Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 03, 2019

Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday said that if he's unable to reach a deal with Democrats to set the rules for a Senate impeachment trial then he will try to to do so solely with GOP votes.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Despite all the evidence against him, the Senate will most likely let Trump off with all of his crimes and misdemeanors. Mitch McConnell has made that clear."

That's been clear since Day One... despite the folks telling us how the GOPhers in the Senate could be convinced to convict. That was never going to happen.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-03 11:05 PM | Reply

Once again, the Republicans are looking to use process, not evidence, to avoid growing a spine.

Why are the Republicans so afraid of following the evidence?

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-03 11:35 PM | Reply

#2 Lamp

The process matters, especially as it pertains to impeachment. The degree to which it is dictated by partisanship in the House will somewhat dictate the degree of partisanship it will be in the Senate. It's supposed to be an extreme measure that is only utilized with broad public and bipartisan support.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:41 PM | Reply

"It's supposed to be an extreme measure that is only utilized with broad public and bipartisan support.

That assumes everyone has equal access to the truth.

Look in the mirror for a counter opinion.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 11:43 PM | Reply

#4

Over 250 years or so only three presidents were ever impeached and only 1 was removed (Nixon resigned to avoid removal).

There's a reason for that and so far Democrat's haven been using this process as a campaign issue rather than a serious Constitutional issue. Who knows - maybe Nadler can change all of that now that the ball is in his court...

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:56 PM | Reply

@#3 ... The process matters, especially as it pertains to impeachment. ...

I agree with that comment.

However, I'd be a lot more willing to take the "process" argument proffered by the Republicans more seriously if they had not been using it so far to avoid facing the evidence before them.

Stated differently, the Republicans have been trying to use the "process" argument to kick up dust to obscure the evidence. The Republicans have trivialized the "process" argument by their very over-use of it in non-essential matters.

Bluntly, the Republicans have shot their "process" argument wad. They need to come (yeah, I see it too, it's not intentional, though caused a smile) up with a new reason to avoid growing a spine.



#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 12:01 AM | Reply

Lamp,

It's a 2-way street. Yes, the GOP has been kicking up sand in order to try and muddy all of this. But Democrats have been so ridiculous in their handling of this, so far, that I can at least sort of see where the GOP is coming from. A legitimate impeachment process is broadly transparent. So fsr, this has been pretty far from transparent.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:06 AM | Reply

"But Democrats have been so ridiculous in their handling of this..."

From the guy who recently called telling the truth, "extremely partisan".

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 12:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am telling the truth. What Sciff ran was a joke. I at least allow for the possibility for Nadler to return this process to something closer to historical precedent.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

JEFF -

What did you not learn through the impeachment inquiry?

Because I learned a lot and much of what I speculated prior to was corroborated by very credible professionals.

#10 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 12:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

@#7 ... It's a 2-way street. ...

Yes, it is.

... But Democrats have been so ridiculous in their handling of this, ...

While I have seen some things that the Democrats have done which I would question, to characterize what they have done as "so ridiculous" is a bit much.

This is a grave issue for the Country.

The President has used taxpayer dollars to promote his own political interests. (my synopsis)

Even the Republicans do not dispute that.

They try to rationalize it as being OK, or "not impeachable."

My overriding concern here is what will the Republican viewpoint do to the precedent set for future Presidents.

Would a Democratic President be given the same "pass" by the Republicans?

This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue, this is a power of the Executive issue.

Do we want future Presidents (Democratic or Republican) to use taxpayer money to bribe foreign governments to help his campaign?

Yes, as you say, it is a two-way street.

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 12:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What Sciff ran was a joke."

You must've missed Gym Jordan, and Devin "I know there was meddling because I was paying for it" Nunes. Get serious: If Dems were running an investigation, while one of the questioners was neck deep in the skulduggery, you'd be apoplectic.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 12:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Beach,

I learned plenty. What I also learned was the process was incredibly one-sided. When the crucial material witness wasn't allowed to be called to testify....it was an Obama-esque college campus kangaroo court for adjudicating a sexual assault allegation.

I also learned that these hearings barely, if at all, moved the needle of public opinion in favor of impeachment. And it's not like Trump is a sympathetic defendant...

Again, maybe Nadler takes a more judicious approach.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:25 AM | Reply

"Do we want future Presidents (Democratic or Republican) to use taxpayer money to bribe foreign governments to help his campaign?"

Why wait?

Why shouldn't Biden ask Iran to hack into Saudi Arabia for dirt on Jared? He could tell them they'd be "greatly rewarded", or he could threaten to withhold arms sales until he gets, at the least, a fake announcement from MBS.

All good, right?

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 12:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"When the crucial material witness wasn't allowed to be called to testify..."

Who was that? Lev, Igor, or Hunter?

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 12:26 AM | Reply

#12 Dems are the ones running the investigation.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#15 the WB is ostensibly the crucial material witness.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Why shouldn't Biden ask Iran to hack into Saudi Arabia for dirt on Jared?

What do you think Clinton/Obama FBI falsifying FISA applications were doing?

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-04 12:29 AM | Reply

@#17 ... WB ...

I want to understand what you say.

What mean you when you say, WB?

thx.

#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 12:35 AM | Reply

@#16 ... Dems are the ones running the investigation. ...

Yes, they are.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 12:36 AM | Reply

WB is short for whistle blower.

I'm posting from my phone and I abbreviate whenever possible.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:40 AM | Reply

17 -- You must bee kidding me!? If I call in an anonymous tip that my neighbor is burying bodies in his bank yard, the cops arrive and find bodies, how on earth am I a crucial material witness? We have no need to hear a peep from the WB and whoever they are is safer that way.

#22 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 12:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4


Nunes says he doesn't recall calls with indicted Giuliani associate
www.axios.com

...House Intelligence ranking member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told Fox News' "Hannity" Tuesday "it's possible" he spoke with Lev Parnas, an associate of President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani's who's since been indicted for campaign finance violations. But he told host Sean Hannity he doesn't "recall that name."...

And you think the Democratics are "so ridiculous" ?

Wow, just friggin' wow.

#23 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 12:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"What do you think Clinton/Obama FBI falsifying FISA applications were doing?"

Can you taste the stupid when you post something that dumb?

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 12:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Lamp,

#23 - please expound how that is relevant to this thread, so I can better understand.

17 -- You must bee kidding me!? If I call in an anonymous tip that my neighbor is burying bodies in his bank yard, the cops arrive and find bodies, how on earth am I a crucial material witness? We have no need to hear a peep from the WB and whoever they are is safer that way.

#22 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

You created an apples/oranges scenario. The WB isn't some neighbor who happened to witness something and call it in to an anonymous tip-line - he actually didn't personally witness anything.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:47 AM | Reply

"the WB is ostensibly the crucial material witness."

Why do you pretend this isn't about identification = retaliation?

I mean, you're not so daft you don't know one ensures the other.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 12:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Why shouldn't Biden ask Iran to hack into Saudi Arabia for dirt on Jared? He could tell them they'd be "greatly rewarded", or he could threaten to withhold arms sales until he gets, at the least, a fake announcement from MBS.

All good, right?

#14 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You must have gotten coaching for conjuring up absurd equivalencies.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:49 AM | Reply

@#21 ... WB is short for whistle blower.

I'm posting from my phone and I abbreviate whenever possible. ...

Thanks for the follow-up, it is appreciated. I can understand the "posting from phone" aspect. I dislike those "keyboards." But I thought it was just me...

OK, where were we...

Oh yeah...

Why is the whistle-blower an ostensibly crucial material witness?

Pretty much all of what the WB (see, I learn!) has said has been confirmed by other testimony. Why the need to expose the WB? Wouldn't such exposure discourage future WBs from exposing similar, ummmm, digressions in government?


#28 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 12:49 AM | Reply

"Nunes says he doesn't recall calls with indicted Giuliani associate"

Next he'll say he doesn't recall being in Ukraine.

And are we to believe he was on the committee investigating meddling...and didn't recall he was one of the folks soliciting Ukrainian meddling?!?

I guarantee Hannity didn't ask him that.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 12:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why do you pretend this isn't about identification = retaliation?

Because upon reading the complaint 100% of what was cited was at-best secondhand info. This guy is not a WB in any traditional sense of the term. He was not listening in on the call.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:51 AM | Reply

25 -- and? What if I didn't see anything either, just heard from another neighbor that they had? There is no reason to hear from the whistle blower and release his or her identity since it's all corroborated. If they witnessed nothing what could they possibly add that you're missing?

#31 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 12:52 AM | Reply

@#25 ... please expound how that is relevant to this thread, so I can better understand.

Yeah, I admit, it was a stretch.

I just saw that completely inane stuff from Rep Nunes (no surprise there) and juxtaposed it with your comment about the ridiculous stuff the Democrats have done.

It was a stretch, I admit that. :)

Thanks for calling me out on it.

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 12:54 AM | Reply

@#30 ... Because upon reading the complaint 100% of what was cited was at-best secondhand info.

Not sure about that 100% part. But...

Nearly all, if not all, of what was in the complaint has been confirmed by under-oath testimony.

So I gotta ask once again, why does the WB need to testify?

I am thinking here that we need to protect whistle-blowers to help expose how our Government may go astray.

To put a political aspect to this one particular case may, and probably will, set a bad precedent for when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office and does something wrong.

Of course, your current opinion seems to support the viewpoint that only Republicans do wrong things in office, so whistle blowers are A Bad Thing.


#33 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 01:00 AM | Reply

Why is the whistle-blower an ostensibly crucial material witness?

Because he ostensibly launched this entire thing on ZERO firsthand information.

His motivations matter in the big picture of the incredibly rare occurrence of actually impeaching POTUS.

I 100% agree that other sources corroborated his complaint, to varying degrees, after being compelled to testify, regardless of how they personally viewed this prior to being compelled to testify.

ALL of this, and more, will come out in a Senate trial, and it should. The public should have a COMPLETE and transparent picture of what transpired on ALL sides. Some Democrats are already getting cold-feet over this. Pelosi is barely on board. Schiff failed utterly and I say that because he didn't produce much of anything that wasn't already in the transcript that Team Trump released. In fact, his summary of the phone call was so bad he had to later walk it back as a "parody". If the evidence itself is so incriminating there is no need to parody any of it.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:00 AM | Reply

Republicans are scum

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-12-04 01:02 AM | Reply

No citation needed btw.

#36 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-12-04 01:03 AM | Reply

Jeff I firmly disagree with you. In my line of work I am really often told things I've not experienced and expected to act on it. To pass that information on to an ethics committee. It is rare that the person reporting the issue is ever known to anyone but myself. Anonymity is very important in protecting people from retaliation.

#37 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 01:04 AM | Reply

"...he ostensibly launched this entire thing on ZERO firsthand information."

Which changes what was uncovered/discoverd by NOT A WHIT.

So once again, all you've got is You had no right to discover my wrongs!

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" he didn't produce much of anything that wasn't already in the transcript that Team Trump released."

Burisma was scrubbed from the fake transcript.
Morrison thought it was so dangerous, he super-secretly hid it.
Sondland admitted everyone was in the loop.
Dr. Hill pointed out Republicans are spouting Russian propeganda.

WTF are you talking about?

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"This guy is not a WB in any traditional sense of the term. "

That has nothing to do with the fact identification will equal retaliation. You'll at least admit that much, right?
abcnews.go.com

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:11 AM | Reply

Who gives an actual f..k what his or her motivations were? I'm happy they risked everything and came forward. If it had been false I'd be more interested in the WB because we'd need to understand where it started and deal with that issue. Good night all, I'm out of patience for tonight.

#41 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 01:11 AM | Reply

@#34 ... Because he ostensibly launched this entire thing on ZERO firsthand information. ...

However the WB process channeled his concerns appropriately. And those concerns were deemed to be appropriate and substantiated to the point that the complaint should proceed.

The WB law was followed. The complaint was jusified as being concrete enough to proceed.

... His motivations matter ...

I agree.

He heard of something wrong that may be occurring, and followed the proper legal channels (as enacted by the Congress of the United States) to report his concerns.

The WB learned of something that may have been wrong, reported it via the proper legal channels, and his (or her) concern was largely confirmed to be correct by under-oath testimony by those who came forward against the direction of the accused.

I still do not see why the WB needs to testify.

#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 01:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So I gotta ask once again, why does the WB need to testify?

Because in this case there are a lot of questions that need to be answered in the pursuit of transparency.

His written complaint cited ZERO first-hand knowledge, yet on the complaint form (that was retroactively changed after-the-fact to make the IG compliant in processing it) he cited some firsthand knowledge. In the absence of firsthand knowledge the IG, according to its own rules, would not have processed the complaint - but the complaint was processed anyway. He cited firsthand knowledge and needs to substantiate it. Second, he consulted with a Schiff aide prior to submitting his complaint to the IG. He needs to provide explanation as to why he went that route. Process matters. Greatly. In our judicial system prosecutors can have entire iron-clad cases tossed out for failing to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" on truly trivial crap.

This is akin to your neighbor hearing a rumor about you transporting drugs in your car, calling in a tip and the cops, without even obtaining a warrant, break into your car and find some marijuana residue of the dashboard and arresting you..

Hopefully Nadler can rescue the process (I can't believe I just typed that) because I do feel that what Trump did was, at least potentially, an impeachable offense.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

You had no right to discover my wrongs!

#38 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I never envisioned you as a badge-sniffing fascist.

So, as long as the right scalps are collected it doesn't matter how we get there?

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"His written complaint cited ZERO first-hand knowledge"

What are you pretending wasn't corroborated? Be specific.

"This is akin to your neighbor hearing a rumor about you transporting drugs in your car, calling in a tip and the cops, without even obtaining a warrant, break into your car and find some marijuana residue of the dashboard and arresting you.."

More like the neighbor smelled it downwind, and it turned out you had $400 million of stash.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:19 AM | Reply

"I never envisioned you as a badge-sniffing fascist. "

I'm not; you're a turd polisher.

Everything discovered and admitted means nothing, if you can find one "t" not crossed. You're desperately searching for any reason to discredit every fact in front of your face. In the big picture, if the FISA warrant was flawed, does that mean Trump should be exonerated for all he did?

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:22 AM | Reply

Why the need to expose the WB? Wouldn't such exposure discourage future WBs from exposing similar, ummmm, digressions in government?

You answered your own question.

Nothing chaps Trumpublican's hides as much as their god anointed President being exposed for the criminal he is.

Jeff is in full defense mode. He's even dismissing JustaGirl's comparison as apples to oranges because he can't actually address her point.

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 01:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So, as long as the right scalps are exonerated it doesn't matter how we get there?

FTFY.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:23 AM | Reply

His motivations matter in the big picture of the incredibly rare occurrence of actually impeaching POTUS.

He must be looking for a book/movie deal. Just like anyone/everyone else whose come out against Trump.

Otherwise he'd have no reason to report Trump's criminal behavior.

We get it Jeff, you're a partyline Republican voter, because their policies better represent you. Trump happens to be giving you more of what you want than any prior President.

Of course you're going to do what ever you can to obfuscate.

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 01:28 AM | Reply

Lamp,

The only reason he should testify is that nothing he produced in the complaint itself (I read it 3 times) was firsthand. None of it. Zero, zilch, nada.

By itself, that isn't a problem as far as it goes.

From there potential problems emerge:

Changes were retroactively made to the WB form after-the-fact - when under testimony the ICIG was asked why, he didn't have an answer.

In spite of zero firsthand knowledge of the call (he has NONE) he cited that he had some on the form but didn't provide substantiation. That needs to be squared.

He consulted with a Schiff aide prior to submitting his complaint. On the form he was required to disclose that - he didn't. He needs to answer for that.

During the exploratory stage of all of this my position has been the gist of the WB allegations have been independently corroborated by some who were close to this (a rough transcript was provided by Team Trump that all parties seem to agree was a pretty accurate summation of the conversation itself).

Impeachment is inherently a political process. A highly popular president can get away with far worse than a highly unpopular president. My point is, everything matters and that includes answering some basic questions regarding the origins of all of this, assuming Democrats are truly serious about impeachment.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:32 AM | Reply

@#43 ... His written complaint cited ZERO first-hand knowledge ...

The Inspector General determined, in accord with the whistle blower law, that the complaint had enough credibility to go forward.

Which it did.

Really, if you have such a high level of concern about what happened, petition Congress to change the law that governs this process.

For now, my viewpoint remains the same... I want this whistle-blower law to remain in place, as is, because I do not know what the next President may or may not do. Good God, we may have Mr Bloomberg as the next President. What if he ....

If you cripple the whistle-blower law for political reasons now, what will the future hold? Will AG Barr's vision of a Supreme Executive in the Oval Office be fulfilled? (OK, another divergence.... oops)

The whistle-blower law is working, and needs to continue to work.


#51 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 01:33 AM | Reply

if the FISA warrant was flawed, does that mean Trump should be exonerated for all he did?

#46 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No.

Let me slightly rephrase your question:

Put on your legal/lawyer hat for this: "If a FISA warrant is flawed does that mean it's still admissible as evidence in a court of law in a trial against a private citizen?"

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:35 AM | Reply

@#50 ... that includes answering some basic questions regarding the origins of all of this, ...

Yes, but Pres Trump needs to testify under oath for that to occur.

Keep your eye on the doughnut, not the hole.



#53 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 01:36 AM | Reply

The Inspector General determined, in accord with the whistle blower law, that the complaint had enough credibility to go forward.

Agreed.

Which it did.

That is a statement of opinion and is precisely why the WB and the ICIG need to be compelled to answer key questions should this thing be elevated to an actual impeachment - we are actually pretty far from reaching that point, believe it or not. If this actually goes to a Senate trial they will be compelled to testify.

Really, if you have such a high level of concern about what happened, petition Congress to change the law that governs this process.

I am actually very much in favor of the law that governs this process. What I am seeing is that the processes may have been circumvented and I view that as a serious problem regardless of the fact that what the WB brought to light was more or less corroborated.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:42 AM | Reply

"Let me slightly rephrase your question: Put on your legal/lawyer hat for this: "If a FISA warrant is flawed does that mean it's still admissible as evidence in a court of law in a trial against a private citizen?"

Please research the legal concept of "Inevitable Discovery".

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:46 AM | Reply

@#52 ... Put on your legal/lawyer hat for this ...

OK, with that legal hat upon your head, let me pose the following...

If, in the process of investigating some anonymous hearsay evidence, new evidence of a crime is discovered...

Why does that initial hearsay evidence even matter, if the discovered evidence is worthy of conviction?

Shouldn't the new evidence of the crime be valid, presuming it was obtained legally?

So by your own apparent logic, you need to show how any of the testimony obtained under oath in the Congress of the Unites States was obtained illegally.


#56 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 01:46 AM | Reply

Yes, but Pres Trump needs to testify under oath for that to occur.

Keep your eye on the doughnut, not the hole.

#53 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Up until now I've agreed with Trump thumbing his nose at all of this.

Nadler's first 4 witnesses aren't witnesses at all - they are legal experts who will opine about the process itself. Short-term I think it's a mistake to trot out elitist self-proclaimed "experts". But then look at who he's chosen to question - (I'm not going to link it because it's easily accessible) - they are all liberal/left but span a pretty broad spectrum as it pertains to whether or not what Trump did rises to the level of impeachment. In short, it's actually a somewhat balanced group of experts. It's a glimmer of hope that Nadler will handle this process with the seriousness and transparency it deserves.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:47 AM | Reply

"Let me slightly rephrase your question: Put on your legal/lawyer hat for this: "If a FISA warrant is flawed does that mean it's still admissible as evidence in a court of law in a trial against a private citizen?"

Please research the legal concept of "Inevitable Discovery".

#55 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Eff off with that. What you are suggesting is situational ethics, at best, and I'm being kind with that assessment.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:51 AM | Reply

@#54 ... That is a statement of opinion ...

It is the opinion of the Inspector General made in accordance of the whistle blower law.

The law was followed, not circumvented.

Unfortunately, it seems to be coming apparent that your opinion of the outcome is affecting your opinion of the process.

That happens a lot when you get a decision against you in a legal process.

... What I am seeing is that the processes may have been circumvented ...

Specific details, please.

#59 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 01:52 AM | Reply

"Eff off with that. What you are suggesting is situational ethics"

No I'm not; inevitable discovery is a longstanding legal concept, much in the vein as post #56. Eff yourself and your "You had no right to discover my wrongs! bleat.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:56 AM | Reply

#56 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The problem is you are responding in the abstract to a situation where I gave a narrow set of specifics. It's essentially moving the goalposts, although I don't think that was your actual intent.

It's extremely rare, almost never, that 2 cases are 100% identical, especially when we are on this level. This is the problem with your scenario:

If, in the process of investigating some anonymous hearsay evidence, new evidence of a crime is discovered...

When the policy is that anonymous hearsay evidence won't be considered due to prosecutorial constraints.... your analogy is the problem. This isn't local police acting on a neighborhood watch tip. Apples to oranges isn't even accurate - apples to pumpkins is more accurate.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:57 AM | Reply

"Specific details, please."

He has none.. In fact, he's reduced to denying a common legal claim..

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:59 AM | Reply

No I'm not; inevitable discovery is a longstanding legal concept, much in the vein as post #56. Eff yourself and your "You had no right to discover my wrongs! bleat.

#60 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Ok, then. I guess it's OK for a cop to break into your car without a warrant and bust you on possession after finding some trace marijuana residue because he had no right to discover your wrongs! bleat.

Are you really going to make that argument?

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:00 AM | Reply

"When the policy is that anonymous hearsay evidence won't be considered due to prosecutorial constraints"

In this case, it's going to be one tip was tainted, but the other five were all valid. Jeff will concentrate only on the bad apple.

Or pumpkin, whichever.

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 02:01 AM | Reply

... What I am seeing is that the processes may have been circumvented ...

Specific details, please.

