schiff offered a facially dubious explanation that Kupperman had said he would litigate the issue. If Kupperman truly wanted to drag out litigation, he could have refused to appear before the House and waited for it to seek to compel his testimony. Instead, he said he just wanted a court order in favor of testifying for his own protection. Moreover, House Democrats continued to seek to compel the testimony of former White House counsel Donald McGahn, despite his continued litigation. It won that case as the House was voting on impeachment.

---

Quote:

---

On a philosophical note...karma ...

---

Quote:

---

executive orders

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
On a philosophical note, karma knows when you harbor hatred or evil intent. It also knows when you're lying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well if that's the case, the assets from Bolton's work of fiction should be frozen. If somehow his testimony was the magic bullet that nobody else was able to give, but he's going to put it in a book released after the impeachment sham, then he shouldn't be able to profit from it.

Maybe the proceeds of the book can go to clean the shit off the streets of California.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I try to cast the same event with different characters to see if I'm being biased.

Let's say that Obama pressured Britain into investigating candidate Trump for possible treasonous agreements with foreign nations, that Obama held some "quid pro quo" over the UK to get them to participate. Impeachable?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Second might be a liar and a hypocrite, but at least he has the balls to still post in here this week.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm adding Mitt Romney to the list of people you guys love now.

Remember that you were calling him a Nazi not too long ago too.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
I try to cast the same event with different characters to see if I'm being biased.

Let's say that Obama pressured Britain into investigating candidate Trump for possible treasonous agreements with foreign nations, that Obama held some "quid pro quo" over the UK to get them to participate. Impeachable?

Why, or why not?

More interestingly, when does it cross the boundary between impeachable or not? If there was no "quid pro quo", does that make a difference? If the allegation against candidate is less serious ... say, tax evasion in Scotland ... does THAT make a difference? What about if the person being investigated is not running for office at all? Would it be any different if Obama had directed his DOJ to do the investigation directly instead of thru a foreign nation? What if the allegations are patently false?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
ALL- Please put YOUR brain in gear (not Mitt Romney's, not Vox's, not Rsuh Limbaugh's or Fox News') and answer the following questions ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Thank you for avoiding the questions, like you always do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Let's say that Obama pressured Britain into investigating candidate Trump for possible treasonous agreements with foreign nations, that Obama held some "quid pro quo" over the UK to get them to participate. Impeachable?

---