Do you think conservatives are even listening to the very damning testimony in the trial to remove him from office?

I was listening yesterday and the first hour of today, but basically the same things are being said over and over and over. Fifteen more hours of this… ??? Granted some of this may be for people just tuning in. And maybe most people haven’t heard any of this before. But its basically the same stuff we have been hearing on CNN and PMSMBC for the past five months.

Nope, to them he is their guiding light, a beacon of truth, like he said himself he could walk out in the street and shoot someone and not loose any of his base.
The Rep/cons would blame the democrats for putting the victim in the way of Trump’s bullet.

Yes, probably far more than anyone thinks.

@Yellowdog
Could be repeating for those tuning in late, but isn’t that what Trumps method is..to keep repeating his messages.
He keeps twittering to hide the headlines and keep HIS messages current in the media.

To answer the question , some are but holding back final decision just yet.

“When Mud is slung,some of it sticks”...especially when its true.

Of course they are not
A lot of them decided to not even be there, some fall asleep.

I don’t think it’s any longer a question of guilt. HE DID IT. There’s no denying he did it. The Repubs are left with denying that what he did is a crime. This can work to their great peril, particularly if a President can actually get away with ignoring Congressional subpoenas. Put it this way: If a President is immune to criminal prosecution from the Department of Justice and entitled to ignore subpoenas from the Congress, that President HAS NO CHECKS ON NOR CREDIBLE OVERSIGHT OF HIS AUTHORITY. What is the difference between such a President and a dictator or king? But for my money, the outcome of what will go down as simply “the first” impeachment (should the Senate not vote to remove the fool) is almost immaterial. Trump has committed enough sins that he should be under impeachment for as long as the Dems hold the House. For the Republicans, the ultimate verdict on whether or not it IS a turd is inescapable. Arguments such as “it isn’t a big enough turd to warrant removal” must in the end collapse. And everybody knows it!

I am just listening while I scan 35 mm negatives from the 80s.
In a way they are repeating, but to me it’s like they’re distilling the information. I’m getting a LOT of of this. I understand the Ukraine issue much better now.

Someone said when the Republicans mount their defense, all they will do is complain about the process. They have nothing to present that would show he’s innocent.

@Dutchess_III

I watched an interview the other night of a Journalist who is Republican and he stated that he thinks that Republicans only see this as a Democratic ploy to garner Democrat votes in the coming election!
In saying that he is just negating the evidence…but its just HIS opinion.

I’m more interested in what Independents are paying attention to.

But I do see a higher general level of engagement from people now that the trial has actually begun. I think, yes, some conservatives are paying attention. If there’s one bias that is pervading the left and the right right now, it’s that the other side is full of unreasonable and fundamentally different people.

@Smashley
Or actually people who are afraid of losing there jobs, not to mention respect after allowing a delusional leader into power to go unchecked?

@Inspired_2write (regarding your first post, to me)—the Trump method? You have not even heard from the Trump legal team. They have not presented their side yet, and were not allowed to in the impeachment hearings. For the first time in history, the accused was not allowed to present a case, cross-examine witnesses, access or examine evidence, or have legal representation.

The Defense has not even testified yet in the senate,

@Yellowdog

We will hear from them on Saturday. Lets hope its truthful and not just slinging mud ?

The FACT that Trump withholds and brags about this ( Executive ) makes it unreasonable.
In the end the TRUTH WILL come out .

Val Demings House impeachment manager, has an odd way of pronouncing some words. For example she pronounced “reputation” like “repatation.” Cooperate came out like “kaapotate.”
Odd.

I guess I have to ask…what damning testimony? I’ll be honest, I have been working and not tuning in, but I have to guess it’s more of the same schlock that was accepted as “evidence” in the inquiry. Hearsay evidence, opinion…nothing actually considered a fact. And so far, all that has happened is the Dems have given their opening statements. That’s not really even testimony. Let me guess…more of the “Trump is using his office to benefit himself!” and “Trump is working with foreign entities to interfere in the 2020 election!”. There is no actual fact involved in those statements. There is no testimony.
Here’s the corollary to your question: Are liberals even able to differentiate between fact and opinion?

3 facts: 1. Trump withheld aid authorized and approved by the Congress, a move now ruled as 2. illegal on its face. He has taken the position that
3. any subpoena issued ANYONE employed or in the service of the executive branch may be excused of that obligation on his sayso.—obstruction of Congress. And the bonus FACT 4. That his withholding of the aid served to benefit him EXCLUSIVELY to the detriment of all but himself (and perhaps Russia,).

No question he tried to invite another country to meddle in our election.
No question he put his personal wants above what is best for the nation.
No question he violated his oath of office.
No question. No doubt.

@Dutchess_lll
Exactly!

I understand our relationship with Ukraine now. It’s critical.

@Dutchess_lll

And in a critical situation no one needs a “loose cannon” mouthing off threats.

He should had been stopped in 2016 and prevented then but no one took the incentive to stop him when he blatantly asked Russia to help him by looking for 30000 emails of Hillary Clinton!

It gets worse every day that Trump is in a Powerful position as President.

I bet after this President is impeached or voted out that there would be a drastic change in how much power that a sitting President would have .

In fact I wouldn’t be surprised “if” a president has NO power except to release speeches etc

And certainly NOT all the power to decide on issues of concern to the Public and Country.

He/they would be only a ‘token President” who gives speeches that are previewed by Congress & Senate

What are they even charging him with.

Joe Biden once bragged about getting a Ukraine prosecutor fired who was investigating his son, by threatening to withhold a billion dollars in military aid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

Obama withheld military aid and Russia took Crimea.

When a new Ukraine president was elected, the left feared that Trump would look into this, so they made up a story, essentially, that Trump did the same thing, withheld aid unless the new president of the Ukraine investigated Joe Biden.

There is no evidence for the charge, and no one in the Ukraine says this happened, but the Dems are running this anyway, hoping people will believe it for 2020.

@SergeantQueen, Pelosi accused Trump of betraying his oath of office, U.S. national security, and the integrity of the country’s elections.

By doing…..?

@SergeantQueen by being Trump and doing business for him and ONLY HIM ! .

The USA is secondary and the vehicle for him to make money. He was a gangster in NYC 40 years ago and he is still is one !

To answer you question.
He withheld Congress approved money for Ukraine and told the President of the Ukraine if you wanted the money for his country to dig up dirty on Biden’s son.

There is also the little matter regarding Trump’s proposition that obstruction of Congress is not a crime

Wow. And I thought it was much worse. Eh. No different than other politicians. And wow, “He was a gangster in NYC” Didn’t he help start businesses that ended up benefiting NYC greatly? Dang. Sounds like an awesome gangster to me.

Wow. Conservatives on FB are already howling that it’s a kangaroo court because there are no witnesses and no documents! Those were Mitch McConnell’s rules!
They are so easily manipulated.

Moscow Mitch will whip up all the fourth graders !

And then there’s that thing about tweeting “FAKE NEWS!”

This is serious stuff @SergeantQueen. Putting the country in danger for his personal gain is very serious. There has never, ever been a president like this. It’s horrifying.

Your hero @Yellowdog is the tweeting the most (in all time) during the impeachment and it is all about “poor little me” !

He is a gangster and always will be.

He’s got a nervous twitch going on.

I don’t think this is that serious.

Isn’t it strange that the left in the house is charging that Trump did something that there is absolutely no evidence for, but Joe Biden actually DID do and is on tape laughing and bragging about?

Ok @Yellowdog YES ya got us Biden got Ukraine to fire that corrupt prosecutor, now with all your conservative greatness what did Biden personally gain from doing that?
Even your cronies wanted that guy gone.
Trump did it for his own political gain see the difference?
And all of us have said time and time again if what Biden can be proven a crime then he should pay for it, same as ole orange hair.
But that part always falls on deaf conservative ears Biden should get the death penalty, and Trump should get a Nobel .
Sorry my good man, he is only a hero like god in your eyes ,to the rest of us he smells like a swamp rat.

@Yellowdog I’m sorry for you that you don’t understand what was alleged was AGAINST the law for the President to do.

HE is not above the law just ‘cause he’s “El Jefe” ! Dictator in charge !

Okay, let’s review for those of you that believe there is “no doubt” of all the allegations against Trump and how vitally dangerous they are and how the Dems are perfect little impartial saints. First off, there IS doubt. Hence, the trial. Many people in this country believe there was nothing done wrong. “Trump withheld aid for his own benefit!!!” What did he gain? Answer? Nothing. Kinda hard to say he worked for his own gain when he gained nothing. “Trump refused subpoenas for his people, obstructing Congress!!!” That is actually allowed…for the executive branch to challenge congress on all things. It’s called division of power. The POTUS does not work for Congress. “Trump withheld aid that was authorized by Congress!!!” Yep. the GAO says it was illegal. But the OMB says it wasn’t and withholding aid is not only within the scope of the POTUS power, but has been done many, many times before by many, many presidents. It is done to make sure the money isn’t going to support corruption and is going to be used to help us and that country. Funny how it was never a problem before. “He invited a foreign government to interfere in our elections!!!” When? How about never. And funny that there is no outrage that the DNC used actual Russian intelligence to create dirt on Trump. When the DNC does it, it’s okay? Is that how it works?
Face it folks, the Dems have nothing. They couldn’t even come up with a crime that was committed…just opinions they hold.

As for the “crimes” they want to impeach him on, I find it highly partisan and hypocritical that the Dems were entirely okay when it was a Democratic POTUS doing them

https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-democrats-didnt-care-when-obama-committed-obstruction-of-justice/

https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-put-conditions-on-foreign-aid-and-democrats-didnt-care/

Trump said from the beginning that he withheld aid to Ukraine until he was sure it wasn’t going to get wasted in corruption. The Ukrainian president knew nothing of this when he spoke with Trump. That, alone, shows there was no pressure on Zelenskyy to do anything. He wanted to have Zelenskyy look into corruption in his country, especially corruption that could involve US people. Everyone believes the request was for an investigation into Biden. The actual request was to look into Crowdstrike, the company the DNC called in to look into the “hacking” of their servers instead of letting the FBI look into it. The same company that whisked the servers away and refused to let anyone else look at them. The same company that had ties to Ukraine. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the hacking of the DNC servers the root of the claim of Russian interference in the 2016 election? Isn’t that something we worry about…foreign interference in our elections? So when a POTUS asks another country for help looking into possible corruption by a US entity that could be involved with foreign interference in an election, why is it suddenly an impeachable offense? Biden was only mentioned minutes later in the conversation, almost as an oh-by-the-way example of other potential corruption by US entities. And now there is evidence coming out that Biden was, indeed, involved in corrupt actions in Ukraine. Oh! and the whistleblower too!

https://spectator.org/laura-ingraham-whistleblower-role-in-hunter-biden-scandal/

https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/12/18/giuliani-reveals-evidence-of-yovanovitch-biden-corruption-in-ukraine/

Tonight I heard the sad news that Jim Lehrer had died at the age of 85. Soaking up that news, I am now confronted with one of life’s little jokes as I return here to discover that some poor bumpkin is once again seeking to pass off Laura Ingraham, the Spectator, pj media, etc. as reputable journalism suitable for the bolstering of his opinions. The Ingraham thing is particularly interesting in the supposedly “sensational” expose’ of whistleblower perfidy in the “Biden scandal”. The fact that no one pays attention to the nonsense from any of these silly operations is taken by them and their hillbilly followers as absolute proof of mainstream bias. There is a sad sort of tragedy in the dedicated gullibility of the great unwashed and its propensity toward devotion to the snake charmer faction of what dubiously passes for “the news”. Rest in peace Jim Lehrer. Your country will sorely miss you.

I’m a conservative Republican. I’ve heard it all. Trump likely did something wrong.

What law did Trump break?

There’s an element of doubt about what both sides are presenting. The left has it’s motives and the right has theirs.

The abuse of power charge seems very weak to me. All based on an unknown whistleblower. Big element of doubt there.

Obstruction of Congress? That’s a trumped up charge for sure. After 3 years and many investigations into about every aspect of Trump starting from start of Trump’s Presidency that’s what House Democrats came up? HA!

Trump’s impeachment is not driven by wrong doing. It’s driven by blind hate.

Sorry you, @gondwanalon, think it is okay for the USA to have a “El Jefe” that doesn’t like laws and never has with his past history in housing and construction. Being a dictator is good, for him.
He withheld Congressional approved money for Ukraine, so they (Ukraine) would “dig up dirt” on Joe Biden’s son. ====> Quid Pro Quo.

@stanleybmanly being a hillbilly is good when you don’t understand or even want to understand the Constitution. They think the dictator in Washington is above the Constitution and the law.

One can argue all they want but wait until the witnesses are called, that’s” IF” the Republicans are interested in the truth to be told.

Unit MORE is revealed we just banter back and forth upsetting everyone.

IF Trump didn’t do anything wrong then let the truth come out, right?

He IS hiding and lying and untrustworthy, and constantly tweeting chaos to disrupt the process.

@Tropical_Willie “He withheld Congressional approved money for Ukraine, so they (Ukraine) would “dig up dirt” on Joe Biden’s son. ====> Quid Pro Quo.” Except (a) Zelensky never knew the aid was held up, (b) the investigation was never done nor even announced it would start and (c) it is only liberal lunacy that believes a request was even made. Go back and read the actual transcript. Kinda hard to have a quid pro quo when you have neither a quid nor a quo.

@stanleybmanly I’m not sure you ever saw this:

Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism
I practice journalism in accordance with the following guidelines:
• Do nothing I cannot defend.
• Do not distort, lie, slant or hype.
• Do not falsify facts or make up quotes.
• Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story
were about me.
• Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
• Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and good a person as I am.
• Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
• Assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
• Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the
story mandates otherwise.
• Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and
clearly label it as such.
• Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and
monumental occasions. No one should ever be allowed to attack another
anonymously.
• Do not broadcast profanity or the end result of violence unless it is an
integral and necessary part of the story and/or crucial to its understanding.
• Acknowledge that objectivity may be impossible but fairness never is.
• Journalists who are reckless with facts and reputations should be
disciplined by their employers.
• My viewers have a right to know what principles guide my work and the
process I use in their practice.
• I am not in the entertainment business.
-Jim Lehrer

Sorry to tell you hoss, but most of the MSM doesn’t hold to really any of these rules on a regular basis. Especially hack outlets like the NYT, WaPo, CNN or MSNBC. Let’s compare that to what I provided. I get that you don’t like conservative outlets, but when you look at them, they give citations, they didn’t use anonymous sources, they didn’t falsify facts or make up quotes, and they are actually addressing that fairness should be applied to current story lines. Compare that to how the liberal media has acted over the past 3+ years and you will readily see the bad journalism in the crowd…and it isn’t the conservative outlets.

@seawulf575
~~~~~~~~Guess ya got me, must be a hillbilly just like NPR News Timeline

I participated in a sub-Policy Coordination Committee video conference where an OMB representative reported that the White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, had placed an informal hold on security assistance to Ukraine. The only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the President.” quote of State Department Ukraine expert Catherine Croft under oath !!!

Quit reading BARTFART FAUX NUUS.

There is timeline of his actions including trying to cover up.

@seawulf575 Hack outfits like the New York Times and Washington Post? Of the 4 outfits YOU list as liberal or progressive, only MSNBC qualifies as liberal. The others are considered “mainstream” by most people with shoes on their feet or teeth in their mouths. And anyone with the temerity to suggest Laura Ingraham as legitimate substitute for the New York Times is wearing a huge “KICK ME!” sign regarding their credibility.

It is that serious @SergeantQueen. You don’t invite a foreign country to help determine the outcome of our elections. If we invited Putin to come in and influence our elections, would you consider that “serious”? Pretty sure Russia meddled in the 2016 election and look what happened. Trump does Putin’s bidding.
Ukraine is at active war with Russia. Russia is our #1 enemy. That makes Ukraine and us allies. Congress approved $68 million to give Ukraine to help fight our mutual enemy. Trump threatened to withhold that aide unless Ukaraine dug up dirt on Trumps #1 threat in this year’s election, the Bidens.
He did that, not to defend our nation, but to benefit himself. And it helped Russia.

Here is a great video about the trial so far, made by a lawyer.

@seawulf575 of course the alternative wingnut “news” sources give citations— the same sort of citations YOU give. You misanthropes are an insular and closed incestuous circle feeding off one another. You pop up here with silly shit from places like “truth eagle dot gun” and wonder why you are mocked?

@Tropical_Willie Take a look at what you just wrote and the conclusions you jumped to. Presidents have held up aid to a variety of countries for decades. I just gave you a citation that showed Obama did it several times and actually was looking for a quid pro quo. And no one cared…especially the Dems. According to the OMB it is within the purview of the executive branch to ensure the spending is done correctly and not wasted. But you make a vast assumption that it was for some nefarious reason. And THAT is why the Dems will lose out on this impeachment. Because they don’t have facts…they have opinions and innuendo and that’s about it. You, yourself, have even tried pushing their illogical conclusions…that there was a quid pro quo. You’ve bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, I just pointed out where the logic flaws in that conclusion are and you crank out something that has just as many flaws in it to try supporting your hatred.

@stanleybmanly What is obvious to me is that you have no problem deflecting by trying to attack the source but really have avoided actually discussing the information presented therein. In other words, you can’t stay on topic.
As for the “mainstream” “news” outlets such as NYT, WaPo, and CNN, if they are so reputable, why have they pushed lies, partial truths, edited videos to change the meaning, used tons of “anonymous sources” and actually made up stories? That should speak enough to their journalistic integrity being total trash.

AS Fox and Bright Fart have never pushed a lie, again anything not conservative news outlet is lies and false hoods.
Even your PJ media is quite right wing.
Gee I am shocked how right wing news outlets can find no wrong doing, so it must be gospel right?

That wing nut nonsense is to journalism what snake handling is to religion, and our poor smokewulf lacks the sense to be embarrassed about his devoted commitment to the “cult”.

@SQUEEKY2 Right wing, left wing, they all have issues. But interesting…you want to ridicule my citation sources. Care to make it specific? What was in those citations that was inaccurate, made up, or a lie? Please…help us all understand. To discount an article because you don’t like the source is ignorant. Are you ignorant? I never thought so, but I may need to rethink that.

@stanleybmanly making personal attacks on me is just more weak minded efforts at deflection. Care to actually address my statements and citations? So far you have avoided it like the plague. I assume it is because you actually have no arguments, but just can’t bring yourself to admit you might be wrong.

K. They started on Article 2, obstruction of Congress. He give illegal orders to everyone to ignore subpoenas.

In @seawulf575 eyes there are no checks and balance in Government only Trump !

We don’t need a Constitution ‘cause Trump couldn’t read it !

How much is Putin paying you to look alot like a “Rube”??

@seawulf575 These aren’t personal attacks on you! I am merely trying to have you recognize the absurdity of jumped up backwater swamp based internet outlets claiming the New York Times and Washington Post as bogus news sources and themselves as accurate purveyors of the truth. If you insist on buying into that ludicrous bullshit, it is not so much a personal attack to adjudge you a dupe, but rather the mandatory conclusion to be drawn from your adsertions.

@Dutchess_III have you considered that, due to the separation of powers, one branch is not required to obey another? Let’s look back in history a bit. Remember Fast and Furious? When congress subpoenaed Eric Holder to testify and he refused? As AG, he fell under the Executive branch. What was the outcome? He was held in contempt of Congress which led to….nothing. This is not the same as ignoring a subpoena from a court.

@stanleybmanly And still you cannot bring yourself to actually address the context, only the source. You are a sad little man, aren’t you?

@Tropical_Willie I find it funny that you can’t see that it is actually the Dems/liberals that cannot accept the checks and balances and separation of branches. Or is it that it is much more effective for Putin if you push false narratives?

Let’s just see how it plays out, if Trump looses your going to claim Democrat corruption if he wins you will claim huge waste of tax money.

And Amazing almost four years in and you still bring your hate for Obama front and centre let it go man.
Please show us a news source that isn’t slanted right so much and will be happy to read it and not scoff at it like you do with anything we post.

Here’s is the GOP logic:
1) Trump is King

2 ) Look at #1
.
.
,
,
,
,

3 ) He never lies (approaching 17,000 since taking office) not relevant Look at #1.

What does that have to do with anything @seawulf575? Ok, he ordered every one in the Executive Branch of the government to ignore subpoenas. That was _illegal._Do you not understand that?

@Dutchess_III To me, it’s all political posturing on both sides. Eventually the Supreme Court will rule and we’ll have to go from there. A decision is expected by June 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/supreme-court-trump-financial-records.html

White House counsel did claim executive privelege.
By definition: the privilege, claimed by the president for the executive branch of the US government, of withholding information in the public interest.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, rejected the argument that the White House could keep McGahn from turning over documents or testifying on Capitol Hill under a claim of executive privilege.
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/07/721053127/white-house-directed-ex-counsel-mcgahn-not-to-comply-with-congressional-subpoena

Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.

The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment

And finally, this (12/14/19):
In a statement issued Friday evening, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pushed back on those arguments from the Trump legal team and expressed disappointment that “the American people will now have to wait several more months for final rulings.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/supreme-court-agrees-hear-trump-appeals-subpoena-fights-over-financial-n1101901

The guy is DIRTY @KNOWITALL he is covering his tracks and continuously is thumbing his nose at the American people. I know he covers your agenda, but illegal does not even cover what he is doing.
He is building his wall (Phallic symbol) with money that was suppose to repair and maintain housing for the families of Armed Forces, leaving them in moldy and drafty housing; good old Dr Bone Spurs.

Not your worry he is covering your agenda. SMH !

@Tropical_Willie Ha, they’re all dirty. That’s why so many people do not vote at all.

@SQUEEKY2 Isn’t it funny? I’m already claiming Democrat corruption and huge waste of money. I’ve been claiming that for 3 years now. As for Obama hate, What did I say or do that was hateful towards the man? I brought up his actions as a contrast to how Dems and libs reacted when someone else did the exact same things they are screaming about now with Trump. It’s called hypocrisy and I am pointing it out. I know how it bothers you and how you can’t consider the fact that one of your heroes was tainted, but that is your problem and not mine.

@Dutchess_III No, I can’t see that as illegal. What law was broken? Again…a congressional subcommittee is not a court of law. They don’t carry the same weight. And congress has very limited control over the other branches of government. Don’t you understand that?

@KNOWITALL Excellent answer. Well thought out and delivered, full of facts. Kudos, my dear!

@seawulf Well thanks. Occasionally I think some people can see thru the smoke, but apparently not here.

The courts will determine just how much weight a Congressional subcommittee may wield. And it is the Congress which is relegated the specific responsibility to censure and remove a criminally defective President. “They’re all crooks” is but a simplistic whitewash of the issue at hand. And it’s worth pointing out that more often than not the courts make a point of handing this fool his hat. He has thus far lost every judgement and appeal regarding his invincibility to Congressional oversight and subpoenas. As a matter of fact, prior to his impeachment, it has been the 3rd branch of government—the courts which have consistently slapped the fool around on every one of his hairbrained vindictive infringements on the Constitution from child abductions at the border through his infamous Muslim ban, and moronic regressive attempts to ban gays from the military. Once the courts rule this idiot not above the law and strip him of his imaginary immunity to Congressional subpoena, his orange ass will be cooked. Watch and see.

@stanleybmanly What you are missing is that he has the right to challenge these things. The absolute right. If the courts determine his viewpoint is correct, the entire liberal narrative falls apart. If, on the other hand, the courts determine his viewpoint is incorrect, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s not like they can retroactively say he’s guilty for exercising his rights. And it doesn’t open up the flood gates like you might think. He can still restrict testimony of his people because of national security issues and the like. While you just luuuuuvvvv to predict doom and gloom for Trump, to date, you have been 100% wrong in your predictions. Something to cogitate on while Trump is acquitted.

When you are King you can tell the Supreme Court to take a flying leap. But they’ll probably hand his ass and Pence’s ass will go too because of conspiracy in the Ukraine withholding of Congressional approved funding to fight Putin….. oh I see why they wanted to withhold the funds !

Trump has been in office for three years and never has withheld finding for the Ukraine.

Obama was in office for eight years and only funded Ukraine one time, withheld it seven, and nobody even knows where that money went. The military only received blankets as Russia took Crimea.

Don’t you have your information a little backwards, @Tropical_Willie

So if Obama did it, what is the big deal if ole orange hair does it too?
And what did Obama gain by with holding the funding? seven times??
Boy those Fox people sure are on the ball.
Oh and NOW you’re going with NEVER with held funding?? WTF !
Trump did with hold the funding, because you fright wingers were saying he was concerned about corruption, but then released the funds (when he was found out) and Ukraines President had no idea the fund had been put on hold ,and according to you fright wingers never felt pressured about doing anything Trump wanted.
NOW!!! your saying The Don Father never with held the funds?
See where I get confused?

Trump has never withheld aid from Ukraine.

Obama withheld funds and weapons, removed missiles, and stood by while Crimea was taken (⅓ of Ukraine) by Russia. Care to counter that charge?

During the three years of the Trump administration, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who is an impeachment manager, along with House Democratic Reps. Zoe Lofgren of California, Sylvia Garcia of Texas and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, all either opposed or didn’t vote for national defense bills that included lethal aid to Ukraine.

Yet they are leading the charge that Trump “intended” somehow to withhold funding. Something that did not happen, and which there is no evidence for,

SOURCES PLEEZE ! @Yellowdog You are following BARF FART I know but give me a source not your opinion.

Trump didn’t withhold funds to Ukraine.

Obama only funded Ukraine one time, withheld it seven. (You know Congress has to FUND THEM) right !!!!!

@Yellowdog You believe what you want but don’t expect us to buy into your fright wing world.
The Don Father did put a hold on the aid,now you say NOPE never happened.
WOW! You know you don’t have to lie for Trump he lies pretty good all on his own.

Oh here is one article saying Trump did with hold aid…..
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-government-watchdog-says-trump-illegally-withheld-aid-to-ukraine-2020-1

So @Yellowdog If your willing to out right lie about this for Trump,are we expected to believe everything else you praise Trump for?

@seawulf575 of course he has the right to challenge the subpoenas in the courts. But you are dead wrong about it not making a difference if the court rules against the fool. For it would immediately compel the dummy to comply in handing over the documents requested and compel those subpoenaed to comply. It doesn’t matter one bit if the ruling arrives after the spineless Republicans acquit the dummy, his nibs is not protected by any double jeopardy provision in matters of impeachment. He has lost appeal after appeal already on his contention that his business, and tax records are somehow sacrosanct, and we will soon be reading the truth once again about the puffed up fraud of a man.

@stanleybmanly Maybe you are just being purposely obtuse, but think about it. He is the POTUS. Any court ruling will get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. By the time it all gets through those reviews, he will be finishing his second term. And in the end, this impeachment trial will be over before anything is resolved by the SCOTUS, and Trump will be acquitted.

@SQUEEKY2 let’s clear up the lingo….Withhold. It means to keep, refrain from giving, deny. Did Trump give the funds to Ukraine? Yes he did. So he did not withhold funding as you are claiming and @Yellowdog is correct. He did delay giving the funding which is within his purview.
You also give a citation for saying it was withheld and that it was illegal. I commend you for giving a citation. I have read that article before. Here is another that gives the other side of the story

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/16/omb-gao-ukraine-aid-illegal/

The OMB, the group that is in charge of dispersing funds, disagrees with the GAO on their interpretation. Had Trump absolutely refused to give the aid, it might have been illegal. To delay to ensure the funds are being dispersed correctly, in support of foreign policy and not being used illegally is what the OMB is supposed to do. Every other POTUS has gone through these same iterations and it has never been a problem. Face it…the only reason it is suddenly a life and death thing is because the Dems/MSM are trying to undo the 2016 election as they have been doing since Nov 2016. In fact, the Washington Post had a headline on Jan 20, 2016 at 12:19 pm (19 minutes after Trump was sworn in), that read “The Campaign To Impeach President Trump Has Begun” If you can’t see this whole thing is a sham, then I would suggest it is you that is buying into all the lies.

The Post was merely prescient. The corrupt and crooked gangster of a President came into office under a cloud, and no act of genius would ever be required to predict that he would noisily bungle his way to impeachment. Here’s hoping the “sham” continues right into the upcoming second impeachment in his saga of disgrace. And you are once again wrong on that appeals timetable. The dummy’s appeals are moving up the chain at record speed, as at every stage he is understandably laughed out of court on his ridiculous assertion that he is somehow above the law.

@stanleybmanly That argument is weak even for you. When they are already starting to scream about impeaching him when he has been the POTUS for 19 minutes and has done absolutely nothing, you have only one answer. They are starting a concerted effort to change the results of the election. And when the liberal media is leading the charge, you can’t help but admit to liberal bias. That means the millions the Dems have wasted for the past 3 years and the current efforts at impeachment are nothing but a sham, based on nothing but desperation and innuendo.

You are one scary dude^^^ but I do admit you have to admire your devotion and dedication to the far right.
Man I look at Trumps team and they all look like they are kids caught with chocolate cake all over their faces, adamantly denying they were eating chocolate cake.
They are covering something up,and if they are not then let witnesses testify let these hearing play out and show the American voter the Don Father did indeed do no wrong,because other than the die hards the American people want this done fairly and played out.
But right now all it looks like is the Republicans are obstructing every angle they can.
YOU are never going to convince us he is innocent regardless of how many right wing links you post, like WE will never convince you he is guilty regardless of how many left wing links we post and you spit on.
And quit with the hate thing it’s getting VERY OLD!!

Squeek is much kinder than I will ever be. This notion that Trump appeared on the scene faultless and without warts is pure poppycock. It is stupid and a pretense suitable for only the slow of wit or patently dishonest. The ongoing pretense of the turd’s glaring irregularities to be the mere invention of biased media, liberal courts, corrupt law enforcement officials and hostile dishonest Democrats—it’s such a transparent jumble of nonsense that the misanthropes behind it should be as culpable for its dissemination as the inglorious turd itself. There are only 2 possibilities for the proliferation of such crap, and they are either a blatant disregard for the truth rivaling that of the turd itself, or a rampant stupidity once again molded on the model of our would be turd king. This preposterous contest over whether or not it is a turd will play out. The press, the courts, the DOJ, and yes the DEMOCRATS— they are NOT going to lose on this argument on whether or not it is a turd. I make no claim for Democrats being superior in any way to Republicans when it comes to ideology, but I will tell you here and now as surely as the sun will rise in the morning, that the side tasked with defending the notion that stinky is not a turd is irrevocably doomed to catastrophic disappointment.

@SQUEEKY2 listen to your statements : They are guilty, but we don’t know of what. They look guilty anyway. But let’s dig in until we find something! Yes, I paraphrased, but that is the gist. This is the same crap we have put up with for his entire first term in office. Here’s a novel idea: How about having an actual crime up front before you start into these political theatrics?
Look at what you are suggesting here. The House supposedly ran a fair inquiry. At least according to them. They didn’t let the Repubs have a say in anything, including calling witnesses. Let’s apply your logic to that. If they aren’t trying to make this a sham, why not let the witnesses be called? Why keep out witnesses that might actually have a part to play? But they didn’t. And then they got what they called an airtight case against Trump. They went forward with Articles of Impeachment. And they slammed it through the House. So realistically, all the inquiry should be done at this point…they should have all the facts, right? But they know they didn’t have actual crimes as their basis for impeachment. They know they did a slip-shod inquiry in an effort to get the Articles of Impeachment out. So now they want the Senate to continue this sham. Sorry, to me it is a waste of time and money. Let the case be delivered, the the rebuttal be heard, and move on…guilty or not.
As for my “dedication to the far right”, I think you need to step back and evaluate your own position. If you view me as far right, that probably means you have drifted so far to the left that the middle looks far away. Take a look at what I actually attack in my statements or what I actually defend. Most times it is the bias in our politics. It is the lies that cost us time, effort, and money. Take my previous comment as example. I slammed a major liberal news outlet for headlining the “campaign for impeachment” 19 minutes after the guy was sworn in. He had done absolutely nothing as POTUS and the left starts calling for impeachment. If you care to go back, there were actually calls for impeachment very shortly after the election. It is that sort of political bias that I generally slam. And you see that as far right. By saying that, you tell the world that you consider that sort of behavior to be acceptable. That you feel this sort of political bias is normal and centrist at the very worst. Think about that for a few minutes.
And then your hypocrisy shows up when you are afraid the Repubs are going to do the exact same thing. You know what the left does is complete bullshit, yet you defend it and even tout it. You don’t consider it fair, you don’t consider it normal…you just are that far to the left that you cannot bring yourself to say anything negative about the left. Sorry, it is not I that am hard right, it is you that is hard left.

He can do no wrong in your eyes.
If Ukraine can’t be proven and I think it can.
and he is guilty as hell at breaking the emoluments clause of your constitution, by getting foreign dignitaries to stay at his Hotels, even the Rep/con party got him to back down from hosting the G7 at his golf resort,and then he got mad calling it a phony part of your constitution yeah he is innocent of everything.
As for wanting to impeach him instantly, the Rep/con started off right from the start saying they would do everything to make sure Obama was a single term President.
As for you being a centrist conservative uh excuse me BARF!!

And here is where he calls it phony…
https://youtu.be/L3ly9v2Sab4

@SQUEEKY2 sigh Dodge much? You still don’t get it. I don’t defend Trump. That is his business. But I don’t jump on the Hate Trump bandwagon and try to instill a little common sense and logic into these absurd efforts by the left. So in your warped view, that makes me the great defender of all things Trump and a far right nut. Here’s a fact: I just explained all this. I even pointed out that you cannot say anything negative about the left. Instead of actually responding to my comments, you try a vast dodge, just so you won’t actually have to look at your own views or face the idiocy of the left.
And now you try invoking the emoluments clause. Let me educate you a little bit, assuming that since you are a Canadian you are somehow lax in understanding our nation’s rules. I know…you have liberal talking points. You just proved that. Instead of citing some liberal talking panel, let me take you to a much more informative location:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emoluments_clause

Please note that part of the issue with the Emoluments Clause is the issue of who it actually applies to. The actual part of the Constitution is Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. The actual wording is:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The tricky part of this is the term “Person holding any office of profit or trust under them”. Not surprisingly, your CNN liberals failed to actually go this far in their assessment. Typical. And this is the part that is odd because throughout our history, it has held different meanings, depending on who you talk to. If you read the citation I just gave you, you will find that when asked for it, Alexander Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury gave a list of persons that fit this description and purposely excluded anyone that was elected. When receiving gifts from foreign governments, George Washington did not seek Congressional approval where as Andrew Jackson did, indicating they did not have the same understanding as each other. This has never been put into the SCOTUS for final determination. So when Congress thinks the POTUS is violating the Emoluments Clause and the POTUS doesn’t, the final deciding factor is the SCOTUS. I find it interesting that the Dems have not tried taking this to the SCOTUS for a ruling. If it was such a slam dunk, they would have done so already. The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966 does address specific elected officials including the POTUS and VPOTUS who are not allowed to accept gifts of more than nominal value from foreign governments. Gifts are not emoluments.
To further muddy the waters, Trump stepped away from ownership/operation of his businesses, placing them in trusts. Technically, he doesn’t benefit from anyone staying at one of his resorts. That makes the claim of emoluments clause issues even more bizarre, leaving more to be interpreted. And it isn’t the liberal media, the Democrats, the Republicans, you or I that get to interpret these things. It is the SCOTUS. And I’ll be honest, even if the SCOTUS ruled on it today, I don’t know that they could/would retroactively go back in time to say he broke some law. It would probably be a from-this-time-forward sort of response. That is speculation on my part, but seems to be the right thing.

Sigh, this question has reminded me that I’d better go flip on the radio.

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

Ahh it’s all good. I checked Trumps Twitter, guys.

Turns out he released the money AHEAD of schedule.

See? All good here! Nothing to see. Big nothing. Witch hunt, witch hunt witch —..

Oh wait..

Is it possible he just said that to obfuscate the truth?

He can’t spell “obfuscate !

Technically, he doesn’t benefit from anyone staying at one of his resorts.<Do you really believe that??
Or are you trying to get us to believe that?BARF!!!!!

He threatened to withhold them, and did withhold them, but then someone who a actually understands politics and our government told him that was a very bad, bad idea so he released them. He’s a Mafia Don, at best.

Careful @Dutchess_III he will slap the ole hate button on ya.
After all Rep/con are just peace and love trying to educate we dumb Lib/tards at how wrong we are.
Even though they spit on any link we provide ,and how we should embrace any link they provide as pure gospel.
Trump may have stepped down from running his empire, but to say he doesn’t profit from people staying there is pure BULLSHIT, but like every rep/con talking point say enough and loud enough people will have to believe you.

@seawulf575

There is a case in the pipeline concerning whether Trump is violating the emoluments clause. We must assume it will end up before the Supreme Court, unless is become suddenly unjusticeable.

As far as his trust goes, it’s being administered by his kids. He absolutely is still aware of his business dealings and makes decisions, and when he gets out, he gets the thing back, profit and all.

@Smashley There is talk about the emoluments clause. That’s about it. If the Dems can’t get him out of office with this impeachment (which seems highly unlikely), they will probably try using the emoluments clause because they are that deranged. They don’t understand the negative impact on themselves from their actions. Trump’s approval rating keeps going up the longer this impeachment stuff goes on. Most people recognize the Russia collusion fiasco was a political effort. The fact that those pushing it never really wanted to dig into things like the source of the Steele dossier or how it was used in the pursuit of FISA applications tells that. Americans are not as stupid as the Dems believe. Then, when that fell through, the Dems pivoted to Ukraine. They used a bogus whistleblower complaint that was full of accusation and no actual evidence. The specifics it alleged were promptly shown to be complete lies when the telephone transcript was released. But again…those pushing the anti-Trump narrative refused to follow up on those things. The Dems, in fact, fought to keep the actual whistleblower from testifying, especially when it came to light that the WB contacted Schiff’s own staff prior to writing the complaint. And when it is Schiff refusing all requests to have the WB answer questions, the American people recognize what a lie this entire thing is. Not to mention they can read the transcript. They know how the Dems are attempting to skew it, make it say things it never did. And that is the basis for their impeachment. So the Americans know that the Dems have done nothing for 3 years except use lies and innuendo to try undoing the 2016 election. They are, in fact, using the power of their offices to try getting rid of their political opponent. Sound familiar? Americans see these things. So when impeachment falls through and they start in with the idiotic emoluments clause stuff, people are likely to say enough is enough.
As for the trust, it doesn’t matter who is administering it. It isn’t him. He isn’t getting anything from it. And that is the heart of the emoluments clause. He stepped away and isn’t gaining from anything. You suspect he is still making decisions, but have no proof of that. I would suggest he has way too much going as POTUS to leave him any significant time to do anything with his businesses. But it really doesn’t matter. It is likely that all his businesses are incorporated so they become separate entities that continue to operate and make money. But he is not making money from them. If he were still in charge, he would be getting a salary and likely stock options and other bennies that would benefit him if business was good…including any business that goes on because he invited people to stay at his resorts. But he isn’t in that position. That is why it is likely that any efforts down the emoluments clause path would end up a losing proposition.
Here’s what really needs to happen in the Democratic Party: They need to actually do their jobs…the ones for which they were elected. They need to accept they lost the 2016 election and that President Trump is a reality. They need to figure out what America needs, not just what the Dems need, and start working towards that. They need to get candidates and a platform for America that people can respect and want to follow. These are all things that they should do and things they absolutely refuse to do.

In the end, I don’t worry over the upcoming conservative acquittal of our turd. And the reason is simple. As with the Mueller inquiry, anyone who thinks this the end of our turd’s troubles is not paying attention.

There are currently underway some 30 plus federal state and municipal investigations into our stable genius along with inquiries by virtually every stable government from Austria through the Vatican into the business, banking and tax affairs of guess who?

Then there’s our turd’s grim record in seeking refuge through the courts in his ludicrous assertions that he is somehow above the law. At every turn, regardless of the issue, the dummy loses and loses BIG.

This means that upcoming impeachments will allow all of stinky’s bank and business records displayed as evidence plus compel testimony from a huge crowd of those our fool deems immune to Congressional subpoena.

Conservatives are merely delaying the inevitable in this by now silly debate over whether or not it is or WAS a turd. I mean, in all honesty, what do YOU think?

I think he is super guilty and got caught, his conservatives are doing the best at covering it up, and convincing the die hards it was a liberal plot to unthrone him.
His base is buying it lock stock and barrel and get quite upset when the rest of us don’t lap it up as well.

Only actual facts are being used by the defense on the senate trial.

Super guilty of what? There are no crimes, and even the things they are alleging, plainly didn’t happen, aside from not being crimes.

I think the “Stable Genius” is hoping Doctor Bone Spurs comes along and helps again, again and again.

@Yellowdog you’re listening BARF FART and FAUX NewZZZ. The Republican Senators are starting to listen. Oh Bolton in the “on deck” spot for being a witness.

See @Tropical_Willie my point exactly buying it lock stock and barrel.

See @Yellowdog is spelling Senate like the bad comb-over spells it LOWER CASE senate ! !

@seawulf575

Well aren’t you the chestnut!

There is a case in the system, Blumenthal et al v. Trump, it was filed two and a half years ago and is slogging through the appellates now. That suit couldn’t kick him out of office though. It would potentially make him give up his dc hotel lease. That is more than talk.

The concept of a blind trust is not meaningless, and neither is Trumps refusal to enter into one meaningless. Carter gave up his peanut farm for goodness sake.

@Smashley I think the point you are missing is that pretty much every Representative and Senator in our congress make deals that benefit them personally. From things that help their businesses (or those of their immediate families) to things that help their stock holdings. They are ALL guilty of violations of emoluments if you want to hold that standard. And while I’m all for purging 100% of them from office, it wouldn’t fix anything. In many cases, they benefit just from their name being associated with their business. I give you Hunter and Joe Biden as a perfect example.
Face it, you cannot work a job that pays $174,000/yr, maintain two residences (one in DC, one in their home state as is required), and become a millionaire in a couple years. It isn’t mathematically possible…without some help somewhere along the way.

@seawulf575 we do have standards for investigating corruption of some types. Statutes exist against self dealing and direct selling of votes. Candidates sometimes pay a political price when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Yes, many get rich because of “emoluments.” Ones such nepotism, or just the jobs, gigs, and investors coming at them: the door opening benefits of celebrity culture, of which they are a part.

You seem to believe the story politicians like to tell about their down home roots. They didn’t become rich through politics, they became rich, which allowed them to enter politics. Mostly, they come from money, elite colleges, and have been on the fast track all their lives. We’re into third and fourth generation politicians.. the Kennedys have been riding the clout of 20th century industrialist for 90 years. There’s still Addams’ in politics! The elite class has always protected and promoted it’s own, but we still have rule of law, if you can’t hide the truth. Of course, the problem is that many people can.

@Smashley there are many politicians that start as wealthy people, that is true. However, there are also many that don’t. Take Bernie Sanders for example. Here is a guy that has only ever worked some form of government job, from dog catcher up to Senator. Now I don’t know where you are from, but I’m willing to bet that dog catchers or even local politicians don’t make tons of money from their salaries. So most people cannot get “rich” off those wages. Yet he owns 3 mansions and is worth a couple million. About half of all people in Congress are millionaires. The median worth of all congress is $511,000.
The problem is that we don’t hold our elected officials accountable. In my mind, if you want to scream about emoluments (as there is wont to do…not necessarily from you specifically) then we need to hold that same standard to all…not just a few. I’m all for it. And if we say it is worth impeaching the POTUS for that, then we need to investigate and impeach every single elected official in DC that has benefited from their position in any way other than their salary.

As much as you irritate the hell out of me I do agree with your last answer, but impeachment I thought was something only for a President, not saying other Democrats and Republicans can’t be investigated and fined or charged for self profiting while being in office.

@SQUEEKY2
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.-wiki

Ok then impeach any and all offenders^

No, @SQUEEKY2 Only the ones you don’t like.

No @Yellowdog I want them all impeached if guilty, and careful there wouldn’t want to wear the hate button you so freely hand out would you?

@SQUEEKY2 I’d love to see any and all offenders out, and if proven, that goes for Trump, too.

There is a meme going around, something like “Don’t worry about the Millionaire who chose a to become a civil servant, worry about the ones who became Millionaires AFTER becoming a civil servant.”

Totally and that goes for any Canadian ones as well democrat or conservative far to long have these crooks have run our lives.
We need public servants that are for the people and the country,NOT what the lobbyists want.
We need the return of honest politicians in both countries.
ONES that are held accountable for their actions.

There is little question that the truth of a Congressional career is that you are either rich when elected or that once in place, your financial prospects improve markedly. Now there are legal methods to achieving this—speaking tours, books, we all know the drill and the projects that are but thinly disguised bribes. But there is an aspect to these facts that is easily forgotten and too often neglected. That median worth figure in the Congress given by seawulf —$511,000 if accurate is a joke. In effect, all you need do to qualify in many parts of our country is hold the deed to a modest house or apartment. Inflation is an insidious and tricky thing. It is a frightening discovery to understand that the word millionaire is no longer the assurance that “you’ve got it made.” If someone had suggested in my youth that a net worth of a million dollars might merely qualify me as middle-middle class in my declining years, I would have never believed it.

@SQUEEKY2
I don’t want to jinx it, but have you finally come to see that both sides are elitist pigs? It’s all a big joke on the American people. And the rest of the world, actually.

Sure both sides have their snouts buried in the corporate trough at the expense of the public interest. But Trump’s corruption exceeds “business as usual”. And he does so to such an extent that he exceeds any pretense of order or legality. Since he understands neither the function of his government let alone the requirements of his or any other Federal office, his criminality is virtually out in the open.

Nicely said @stanleybmanly !
@KNOWITALL I and most of us have said time and time again about Biden if he is guilty then he too should be charged, but that falls on deaf ears.
Even some of Fox thinks Trump is guilty.
The guy lies to no bounds, and he sheep make excuse after excuse for it.

@stanleybmanly
Trump greased the wheels of his relationship with the ex-president and the senator, giving the Clinton Foundation a $100,000 gift from his own foundation. According to “Trump Revealed,” by Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher, Trump donated to Hillary’s Senate war chest six times between 2002 and 2009, for a total of $4,700, and between 1999 and 2012, he switched his registration among the Republican, Democratic and Independence parties seven times.

The friendship, on both sides, was a transaction. Not personal, as they say in the “The Godfather” — just business. Trump’s life in New York was all about promoting the brand and making money for the family business. It was the same for the Clintons. A former Clinton White House official puts it more bluntly: “This was a classic Clinton go-where-the-money-is move.”

“They all played the same game in the same town with the same thing in mind,” says Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, who was invited to Trump’s third wedding and served prison time for tax fraud and other felony charges. “Better your relationships and build the business. It’s all about money and getting ahead and hedging your bets and playing the angles.”

…The Washington Post quoted four Trump allies and one Clinton associate as saying that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/magazine/when-hillary-and-donald-were-friends.html

@SQUEEKY2 Then at some point there should be hard evidence, not just constant outrage and aspersions.

Well said, @stanleybmanly .

@seawulf575 – Foreign emoluments are the ones the constitution has a problem with, specifically, and are at the heart of the legal case against trump and his DC hotel.

And clean house? Yes please.

We defeated McConnell. He doesn’t have the votes he needs to prevent witness testimony. My spirits really lifted with that news.
Our checks and balances are kicking in.

~ ~ ~Are the engines on his private jet revving, for a run to Ukraine (we don’t have extradition agreements). Maybe somewhere else?

I have often wondered if we’re gonna wake up one day and our president is no where to be found. Just….disappeared.

Yeah and if that happens ya got Pence till the next election,I think he is much scarier than Trump.

I hear that, but I don’t think that’s true. By the time he landed on his feet we have a new election.

No. There are Republicans now trying to gear Pence up because the writing’s on the wall concerning the stable genius. But that hope misses the BIG picture. The taint of Trump condemns Pence to mere obscurity (if he’s lucky). The main reason (in my view) that the Republican Senate is so dead set on acquitting Trump is precisely because everyone hooked into that phone call is culpable. Trump has seen to it that his crew must accompany the sinking ship. The way I figure it, the Republicans might settle on sustaining the obstruction charge, but reject the other charge, otherwise Pelosi will sit in the White House. But however this trial turns out, if the fool is left standing, you’re going to see a Republican party struggling in desperation to find a way to unload the turd with minimum damage. To which I say “Good luck with that one.”

@Smashley Actually, emoluments are mentioned twice in the Constitution. There is, of course, Article 1, Section 9, clause 8 as we have already discussed ad naseaum. But it is also mentioned in Article 2. And it discusses domestic emoluments. The sad part is that is only addresses the POTUS. It might be challenged that it applies to all elected officials, but it specifies only the POTUS.

Wow @stanleybmanly. I never thought of it that way.

@seawulf575 And I am not trying to start an argument why if it only addresses the POTUS why does it mean everyone?

Look at the record thus far! What is happening to the people around him? Try to name another figure in public life whose entourage has suffered the culling rampant in the Trump mob. The carnage of convictions of his LAWYERS alone should hint at just how safe a bet it is to be caught dealing with him. Giuliani is obviously next in the parade to the guillotine, and Barr is right behind him. As the Mueller probe demonstrated, the list of culpable players embroiled in the manipulation of Trump’s tentacles is beyond breathtaking , which is why the mere threat of his arrival at the gallows portends an unmitigated nightmare for conservative notables of EVERY stripe.

I don’t believe in my lifetime, including the era of McCarthy has there been a truer test of whether or not character matters, and you will never see a more certain test as to whether the precepts we have been schooled to follow for the entirety of our lives hold up or exist merely as slogans for toddlers and the naive. When the devil shows up, believe me, he WILL be popular. The deals he offers WILL appear lucrative, and his appeal irresistible to those of “flexible” integrity or conscience. But in the end, those maxims about deals with the devil invariably ring true as death.

Wow.

@SQUEEKY2 It only specifies the POTUS for the domestic emoluments. But if you think about it, it really should apply to all elected officials. Aren’t they all susceptible to corruption? If we truly want a government that works for us, none of them should be allowed to accept gifts from people (above a nominal amount). We don’t allow it in businesses, we don’t allow it with the POTUS, why should other elected officials be different? There are already other laws about graft and bribery that apply to public officials…18 USC 11 and 18 USC 201…so we all agree it is already illegal for a public official to accept a large gift in return for some concession. Accepting large gifts (emoluments) opens the door for that sort of thing.

@stanleybmanly well, there is the Clinton body count….an abnormally large number of people that were involved with them that died in odd ways. I have always said that the normal person, in their normal life, will know of a couple people that commit suicide or are murdered or are accidentally killed. I personally, after 59 years, know of three suicides and one accidental shooting. Add in deaths in car accidents and I can add 2 extras. Except for maybe soldiers in war, I think most people could count between 3 and 10 people that they know personally that have died in one of these ways. The Clintons are up to what…33? On a bell curve, they are way off the charts. How many other politicians have this many?

Isn’t it funny, when you try throwing out garbage like this, you can make it sound viable? That’s pretty much your stance…a lot of Trump people were “culled” rampantly. So that must mean something is wrong with Trump. Well, a lot of Clinton people were “culled” rampantly so that must mean there is something wrong with the Clintons, right?

@seawulf575 So much so, even people not interested in politics at all, are all over the Epstein didn’t kill himself and Hillary’s hit list jokes.

That being said, maybe in this current political climate, Trump COULD kill someone and no one would care. What’s good for the goose…

It’s always your guy did this, countered by yeah well your guy did that.
Since both are did this or that does it cancel the others out?
Both sides are full of crooks and and liars, and depending on which side you identify with the other side looks ten times more corrupt.

@SQUEEKY2 They both seem equally corrupt to me, yet what is our choice?

Not vote, or vote for someone who is the lesser of two evils, or waste your vote on a third party, or write-in, so that one of the Rep or Dem slags wins. It’s a no-win situation, as our government is no longer for the people by the people. It’s for the elite by the elite.

I am talking about the culling by the legal system, and we all know it. I’m talking about those either in or on their way to jail. There is no comparison to ANY administration in our past approaching the record of this administration’s blockbuster totals in a mere 3 years. In fact, it would be difficult to list ANY cabal or organization aside from organized crime that can sport a record of criminal indictments to match those of the Trump mob. This is a record in which our stable genius will not be out trumped.

@stanleybmanly I am talking about the claim that because something happens to those around a president that proves the president is a crook. You are using people being accused of crimes and I am talking about mysterious deaths….things happening to those around the presidents. I purposely chose the Clinton body count because it is exactly the same sort of thing. Ever stop to think you are a conspiracy theorist?

@SQUEEKY2 I’m not trying to deflect, I’m trying to point out how foolish the arguments from our pal @stanleybmanly are sometimes. And you are 100% correct…both sides are full of crooks and liars. That’s why I advocate for term limits for all elected officials. It is a start for stopping the corruption. It won’t stop all crooks or liars from running for office, but it makes it harder for them to do the long term damage our current crop does. I also think we need to track their net worth once they are elected. As I have stated previously, it seems highly unlikely for someone who makes $174,000/yr to be able to become a multimillionaire in a couple years without doing something illegal. Especially when they have to maintain two residences…one in Washington DC and one in their home state. I have many other ideas for deterring the crooks from running and creating more of a swamp than we already have.

I can’t understand how some people just don’t even want to hear about any of it.

Unfortunately for those who don’t want to hear it, the future is bleak indeed. As the stockpile of charges and scandals around the fool continues to expand, the momentum toward his toppling and disgrace can and DOES only accelerate. The evidence against the fool now mounts faster than even a biased media can accommodate let alone invent. And again, nothing the media or liberals might invent can match the deluge of sleaze in which the turd is mired. It’s a losing game for both Stinky and his backers; for the longer his removal is delayed, the more impeachments, investigations and probes are extended and the more Republican notables are trotted off to jail.