Printable View
It's only entertaining if the person doing so has made a career of trampling every constitutional principle duly enshrined as a barrier to government control of the people. You can't help but admire the balls that takes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
You give politicians in DC too much credit, Alan. US police trample constitutional principles every day all around the United States - something which you seem to support via auto-siding with police at the drop of a hat. My point is there are other players beyond Donald J Trump actively trashing the Constitution on a daily basis. You can add US CBP to the list of such players, also. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
At some point in the various testimonies it's all seemed like a show of rhetoric repeating the same things over and over. That has been interesting and an education in itself. If I were on trial for something it would be nice to have either side of the legal experts wordsmith my defense. They talk a fine talk. I've listen to samples from the beginning, but am sorry I missed the Pelosi oration. It does seem a little silly, but a good showing, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
It's not that I automatically side with the police in every instance, I just try to remind you that the police are not a single entity. When you go off on police it's the same as someone else saying all gays are pedophiles. When put that way I think even you can see that your stance requires a little pushback, cantcha?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Sort of like when she begins a sentence with “As a Catholic...”Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Yes. It seemed like a contest between Pharisees. The evidence was either “overwhelming” or “nonexistent” depending who was speaking. Members either had no choice but to perform their constitutional duty or were weaponizing the process for petty partisan reasons. Didn’t someone once say something about patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I agree with what Orrin Hatch said about the Democratic questioners going “borking mad”, claiming he would destroy the constitution and bring in a new era of tyranny.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Not a good comparison, Alan. A pedophile that gets caught is going to face SERIOUS consequences - as they should in my book. Gay or straight has no rebalance here.....it's a sick and twisted crime period. Now police on the other hand? Have until very recently, until Ferguson showed the world what American police are truly all about, and smartphone video enabled victims to both sue for millions and shine a flashlight daily on the truth of American police...until these two events took place, police have enjoyed breaking the law, even to the point of murder with no consequence. Not the same thing, Alan, though I'd agree that slowly this is changing. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I guess I was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
We all have our off days, Alan. Myself included in that. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
My post above to Alan? Should be rebalance and not rebalance...autocorrect is so annoying. Rob
My mind does it's own version of autocorrect and I read that as relevance, I guess I was wrong again. :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Ferguson cops are still showing the world what American police are all about. Today’s headline news:Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...home-top-story
tldr; Ferguson cops pull 10 year old boy out of icy swimming pool. Too bad, the kid didnt live.
I wasn’t going to respond to Rob’s post but the Ferguson story seem timely. Just as a reminder to real life, Mike Brown grappled with a police officer and was not an innocent victim when he was shot in August 2014.It is wise not to get into a physical altercation with a police officer.
She should hide her catholicism or be ashamed of it in some way? What is the standard by which we should judge whether someone is a "good" catholic? Does the fact that 98% of catholics in the US use birth control at some point in their lives mean that virtually all catholics should avoid mentioning that their catholicism might affect the way they view things since they obviously aren't "good" catholics?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Ay carumba. Revelance. There, finally got the word right. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
As someone who has watched/read a sizable chunk of the testimony and other evidence I'm curious about the people who think that it was nonexistent. And even more curious that those same people are the ones who don't want witnesses at the senate trial. Seems like they're trying to deflect or hide something.
There are no perfect Catholics. Some depart from doctrine in various ways with various degrees of regret. This does not make it less annoying when they use the faith for virtue signaling.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I’m reading now that Pelosi may delay sending the articles to the Senate for consideration until they agree to rules more congenial to the Democrats. I have trouble understanding how this puts pressure on the Senate Republicans. Why would it matter to them when the trial starts?
Because eventually the courts are likely to compel testimony from a bunch of people that the republicans would really prefer remain quiet. Hearing from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo, among others, in the house will likely make Moscow mitcg’s plans to perjure his impeachment oath more awkward.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
If that testimony would be so crucial, why didn’t the Democrats use the legal tools available to them and take the time needed to force those witnesses to talk during the process they could control? Why the hurry up and wait strategy?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
The corollary would be, why couldn't they just come forward. If there were no wrong doing they could add important information to the case. As it is, it looks like they are hiding something. Of course it would ruin the GOP defense that all the evidence is second or third hand.
I think executives are funny that way, not wanting to give Congress too much authority over them. All President's seem to guard their executive privilege as much as possible so it always takes the courts to resolve issues between the executive and the legislative. I believe both sides want to keep the courts out of this one, if the Democrats get the courts to add force to their subpoenas it's very much likely that the Republicans can also force the Democrats to provide witnesses familiar with the origins of the initial complaint, and they don't want that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Here's what Rich Lowry at National Review had to say:
It looks like Pelosi is going to delay sending over the articles of impeachment, which is a really bad idea. One, this is not a way to exercise leverage over McConnell, because he doesn’t care to have the articles sent over in the first place. Two, it’s bizarre to try to force the Senate to fight to get witnesses that the House didn’t make much of an effort to get itself. Three, this contradicts the argument that impeachment was such an urgent necessity that it had to be rushed. Four, it will make impeachment look even more partisan and political. Five, it is exactly the wrong tack to win over those Republicans who might be persuadable on witness like Romney and Collins. Besides all that, it’s a brilliant idea.
I remember Clinton testifying, and again, McDougal being jailed (must of her sentence spent in solitary confinement) because she didn't.
Lying about adult consensual sex pales in comparison to Trump's criminality.
At least the House impeached. I felt less embarrassed than I usually do when I texted my relatives in Vienna this morning. Of course I realize that the Senate will trample the will of the people to line Trump's and their own pockets. But at least yesterday one branch of the US government did the right thing. Since such is so rare in American politics under Trump, I'm wondering how difficult it would be to get a library or airport named after Nancy Pelosi, as a gesture of respect for everyday hard working Americans victimized by Trump's policies? Rob
I still believe, and always have, that the whole Lewinsky thing? Tawdry, yes.....but also none of our business. To me this matter resided exclusively with the Clintons and Ms. Lewinsky.....though I'd also say that their meetings - nice way to put it, no? - would have been better advised taking place somewhere not taxpayer subsidized....i.e., not in the Oval Office. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
IL, I'm sure your post is true. I'll give you that but with one HUGE caveat. You are not telling the whole story. A big reason that Ferguson went ballistic in the first place? The extreme predatory fining of the Ferguson PD. Micheal Brown's murder was just an ignition device for the powder keg already there, fully created by those if whom you approve at the Ferguson PD. No one in Ferguson will forget the predatory fining and neither will I. It's too American. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Should be created by those of whom you fully approve above. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Well, close enough. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Ok Boomer. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...term=revelance
DOH!Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Spare me the sanctimonious blather.
Cops on the street are hardly responsible for a municipality’s policy of raising revenue by traffic fines. That is policy put into place by the (largely) Democratic council of Ferguson and all surrounding municipalities just like them.
If that is HUGE it is easy enough to vote the baxtxxds out.
Susan McDougal said she refused to answer questions in the Whitewater trial because she feared being charged with perjury if she told the truth because her ex-husband had previously given false testimony designed to protect Bill Clinton which was accepted as truth. That trial had more to do with illegal financial dealings than sex as I recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
It actually seems like a reasonable move of political one upmanship to me. It would be a gamble to expedite witness testimony denied by the White House in a process faster than the lengthy and cumbersome court systems. I doubt it would come to it, but I could see an indefinite delay based on it not being an impartial trial, which would at least deny Donald legal exoneration and save face for the dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
You keep saying murder. The County DA concluded it wasn’t murder. The federal investigation concluded there was no civil rights violation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
I think you need to back up your assertions with more than “because America”.
I don’t think Mitch McConnell would be all that unhappy with a delay of any length. Refusing to play the game because you don’t like the rules after rushing the House process would seem to me to be fairly damaging for the a Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I agree because I think it shows that the entire process was more about politics than the sad, solemn and desperate attempt to uphold the constitution as the Democrats have been coached to present it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
As an aside, it's been fun watching Democrats on TV looking all doe eyed and sad at being forced to do something they'd rather not have forced upon them.
Refusing to play the game because the senate majority leader has plainly stated that he doesn't intend to hold a fair trial would seem to me to be what people who care about their oath of office would do.
I have trouble imagining that after the last few years there is a single member of the Senate (or the House) who could accurately be called an “impartial juror” at this point. It’s hard to see how any of them would survive a normal jury selection process.
I also have trouble understanding what legitimate constitutional authority the Speaker of the House can exercise over Senate rules.
If she believes she can leverage the Senate by not doing something they would prefer she not do anyway, she would seem to have a faulty understanding of the concept of extortion.
It’s hard for me to believe there is a single Senator from either party who does not already know how he or she will be voting, whether that occurs next week or next year.
Really? The worst thing that could happen would be a duplication of the Democrats flat out refusal to provide a single guilty vote during the Clinton trial. No, this is politics but this time it's an effort to place the Senate in a bad light for the upcoming election. It won't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1