Impeachment?

[gimmethesimplelife]

My post above to Alan? Should be rebalance and not rebalance...autocorrect is so annoying. Rob

[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.

[iris lilies]

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. Rob

Ferguson cops are still showing the world what American police are all about. Today’s headline news:

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.

[jp1]

Sort of like when she begins a sentence with “As a Catholic...”

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?

[gimmethesimplelife]

My mind does it's own version of autocorrect and I read that as relevance, I guess I was wrong again.

Ay carumba. Revelance. There, finally got the word right. Rob

[jp1]

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.

[LDAHL]

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?

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.

[LDAHL]

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?

[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.

[LDAHL]

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.

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?