#59 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I've already provided them. Please see #50

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:01 AM | Reply

:Ok, then. I guess it's OK for a cop to break into your car without a warrant and bust you on possession after finding some trace marijuana residue:

No, but if five other cops all testify they saw me make the deal and pack the trunk, do I get to walk? Assume the five cops were all correct.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 02:02 AM | Reply

@#57 ... Nadler's first 4 witnesses aren't witnesses at all - they are legal experts...

Not fully sure to what you refer.

Maybe the transfer of the process from the House Intelligence Committee to the House Judiciary Committee?

If so, well yeah, that is exactly what the first "witnesses" are supposed to do, or haven't you been paying attention.

The witnesses are appearing in order to explain the legal rationale behind impeachment. What is the bar that needs to be cleared for impeachment? They are legal experts. You would want legal experts to testify in this scenario.

And wow, it is going to be so boring. Legal experts talking about legal stuff. How boring ....

But to the larger point, I am beginning to think that you may need to broaden your sources of information. Your comments seem to indicate a lack of understanding of this critical process that is happening...

#67 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 02:04 AM | Reply

In this case, it's going to be one tip was tainted, but the other five were all valid. Jeff will concentrate only on the bad apple.

Or pumpkin, whichever.

#64 | POSTED BY Doucheforth

You need to learn how to read:

I am actually very much in favor of the law that governs this process. What I am seeing is that the processes may have been circumvented and I view that as a serious problem regardless of the fact that what the WB brought to light was more or less corroborated.
#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:04 AM | Reply

"More or less corroborated..."

More or less?!? Not COMPLETELY???

Jizz-swallowing Jeff swallows another.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 02:09 AM | Reply

@#65 ... I've already provided them. Please see #50 ...

I had seen that. Yeah there have been questions asked.

For example, the ~he talked with a Schiff aide~, but you seem to omit the part of many, many people talking to Congressional aides.

In this instance, he was told what to do according to the law.

That Schiff aide instructed the WB to follow the law. Which the WB did.

#70 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 02:12 AM | Reply

But to the larger point, I am beginning to think that you may need to broaden your sources of information. Your comments seem to indicate a lack of understanding of this critical process that is happening...

#67 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Quite the contrary.

Democrats have so royally messed this up, just like the GOP did with all of their Benghazi investigations.

The process is two-fold: Political and fact-finding.

When Issa was running the Benghazi hearings (he first had the reins) the process was almost exclusively political/partisan. By the time Gowdy took over the GOP had lost a lot of credibility and the fact-finding stage was tarnished due to earlier malfeasance.

I see the same thing playing out here in terms of being partisan first and fact-finding second.

Impeaching a president isn't something that is routine. A strong publicly-supported and bipartisan case must be made in order for it to work. When Democrats have to focus-test which "criminal term" polls best (quid pro quo, extortion, bribery...) it indicates they aren't even close to having made a convincing case.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:14 AM | Reply

That Schiff aide instructed the WB to follow the law. Which the WB did.
#70 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Yet the Schiff aid failed to instruct the WB to disclose their communication on the form as was required. Then there is the problem with the fact that the WB checked off a box on the form indicating firsthand knowledge but never once indicated firsthand knowledge in the complaint itself. In the absence of firsthand knowledge the complaint never would have even been looked into in the first place. If this is truly a serious impeachment those issues absolutely will come up and they are legitimate in the broad sense of trying to remove POTUS from office via this process.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:19 AM | Reply

More or less?!? Not COMPLETELY???

#69 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Read how the call was described in the initial WB complaint. Shortly after it was made public a rough transcript of the call was made public - the WB version was closer to an Adam Schiff parody than the transcript itself. Subsequent testimony tracked far more closely to the transcript than to what Schiff and the WB described.

In your world the details are irrelevant until you are in a situation where you are trying do discern what the definition of "is", is.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:24 AM | Reply

@#71 ... Impeaching a president isn't something that is routine. A strong publicly-supported and bipartisan case must be made in order for it to work. ...

I agree that impeaching is not something that is routine.

The fact that we, as a Country, are even considering it is noteworthy.

I also agree that impeachment is a political process, indeed, I have been saying that since day 1.

So then the discussion seems to become... just how bad does our President need to act before it is appropriate to bring forth impeachment hearings?

Do the egregious acts of our current President nullify what we should expect of a President merely because the Country is so politically divided? Is the President taking advantage of that political division in order to perform acts that run quite contrary to the laws of our land?

At what point does such tribal acceptance of incorrect behavior become a dictatorship? At what point do we say, enough! ?

I ask those questions in all earnesty.


#74 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 02:33 AM | Reply

@#72 ... Then there is the problem with the fact that the WB checked off a box on the form indicating firsthand knowledge but never once indicated firsthand knowledge in the complaint itself.

Oh please.

The Inspector General took care of all those nits.

And that is exactly what they are, nits.

Minor deflections that are being used to talk about something, anything, besides the core issues here.

Look through the dust thrown up, look at the evidence.

Follow the evidence.

#75 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-04 02:36 AM | Reply

I ask those questions in all earnesty.

#74 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I know you do. I mean that.

Use history as a guide. Does any of this even remotely approach Tea Pot Dome? And that didn't even trigger impeachment.

Bay of Pigs...Iran-Contra...Savings and loans...2008 financial meltdown (could not have happened without our laws, enforcement and political rewards serving as the impetus), Obama spying on reporters, Japanese internment....

Put it all in historical perspective.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:43 AM | Reply

@#72 ... Then there is the problem with the fact that the WB checked off a box on the form indicating firsthand knowledge but never once indicated firsthand knowledge in the complaint itself.

Oh please.

The Inspector General took care of all those nits.

I haven't seen that. Perhaps I missed it?

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:44 AM | Reply

RE: #5
"Over 250 years or so only three presidents were ever impeached and only 1 was removed (Nixon resigned to avoid removal)."

That should be:
In 230 years, only two presidents were ever impeached (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton). Two other presidents (Richard Nixon and Donald Trump) have faced impeachment inquiries. No president has ever been removed, since both impeached presidents were acquitted in the Senate. President Nixon was never impeached, but did resign.

#78 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-12-04 03:28 AM | Reply

Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections

Whistleblowing can be defined as "the act of reporting waste, fraud, abuse and corruption in a lawful manner to those who can correct the wrongdoing." Intelligence community (IC) whistleblowers are those employees or contractors working in any of the 17 elements of the IC who reasonably believe there has been a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; waste of resources; abuse of authority; or a substantial danger to public health and safety. The IC has publicly recognized the importance of whistleblowing, and supports protections for whistleblowers who conform to guidelines to protect classified information. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) whistleblowing policy and guidance is publicly available and specifically addresses the process for making protected disclosures and whistleblower protections for IC contractors, members of the Armed Forces, and federal IC employees. There are differing opinions, however, on whether the IC's internal processes have the transparency necessary to
ensure adequate protections against reprisal, and whether protections for IC contractors are sufficient.

Whistleblowing can be defined as "the lawful disclosure of information a discloser reasonably believes evidences wrongdoing to an authorized recipient."

fas.org

There isn't a single word signifying that any information disclosed by whistleblowers needs to be personally obtained first hand and there's a simple reason for this.

The whistleblower's accusations are to be investigated by the IC IG who has the job of assessing whether or not the complaint is credible and supported by facts and evidence! Allegations that cannot be supported go no further an never see the light of day. It has never mattered how the information was discovered by the whistleblower other than that they were in the position of receiving credible evidence supporting their allegations.

Any arguments about first hand or second hand misses the point altogether (which is precisely why Trump's defenders tie themselves into pretzels because there is no affirmative defense for his actions). The complaint initiates an inquiry into the allegations of wrongdoing contained in the complaint, full stop. Either the complaint is correct and evidence exists of wrongdoing or malfeasance or it is wrong and no further action is taken. The whistleblower is irrelevant to the fact pattern being reported unless they themselves were personally involved in the course of events underpinning the allegations - which this person was not.

#79 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 05:20 AM | Reply

TONY

Trump seems to be more interested in who tattled to the whistleblower."

#80 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-04 05:28 AM | Reply

#80

It's a completely bad faith argument because nothing about the whistleblower is going to change the underlying facts that have now been verified as true. It's laughable that Jeff continues to beat that dead horse.

"Motivation matters"? The motivation is based on the rationale for the complaint process itself and is inherent in its existence as a useful tool of governmental oversight. Reread this as many times as it takes to sink in:

whistleblowers are those employees or contractors working in any of the 17 elements of the IC who reasonably believe there has been a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; waste of resources; abuse of authority; or a substantial danger to public health and safety.
The motivation is that there was a violation of law, rule or regulation,...or abuse of authority.... That's the whistleblower's motivation stated clearly in the written complaint, their 'reasonable belief' that such above conditions existed.

#81 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 05:45 AM | Reply

Then there is the problem with the fact that the WB checked off a box on the form indicating firsthand knowledge but never once indicated firsthand knowledge in the complaint itself.

I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.

www.washingtonpost.com

No whistleblower law was changed and nothing under that law requires the complaints to have first-hand information. The IG's office also said Monday that it had determined that the whistleblower did have some first-hand, "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct."

It's not true that the whistleblower could "provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions," the IG said.

apnews.com

#82 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 06:08 AM | Reply

It's supposed to be an extreme measure that is only utilized with broad public and bipartisan support.

#3 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Nonsense.

There's no condition of bipartisanship.

And rightfully so given the shameful behavior of the GOP.

#83 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 09:13 AM | Reply

There's no condition of bipartisanship...

#83 | POSTED BY JPW A

I'm talking about historical perspective.

It's not true that the whistleblower could "provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions," the IG said.

Except the IG provides ZERO examples of first-hand account from the WB. If this impeachment process ever becomes real ALL of this will end up having to be answered for.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 09:35 AM | Reply

And rightfully so given the shameful behavior of the GOP.

#83 | POSTED BY JPW

You always seem to argue that the GOP should act as a rubber stamp for anything Democrats want to do.

Fact is so far Democrats have failed to make a compelling case for impeachment based on the fact that public polling has barely moved since this process started. Heck, some House Democrats are reportedly getting cold feet over this. If Schiff can't even manage to rally his own party (I guess those House members who are opposed to this are acting shamefully too?).....

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 09:46 AM | Reply

#84 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Isn't it possible that releasing the information regarding the WB's first-hand knowledge could lead to outing him/her? If the IG says this person did in fact have some first-hand knowledge what position are you in to question it? It is entirely possible that the WB gave first-hand information in a follow up conversation and not on the form because they were afraid it would give them away.

#86 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 09:50 AM | Reply

Yet the Schiff aid failed to instruct the WB to disclose their communication on the form as was required. Then there is the problem with the fact that the WB checked off a box on the form indicating firsthand knowledge but never once indicated firsthand knowledge in the complaint itself. In the absence of firsthand knowledge the complaint never would have even been looked into in the first place. If this is truly a serious impeachment those issues absolutely will come up and they are legitimate in the broad sense of trying to remove POTUS from office via this process.
#72 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Both your first and second sentences are false.

We know from the IG's letter to the Director of National Intelligence on Aug 26 about the whistleblower complaint that the wb did disclose communication with both Schiff and Richard Burr's office. Why do you think that his contact with Schiff's staff is constantly being brought up by the GOP and their waterboys such as yourself but you never hear mention of his contact with the Republican Senator's staff?

We also know from the IG's assessment of the wb complaint from Sep 30, the same assessment that revealed that the wb had checked that direct knowledge box, that the IG determined that the wb had "official and
authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct."

I don't think that you can backup the accuracy of your third sentence. In fact, if what you claim was true then what's the point of having Government audits or an Inspector General's office at all if you are going to take the stance that second hand reports are unworthy of review because what else is an auditor other than a 2nd hand researcher?

And I sure do hope that the issues you mention come up because the answers are already known and it shows that those of you who keep repeating them over and over are liars or are ignorant of the findings of the IG's office.

#87 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-12-04 09:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#85 -- Jeff

Nobody thinks they should be a rubber stamp, but come on - every single one of them sees no issue with what has happened? There were even some Democrats that voted for the impeachment inquiry of Clinton, but you are telling me that there is not one GOP member that thinks there is an issue here? The problem is that the current group of GOP is party before country. Even Lindsay Graham has made a hypocrite of himself.

#88 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 09:53 AM | Reply

Except the IG provides ZERO examples of first-hand account from the WB.

Parts of the complaint are redacted which is likely where the firsthand information lies considering the complainant is a CIA official. Do you actually use common sense and rational thought at all these days?

Unless you want to call the IG a liar, I suggest you take his word as gold due to the very nature of his position and the fact no one has fired him for being untruthful.

#89 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 10:01 AM | Reply

Jeff seems to care a lot more about politics than he does about the POTUS being a flaming bag of ---- Putin left on our doorstep.

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 10:01 AM | Reply

Fact is so far Democrats have failed to make a compelling case for impeachment based on the fact that public polling has barely moved since this process started.

Thank gawd we don't make every decision based on polling. BTW, based on 538, the majority of Americans still want Trump impeached, convicted and removed from office even before the House has completely laid out its case nor drawn any formal articles.

This is unprecedented in US history.

#91 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 10:06 AM | Reply

Fact is so far Democrats have failed to make a compelling case for impeachment based on the fact that public polling has barely moved since this process started. #85 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Your boy Trump has told us over and over that the polls are wrong and can't be trusted. Are you trying to now tell us that he is wrong?

#92 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-12-04 10:19 AM | Reply

It is entirely possible that the WB gave first-hand information in a follow up conversation and not on the form because they were afraid it would give them away.

#86 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

That is pure speculation. We've been presented with ZERO evidence of any firsthand knowledge by the WB.

Nobody thinks they should be a rubber stamp, but come on - every single one of them sees no issue with what has happened? There were even some Democrats that voted for the impeachment inquiry of Clinton, but you are telling me that there is not one GOP member that thinks there is an issue here? The problem is that the current group of GOP is party before country. Even Lindsay Graham has made a hypocrite of himself.

#88 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

The only bipartisanship going on here is opposition to this. 2 Democrats are on record as being opposed and rumors are swirling that others are getting cold feet.

Parts of the complaint are redacted which is likely where the firsthand information lies considering the complainant is a CIA official.

Again, that is totally speculative, Tony.

Jeff seems to care a lot more about politics than he does about the POTUS being a flaming bag of ---- Putin left on our doorstep.

#90 | POSTED BY JOE

I've already said, multiple times, that Trump's actions are potentially impeachable. I am pointing out the obstacles that lay before this if this impeachment push ever becomes real.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:19 AM | Reply

Parts of the complaint are redacted which is likely where the firsthand information lies...the IG doesn't even explicitly state the WB had firsthand knowledge.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:21 AM | Reply

Your boy Trump has told us over and over that the polls are wrong and can't be trusted. Are you trying to now tell us that he is wrong?

#92 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

What I'm saying is that Democrats continue to push this at their own peril. Impeachment is a political remedy and on the political side of this process they are failing so far.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:22 AM | Reply

I imagine we'll learn exactly what the WB directly witnessed and what was given to him/her second hand eventually.

And credible 2nd hand info isn't necessarily worthless....

#96 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 10:25 AM | Reply

The IG's office also said Monday that it had determined that the whistleblower did have some first-hand, "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct."

That is some mealy-mouthed weasely shidt.

Understand this: If Democrats manage to drag this across the finish line in the House with zero GOP votes for and a few Dem defections the process then moves to the GOP-controlled Senate and McConnell will waste no time bringing all of this to the forefront and he'll self-righteously claim to be doing so under the rubric of full transparency. His motivations will obviously be partisan but if we are truly going to go through the historically monumentous process of actually impeaching and removing a president everything must and will come out. You can't cherry-pick your way through this process all of the way to the finish line.

#97 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:28 AM | Reply

And credible 2nd hand info isn't necessarily worthless....

#96 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I agree completely. Fact is, the gist of the WB claims have been corroborated.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:29 AM | Reply

The only way the WB can actually claim any firsthand account of this is if he was listening in on the call.

If he was listening in, he wasn't authorized to do so and most certainly broke the law if he did.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:32 AM | Reply

That is pure speculation. We've been presented with ZERO evidence of any firsthand knowledge by the WB.
#93 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why do you keep telling that lie when the IG has validated that the wb did provide first hand knowledge? Do you reject the IG's assessment? What information do you have that demonstrates the IG is wrong?

I am pointing out the obstacles that lay before this if this impeachment push ever becomes real.
#93 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No, what you are doing is repeating the GOP lies about the complaint.

#100 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-12-04 10:33 AM | Reply

#99

The call was not the sole basis of the complaint, it was the entirety of the scheme of withholding congressionally authorized funding from being legally disbursed. The call only confirmed the probable underlying reason the funds were not legally disbursed as they normally were.

#101 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 10:36 AM | Reply

The only way the WB can actually claim any firsthand account of this is if he was listening in on the call.
If he was listening in, he wasn't authorized to do so and most certainly broke the law if he did.
#99 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Your claim is not consistent with the IG's assessment which explicitly states the wb has both authorization and that he complain contains both first hand and second hand knowledge.
What information can you provide that shows the IG assessment is wrong?

#102 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-12-04 10:37 AM | Reply

I've already said, multiple times, that Trump's actions are potentially impeachable.

Wow, way to go out on a limb. Until you start actively saying this POS needs to go, nobody is going to respect you.

#103 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 10:40 AM | Reply

Wow, way to go out on a limb. Until you start actively saying this POS needs to go, nobody is going to respect you.

#103 | POSTED BY JOE

I am not seeking your respect, Joe.

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:43 AM | Reply

No, what you are doing is repeating the GOP lies about the complaint.

#100 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

I'm pointing out that this will come up in a Senate trial and there won't be a way to wiggle out of it.

That is political reality.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:44 AM | Reply

I just read through this thread and this is what I am gathering is Jeff's argument.

The impeachment inquiry is a sham because the whistleblower did not testify.

The whistleblower is a "crucial material witness" who "actually didn't personally witness anything" and "100% of what was cited [in the whistleblower report] was at-best secondhand info".

Based upon his argument, it seems like Jeff is claiming that any whistleblower complaint that the IG gets he has to throw away if the "firsthand knowledge" box is not checked. And the fact that the IG actually LOOKED at the complaint and potentially event independently corroborated some of its claims (from people WITH firsthand knowledge) SHOWS that the process is irrevocably tainted and needs to be fully investigated be for impeachment can proceed.

Then, Jeff claims that the fact that the whistleblower contacted the Intelligence Committee Chairman's office and asked for advice on how to properly file the complaint is somehow underhanded and ALSO taints the process.

His first point is very effectively countered by his second being BS (you are not a "crucial material witness" if you only have "at-best secondhand info" so there is no need for you to testify).

The third point is also easily knocked down. The IG is not supposed to forward a complaint on without firsthand knowledge confirming it but, there is no requirement that the first-hand knowledge COME FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER. There are MANY points that the IG could have verified. The easiest probably being whether or not the call was in the secure system. And, the whistleblower is not involved in THIS process. The whistleblower's "process" ends when the whistleblower report is filed. This is just the IG. If you want the IG to testify, feel free to call them. But this is no basis for the whistleblower to testify.

As for your fourth point, I see nowhere that says it is improper or violates the process for the whistleblower to contact a congressional committee. The only point where it affects the process is where, on the "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form they are supposed to disclose if they have "filed your complaint with any other entity, including other Inspector General offices, and/or Members of Congress". But, I have seen no indication that in the course of their contact with Schiff's office they "filed [their] complaint", so I do not see how "process" was violated by them not disclosing their contact.

But regardless, Jeff makes a good point. Impeachement is a rare process. Which MEANS that there is VERY LITTLE ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT to follow. You claim that the "process" is being subverted, but there really IS no "process" to subvert. BECAUSE this is so rare, they have to sort of make it up as they go.

AND this is also not a legal proceeding. It is a political proceeding that, because of lack of precedent, pretty much is only constrained by what is written about it in the constitution. There is no real precedent on what is "admissible" or not, or that any "taint" (by your subjective definition) in the process would require that Trump get off on a technicality.

Basically, you are making up excuses for Trump as you go (and actually fabricating supposed violations of process that are not evident) and trying to discredit the whole proceeding by pretending that your excuses have any sort of constitutional foundation or foundation in precedent.

#106 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 10:44 AM | Reply

-We've been presented with ZERO evidence of any firsthand knowledge by the WB.

meaning you and I haven't been presented with any evidence.

The IG claims there IS firsthand evidence....do you agree with that?

#107 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 10:44 AM | Reply

Until you start actively saying this POS needs to go, nobody is going to respect you.

#103 | POSTED BY JOE

Think about how ridiculous that sentence is.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:45 AM | Reply

The IG claims there IS firsthand evidence....do you agree with that?

#107 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Maybe. The IG has yet to disclose what, specific firsthand knowledge the WB had.

Again, I'm addressing this from a political angle. If Dems push forward (I don't think they will) and get the votes they need for impeachment, this stuff is going to get hammered in a Senate trial.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:48 AM | Reply

Sorry, i should have said "nobody who isn't a moron or a traitor" will respect you.

#110 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 10:50 AM | Reply

-I am not seeking your respect, Joe.

is anybody seeking Joe's respect?

If jeff cared about that, he would have caved on this issue a long long time ago.

#111 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 10:51 AM | Reply

Sorry, i should have said "nobody who isn't a moron or a traitor" will respect you.

#110 | POSTED BY JOE

Actually, what you said was, "agree with me or nobody will respect you."

The hubris is astonishing but not surprising given your posting history.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:52 AM | Reply

I clarified. You can accept that or live in the past. Looks like you've made your choice.

#113 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 10:53 AM | Reply

is anybody seeking Joe's respect?
If jeff cared about that, he would have caved on this issue a long long time ago.
#111 | POSTED BY EBERLY

As Ferris Bueller said, "You can't respect somebody who kisses your ass. It's not possible."

I clarified. You can accept that or live in the past. Looks like you've made your choice.

#113 | POSTED BY JOE

You didn't clarify anything other than to cement your status as a colossal -------. But we knew that already.

Here's a hint: Opinion isn't fact and you are not the smartest person on the planet.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jeff, you'll just have to learn to live without lilJoe's respect.

How will you ever manage?

#115 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 10:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#109 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You would be first in line beating the drum of impeachment against Obama had he done this. I will remember how you have acted in this instance and remind you the next time you are having a fit over what the next Dem POTUS does. Because there will a Dem in office again at some point, and you are making it okay for them to bribe a foreign nation for personal gain. Thanks GOP, you built that.

#116 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 11:01 AM | Reply

If you are a person who pays attention and the strongest condemnation of our serial sex offender "president" you can conjure up is "his actions are potentially impeachable," you deserve to be pointed and laughed at. Yuk it up all you want, but that's reality.

#117 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 11:03 AM | Reply

-The IG has yet to disclose what, specific firsthand knowledge the WB had.

It depends on the evidence itself.

If it's the bad stuff we've been told and it's credible, fine. But if it's flimsy......the political fallout could be really bad. I don't want that.

I want Trump out, be it through an impeachment process or losing re-election.....I think the former is too risky....and so does the leadership in the democratic party, IMO.

#118 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 11:05 AM | Reply

--is anybody seeking Joe's respect?

I can't imagine why anyone would care about an anonymous blogger's respect. Some people here have rather oversized egos and a neurotic obsession for their "reputation" on a small blog.

#119 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-04 11:07 AM | Reply

Justagirl,

I never once called for Obama to be impeached, not even after it was revealed he was spying on reporters.

#120 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:11 AM | Reply

#116 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

I am on record saying this is impeachable.

From there I look at the political path toward making that a reality and so far the Democrats aren't faring well. In fact they are faring very poorly.

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:12 AM | Reply

Fact is so far Democrats have failed to make a compelling case for impeachment based on the fact that public polling has barely moved since this process started.

Yawn.

This isn't a reality teevee show, Jeff. Stop treating it as such.

#122 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:12 AM | Reply

Jeff, you'll just have to learn to live without lilJoe's respect.
How will you ever manage?

#115 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I don't know. It will be rough but I guess I'll just muddle through. Some know-it-all in his '30's who claims I don't have his respect....gosh, I'm crushed by golly.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:14 AM | Reply

This isn't a reality teevee show, Jeff. Stop treating it as such.

#122 | POSTED BY JPW

Impeachment is a political remedy. That means optics matter. Fairly or not.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:15 AM | Reply

This isn't a reality teevee show, Jeff. Stop treating it as such.

#122 | POSTED BY JPW

He is part of the (R)ealityTV party with a (R)eality TV president. When do we get to vote Trump off the island???

#125 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 11:18 AM | Reply

Impeachment is a political remedy. That means optics matter. Fairly or not.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ

Yawn.

Anybody who depends on "likes" in this matter has their head buried up their ass.

#126 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:20 AM | Reply

Anybody who depends on "likes" in this matter has their head buried up their ass.

#126 | POSTED BY JPW

You have your head buried in the sand as to how this process works.

If you cannot convince the public there is no way in hell you are going to convince opposition members in the Senate. That is reality.

#127 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:22 AM | Reply

You always seem to argue that the GOP should act as a rubber stamp for anything Democrats want to do.

That isn't remotely close to what I've ever argued.

I've argued the GOP shouldn't be such a pile of garbage. If they had a real argument against any of this, I'd be all ears.

But all they have is "yeah he did it, not impeachable" and slinging so much mud that it's a full time job to sift through it all and understand what's really going on.

#128 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you cannot convince the public there is no way in hell you are going to convince opposition members in the Senate. That is reality.

#127 | Posted by JeffJ

LOL

Oh god I never figured you for this childishly innocent and naive.

The GOP members of the House and Senate have made it clear they won't be convinced no matter what.

The extremity of the GOP is a mirror of the voters who put them there.

#129 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:24 AM | Reply

Democrats are a LONG way away from the finish line on this and their efforts thus far have gone nowhere. At some point they are going to reach a fork in the road - keep running or cut their losses and bail out.

#130 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:24 AM | Reply

The GOP members of the House and Senate have made it clear they won't be convinced no matter what.
The extremity of the GOP is a mirror of the voters who put them there.

#129 | POSTED BY JPW

They are political animals, first and foremost. If public sentiment were to drastically turn they'd start jumping ship because they care far more about being re-elected than protecting a buffoon who many of them privately can't stand.

Removing a president from office involves hurdling a high bar. That is by design. Democrats aren't even close at this point.

#131 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:27 AM | Reply

Jeff seems to care a lot more about politics than he does about the POTUS being a flaming bag of ---- Putin left on our doorstep.

#90 | Posted by JOE

That's what's becoming most exhausting about this IMO.

Politics are so polarized it's all but impossible for the information regarding Trump's conduct to be assessed independently of his party.

And 30% of the electorate and all of the GOP members of Congress are simply saying no while sticking their fingers in their ears because Trump is a Republican.

It's pathetic.

#132 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democrats aren't even close at this point.

#131 | Posted by JeffJ

Only because people making mealy mouthed arguments like what you're sharting onto this thread.

The electorate is as spineless and partisan as Congress.

When Trump remains and gets elected despite everything he's done, we will have earned the demise of our country.

#133 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:29 AM | Reply

gets reelected...

#134 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:30 AM | Reply

You always seem to argue that the GOP should act as a rubber stamp for anything Democrats want to do.
------
That isn't remotely close to what I've ever argued....

#128 | POSTED BY JPW A

My recollection is that you were outraged that the GOP conspired to make Obama a 1-term president by opposing his agenda but felt #TheResistance was totally righteous.

If my recollection is wrong I will gladly retract.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#133 | POSTED BY JPW

LOL Jpw you can't be serious, you can't be going through life thinking like this.

Trump hasn't done anything, and I mean anything any different than any other President (except his glorious tweets)

For people to claim the republic will fall because of him, or even Obama is simply absurd, nad lacks any sense of the real reality the country faces.

#136 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-04 11:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

My recollection is that you were outraged that the GOP conspired to make Obama a 1-term president by opposing his agenda but felt #TheResistance was totally righteous.

Please put the goal posts back where you found them.

Thanks.

#137 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:34 AM | Reply

Trump hasn't done anything, and I mean anything any different than any other President

Dude, blow it out your disingenuous, lying ass.

For people to claim the republic will fall because of him

Oh, we're not going to turn int a third world wasteland over night.

But everything that provided the stability and backdrop for the past half a century's worth of prosperity will be wiped clean.

The upper classes have shown that they're never happy with how much they have and Trump is the death knell of any peaceful means of changing that. The GOP's compliance in his misconduct shows that half our government gives two schits about the electorate that put them there.

So yeah, this country as 90% of us know it will be vanishing over the next several years.

#138 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:37 AM | Reply

Removing a president from office involves hurdling a high bar. That is by design. Democrats aren't even close at this point.

#131 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Trump is not going to be removed. As I have said before, there is NOTHING that conservatives will think a conservative president can do that is "impeachable". "Nothing is impeachable" is a "high bar" that can never be reached. And, I don't think this is really new. If Nixon had just ignored Goldwater, I believe he would have finished out his whole term as well. Conservatives are never going to put the country ahead of their party.

So, at this point, the purpose of this is as a forum to display to the public the different ways in which their president is abusing the power of his office. And also to hold him accountable to PREVENT him from trying to corruptly influence the election in other ways. And, once they vote on impeachment and later removal, it will put congressional Republicans (in the House and the Senate) on record as supporting and enabling Trump's corruption and the ways in which he is undermining our elections.

So, is it a "circus". In the respect that its ultimate outcome is predetermined, yes.

But, are they following the right process? Yes. To make the "circus" most effective, Democrats have to follow the correct process. And they have. And they will continue to do so. And they also know it is a risk that could backfire on them politically, so they are falling back on "doing the right thing", so regardless of the outcome they know they will be able to live with themselves knowing they put their best effort forward in defending the country. Too bad conservatives will not be able to say the same.

#139 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democrats aren't even close at this point.

#131 | Posted by JeffJ

Only because people making mealy mouthed arguments like what you're sharting onto this thread.

No, it's because they've failed to make a case that is convincing enough to move the needle in their direction. They want to have it without putting in the requisite work. Impeachment and removal is difficult by design. You don't get there by presenting a case and then brow-beating those who are skeptical. Heck, Bill Clinton committed perjury, was slapped with a contempt of court violation, hit with a $100k+ fine and disbarred for 5 years and the public STILL didn't view that as sufficient grounds for having him removed by the Senate. With Nixon it took roughly 2 years of building a case before the public was sufficiently swayed.

I personally think that what Trump was trying to do was unsavory enough to warrant impeachment. I am not the one who needs convincing. It's the rest of the public that needs convincing. Maybe had Democrats and their allies not bleated on about non-existent collusion for 2 and half years they'd have more credibility now.

#140 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Conservatives are never going to put the country ahead of their party.

The irony of it all being the GOP is the country who whines the most about the power of government.

Yet, when they get the chance to reign it in some they balk because the use and abuse is their own man's.

This should be a black and white issue to anybody with an ounce of integrity and character. Sadly, we're seeing that THAT is the bar that is too high to ever be reached.

#141 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:41 AM | Reply

#138 | POSTED BY JPW

I agree. And so do others...

Gerhardt ended his written opening statement with, "If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution's carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil. No one, not even the president, is beyond the reach of our Constitution and our laws."

#142 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

No, it's because they've failed to make a case that is convincing enough to move the needle in their direction.

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest.

Until you stop parroting this stupid ass argument/talking point I'm done.

#143 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:41 AM | Reply

Please put the goal posts back where you found them.
Thanks.

#137 | POSTED BY JPW

I wasn't moving any goalposts.

I was recalling how you have reacted to reporting that the GOP conspired to make Obama a 1-termer vis a vis staunchly opposing his agenda vs how you reacted to #TheResistance.

#144 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution's carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil.

I guess it's no surprise that that is happening at the hands of desperate, pathetic people who are on the losing end of the battle of ideas.

They'll enforce their world view whether the people want it or not.

Even if it means burning down the country they profess to love so much.

#145 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:44 AM | Reply

Until you stop parroting this stupid ass argument/talking point I'm done.

#143 | POSTED BY JPW

Have you seen polling on this?

It's not a "stupid ass argument/talking point". It's reality. Pull your stubborn head out of the sand.

#146 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:45 AM | Reply

I wasn't moving any goalposts.

Yeah, you did. You dumped a truck load of straw on the thread about me expecting the GOP to be a rubber stamp.

I said that that was inaccurate so you moved on to another unrelated assumption.

It's textbook goal post moving.

#147 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:45 AM | Reply

#145 FFS - pick up a fricking history book.

#148 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:45 AM | Reply

#147 I also said if my recollection is inaccurate then I'll retract.

#149 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:47 AM | Reply

#145 | POSTED BY JPW

It is a salient point. Conservatives believe that nothing that a conservative president could do is impeachable, so what is the point of having it in the constitution? Impeachment becomes effectively null and void as a threat, and one of the major checks and balances that protect the equilibrium of our government disappears.

How long can our government survive when we allow the basic foundation that allows its success (checks and balances) to disintegrate?

#150 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 11:48 AM | Reply

It's not a "stupid ass argument/talking point". It's reality. Pull your stubborn head out of the sand.

#146 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes, it is.

Public opinion means nothing in light of the facts we know.

Trump committed impeachable offenses. Period. Full stop.

Anything beyond that is irrelevant except to those who want to hide their reality teevee DOTUS behind reality teevee arguments.

Sorry, but this is black and white to me because it's far too serious to be anything else. As such, I'll vehemently oppose any argument that muddies water because the person making it lacks the spine to draw a line in the sand.

And yes, that goes for Dems in swing districts who are thinking more about their positions than the greater good.

#151 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#145 FFS - pick up a fricking history book.

#148 | Posted by JeffJ

And what exactly do you think I should be looking for?

#152 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:49 AM | Reply

Do you have another example of a corrupt party refusing to remove their corrupt POTUS simply because he's theirs?

Do you have another example of an extremist party packing courts with their extremist, unqualified judges?

We have an example of the wealth inequality and societal condition when a small small amount controls everything, including government.

Here's a hint: it sucked. Bad. It isn't something you should long to return to.

#153 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 11:54 AM | Reply

And what exactly do you think I should be looking for?

#152 | POSTED BY JPW

Prior presidential misdeeds that were worse than this but didn't even trigger an impeachment inquiry. I say that only to counter your hyperbolic claim that if Trump isn't removed then it's the end of our republic.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't.

Public opinion means nothing in light of the facts we know.

If you want impeachment to actually happen, public opinion means everything.

Trump committed impeachable offenses. Period. Full stop.

Agreed.

Anything beyond that is irrelevant except to those who want to hide their reality teevee DOTUS behind reality teevee arguments

I'm trying to get you to understand what needs to take place in order to get impeachment across the finish line (and we haven't even gotten to the hurdles facing removal). Bottom line, Democrats have to rally the public behind it. Their half-assed one-sided approach is only hurting their cause. Putting a hyper-partisan like Schiff in charge was a colossal mistake and it's one I don't think Nadler can dig them out of. Impeachment is difficult. That's by design. It was never meant to be used as a tool for policy disputes (I'm not claiming that is what is happening here). That's why the bar was set so high.

No amount of self-righteousness from you is going to change political reality which is what I'm trying to get you to understand. You seem to think that I'm on the opposite side of the fence as you are on this. I'm not. I'm simply pointing out all of the obstacles that need to be hurdled for this to have a chance at success.

#154 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 12:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Have you seen polling on this?

Washington, DC, December 4, 2019 - Ipsos and FiveThirtyEight have just launched the first wave of our ground-breaking tracker of public opinion around the Trump impeachment saga.

In our first wave of research, we find that a majority of Americans believe President Trump has committed an impeachable offense and are following the hearings closely. Furthermore, most Americans believe that President Trump did engage in most of the alleged actions (asking for an investigation of Biden, withholding aid, and covering up information). Additionally, majorities believe that if these things occurred, they are inappropriate.

www.ipsos.com

Perhaps it's YOU who need to look at the polling Jeff for it isn't saying what you think it is.

#155 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 12:05 PM | Reply

Prior presidential misdeeds that were worse than this but didn't even trigger an impeachment inquiry. I say that only to counter your hyperbolic claim that if Trump isn't removed then it's the end of our republic.

Such as?

If you want impeachment to actually happen, public opinion means everything.

Only if you lack the spine to call it as it is.

No amount of self-righteousness from you is going to change political reality which is what I'm trying to get you to understand.

I think you're assuming I don't understand.

I understand it perfectly well.

I just think we're past the point of hemming and hawing about details. Turning it into a game of likes and upvotes is what our vapid, stupid society is used to doing with everything. And it's that action that I am fully 110% against.

#156 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 12:10 PM | Reply

No amount of self-righteousness from you is going to change political reality which is what I'm trying to get you to understand. You seem to think that I'm on the opposite side of the fence as you are on this. I'm not. I'm simply pointing out all of the obstacles that need to be hurdled for this to have a chance at success.

You are simply pontificating from the bubble you live in, wholly divorced from what the majority of Americans actually think and believe. Never in the history of impeachment has a majority of the public felt that the President had committed impeachable acts at this stage of the inquiry.

I'm going to make a prediction that I believe will happen. There will come a point in the near future when Americans wanting to see Trump impeached will be called to take to the streets across America and we will witness an unprecedented acknowledgement of support for Trump's conviction, even in red states.

This is the one thing the GOP hasn't counted on and it's the true public opinion as expressed by their constituents. It will take millions upon millions of Americans gathering during the winter, calling for the conviction of this President to effectively move the needle. No one should expect anything less than massive public displays to have any effect at all upon the GOP, but peaceful, mass demonstrations may just be the ticket.

#157 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm going to make a prediction that I believe will happen. There will come a point in the near future when Americans wanting to see Trump impeached will be called to take to the streets across America and we will witness an unprecedented acknowledgement of support for Trump's conviction, even in red states."

Before when? February or March 2020?

#158 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 12:20 PM | Reply

#158

Probably January before the Senate trial begins or perhaps during the holiday break window.

It will also have the secondary effect of bringing the disparate factions together in a common cause for something more important than choosing the next Democratic presidential nominee.

#159 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 12:26 PM | Reply

Prior presidential misdeeds that were worse than this but didn't even trigger an impeachment inquiry. I say that only to counter your hyperbolic claim that if Trump isn't removed then it's the end of our republic.

#154 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Please, elucidate us. What do you think was worse than soliciting a bribe from a foreign government for personal gain in order to undermine a political opponent (and thereby an upcoming election)?

Teapot Dome? A cabinet member ended up in jail. What further do you think should have happened there? Was there evidence the President was directly involved?

Bay of Pigs? It was stupid, and possibly some tangential actions were illegal, but it was a president making bad decisions, not a president acting corruptly for personal gain.

Iran-Contra? Same as Bay of Pigs. More that was illegal, but where was the personal gain? Again, more "bad decisions by the president" rather than corrupt actions by the PERSON who was president to abuse the power of his office.

Japanese Internment? Again... where is the personal gain. It was despicable and abhorrent, but we don't impeach for bad decisions by a president. We impeach for corruption and abuse of power.

Spying on Reporters? Also bad decisions by a president in his official capacity. And no personal gain. A president, in his official capacity, has an interest in preventing leaks from the government. Was it wrong? Yes. But impeachable? No.

Savings and Loan? Financial crisis? You need to show where people acted corruptly for personal benefit, as opposed to them just making poor decisions in their official position.

#160 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 12:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yeah I'm still waiting for what I'm supposed to be looking for in a history nylon FFS.

#161 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 12:30 PM | Reply

#159 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Have to give you credit. Brave of you to make a concrete prediction that will be easily proven or disproven.

Personally think you are wrong, though. This is not the type of thing Americans will take to the streets for. I think the GOP will have some defections when impeachment is voted on. They will also have some unexpected defections in the Senate voting for removal, but not enough to pass the threshold of 67.

Then, in November, Trump will be soundly beaten and the GOP congresscritters will take it pretty hard as well, having tied themselves so closely to Trump throughout this process. I think they will also be hit pretty hard at the state and local level, allowing Democrats to undo a lot of the gerrymandering that conservatives have been using to stay in power. I am hoping that we see a wave of "bipartisan redistricting commissions" and whatnot and that liberals don't fall for the temptation to gerrymander their own hold on power, but we will see what happens.

#162 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 12:36 PM | Reply

There will come a point in the near future when Americans wanting to see Trump impeached will be called to take to the streets across America and we will witness an unprecedented acknowledgement of support for Trump's conviction, even in red states.

There's way too much economic insecurity in America for people to risk their jobs to do that. You're living in a fantasy land.

I'd love to be wrong on this.

#163 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 12:50 PM | Reply

Personally think you are wrong, though. This is not the type of thing Americans will take to the streets for.

I'm not even sure it's that.

I don't think your average American knows enough concrete info to be lured out into the streets to protest.

The GOP's disinformation and mud kicking campaign has been far too successful.

#164 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 12:55 PM | Reply

I'd love to see a huge outpouring of support for impeachment in January 2020, on/around the 3 year anniversary of the 2017 Women's March, but we'll see.

#165 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 12:55 PM | Reply

There's way too much economic insecurity in America for people to risk their jobs to do that.

There's no risk involved. It would probably take place on a Saturday, a great date being January 4th, still during the holiday break.

And it creates a an interesting slogan: 1-4 All and All For One - The Power of the People United

Again, this is based on the House passing articles before Xmas break and before the Senate gavels in for a trial.

Another great date would be MLK's holiday (1/21) too which is celebrated by many as a day of service. What could be a better service to this nation right now than holding the President responsible for his illicit actions?

#166 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 01:01 PM | Reply

Yeah I'm still waiting for what I'm supposed to be looking for in a history nylon FFS.

#161 | POSTED BY JPW

Here's a short list:

Teapot Dome
Internment of Japanese citizens
Bay of Pigs
Iran Contra
Spying on reporters

ALL of those things were far worse than this. In each case no impeachment inquiry was ever even conducted, yet our country survived.

I point this out only to counter your absurd hyperbole that if Trump isn't removed from office over this that it will be the beginning of the end of our republic.

#167 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If there is not an outpouring of support and folks taking to the streets, then it's a reality that polls lie.

Polls right now tell us folks support impeachment, that Trump has done enough wrong to warrant impeachment and that they believe the current assertions of his actions.

So....why not take to the streets if given the opportunity?

Because it's not that important of an issue to them. I'm not saying this won't happen but rather if it doesn't happen the way Tony is predicting, it's because Americans might believe Trump is wrong and he has committed illegal and corrupt acts, but they really don't care all that much.

#168 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 01:03 PM | Reply

Never in the history of impeachment has a majority of the public felt that the President had committed impeachable acts at this stage of the inquiry.

I agree, Tony. Yet when I point this out and make the claim that the Democrats have WAY more work to do people lose their ----.

#169 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:04 PM | Reply

Move On is pushing this:

"Nobody Is Above the Law" Events

Nobody Is Above the Law. That's why we're calling on Congress to Impeach & Remove Donald Trump.

The night before the House of Representatives takes a somber vote to impeach Trump, we'll head to every congressional office and public square to declare that Nobody Is Above the Law as representatives finalize their positions and senators look on.
Join this historic nationwide mobilization on the eve of Trump's impeachment vote: RSVP for an event near you or sign up to host one. Events will be visible, family-friendly, public gatherings to demonstrate to our lawmakers that their constituents are behind them to defend the Constitution"and that Trump has left them no alternative to uphold their oath of office but to support impeachment and removal.

www.impeach.org

#170 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 01:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

ALL of those things were far worse than this. In each case no impeachment inquiry was ever even conducted, yet our country survived.

LOL see #160.

He read you like a book.

#171 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 01:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And here's the reason why moving opinion is so very important and vital, especially before the 2020 elections:

Giuliani, Facing Scrutiny, Travels to Europe to Interview Ukrainians

Even as Democrats intensified their scrutiny this week of Rudolph W. Giuliani's role in the pressure campaign against the Ukrainian government that is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry, Mr. Giuliani has been in Europe continuing his efforts to shift the focus to purported wrongdoing by President Trump's political rivals.

www.nytimes.com

Trump is still trying to use foreign influence to game his re-election next fall, even as impeachment proceedings rage on in DC.

Who in their right mind should believe that Trump won't try to illegally taint the electoral process and that it will be a fair electoral result?

#172 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 01:09 PM | Reply

Spread th word:

"Nobody Is Above the Law" " Partners

Below are some of the organizations supporting the Impeach & Remove rapid response event plan.

www.impeach.org

#173 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 01:10 PM | Reply

I point this out only to counter your absurd hyperbole that if Trump isn't removed from office over this that it will be the beginning of the end of our republic.

#167 | Posted by JeffJ

Trump is the closest thing we've had to a dictator. Hell, his legal arguments are that he IS a dictator (although they use nicer terminology) and shouldn't be investigated for that reason.

Trump is abusing the office for his personal gain, both monetarily and otherwise.

And there's more to it than simply not being removed.

It's the double hit of unchecked corruption and policies that gut everything of value our government provides to the average citizen. Corporations will rule completely behind their corrupt orange figurehead.

#174 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There's no risk involved. It would probably take place on a Saturday,

More than 1/3 of Americans work on weekends. Of course some people would march, but it would take a general strike to get anything to happen. And that's what i'm saying won't happen.

But aside from that, i think many Americans have grown numb to this POS president and are content to express whatever feelings they may have into the void of their smartphone.

#175 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 01:18 PM | Reply

"Trump is still trying to use foreign influence to game his re-election next fall, even as impeachment proceedings rage on in DC."

Stop him now, or rue the day:

"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions... to mislead public opinion." " George Washington

#176 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 01:25 PM | Reply

"Trump is the closest thing we've had to a dictator."

"www.marketwatch.com"

#177 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 01:28 PM | Reply

He read you like a book.

#171 | POSTED BY JPW

He diminished massive scandals.

Do you honestly think this even remotely approaches Japanese internment?

Trump is the closest thing we've had to a dictator.

That's pure BS. Again, pick up a fricking history book. W was more of a dictator than Trump and that's a recent example. Trump is bad in so many ways but you are now approaching Zed territory with your hyperbole.

#178 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 01:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Do you honestly think this even remotely approaches Japanese internment?

Yes.

Using the full power and force of the Presidency and US government for personal gain? It's worse. Absolutely worse.

#179 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 01:42 PM | Reply

That's pure BS. Again, pick up a fricking history book.

You keep saying this yet are showing a rather shallow understanding yourself.

Or is it simply reflexive? You've been taught to say those are the worst so you keep saying it like a record spinning and spinning and spinning.

And how was W more of a dictator?

What marks a dictator as different from an overreaching POTUS/prime minister/whatever top guy there is the use of government and it's power for personal gain.

Trump has done that for all ~4 years he's been in office.

Yet still you chirp "pick up a frickin' book!".

But none of this matters. Because the next argument will be "but whuttabout Obama's book? That's personally benefiting from being POTUS" and we'll move on to the next obtuse argument.

Because what this boils down to is most people, other than religious zealots, don't want to acknowledge they're living what will be historically viewed as a bad bad time. There's a simple subconscious defense mechanism that refuses to allow people to see that bigger picture.

#180 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm in the Joyce Vance camp:

Q#1: Why aren't these actions impeachable?

Q#2: What would be?

#181 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:48 PM | Reply

Do you honestly think this even remotely approaches Japanese internment?

FFS Jeff, where is your mind? Interring the Japanese was morally abhorrent but it was done out of fear for 5th columnists operating for Japan inside the US during war. IE. the decision was based on protecting America, not because Roosevelt was drunk on power nor stood to personally benefit from doing so.

W didn't do anything approaching Trump even though he was a horrid leader. He didn't make decisions that benefited only him and not based on what he believed was in America's best interests as filtered through Cheney, Rumsfeld and others that he took counsel from.

#182 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 01:49 PM | Reply

Q#1: Why aren't these actions impeachable?

Q#2: What would be?

#181 | Posted by Danforth

I've asked several Trumpers here Q#2 repeatedly.

They never answer and instead go silent on the thread.

#183 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 01:52 PM | Reply

I'm so old I remember when Jeffry used to pretend to be a non-partisan fence sitter.
Looks like the bloom is off of that stinky rose.

#184 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-12-04 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Using the full power and force of the Presidency and US government for personal gain? It's worse. Absolutely worse.

#179 | POSTED BY JPW

Wow. So, that is worse than 120,000 people being dragged out of their homes without due process and being tossed into internment camps simply due to their race?

The lack of perspective on this blog is absolutely astounding.

#185 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:23 PM | Reply

Do you honestly think this even remotely approaches Japanese internment?

#178 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Are you saying you think Roosevelt should have gotten impeached over Japanese internment? On what basis do you think it qualifies as "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

#186 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 02:23 PM | Reply

Are you saying you think Roosevelt should have gotten impeached over Japanese internment?

What I'm saying is that it's objectively worse, far worse, than what Trump has done with Ukraine, impeachment wasn't even floated and our Republic survived just fine. JPW is saying that if Trump isn't impeached and removed over this it will be the beginning of the end of our Republic, which is flat-out absurd.

#187 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:27 PM | Reply

I remember when we expected more from our leaders than "not interring an entire race of people," but perhaps i'm just old fashioned.

#188 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 02:27 PM | Reply

What about Vietnam? Should we have impeached a president over that? Over 58,000 Americans military dead, over half a million non-American civilians. You think Japanese internment holds a candle to that body count? (BTW... I don't think we should have impeached anyone over Vietnam... because it was a bad policy decisions, not corruption)

#189 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 02:28 PM | Reply

"What I'm saying is that it's objectively worse"

So what you're really saying is Trump has done nothing so wrong that he should be convicted.

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 02:32 PM | Reply

So what you're really saying is Trump has done nothing so wrong that he should be convicted.

#190 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I'm not saying that at all.

#191 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 02:33 PM | Reply

"So, that is worse than 120,000 people being dragged out of their homes without due process and being tossed into internment camps simply due to their race?"

If we had separated the children from their parents, would that have made it an even greater crime?

#192 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 02:34 PM | Reply

"I'm not saying that at all."

Until you state the crimes Trump deserves to be convicted for, all you're saying is Trump shouldn't be convicted.

#193 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 02:35 PM | Reply

Vietnam, Japanese Internment, etc...those are bad comparisons.

If there was evidence of a president who made those decisions based on corruption and personal gain of some sort (like re-election) then fine.

Maybe there was corruption for personal gain....but lack of evidence.

BTW, you all forgot the more juicy events....WMDs-Iraq invasion, 9-11, JFK assassination....Presidents were outright accused of conspiracies to create those events.

IIRC, Roosevelt was never accused of anything of the sort....

#194 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Do you honestly think this even remotely approaches Japanese internment?"

It's a far greater threat to national security than Japanese Americans ever posed.

#195 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 02:38 PM | Reply

"Here's a short list:
Teapot Dome
Internment of Japanese citizens
Bay of Pigs
Iran Contra
Spying on reporters
ALL of those things were far worse than this."

Hmm.
Were ALL of those things also worse than Watergate?

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 02:53 PM | Reply

The lack of perspective on this blog is absolutely astounding.

#185 | Posted by JeffJ

I didn't say it wasn't bad.

But hey, go ahead and play the emotion card if that's what it takes to avoid criticizing Trump with any sort of vigor.

#197 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There's nothing for Jeff to criticize Trump over other than his public behavior.

Otherwise. Trump is Jeff's favorite president. Much more than Reagan or the Bushes.

#198 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 03:07 PM | Reply

So, that is worse than 120,000 people being dragged out of their homes without due process and being tossed into internment camps simply due to their race?

You mean ICE?

You mean the current internment camps along our southern border?

Nah. You don't care about either. You're desperately trying to protect Trump.

#199 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 03:11 PM | Reply

Do you honestly think this even remotely approaches Japanese internment?
#178 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

www.cnn.com

George Takei was sent to US internment camps during WWII. He says we're operating 'concentration camps' again

#200 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-04 03:42 PM | Reply

But hey, go ahead and play the emotion card if that's what it takes to avoid criticizing Trump with any sort of vigor.

#197 | POSTED BY JPW

The only card I'm playing is calling out your absurd hyperbole and lack of historical perspective.

And I've already said multiple times that Trump's actions with Ukraine are impeachable.

Would it make you feel better if I put in bold and all caps as if I'm screaming it from the rooftop?

#201 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 03:43 PM | Reply

"And I've already said multiple times that Trump's actions with Ukraine are impeachable."

Anything's impeachable.
Should Trump be convicted?
You'll never say.

#202 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 03:44 PM | Reply

And I've already said multiple times that Trump's actions with Ukraine are impeachable.

#201 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

But you have also said repeatedly that the Impeachment Inquiry is a sham. With the only reason I have heard you actually name being that they won't force the whistleblower to publicly testify. Even though you acknowledge that the whistleblower has no first-hand knowledge.

It is confusing why, if you think that Trump should be impeached, you think that an inquiry whose purpose is to build a case for that impeachment is a "sham".

#203 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 03:47 PM | Reply

And I've already said multiple times that Trump's actions with Ukraine are impeachable.

Would it make you feel better if I put in bold and all caps as if I'm screaming it from the rooftop?

#201 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You can do whatever you want to the text and it doesn't change the fact that you'll say that sort of thing...then spend 10x more posts arguing why everybody who supports impeachment is wrong or misconstruing things.

Your actions don't match your rhetoric. Youve been told this over and over.

#204 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 03:55 PM | Reply

And I've already said multiple times that Trump's actions with Ukraine are impeachable.
#201 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
----
But you have also said repeatedly that the Impeachment Inquiry is a sham

I think the way Schiff ran the first phase was a sham. Absolutely. We'll see if Nadler does better.

then spend 10x more posts arguing why everybody who supports impeachment is wrong or misconstruing things.

(Wearing my political analysis hat) I'm pointing out that without strong public support impeachment will likely fail. Period. Full stop. Democrats rushing through the process, cutting corners, Schiff running his phase in an extremely partisan fashion - all of those things make it increasingly difficult to build public support. Supporting impeachment isn't wrong on its own. Fair or not the process does matter.

#205 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Perhaps it's YOU who need to look at the polling Jeff for it isn't saying what you think it is. - #155 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 12:05 PM

Hey, thanks for the link that completely undercuts your premise.

ashington, DC, December 4, 2019 - In the second wave of the FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos impeachment tracker, released Wednesday, Dec 4, 2019, we find that the public hearings on impeachment do not appear to have shifted American public opinion either towards or away from the impeachable character of President Trump's actions regarding Ukraine. While there is a small increase in the number of people who believe Trump did, in fact, attempt to coerce Ukraine into investigating his political rival, that shift does not translate to changing attitudes on the inappropriateness of his actions.

A key consideration of why public opinion is not moving on impeachment may be the upcoming elections. A small majority, 51%, say that the 2020 election should decide Trump's fate while 47% say that Congress should remove him from office


Polling is saying precisely what Jeff is saying and the opposite of your version. Imagine that.
Citation: Your link.
www.ipsos.com

#206 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 05:00 PM | Reply

Polls right now tell us folks support impeachment, that Trump has done enough wrong to warrant impeachment and that they believe the current assertions of his actions. - #168 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 01:03 PM
Tony's cited poll shows the opposite to be true. I've bolded it above for your convenience.

#207 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 05:32 PM | Reply

That's within margin of error, AVI.

The nation is split, even when polled.

THAT fact should be telling, but you choose to ignore context.

Sad but telling.

#208 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 05:44 PM | Reply

I correctly point out that 2 other posters incorrectly claimed that the majority support impeachment...with numbers showing reality, and you think that I am ignoring the context?
You can't really be that stupid, can you?

#209 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 05:50 PM | Reply

#209 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Be surprised as much as you like.

You're ignoring context, much like the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee.

JFC, like shooting fish in a barrel.

#210 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 05:54 PM | Reply

2 other posters incorrectly claimed that the majority support impeachment...

#209 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Well, your numbers are for "removal" not "impeachment". According to fivethirtyeight, over 50% support impeachment, while a little under 50% support impeachment and removal.

You can't really be that stupid, can you?

Well, it seems like someone can.

#211 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 06:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well, it seems like someone can.

That's why I have the wastrel plonked. He has nothing to add but stupidity and obliviousness.

#212 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 06:40 PM | Reply

Possibly changing the rules of the Senate - THE HORRORS!

Guess you libbies conveniently forget about this:

What Senate rules did Harry Reid change?
In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.
Nuclear option - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org wiki Nuclear_option

The beauty of that change of Reids is that it came back to bite the dems in the ass, did it not?

#213 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-04 06:41 PM | Reply

According to fivethirtyeight, over 50% support impeachment, while a little under 50% support impeachment and removal. - #211 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 06:14 PM
Thanks for the additional backup that a majority do not support impeachment.

#214 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 06:44 PM | Reply

Democrats rushing through the process, cutting corners,

Because Trump is refusing to provide documents and witnesses that would take time to go through. What exactly are the Dems waiting for?

You morons are like the child who murdered their parents and then asked the courts for leniency because of being an orphan.

This impeachment is being dictated by the executive branch's refusal to follow the law without every single issue first being adjudicated all the way to the SCOTUS.

What a disingenuous POS argument.

#215 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 06:45 PM | Reply

According to fivethirtyeight, over 50% support impeachment, while a little under 50% support impeachment and removal. #211 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 06:14 PM
Since I see that you wish to try to be pedantic:
Your statement which I bolded is a lie. Over 50% support beginning the impeachment process, not support impeachment.
Why is truth so difficult for you?

#216 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 06:49 PM | Reply

That's why I have the wastrel plonked. He has nothing to add but stupidity and obliviousness. - #212 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 06:40 PM |
We know, you really dislike me pointing out your ignorant statements or blatant lies.

#217 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If this were Obama being impeached people like Jeff would have convicted him already.

#218 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-04 06:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because Trump is refusing to provide documents and witnesses that would take time to go through.

I'm talking about how Schiff ran his show.

Coaching witnesses, blocking questions for GOP House members, blocking certain witnesses from being called and rushing the entire process.

Here's a newsflash, Tony - Democrats are not as pure as driven snow. They can be, and often are, hyper-partisan.

Here's the thing you (and House Dems) need to keep in mind: The more partisan and one-sided they run their inquiry McConnell will run the Senate trial in the same manner. What goes around comes around in politics.

They can run their inquiry however they like. I am not complaining about it at all. I am pointing out, that the more lopsided and partisan it appears, the harder it will be to build public support for impeachment. Without strong public support, Democrats in red districts are likely to vote against or abstain should articles be brought. If Demcrats get zero Republican votes, and lose some votes from their own party, they are going to come out of this looking really bad even if they muster enough votes to impeach in the end. If the only bipartisanship to impeachment is opposition....it's a really bad look.

#219 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 06:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If this were Obama being impeached people like Jeff would have convicted him already.

#218 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR A

I've said on multiple occasions that what Trump did is impeachable.

Please stop gnawing at my ankles. It's grossing me out.

#220 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 06:59 PM | Reply

#220

As Laura insinuated yesterday, its not your ankles she wants to gnaw on...

#221 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-04 07:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#221 I know and that is too gross to contemplate, so I went with ankles.

#222 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 07:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Funniest -----.... reading this thread reminds me of when I was a kid. Wisgod is the old bastard next door in the wife beater, khaki shorts. knee-high nylon socks and brogans shaking his fist at me for walking on his lawn. something tells me theres a pair of (birthcontrol) bowling ball rim glasses in the mix too.. not a fashion statement for sure. You go wizzy!

#223 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-12-04 08:25 PM | Reply

According to fivethirtyeight, over 50% support impeachment, while a little under 50% support impeachment and removal. #211 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 06:14 PM
Since I see that you wish to try to be pedantic:
Your statement which I bolded is a lie. Over 50% support beginning the impeachment process, not support impeachment.
Why is truth so difficult for you?

#216 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-12-04 06:49 PM

Just 38% thought Clinton should be impeached. Why is the bar higher for Trump?

#224 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-04 09:15 PM | Reply

Just 38% thought Clinton should be impeached. Why is the bar higher for Trump?

#224 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 A

Because he's a butt hurt little whiney boy that got his feelies hurt and flew home today since some foreign dignitaries made fun of his bullschitt on a hot mic. what a thin-skinned little girl he is.

#225 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-12-04 09:23 PM | Reply

"Well, your numbers are for "removal" not "impeachment". According to fivethirtyeight, over 50% support impeachment, while a little under 50% support impeachment and removal."

How many people polled understand the impeachment process?

I mean enough to distinguish between impeachment and removal?

25%? Less?

#226 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 09:27 PM | Reply

Just 38% thought Clinton should be impeached. Why is the bar higher for Trump? - #224 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-04 09:15 PM
I don't know, why is the bar higher for Trump? Has anyone claimed that the bar is higher for Trump?

#227 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 09:36 PM | Reply

As Laura insinuated yesterday, its not your ankles she wants to gnaw on...

POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-12-04 07:52 PM | REPLY

Sorry but I doubt that Jeff possesses a Polish Sausage in his pants. More like a cheap Oscar Meyer weiner.

#228 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-04 10:29 PM | Reply

"If the only bipartisanship to impeachment is opposition....it's a really bad look."

If those opposed to impeach ignore the evidence, support Trump's unwillingness to obey subpoenas, ignore his forbidding members of his administration from obeying lawful subpoenas.....now that's a really bad look.

#229 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-05 08:57 AM | Reply

Coaching witnesses, blocking questions for GOP House members, blocking certain witnesses from being called and rushing the entire process.

Pretty strong allegation. Which witness subpoenaed is being blocked by the Democrats?

Questions about irrelevant subjects SHOULD be blocked and will be blocked by any judge trying to control a courtroom full of people who are focused on everything EXCEPT the matter at hand

#230 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-05 09:24 AM | Reply

This talk of "rushing the entire process," is totally horse manure. If we have a President breaking the law, making deals to benefit him personally using the promised military aid to Ukraine then it is imperative that the process be as fast as possible. The objections voiced by the Republicans are irrelevant to the process, all of the things they say they want are supposed to be available to them....in the Senate Trial not in the impeachment hearings. The impeachment hearings are similar to a grand jury and no defense is allowed in a grand jury hearing, that comes in the trial. The people putting forth these arguments know that but they depend on people who don't know better to repeat these arguments, it's entirely a show for their base and they laugh about it when no one is looking.

#231 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-05 10:39 AM | Reply

This talk of "rushing the entire process," is totally horse manure. If we have a President breaking the law, making deals to benefit him personally using the promised military aid to Ukraine then it is imperative that the process be as fast as possible. The objections voiced by the Republicans are irrelevant to the process, all of the things they say they want are supposed to be available to them....in the Senate Trial not in the impeachment hearings. The impeachment hearings are similar to a grand jury and no defense is allowed in a grand jury hearing, that comes in the trial. The people putting forth these arguments know that but they depend on people who don't know better to repeat these arguments, it's entirely a show for their base and they laugh about it when no one is looking.

#231 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-12-05 10:39 AM | FLAG:

So if it needs to be as fast as possible why did the Dems agree to take so much time off between August and now? I would assume if it was a national emergency that needed immediate attention like you are saying the last 10 day vacation would have been cut short.

#232 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-05 11:14 AM | Reply

The objections voiced by the Republicans are irrelevant to the process, all of the things they say they want are supposed to be available to them....in the Senate Trial not in the impeachment hearings. #231 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-12-05 10:39 AM | FLAG:

If this is such a slam dunk like you are saying then why not allow republicans to have their own witnesses? If it is like you say and there is clear overwhelming guilt why not bring actual fact witnesses?

#233 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-05 11:19 AM | Reply

"why not allow republicans to have their own witnesses?"

Do you mean Trump, Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Pence, and Guilianni? They're more than welcome. How about Devin "I know Ukraine was meddling because I was demanding they meddle" Nunes? No?

Then let me guess: Hunter Biden?

#234 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 11:30 AM | Reply

#234 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Probably wants the whistleblower so that they can get revenge for the whistleblower exposing their wrongdoing.

#235 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-05 12:22 PM | Reply

"wants the whistleblower so that they can get revenge"

Bingo.

And all along, they'll never admit identification will lead to retaliation.

#236 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 12:23 PM | Reply

"McConnell: Senate could pass Partisan rules Package for Impeachment Trial"

We should expect no less from The Party of Law and Order!

#237 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 05:53 PM | Reply

We should expect no less from The Party of Law and Order!

#237 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

He's proposing running the Senate trial with a similar level of one-sidedness that the House has done. What's good for the goose...

#238 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 06:04 PM | Reply

"What's good for the goose."

You're right: let's be sure to call Jared, and make him testify under oath about his business dealings with Saudi Arabia.

I mean, what's good for the goose....

#239 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 06:09 PM | Reply

"He's proposing running the Senate trial with a similar level of one-sidedness that the House has done."

And you, a staunch defender of law and order, and constant critic of the Democrats, are okay with the Republicans being very one-sided.
And that's why you're a hack and a fraud!
Good talk, son.

#240 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 06:16 PM | Reply

#240

And you, a staunch defender of law and order, and constant critic of the Republicans, are okay with the Democrats being very one-sided.
And that's why you're a hack and a fraud!
Good talk, son.

#241 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-05 07:05 PM | Reply

"okay with the Democrats being very one-sided."

The Democrats are very one-sides on the side of law and order.

That used to be JeffJ's side.

Now it's not.

#242 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 11:56 PM | Reply

#242

The Democrats are very one-sided regarding due process.

Which misses the point.

#243 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-06 12:04 AM | Reply

"The Democrats are very one-sided regarding due process."

Yeah.
They're heavily on the side of due process.

You ain't.
That's the whole point.

#244 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 12:07 AM | Reply

#244 that's some lame trolling.

#245 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-06 09:20 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort