"‘It’s a horrible thing they did’: Trump now bears the indelible mark of impeachment" — headline in The Washington Post on December 19, the day after the House took that vote.
"Impeachment indelible stain on Trump’s legacy" — headline in The Boston Herald.
"The indelible stain on Trump’s presidency belongs to the entire Republican Party" — headline in The Colorado Independent.
This idea of the indelible mark works to downplay the knowledge that the Senate will acquit the President. He won't be removed from office, so wasn't impeachment futile? No, it matters! It's an indelible mark that will last forever, a stain that can never be removed!
The assertion of indelibility seemed really important for... what?... a day? And then along came the new idea that the President wasn't even impeached at all. Yes, that too, happened on December 19th. Noah Feldman — last seen somberly informing us that what Donald Trump did was oh, so impeachable — returned for Act 2 of Law Professors Tell You What the Law Is.
It's December 23, and I haven't talked about this show yet. I've been actively avoiding it. I don't want to see "Cats" or "The Rise of Skywalker" either. I did feel like watching vintage TV commercials about laundry products that miraculously eradicated stains. (Remember the Clinton impeachment with its "stained" dress that was only stained because of a conscious choice not to wash it at all?) I found these 2 old Wisk ads — one from the 1970s and another from 1983. They're amusing to watch in sequence because of the radical social change from one decade to the next:
So, what's the answer to the question is Trump impeached? Sorry, I don't play in the show called Law Professors Tell You What the Law Is. But if you want to know what "impeachment" is, I'd say the answer has to do with what Americans believe it is. Whether Trump was impeached is a manipulable concept, and so is whether impeachment dirties the President, even temporarily. Maybe it's a mark of distinction to the one who is impeached and an embarrassment to the impeachers.
Professor Feldman says impeachment is "a process" and it's not complete until the House formally tells the Senate that it has voted to impeach. Is that about what impeachment means or about what impeachment does? The latter question is what turns on the Senate's "sole power to Try all impeachments"? Is the vote enough or must the House tell the Senate about the vote? Do you think the House should have the power to vote to impeach and then to withhold the case from the Senate? If that question needs to be answered, it's the Senate that will give the final answer. But the Senate can just as well decide not to decide, and leave this impeachment where the House has stowed it —in the back of the closet like an unwashed dress...
... she said she initially thought the marks on her dress "could be spinach dip or something."... she didn’t notice the stain until she took the dress out for Thanksgiving. She tried it on for confidante Linda Tripp, who told her it made her look fat. When the two women figured out that the president’s semen was deposited on the blue Gap dress, Tripp — who was taping Lewinsky — encouraged her to keep it....Just keep it around. You might want to use it. But for now, you know, it makes you look fat.
पोस्ट्स
२५६ टिप्पण्या:
256 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The house voted to impeach but Pelosi still has to do what they voted her to do.
The pussy hat march was the same indelible stain.
The Mark landed on the forehead of the Democratic Party. Like the curtain of fascism that Lefties are always pretending that is descending in the US, while they cancel people that say there are two sexes.
Trump was impeached when the House voted to impeach. Feldman is relying on an emanation of a penumbra, but he’s desperate to see Trump out so he’s doing what he can to move the process along.
If you treat impeachment as a bill, then it goes to the Senate the same way any other bill would (and I don’t know how that works—I’ve never thought about it until just now). The Senate can act on it or not as they see fit. Nothing in the constitution requires that the Senate act on impeachment, nor does it require that they wait for delivery. They can act now if they so wish.
Monica wasn’t fat, she was zaftig, and this isn’t and impeachment, it’s an “impeachment.” It’s not a mark of shame to be convicted by a dirty prosecutor whose main motivation is to cover up their own crimes.
When the GOP retakes the House and expunges the impeachment then there will be a real issue if Trump was impeached. Tough legal question.
Trump was impeached when the House voted to impeach.
We went when we decided to go. We decided, then we went. Two things, not one.
It should be known as the pussy hat impeachment. A stamping of tiny foot, with no reason, but she's mad, and you have to fix it.
The important and serious thing is that we have a vagina. Anyway it seems serious to us.
If the House is going to pretend not to send it, and the Senate doesn’t want it, it’s falling off a log easy for the Senate to pretend they have to wait for the House.
I have a friend who works with the very elderly and often senile, and she says it’s better just to go along with their confabulations than to make them frustrated and even angry by pointing out the truth of a situation as long as it’s not a matter of health or safety.
Interesting that we elevate the impeachment (indictment) over the trial result (conviction or acquittal) in these cases. Why is that? What is the legitimate process to hold these cases to a certain standard, including due process? Do we wait for elections?
I finished my homework, but then the dog ate it before it could be graded. It’s the dog ate my homework impeachment.
We are the house hear us roar.
These reports bear the indelible mark of coordination.
My favorite old detergent commercial was Calgon' "Ancient Chinese Secret" pitch. Clearly felonious behavior doesn't bother the left at all. Look at the busy speaking schedule of Hill's. She's also dragging Chelsea along 'garnering' face time for the next generation of felons.
Nancy wants to intrude on the Senate’s sole power of trial by forcing them to change their rules, the same ones they used for Clinton are not acceptable, when she so resolutely insisted on her sole power of impeachment without interference from the Senate.
She says that the prosecution can’t get a fair trial and doesn’t care if Trump gets a fair trial. There’s nothing in the Constution to guarantee either one of them fairness, except maybe that the Bill of Rights applies to the whole thing. Have we polled the Democrats for open minds on this? rhhardin could have predicted Nancy’s actions because she is living down to the lowest stereotypes of women in situations like this. She and Hillary both. It’s pretzel logic all the way down and they last time I saw a conflict like this, it was over child custody, and we were old, pre her marriage, friends with the woman. She didn’t care about fairness, she cared about winning.
The seriousness they feign is actually just having a vagina.
It's what women talked about, when they talked, in the pussy hat march.
Just going to motivation. It's a woman's way.
Hillary and Nancy both have set back the cause of women in leadership with their rejection of the rules of our republic. Merkel did something similar and wrecked the EU, causing Brexit, for one thing.
Maggie Thatcher was an exceptional woman and I would vote for her like as POTUS in a heartbeat. The president should be exceptional.
Indelible stain might refer to spotting, not the blue dress.
Hillary and Nancy both have set back the cause of women in leadership with their rejection of the rules of our republic.
They're playing to women. Women don't do rules. Rules are system analysis. Fixing stuff at the top level is feelings. Trump, get rid of.
The comedy is the rule covering talk, as if men wouldn't notice.
"If it's a wrong number, why did you answer it?" Thurber cartoon.
The woman gets the feeling right and the system analysis wrong.
What is the "radical social change" indicated by the commercials?
I didn't notice it. I often think the prof confuses changes in style, which women love, with actual change.
The Dem's sole strategy for 2020 is to try to shame us into voting against Prez Trump.
Shame on you, you racist, sexist, Russkie stooge! And, you're just going to sit there while the world is coming to an end?
This is a crisis! It's a crisis, I tell you!
Very simple things explain this unexplicable impeachment, that it's important today not to notice.
Scott Adams says it's people who have been bullied, but he's politically correct when it concerns women, in public anyway. A career ender otherwise.
Staining Trump is the last best hope of the corrupt-o-carts to keep their DC slush funds slushing. buying the legalistic slanders of fake Christians at Christianity Today was a nifty move. But Christians don’t fall for that fake staining job. They already know Trump. Tokyo Rose did the same job on the Marines in the Pacific for lots less.
I've almost entirely tuned out the perpetual, endless internet crisis.
Blogger rhhardin said...
Trump was impeached when the House voted to impeach.
We went when we decided to go. We decided, then we went. Two things, not one.
?? Is there general agreement that voting to impeach is “deciding to go”?
No. It sounds nice, but it’s a specious argument. You’re inventing a condition out of thin air—a condition that was addressed in the part of my comment you decided not to quote.
I think that now two warships with all female command crews have suffered serious collisions with other ships. In at least one case, two of the bridge crew were not speaking to each other. Men would get mad at each other, certainly, but would never let it get in the way of running the ship. This is a dangerous experiment we are on, putting women at the top *because they are women*, and not because, as in the case of Thatcher, they are exceptional people. China and Russia are not this stupid.
If never delivered to the Senate, it may become known as "the impeachment that wasn't" for having been mishandled all the way by the House's own rules.
The asterisk goes on the impeachment; no Trump.
"but he's politically correct when it concerns women, in public anyway. A career ender otherwise.”
Female privilege is a powerful thing.
Heh. Ancient Chinese secret, hun?
Ancient leftie impeachment, huh?
ALL impeachment (now) means, is that the President's Opposition has a majority in the US House
Does this mean, from now on, Every time the Opposition has a majority; the President will be Impeached?
NO!
It means, from now on; NO President, will EVER be Impeached
(unless there are 67 votes for removal in the Senate)
Impeachment is Done being a thing to be feared. Impeachment is now NOTHING
Only Removal will matter; and Removal won't happen without 67 votes (which WON'T happen)
"Nancy wants to intrude on the Senate’s sole power of trial by forcing them to change their rules..."
She can't force them. She is only trying to influence them. The Senate will decide for itself what to do and it has the sole power over that. Pelosi is interpreting the House's "sole power" as broadly as she can, but the Senate will win if it wants to decide. It has the last word, but it can CHOOSE not to speak.
"What is the "radical social change" indicated by the commercials?"
In the 70s commecial, the woman is a wife doing her husband's laundry and getting his approval. She is subordinate. She's even got an *animal* deriding her for failing to measure up as a laundry-doer. A squawking parrot is the externalization of her obsessive brain, tormenting her over not doing housework well enough.
in the 80s commercial, the man is a boy and a doofus and he has to do his own laundry. He is subordinate.
By the way, that 70s husband is so unattractive! I mean, the 80s kid is unattractive too, but he's INTENTIONALLY unattractive. The 70s man is supposed to be somebody the woman truly wants to please.
You are right, of course, that was careless writing by me. I meant to say “trying to force.” But the point that she can’t really have meant what she was saying earlier stands. It’s pretzel logic, stereotypically female, that whatever she needs you to believe for her to win is what she is going to say right now, regardless of what she has said in even the recent past, stands.
"Sorry, I don't play in the show called Law Professors Tell You What the Law Is."
Please Doc, I know you crippled Little Timmy cause you were drunk and voted for Hillary, but the town needs you. Whole place is down with TDS and the new Doc just wants to reassign everybody's gender.
What is the "radical social change" indicated by the commercials?
In the old one, the male voiceover and parrot instruct the woman. In the newer one, the woman instructs the man.
I recommend old Billy May's Oxy Clean commercial. He died too early.
On the indelible mark, I keep thinking of Shakespeare's Lady Macbeth with "out damned spot". Nancy has the mark she wanted and now she can't get rid of it.
with the very elderly and often senile... it’s better just to go along with their confabulations than to make them frustrated and even angry by pointing out the truth of a situation as long as it’s not a matter of health or safety.
Thanx Aunty! Tomorrow i'll be seeing my 87 year old mom, and i'll try to remember this advice
Clearly, what I need to do, is just go along (and count down the hours 'til boxing day, when i can go home)
There is a parrot living in a bar in Tijuana - I have this on excellent authority - who causes people to order more drink than they intended by sidling up to them, cocking his head, and asking, "Can you talk?" ...
... [T]he human resentment of parrots, especially all the talk about their having devils in them and so on, springs not from their startling ability to utter human phrases but from their aggravating refusal to let you choose the topic. You know how it is. You go up to a parrot, and he's probably in a cage and you're not, so you feel pretty superior, maybe you even think you can feel sorry for the parrot, and you ask the parrot how he is, and he says something gnomic like, "So's your old man," or "How fine and purple are the swallows of late summer." Then the parrot looks at you in a really interested, expectant way, to see if you're going to keep your end up. At first you think you've been insulted, but a parrot is too cool to throw insults around, unlike a blue jay, and once you notice that, you start trying to figure out what the parrot means by it, and there you are. You haven't a prayer of reintroducing whatever topic you had in mind. That's why philosophers keep denying that parrots can talk, of course, because a philosopher really likes to keep control of a conversation.
- Vicki Hearne, _Animal Happiness_ p.4
I remember the media coverage when Clinton was being impeached. The reporters asked House Rs endlessly, you know that the Senate won't convict him, so isn't this pointless? It's just a partisan show to smear the President, right? You know that the voters don't think this is important, right? You're just doing this because you're uptight about sex, right? On and on. Never a question about whether the Senate was failing to do its duty. Just the opposite of how they are treating the House Ds today.
The Senate can't vote on anything, if they are given nothing.
It would be interesting to track Wisk sales with the change in their commercials. But we have more recent examples of going hard PC.
Is there just the one impeachment, is did the Dems do another one where they just quietly gathered 218 votes without telling anyone else? It's sitting in Nancy's bag now, too - perhaps to be revealed after Trump leaves office. Are they working on a third, just doing a conference call from home? It's not an academic point - if they can do this to the President, they can do it to anyone.
I can see a scenario where the Senate takes up a matter in this posture. Under their rules, they have to call the Chief Justice to preside. In that situation, it would not surprise me if the Chief Justice said, "I have no charges or prosecutors in front of me - I will not preside at this time." I don't think that would be impeachment.
I'm not saying that this isn't an impeachment. Just show me the rule or law that says it is. If no one can show that, then let's get a rule or a law, and then go back and take another vote.
in the 80s commercial, the man is a boy and a doofus and he has to do his own laundry. He is subordinate.
Yes, and men have been doofuses in TV commercials ever since. That said, it's still women that are doing the laundry for the most part.
Yesterday I saw the video of Nancy P explaining how indelible it is. Yaah. She nailed it. I'll never be able to forget that video.
don't forget,
the '70's shirt was a starched White Collar shirt (with a tie) (and there were many)
the '80's shirt was pastel, open necked; and there was only one
ps. the '70's woman was no great catch either; her and the husband were Both ugly
Advertisers used to believe that the most important thing about a commercial was the degree to which consumers recalled it. In this view, being intensely annoying, like the older Wisk ad, was a virtue. Consumers were stupid sheep, able to remember the ad but not smart enough to resent the assholes who imposed it on us. This was a common attitude back then. Television was "a vast wasteland" and everyone but the liberal elite was beneath contempt. Deplorable, even. Some people grew out of that.
An indelible mark in invisible ink.
Shorter Nancy: Respect my authoritah!
I'm peach, you're peach, we're all peach now.
In a few minutes I'm going to go impeach a fresh cup of coffee.
John Henry
If you just wear clothes until they develop holes, you never have to do laundry.
Tim McGuire said, "Trump was impeached when the House voted to impeach." A commenter in an earlier AA thread suggested that McConnell could send a letter to Pelosi that says something like: We are aware that the House has impeached Trump by voting to adopt these two articles of impeachment. We have set the date for a trial beginning tomorrow. The Senators have been sworn in. The Chief Justice has told us he will preside. Please send your team of prosecutors to begin at 9 a.m. tomorrow." If Trump is truly impeached, I don't see a flaw in this plan. If Pelosi refuses to respond, then a motion to dismiss with prejudice on the grounds that no evidence was presented.
Nancy turned a measure of last resort into her personal power play.
A tool of the people became the ultimate tool of the elites.
Now she's telling the people her power is sacrosanct.
Because, authoritarianism.
Could congress impeach a ham sandwich?
John Henry
possibilities
A) Trump IS impeached; which means the Senate can acquit without House approval
B) The Senate can't go forward without House approval; which means Trump ISN'T impeached
As someone said; it's the old "my dog ate my homework, so You CAN'T give me an F" ploy
as it stands Now, the impeachment is incomplete. I's become F's with the next term*
If the House doesn't produce paperwork by end of term.... They fail
I's become F's with the next term* BELIEVE ME! i'm speaking from personal experience
If Pelosi refuses to respond, then a motion to dismiss with prejudice on the grounds that no evidence was presented.
Then the Dems will say the nullification was itself nullified because it was "improper".
The country remains divided over what happened and what it means.
Isn't that the best outcome they can get right now?
The impeachment is written in breast milk. Hold over a flame to read.
is a "stain" indelible if you refuse to wash it out?
... Send it to the senate to see if they can get it out
I think it’s the cargo cult “impeachment.”
A cargo cult is a belief system among members of a relatively undeveloped society in which adherents practice superstitious rituals hoping to bring modern goods supplied by a more technologically advanced society. ... The name derives from the belief which began among Melanesians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that various ritualistic acts such as the building of an airplane runway will result in the appearance of material wealth, particularly highly desirable Western goods (i.e., "cargo"), via Western airplanes.[1][2]
Cargo cults often develop during a combination of crises. Under conditions of social stress, such a movement may form under the leadership of a charismatic figure. This leader may have a "vision" (or "myth-dream") of the future, often linked to an ancestral efficacy ("mana") thought to be recoverable by a return to traditional morality.[1][3] . - Wikipedia
Democrats are trying to bring back the pre-Trump world when their plans to demographically re-engineer the US and to impose globalization were on a smooth track, and the moral superiority of Democrats was unquestioned.
“She says that the prosecution can’t get a fair trial and doesn’t care if Trump gets a fair trial.”
Originally, the defense was supposedly going to get their due proc so, their right to call witnesses and interview witnesses without active interference by the chair was when the investigation was thrown over the wall from Schifty’s Intelligenc3 to Wadler’s Judiciary Committee. Except that Wadler was so incompetent that they ultimately panicked and didn’t follow through. The defense never did get their witnesses, nor their chance to ask unfettered questions of the witnesses they did hear from. Unfortunately, in the end, none of the witnesses they did call could really testify that Trump had done anything wrong. With maybe a single exception, the witnesses could just testify to hearsay, double hearsay, and even triple hearsay, and that they disagreed with Trump’s foreign policy towards the Ukraine. After all, they were the experts, and he was merely the duly elected President with plenary Constitutional authority over foreign policy.
Sure, they want a do over. They desperately want to call more witnesses, because the witnesses they did call merely prove the point that the House operating purely politically, impeached Trump over an attempt by them to seize power from the Executive Branch. They are attempting to override Executive and Attorney/Client Privilege as well as grand jury secrecy, in order to aggregate power to themselves, based on nothing more than #OrangeManBad.
CTH seems to seriously believe that their plan is to use these two bogus Articles of Impeachment as plac holders, until their three pending court cases are resolved, hopefully, for them, in their favor. The most critical of the three for them is probably the suit attempting to pierce grand jury secrecy. And, working backwards, that is because the Lawfare aligned Mueller prosecutors apparently ran much of the political dirt that they had, much of it from the Carter Page FISA warrants, and through them, the 702 FISA opposition research dirt acquired between 2012-2016, through their multiple grand juries. Schifty, at least, very likely knows what much of it is, but it lacks provenance, since the only ways that they could have it would indicate that it had been illegally acquired by Dems in the House. A court granting them access to the Mueller grand jury information would provide that provenance. Then, once they had all of the Mueller information that was not included in the Mueller Report, they could use all that additional information to flesh out the Articles of Impeachment. Or, at least that is the theory.
But how do they get all this new information into the impeachment trial? Two choices. One is to rerun the House impeachment process again, with Schifty running the hearings that Judiciary’s Wadler should be running, except for Wadler’s gross incompetence, but this time during an election year. Or they can add new witnesses to add the new material in the Senate. Except that the Republican leadership in the Senate has vetoed that approach. Whoops.
Not sure if Senate Minority leader Scheamer was in on this issue in the House, and wants to help them along, or just wants to Kavenaugh Trump, during the Senate Impeachment trial, but he is no happier than Speaker Palsi about the Senate not allowing more witnesses.
Great point, auntie.
Take Richard feyneman's essay on cargo cult science, and substitute "politics" wherever the word science appears.
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
John Henry
One of the "right wing"(i.e., pro-freedom) vlogs has a montage of "liberal" and "progressive" talking heads using the "indelible stain" phrase or something so close to it as being indistinguishable. Watching the montage it's easy to see why the late Joseph Sobran called this gang "The Hive."
So, does Trump have to do anything different? Right now? Because the House says so?
If not, then he’s not impeached; that’s just the Houses version of name calling. a political phrase that they hope the electorate, in their ignorance, believe that you can’t vote for Trump In 2020 because he’s Impeached, so you may as well look for someone reasonable who’s not impeached. Like Joe Biden! That’s the ticket!
"Just keep it around. You might want to use it. But for now, you know, it makes you look fat. "
Great line, AA!
Schifty, at least, very likely knows what much of it is
No, it would have leaked by now.
Impeachment is a political trial. The voting public is the real jury.
If the House can refuse to send over the Articles of Impeachment, then it would seem this sets up a construct that allows the Senate to refuse to accept the communication. Further, it sends like Nancy is doing what she is doing without the consent of the House. Does this mean Mc Connell doesn't even have to poll the Senate too?
Just gonna riff for a minute on that indelible, incredible, insatiable, inedible, delectable, dialectical, diabolical impeachment ...
Okay, resume ...
It is esp fitting that Speaker Palsi is whining about being deprived of exactly the due process that her Dems denied Trump and the Republicans in the House - the power to call witnesses, another to have Chairman Schifty closely controlling their questing of their witnesses. She should be panicked about the Republicans calling rebuttal witnesses, starting with their “whistleblower”, and probably including Schifty himself, who made himself a fact witness by, if nothing else, lying through his teeth, and having his staff set up the “whistleblower” in the first place. Of course, they would prefer if they were the only ones allowed to call more witnesses, but that was never remotely plausible in a Republican Senate.
This somewhat argues for the CTH theory, that the two Articles of Impeachment voted out by the House are merely placeholders, waiting to be fleshed out by information, testimony, and other evidence they couldn’t get before the end of the year, most significantly the material from the Mueller investigation that was not included in his Report. Otherwise, it would seem much more likely that Republicans calling the witnesses, and asking the questions, that they were denied in the House, would be more worrisome to them than any benefit that they might get by calling additional witnesses in the Senate.
One worrisome thing to me is that the original team of lawyers that the DOJ initially sent to argue against the House getting access to the Mueller grand jury material, was apparently third stringers. Not their best and brightest. In front of an Obama nominated judge, the result was almost inevitable. The DOJ lost, and the House Dems won. The question is why such an important case was allowed to be argued by third string DOJ lawyers? Was it incompetence? Or, Deep State #Resistance?
Trump brought the word indelible into the impeachment discussion by using it in his 6 page letter to Pelosi.
It may be important to act if the Senate is going to flip Blue. And it will be difficult to wait until next November and the to act. They will act after the new year.
Words matter. The House Democrats have impeached President Trump. They have charged him with misconduct. Trump is charged, not yet guilty, to clear thinking, objective people this means nothing until there is a determination of guilt, or not, at trial. Pelosi knows this and so is seriously considering not enabling the trial so that she can forever say the insult that Trump is impeached. But this will be accepted only by her fellow Democrats. What a dilemma for her.
I'd forgotten how much I hated television advertisements.
Both commercials said the same thing to me: "You're just a dirty little boy."
Gay men predominate in the writing, acting and filming of commercials in LA and NYC.
The advertising message to women entranced by gay men has always been the same, and is the same in both commercials.
"Why can't you dirty hetero boys be like gay men? They're so neat and they dress so well."
The fashion of how this nagging message is delivered is different in the two ads, but that's just a change in the hem of a woman's skirt.
From a man's perspective, same old crap.
Left Bank of the Charles said...Trump brought the word indelible into the impeachment discussion by using it in his 6 page letter to Pelosi.
Clinton gave us the notion of "stain" and the Presidency with his deposition early on in the whole affair.
"Trump brought the word indelible into the impeachment discussion by using it in his 6 page letter to Pelosi.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You guys live in a magical world where wishing makes it so, and if you all wish hard enough, faeries will be real.
“Schifty, at least, very likely knows what much of it is”
Blogger Ralph L said...
“No, it would have leaked by now.”
But if no one in the House leadership knows where more bodies are buried, that they can use against Trump, then why this elaborate scheme of voting out almost empty Articles of Impeachment, then demanding the right to fill them in, and change what they are impeaching over, during the Senate trial? They could just be stupid. But I am not one to confuse venality with stupidity. The House Dems maybe be horribly corrupt. But that doesn’t mean that they are stupid. And this esp applies to Schifty, who, wile being one of the most corrupt members of tge a House, is far from stupid. That suggests to me that they expect to have more material for impeachment in the future, but needed to wind up their formal investigation this calendar year, which they did. Relying on being able to flesh out their Articles of Impeachment in the Senate trial is a huge gamble, esp seeing the cards that the Republicans have shown so far, of expecting to start by calling the same fact witnesses, and adding the “whistleblower” and Schifty himself. Why take that wager, unless they know that they have better hole cards, and that means they believe that they will probably have, or can hope to have, significantly more damaging witnesses and testimony for the Senate trial. This argues for someone in the Dem House leadership knowing where the more damaging stuff is located, and that they have a decent chance at getting ahold of it. Hence my suggestion that it is Schifty who likely knows, because he has, all along, as evidenced by his leaks, known more than he should, even discounting his membership in the Gang of Eight.
You know what will never go away? Bill Clinton saying on tape “Deny, deny, deny” to a witness in his #MeToo lawsuit. Facts are stubborn things. This “impeachment” is circumstantial evidence of a “crime” that we only have hearsay and supposition that it even happened.
This impeachment is a joke. “We have to impeach him or he will be re-elected” is the joke of the decade, at least.
"They could just be stupid.”
It’s hard not to think “it’s a trap.” It’s hard to believe they are this stupid, but Pickett thought that the blue bellies were out of ammunition, the Light Brigade was ordered to charge, history is full of examples. So I don’t know what to think, honestly.
White House froze $391million in Ukraine aide just 91 MINUTES after Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, even though budget staff feared it was illegal, shocking new emails suggest
@Bruce Hayden: sounds sensible except that delaying the trial in the Senate would risk the campaigns of the senators that are running.
As for that Daily Mail piece, fearing that some act is illegal doesn't make it illegal. So far we have evidence those fears were unfounded.
More circumstantial evidence of a hearsay “crime."
From Beloved’s link:
Hunter Biden was named to the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas firm which was being investigated for corruption while his father was vice president
Let me break the logic down for you, professor. If Harvey Weinstein was indicted for rape by an all female metoo# prosecutor, then a jury of fellow rapists aquit him of the charges, one would say quite obviously that the entire ordeal has left an indelible stain on Harvey Weinstein and a ephemeral stain on the justice system.
indelible - Journalist Word / Theme of the Day.
If Harvey Weinstein was indicted for rape by an all female metoo# prosecutor
How many prosecutors are there in that statement?
Most Americans hear about this and they wonder,
'What? We give Ukraine $400 million dollars? Why?'
'Where is Ukraine again?'
'What did we get for our money? I sure hope we got something.'
'How come nobody is giving me $400 million dollars?'
'Is it too late to take it back?'
This is what pops up when ARM posted the shocking new evidence of criminal activity.
I'm Shocked
Yeah, look at the indelible stain left on Bill Clinton. These kinds of stains are what people choose to see. The people who are going to choose to see this stain may be waiving it like a bloody shirt, but the rest of us know it’s just ketchup. It is not going to change mind one against Trump and appears to have changed many minds in his favor in the court of public opinion.
When the president of the United States asked the president of Ukraine to investigate, he was asking him to investigate crimes at the highest levels of both governments. This video lays bare the the amount of corruption in Ukraine that took place under the Obama administration beginning in 2013 and explains clearly how Ukraine was corrupted by Americans.
https://www.brighteon.com/f54f59f0-58a3-4ffc-831f-a007846d3379
a jury of fellow rapists
I'm not sure how you would reach that quorum, considering there would be a prosecutor and a defense attorney questioning the potential jurors.
How many numbers that is required for you to feel like it was an unfair prosecution, Allen S.
Quite logical and literal this morning Allen S.
Media reaction to shocking video of Joe Biden doing exactly what Trump is accused of:
Yawn...
I disagree auntie the indelible stain from the Clinton impeachment was one of the many factors that resulted in Hillary Clinton's humiliating defeat to Donald Trump. Most people in my circle of libtard friends and family like Bubba the politician and despise Billy the man and that certainly is an indelible stain.
AT,
Don't you know, any appearance of inappropriate or illegal behavior by Joe or Hunter has been thoroughly "debunked". Of course, no one can tell you who did the debunking or how it was debunked. You just need to accept the debunkiness of the entire situation.
Many people on the left view Hillary as Billy boys enabler at best and his co-conspirator in the abuse of women at worst. None of that is going away.
Andrew Johnson was acquitted who are still talking about his impeachment as if it was an indelible stain on his record I don't see how the Trump situation is any different if you're going for realpolitik cruel neutrality objectivism
I think that the hard evidence against Clinton stained him far more than the impeachment of him. Like being caught on tape suborning perjury, or the solid evidence that he committed forcible rape.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1999/03/is-juanita-broaddrick-telling-the-truth.html
I've been on quite a few juries, Howard, and I don't think that you know how the process works.
If they had hard evidence against Trump of an actual crime, not of a policy difference, or evidence that he resisted being dragged towards war with Russia, then the “impeachment” would carry weight, and I would support his removal. For instance, had it turned out that the transcription of the call was made up and the call was really as Schiff had characterized it, I would have supported his removal, with sadness.
I wouldn't vote to impeach even if Trump put a bullet hole in Schiff's forehead.
"I think that the hard evidence against Clinton stained him far more than the impeachment of him.”
See my comment on cargo cults.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/23/morning-greatness-urgent-impeachment-articles-take-a-christmas-vacation/
The Senate has the sole power to try impeachment. The Chief Justice presides and doesn't get to leave if he doesn't like the procedure.
THEOLDMAN
The Senate should move to dismiss/acquit the week right before the SOTU.
If any Republicans had signed on, if there were real high crimes and misdemeanors, etc., it might be indelible. A cheap, hurried, political hit job, is more like a badge of honor. The Washington ComPost hardly qualifies as a newspaper to pay attention to at this juncture.
The whole "Hunter Biden corruption was debunked!" gaslighting is the most infuriating part of this whole thing. Every fucking person who says that knows it's bullshit and that it stinks to high heaven and there's absolutely not one material fact that contradicts that stink. But we're just supposed to fold when they say "debunked" with nothing whatsoever to back it up.
No. Fuck you. War.
Aunty Trump said...
circumstantial
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
There is nothing circumstantial about this story. There is a paper trail, recordings, and in Mulvaney's case a video admission.
Do you think the House should have the power to vote to impeach and then to withhold the case from the Senate?
No.
You have a right to a speedy trial, because being accused of a crime puts a stain on you, and you have the right to have a trial to try to remove said stain.
The House voted to impeach President Trump. The ball is now in the Senate's court.
I understand why Republican Senators don't want to touch this ball. A lot of them, I'm sure, have relatives doing the Hunter Biden gig, of cashing in on family connections. Having public light shined on Biden's corruption could lead to public light being shined on their corruption.
My response to that is "screw them". They are going to give President Trump a trial, and they are going to let him call all the witnesses he wants. Or we will damn well Primary them, and vote against them in the General Election if they win the Primary
AllenS said...
I wouldn't vote to impeach even if Trump put a bullet hole in Schiff's forehead.
Qwinn said...
No. Fuck you. War.
What is it about Althouse's posts that they routinely elicit such violent ideation?
The Senate should move to dismiss/acquit the week right before the SOTU.
Yes, The day before would be best.
I'm thankful for Schiff. He unwittingly played a huge role in revealing this impeachment as a sham to most Americans. He did tremendous damage to the Democrat's case.
Stalinist jackholes like you, deserve no better
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/12/hellish-legacy-dingell-family-daniel-greenfield/?fbclid=IwAR3c8Mg0So73wm9GbR3xv5S19OOky-D6-Ljk7pORZ5uiphPAUxIncgS4oiM#.XgAm-jqBYNw.facebook
that’s just the Houses version of name calling. a political phrase that they hope the electorate, in their ignorance, believe that you can’t vote for Trump In 2020 because he’s Impeached,
I still think it is about the Supreme Court. When he nominates a justice to take RBG's seat, the uproar will be something. This will be part of it.
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
Most Americans hear about this and they wonder,
'What? We give Ukraine $400 million dollars? Why?'
I sure do wonder. Why are we giving Ukraine anything at all?
Why do we give all these other countries our money?
What do we get out of it? What is the value-for-value or the quid pro quo?
That goes for NATO too. PDJT insists that the European countries pay what they have agreed to and stop being deadbeats. And somehow he's the bad guy?
Actually, I seem to recall that the whole kerfuffle was about selling Ukraine weapons of war that Obama would not sell them.
AllenS said...
The Senate can't vote on anything, if they are given nothing.
Wrong. The Senate can pull it out of hte Congressional Record.
Molly said...
A commenter in an earlier AA thread suggested that McConnell could send a letter to Pelosi that says something like: We are aware that the House has impeached Trump by voting to adopt these two articles of impeachment. We have set the date for a trial beginning tomorrow. The Senators have been sworn in. The Chief Justice has told us he will preside. Please send your team of prosecutors to begin at 9 a.m. tomorrow." If Trump is truly impeached, I don't see a flaw in this plan. If Pelosi refuses to respond, then a motion to dismiss with prejudice on the grounds that no evidence was presented.
That' is mostly my position. Except the defense should absolutely refuse to make that motion.
President Trump wants a trial. He wants Schiff, Vindman, EC, the IC IG, and Schiff's staff all put under oath, on the witness stand, with no one there to keep them from being forced to answer revealing questions.
If the House Impeachment managers don't show up, then all that should mean is that no one will get to cross-examine the witnesses called by the defense.
There's two points to this trial: one is to expose the utter corruption of the Left, and of the Obama Admin
The other is to utterly crush the House Democrats. Show them off for the worthless, feckless, scum that they are.
And that means having a trial. One where the Biden corruption that Trump wanted investigated gets a full public airing. One where the Ukrainian pro-Clinton interference in the 2016 election that Trump wanted investigated gets a full public airing. One where the Deep State corruption that enabled the fraudulent "whistleblower" complaint gets a full public airing.
Any "Republican" elected official who gets in the way of that needs to be crushed. Hard
group-think in media. Yeah -that's healthy.
I think CJ Roberts should recuse himself from any impeachment trial.
That would put Justice Clarence Thomas in charge.
John Henry
I wouldn't brag about that Allen lawyers screen out for intelligence. I always get bumped off if the prosecution has a week a state bump me off if the defense has a weak case they bump me off
"There is nothing circumstantial about this story. “
What makes it circumstantial is that there is no evidence that his motives were any different than he says and what he ran on, that is he ran on not shoveling foreign aid into corrupt ratholes. I think you are the one who doesn’t know what “circumstantial” means. That kind of evidence only carries weight when a crime has been proven.
The cirumstantial evidence that Biden fired Shokin to protect the Democrats political interests by not having his name dragged into a scandal during an election year is a lot stronger, yet you guys ignore it as if it never happened. But what gives that evidence its real weight are the emails showing Burisma using Hunter Biden’s name with the State Department and how Burisma ultimately escaped with a slap on the wrist after hiring a powerful Democrat connected lawfirm. Burisma is entirely based on stolen energy leases obtained through government corruption. This stuff will come out in a Senate trial.
Blogger Greg the class traitor said...
A lot of them, I'm sure, have relatives doing the Hunter Biden gig, of cashing in on family connections.
Nancy D'Alessandro Pelosi's son works for a Gazprom subsidiary. Gazprom is owned by the Russian government.
(H/T Narciso)
John Henry
Your welcome, john henry, romney hastwoadvisors one on the burisma board a ther involved in the london hijinks
It is in the national interest to expose corruption in the highest offices in the land, such as Vice President, and to not leave “fledgeling democracies” like Ukraine with the impression that this is how democracy is supposed to work.
Yeah the funny thing about circumstantial evidence is that all forensic evidence and DNA evidence evidence based on science and logic which tends to be much more accurate than eyewitnesses is circumstantial evidence. Therefore if most of the evidence against Trump is circumstantial it is even more damning than the eyewitness testimony
Well, Howard, they always accept me as a juror. It seems they know that I can walk into a courtroom, look at the defendant, and have the ability to know if they are guilty or innocent just by looking at them. Very few people have that ability.
Your problem, Beloved, is that you come into this with an outcome in mind, and so you cling to any argument, no matter how flimsy, that you think supports that outcome. That’s why you simply can’t deal with the arguments we are presenting. Somebody who was honestly being “reasonable” could give a fair recapitulation of their opponents arguments, then explain why they think they are wrong. You just ignore them. You once said yourself that this kind of argumentation was unpersuasive, but you lack the self-awareness to see that you indulge this brand of argumentation yourself.
I think the Democrats and MSM are mistaking indelible mark with badge of honor.
At any rate, the Senate has no duty to wait for something on paper to do their job.
They should simply say “you have spoken, we heard you, now we are speaking, hear us”:
Record it in the minutes and we’re done.
Yes - thank goodness for the unerring accuracy of DNA evidence!! You never hear about any problems with that. And also, it's impossible for someone to deliberately place DNA at the scene of a crime to incriminate someone!!
Bruce Hayden said...
“Schifty, at least, very likely knows what much of it is”
Blogger Ralph L said...
“No, it would have leaked by now.”
But if no one in the House leadership knows where more bodies are buried, that they can use against Trump, then why this elaborate scheme of voting out almost empty Articles of Impeachment, then demanding the right to fill them in, and change what they are impeaching over, during the Senate trial? They could just be stupid
Why did the Senate Democrats filibuster Gorsuch? President Trump was elected to fill that seat with a conservative Republican Justice. He appointed someone who had been on his list of possible nominees when he was running for office. There was no way the Senate Republicans were going to let that filibuster stand. AS it was, even Murkowski voted to nuke the SC filibuster.
Which meant that when Kennedy retired, we got Kavanaugh, not some "moderate" that was the only thing that could make it through a Senate filibuster.
All this was obvious to any Democrat with an IQ above room temperature. So, were all those Senators idiots?
Or did they have an apoplectic base that demanded that they filibuster over "Garland's stolen seat"?
House Democrats impeached Trump because their base wasn't going to take no for an answer. Pelosi knew it was a stupid idea, trying to hold it off, and now is trying to keep a Senate trial from happening, because she knows it will be a disaster for her side.
But her Party and her Press have been been telling people for the last 4 years that Trump is corrupt, and have spent the last 3 years ginning up the base by promising them that a Democrat controlled House will impeach Trump.
And the bill came due.
Because when you cocoon your people from the reality that there's no legitimate justification to impeach Trump, they're not going to accept it if you don't impeach him.
I'm FB friends with a bunch of lefties. Even the ones who aren't foaming at the mouth were utterly convinced that Schiff had the goods on Trump. There's no way they would have accepted the Dems not puling the trigger
okay Allen let me get this straight you have a very accurate but secret ability to look at people and judge their innocence or guilt with 100% accuracy. Okay I buy that you have that delusion. I don't buy the fact that a lawyer either for the prosecution or the defense would be able to look at you and tell that you have this super-secret ability to get their client off or send them to prison. Because if they did you would always get thrown off by one side or the other
After seeing the antics of what is supposedly the cream of the law enforcement crop over the past two years, I have lost a LOT of the trust I had in our legal system.
" Therefore if most of the evidence against Trump is circumstantial it is even more damning than the eyewitness testimony”
Ha ha ha! “The best evidence is hearsay!” - Democrat congressman, because, you know, they tell you what you want to hear. That circumstantial forensic evidence of which you speak is applied in cases where the fact of a crime is undisputed. In this case, the fact of the crime is based on hearsay and there are lots of valid reasons for Trump to do what he did that are proper uses of his powers, so circumstantial evidence is all but worthless until you prove a crime even happened. Who cares what NeverTrumpers in the deep state at OMB thought about Trump’s actions. The rest of us heard him talk about winding down tensions with Russia and not pouring taxpayer billions into corrupt ratholes.
Nobody disputes that Ukraine has been a corrupt shithole, BTW, that’s probably what attracted Biden to it.
it would not surprise me if the Chief Justice said, "I have no charges or prosecutors in front of me - I will not preside at this time."
The CJ does not rule, he does not judge, he only presides. It's not up to him to determine whether the proceedings are proper or not. The Senate rules. The Senate judges. Not the CJ.
X Hilo driver is now defending OJ side-by-side with Alan dershowitz the child molester
Hearsay is not circumstantial hearsay is hearsay dot-dot-dot at least that's what I've heard
Therefore if most of the evidence against Trump is circumstantial it is even more damning than the eyewitness testimony
Yes, and that kind of evidence is particularly effective in a Soviet show trial.
Right, there is circumstantial evidence that Trump is guilty of a crime that we only have hearsay as evidence that it actually happened and that hearsay ignores the larger context of Trump’s stated policy goals before the election. Deal with that honestly and I will be impressed, Howard.
People get convicted all the time just based on circumstantial evidence hearsay is thrown out in criminal trials obviously and eyewitness testimony is not required. I'm just breaking your balls auntie about your use of the term circumstantial as though it means weak evidence which in fact the exact opposite of what is true. You're the one that brought up heresay which is not circumstantial now you're backtracking because you f***** up your word choices.
The papers are playing the circle game. Nuggies all around.
Aunty Trump said...
Your problem, Beloved, is that you come into this with an outcome in mind, and so you cling to any argument, no matter how flimsy, that you think supports that outcome. That’s why you simply can’t deal with the arguments we are presenting.
I am sorry, but this is just nonsense. I have never been in favor of impeachment of Trump, something I have stated repeatedly. Not in favor now. As a consequence I look at the evidence reasonably objectively. There is no reasonable doubt about Trump's intentions and, in this respect, my thinking is in line with the majority of my fellow Americans. Fox News poll: " 51% of voters want Trump impeached and removed from office, a nine-point jump from July 2019, while only 40% do not want him impeached, down from 45%."
Blogger John henry said...
Blogger Greg the class traitor said...
A lot of them, I'm sure, have relatives doing the Hunter Biden gig, of cashing in on family connections.
Nancy D'Alessandro Pelosi's son works for a Gazprom subsidiary. Gazprom is owned by the Russian government.
Oh, I'm sure there are a lot of corrupt Democrats, it's not just a Biden thing.
But I'm pretty sure there's also a lot of corrupt Republicans out there, with their family members swilling at the trough, too. And I expect those with family members doing a Hunter Biden don't want to have to vote to have Hunter Biden pulled in to testify in front of the American people about his corrupt gigs.
Because that might lead the voters to wonder about these other people's sons' corrupt gigs.
So if you see a GOP Senator trying to keep HB from being called as a witness, now you know why
Oh and auntie, I would be much more impressed with you if you would change your Avatar to showing you taking a French inhale off that cigarette
exhelodrvr1 said...
After seeing the antics of what is supposedly the cream of the law enforcement crop over the past two years, I have lost a LOT of the trust I had in our legal system.
Welcome to Black Lives Matter.
Here’s one: Which came first, the circumstantial evidence that Biden acted corruptly in Ukraine or the evidence that Trump acted corruptly in wanting to investigate Biden? Please frame your answer in such a way that it accepts the fact that all statements that the rest of the world wanted Shokin fired came after Biden “fired” him.
"There is no reasonable doubt about Trump's intentions” Do go on, or is that your whole argument.
"People get convicted all the time just based on circumstantial evidence”
But not on circumstantial evidence that a crime actually happened.
People get convicted of murder without a body. You're really letting your politics cloud your judgement. I of course don't care about any of the evidence for or against Trump I only care about the political calculus will this help the Democrats defeat him or will it hurt the Democrats and help elevate him to a second term those are the real issues here everything else is just a sideshow that you obviously enjoy being distracted by
The media has seized on the phrase "indelible impeachment" because it knows that it isn't going any further.
Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice for claiming she was innocent. They convicted her of that while never proving she was actually guilty. Ain’t America great!
"People get convicted of murder without a body.”
How often, really? And yes, I think the sideshow is interesting. If you don’t, I am sure you could find other places on the internet far more diverting.
In this case it’s analogous to convicting somebody of murder when not only is there no body, but the “murder victim” is still seen in all of his usual haunts as if nothing was wrong.
Inedibly impeached.
Actually what happens is they accept a Plea Bargain.
They get the choice of go to trial, with up to 30 years in Prison if convicted since everything plus the kitchen sink is thrown at them.
Or accept a 2 year plea bargain.
90-95% of all state and federal cases are resolved through plea bargains.
And the Federal Conviction Rate is 97%
https://harleyliberty.com/2018/05/16/feds-have-97-conviction-rate-two-clubs-testing-the-odds-kingsmen-m-c-trial-coming-to-close-and-bandidos-m-c-pike-and-portillo-in-jury-deliberation/
>"People get convicted all the time just based on circumstantial evidence”
At least give Howard points for honestly. He is clear that it’s all about perception. Whereas Beloved claims he is arguing the facts, but the 'supporting evidence’ (air quotes) that he provides is just stuff about perception. He is supporting Howard’s arguments, but not his own.
Trying to square the circle. Trump is impeached because the House voted for it. But the Senate cannot try Trump for impeachment, because he's not FORMALLY impeached.
Well, who made up that rule? No one in the Senate or at the Constitutional Convention.
Impeachment is a political act, not a legal action. Judges are out. Senators and Congressman decide - on their own. Sole Power and all that.
This is not a legal trial. Quit trying to make it one. Senators have already made up their minds. 45 D's will vote Guilty - no matter what.
One man's indelible stain is another man's badge of honor.
Remember the tramp stamp? This the Trump stamp and us Deplorables think it's sexy.
Dems have been constantly telling us that impeachment isn't a strictly legal matter, and that they don't have to be fair, and now they're trying to force the Senate to be an impartial jury.
Sorry Dems, you won yourselves a loss. Delay it as long as you wish, and that's a loss, too. Don't you ever get tired of losing?
When I watched the 'ring around the collar' commercials, all I could think of was, "Maybe he should wash his neck!"
The reason Pelosi does not want to forward the "Impeachment" to the Senate is because it would create an indelible stain on her legacy.
As I stated earlier, the Senate's constitutional role is to try the impeachment created by the House, not the POTUS directly. Pelosi's leadership in the "impeachment" fiasco is a total joke and an insult to clear thinking people.
Blogger Greg the class traitor said...
But I'm pretty sure there's also a lot of corrupt Republicans out there, with their family members swilling at the trough, too.
Never said there weren't. I have a very low level of respect for almost all politicians, regardless of party. I think the Republicans, as a group, are every bit as corrupt as Demmies as a group.
I'd be surprised if there were not as many Repo kids as Demmie kids involved in this kind of thing.
I go back and forth on whether PDJT should take the stand and testify. I read Thomas Wictor's theories of what he might do and think "Yay, bring it on!!!"
On the other hand, I've been selling for 40 years and know that one of the cardinal rules is , once you've got the order STFU and get out the door as fast as decently possible. The best possible result of saying anything additional or allowing the client to say anything additional is nothing. You already have the order. OTOH, keep talking and you may give them the idea/chance to change their mind.
At this point, the Senate will not convict PDJT. Take that victory and run with it. Then help/encourage the Senate to investigate all these folks and, if they don't, he has a pretty good platform (bully pulpit) from which to expose them.
John Henry
I confess that, even though working full time, I did all the laundry and even ironed my husband's shirts. Sigh. Because he was 16 years my senior and British, I chose to make certain concessions to his generational and cultural biases.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
12/23/19, 8:06 AM
Did you read the article at your link? It would behoove you to do so.... If you'd read it, at least down to about the 12th paragraph, you'd find that the author [deliberately?] camouflaged or omitted dates of certain key events.
ZeroHedge is not on my daily visit list, but it does have pertinent posts from time to time. Here's one that discusses the chronology of the Ukraine "hold" on aid. Contrary to the headline seen in your link, and repeated above most articles about the recent email release, the "hold" preceded the Trump-Zelensky phone call, which information is buried under 'way down in the story.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fake-news-headlines-paint-false-picture-ukraine-aid-freeze
"McConnell could send a letter to Pelosi that says something like: We are aware that the House has impeached Trump..."
It would be better to ignore the impeachment until the articles are sent. McC should have pretended he never heard of it. Maybe he was watching a movie when the vote came in, or Wisking the rings out of his collars. He heard it on the news, but everybody knows about the fake news media -- you can't trust them.
Impeachment is indelibly written with lipstick on the bathroom mirror.
Trump will wear this bit of partisan hackery like a badge of honor. And my read of the law says the Senate can do whatever they want. And nobody can do anything about it.
Impeachment is indelible for Pelosi and that House.
Trump, not so much.
The Senate has at least two options. It can vote to treat the House's refusal to forward the impeachment findings to the Senate as a de facto ruling that the original impeachment finding has been found to be null and void by the House. Or the Senate can begin the trial with an order that each party (the President and the House) submit cross-summary judgment motions and then rule accordingly.
(The president would argue in its motion that even if the facts, as found by the House, are true, they do not support an impeachment.)
Now in regards to ukraine vin webers mercur6 partners found by schmidt. Were the firm of record for the hapsburg group manafort was the middleman, david vitter noe handles deripaskas accounts you know my theory about that.
Stonewall Jackson@1776Stonewall
Newly turned Republican, Jeff Van Drew, was on Maria Bartiromo this morning and explained his decision to switch. It was quite telling. He said how his district leaders pulled him aside and threatened that he'll never work in politics again if he didn't vote for impeachment
Remember that Democrats didn’t whip this vote and that it was left as a matter of individual conscience. Nancy’s honor!
So rosemont seneca involved the houses of biden bulger and kerry in capital ventures with bohai capital along with burisma
Rosemonts partner was affilited with cgn whos allen ho, was given two years for transfer of nuclear secrets.
Trump the Russian agent just put the squeeze on the pipeline Russia is building to Germany.
Via Insty: U.S. sanctions have temporarily stopped the construction of a pipeline that is set to increase the flow of natural gas directly from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
WP Commie Shill: Report: Communist China Paid Millions to WAPO and NYT to Publish ‘Cleverly Disguised’ Chinese Propaganda Articles
Which is run by putins ex stasi partner. On the board of dresdner bank, remember naftogaz burismas primary client was lobbying the good colonel.
Ah yes it's left an indelible mark--sort of a skid mark on the shorts of the House of Representatives. At least the Democrat part of the House.
Well, President Trump is impeached, so says the House? But if Pelosi doesn't forward the articles to the Senate, I would think, President was not impeached. Asterisk in history meaningless, especially once sober people start to combine this stupid action with all of the crimes committed to get President Trump. The biggest impact will be the stuff now coming out on the FISA Court(light at end of tunnel now) and the Barr/Durham investigation(looks like Brennan is in trouble - Admiral Rodgers not his fan). That's "popcorn time" and long overdue! May even snare Obama in this one! Well, at least I can hope on this one, right?
Murph: "Contrary to the headline seen in your link, and repeated above most articles about the recent email release, the "hold" preceded the Trump-Zelensky phone call, which information is buried under 'way down in the story."
Make no mistake, unlike Inga and her ilk who are too dense to understand what is happening, ARM is quite aware of what the truth actually is, which is worse. Because ARM, like LLR-lefty Chuck, is quite happy to purposely hide and mischaracterize the truth in order to advance their lefty narratives.
The blatant lying and corruption is what most characterizes the left and LLR-left and their fear of what Durham is working on as well as the 2020 Presidential outlook is palpable.
So a Biden in construction got a $1.5 billion contract to help in the rebuilding of Iraq at one point?
We need not only Insty’s revolving surcharge tax, Trump needs to run on tightening up the rules on family connections, ethics, and working in the swamp.
Contrary to Feldman this piece says that the Senate can acquit Trump without transmittal of the impeachment paperwork. The author makes a much better - and better supported by case law - argument than Feldman.
Ann, as a legal scholar, you should read.
"Ann, as a legal scholar, you should read.”
I think she has given her opinion as a "legal scholar" that this is a political question. The House says its legal when it helps them or political when it helps them, depending on what they are trying to get you to believe at the time. In other words, it’s purely political and calling it a legal proceeding is a political tactic. It’s not hard to understand.
"Sorry, I don't play in the show called Law Professors Tell You What the Law Is."
You never taught gratis. Why should you now?
Oh. And Aunty Trump @ 5:40 AM. The same goes for stupid people. Unless you just want to fuck with their heads.
Anyone else notice how silent FakeCon LLR-lefty Chuck has gone on McConnell?
Recall that for years LLR-lefty Chuck has pretended to support McConnell (you know, for appearances sake). But now that McConnell has blown up dems impeachment plans and narratives with one 30 minute speech our little faker LLR-lefty Chuck has said.....not a word!
LOL
Very telling, eh?
“(The president would argue in its motion that even if the facts, as found by the House, are true, they do not support an impeachment.)”
The only way that the House could probably make a halfway compelling argument about the delayed Ukrainian aid would have been if the aid was not delivered before the end of the current fiscal year. That would have essentially been sequestration, which a former Republican President got in trouble for. But that didn’t happen. The money was dispensed in the proper fiscal year. End of case. No crime.
As for the Obstruction of Congress claim, Schifty was sending out fake subpoenas that referenced both the House’s A1S1 Oversight and A1S2 Impeachment Powers, but instead of treating the witnesses with either (since neither was applicable), they threatened to hold them in contempt, or some such. It was laughable at the time, but The Dems used those refusals to appear as Obstruction of Congress. It, of course, wasn’t. The President has the much better argument, that assertions of Executive Privilege, Attorney/Clint Privilege, or Grand Jury secrecy are best handled by the Judiciary, than through impeachment. The Dems had, of course, no legal precedent supporting their claims to these sorts of privileged information. They believe that they didn’t need legal precedent, when they could browbeat a majority of the House in voting for articles of impeachment. The problem though with this approach is that this is a Separation of Powers issue,and they are unilaterally grabbing power over the other two branches of our government, through this article of impeachment.
Breezy brings up a good point- what would the world be like today if the Founders had worded things just a little different- like, for example-
"The power of making allegations wrong-doing lies solely with the House"
"The power of conviction lies solely with the Senate"
Would Pelosi have sat on "allegations of wrong doing"? Would they have even been made without the imprimatur of "impeachment"?
I think, probably, the Founders made a mistake, and they would agree they made a mistake when they only had a simple majority for impeachment. It probably should have been 2/3s, too.
I don't think the Founders made a mistake. For over 200 years the wording on impeachment went unabused. There is no document or wording that can restrain a party determined to act in bad faith and to twist plain meaning of any words to their corrupt political ends. That describes the Democrat led House of today.
@ Aunty Trump Yes Ann has given her opinion that this is political and I agree. We are talking about the mechanics of what makes an impeachment. Ann references Feldman. The article I linked disagrees with Feldman with what I thought were winning arguments. I thought Ann would be interested intellectually.
As I’ve noted before, among other things Trump’s impeachment is a tit-for-tat, game-theory auto-response to Clinton’s impeachment.
Thats the smallest part of it:
https://nationalfile.com/exposed-pelosi-jr-worked-in-ukraine-with-accused-fraudster-facing-prison/
Except the tit can't point to a crime.
What is it about Althouse's posts that they routinely elicit such violent ideation? - ARM
It's not Althouse's posts that bring about this reaction. It the actions of you assholes on the left.
ZeroHedge:
"advocates what CNN Business called an anti-establishment and conspiratorial worldview, and which has been associated with alt-right views, and a pro-Russian bias."
main editor is Daniel Ivandjiiski:
"Ivandjiiski was barred from acting as a broker or otherwise associating with a broker-dealer firm, and from being a FINRA member for insider trading."
Earnest Prole said...
As I’ve noted before, among other things Trump’s impeachment is a tit-for-tat, game-theory auto-response to Clinton’s impeachment.
I largely agree with this. What goes around comes around.
Jim at said...
It the actions of you assholes on the left.
Other people's actions 'make' you do things?
As I’ve noted before, among other things Trump’s impeachment is a tit-for-tat, game-theory auto-response to Clinton’s impeachment.
Impeachment didn't do Bill Clinton much harm, IIRC. The real revenge here is for the other Clinton losing the election to a guy who spend half as much money and got millions fewer votes. That's gotta sting.
"...advocates what CNN Business called an anti-establishment and conspiratorial worldview,..."
Russia collusion
Brett Kavanaugh: gang rapist
Putin controls Trump
Carter Page: Russian asset
Hoax dossier
All of which ARM has advanced on this very blog.
And now Sham-peachment.
LOL
Pkease, tell us more!
It has nothing to do with "tit for tat". If so they would've done it to Bush. It has to do with diverting attention from the corruption of Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and the rest of the Swamp, and so they can scream "Retaliation for Impeachment!" when the indictments from Durham come down.
Do any of you really think that won't be the leftists response to ANY investigation or indictments of ANY of their crimes for the next 5 years?
And what could they respond, if they didn't have that?
BTW, anybody else enjoying Pelosi's claims that its Trump holding up impeachment?
She knows just how stupid her base is, doesn't she?
And on top if it all we have ARM referencing the email which explicitly explains the Ukrainian aid is only temporarily delayed and will be provided within required timelines!!
That's the new "smoking gun"!!
LOL
New smoking gun, just like the last smoking gun!!
Thanks for the laugh ARM!
Drago said...
Russia collusion
Brett Kavanaugh: gang rapist
Putin controls Trump
Carter Page: Russian asset
Hoax dossier
Links, or you are lying. Not a serious request, we all know you are lying.
Seriously. The Dems view impeachment as a Get Out Of Jail Free card for the next 5 years. Any indictments from now on are now just revenge based on venal motives! God knows they don't need evidence of venal motives, just the assertion that a venal motive is theoretically possible has been good enough for the useful idiots so far.
Pretty nice that they can vote themselves that GOOJF card on a party line vote, isn't it?
It's so freaking obvious I'm amazed how few people have noticed. If they didn't have "Retaliation for Impeachment!", they'd have to argue their innocence in open court. And even having 95% of lawyers in their guild isn't going to get then through THAT.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा