That blank look on the faces of the House Managers wasn't from not understanding Constitutional law, it was from the shock and disbelief that Trump's ragtag team of incompetent lawyers would spend so much time talking about things that have nothing to do with the impeachment.

It must take a truck load of wishful thinking to call THAT a "smack-down". LOL

They won't listen Kevyn... Linda's response is precisely the argument PeterS was making fun of with that meme that says "If you want a fair trial in the Senate, you should have had a fair trial in the House"

Every time we say we need to hear from a witness, the rabid response is always to point out that House Democrats didn't ask for that witness in THEIR TRIAL. They actually think the House had a trial, LOL. And until Fox News releases them from their curse of ignorance they will continue to bank on that idiot argument.

LOL!!!

That meme is a perfect description of some of the "arguments" I've actually seen right here on OPP over the past few weeks.

To be fair though... I'm betting the only reason why liberals seem to have a better handle on how the process works is because learning about the process actually helps the anti-Trump narrative. Conversely, the pro-Trump narrative depends on a misunderstanding of the process.

I watched some of the trial yesterday and couldn't believe I was watching grown adults putting on a show of really bad rhetorical tricks in front of a Senate that can't possibly be fooled by any of it. The only possible way that "strategy" can work is if the entire purpose is to feed right-wing media with BS charges against Democrats with which to saturate the conservative base that Republican senators have to answer to. I'm sure a complete misunderstanding of the impeachment process helps with that.

Well, that's a pretty high bar, so I'll take that as a compliment.


"Unbiased" doesn't just mean they agree with you.


MAGA means Make Aryans Great Again, right?

Well, I agree with the first part, yes, the Democratic Party is now a complete reversal of itself. That's what I've been saying the whole time. Honestly, I don't know how people continue to deny there was a switch when they actually lived through it. "Were you Democrat then?" "Yes." "Are you Democrat now?" "No." "Did you change your principals? No? Then... the *party* switched.



Yeah I know Seth, it's not like I've never heard this rant before. I'll just go right to the premise... No, the system of government, as it was founded, does NOT eventually fix everything. Some people will use those words to polish up the rough surface of the real suggestion that the government won't step in the way if anyone else wants to fix a problem. So, small government... unless you're a Federalist, then a sort-of-small-government-kind-of... otherwise, hands-off and let the states take care of their own problems.

This leads to a second flaw in your assessment... the system, "as founded" is not being used as directed. Instead, the federal government has been interfering with states fixing their own problems. The severity of this can be seen in the abundance of federal laws overriding state laws to settle matters that are not enumerated in the Constitution, such as the prohibition of pot.

I disagree with the whole idea of trying to operate a government the same exact way across multiple centuries. It's like expecting your 12 year son to keep wearing the same clothes he got when he was five. I mean c'mon - when our system of government was being founded, sick people were still being treated with leeches.

I agree with Jefferson, when he said every generation should have it's own constitution. The ideas of freedom and justice are not unique to American culture - in fact it's pretty universal. You really have to search hard for countries that don't pay some homage to these principles in their founding documents. So I don't think a re-written constitution would be a threat to our current liberties.



It's amazing how you fit yourself right into that stereotype of the conservative that latches onto the nipples of Fox News. Murdoch himself once described the key to his initial success. He explained that verification makes journalism expensive and that unverified commentary was a cheaper alternative. (I would add that unverified commentary is also a more flexible one, allowing for some creative elaborations that might appeal more to the consumer.) So Murdoch cut costs by presenting unverified commentary, as "news". When competitors cried foul it went right to the courts where the ruling has since stood that "news does not have to be true".

And THIS is the network YOU think is most trustworthy.


The media never insults anyone's intelligence Seth... The media gives the people what they ask for and there *IS* a market for intelligent people. There is also a market for people who just want affirmation, even if it means calling all those other markets "fake news".

That's TWO questions ;)

Answer #1: The House had the option to call more witnesses but felt they had enough to make a case and prosecute. Which is the full extent of their power and their responsibility. In the interest of time, they delivered the article of impeachment to Senate to start the actual trial.

Answer #2: The House Managers taking part in the Senate trial also feel there is abundant evidence to suggest that Trump should be convicted, but it's the Senate's responsibility to weight that evidence.

Do you understand the difference? Think of it this way... a cop can detain you on suspicion based on something called probable cause. But what evidence is sufficient for probable cause might not be enough for conviction.

In the trial it is crucial that ALL the evidence is weighed because this is the part of the process that determines a final judgement - a conviction or acquittal. The House is the cop in this analogy, all they needed to bring the case to trial is probable cause.


Well, that's a no-brainer. It's the Constitutional duty for Senate to weigh the evidence. If they don't I seriously think we need to start impeaching the Senate leaders.


Yes, I do. The question is, will the Senator vote their conscience or will they be bullied by the Freedom Caucus into siding with Trump? As for the American voters, the lines are already drawn. 51% of us think Trump should be impeached. Personally, I don't think it should stop there. I think once out of office Trump should be tried in a criminal court.


Not here LOL. But I'm not trying to either, I'm just expressing my views.


That's a matter of perception Bernie... From my perspective Schiff is making fools of the Republicans... in a big way. I'm sure at least 51% of the American people agree with me.


Evidence? Such as?


Why would the economy be a factor? We already know Obama turned the economy around 6 years ago and it's been booming ever since. So, are you saying that a president can violate the Constitution but if the economy happens to be good, he should be excused?

Ha, ha... what kind of ideology is THAT?

While this is true for some, it's not true for everyone. You might be correct in stating that most people trust the media, but a lot of people don't... I belong to that later category and it's not because I think they're liars... it's because they're people (and people make mistakes). So as a former journalist myself I don't take anything as gospel truth without some verification of my own, be it multiple sources, whether or not it makes logical sense and so on. After a while, you start to learn which media channels have better records when it comes to accuracy.

I find ALL the MSM channels (except Fox) are fairly diligent when it comes to journalistic integrity and it makes sense for the very reason you already mentioned... if they weren't so diligent, we wouldn't depend on them.

Sadly, there's another reaction to the media that you missed... Those who seek information not for it's accuracy but for it's support for an argument. I KNOW a lot of people on this site scrounge the media specifically for stories that back up their narrative even if it's not true.


Why would that matter? That bill was signed during the sixth party system when the Democrats were conservatives and Republicans were liberals. (I sure hope you are choosing your party based on your principals not not the other way around.)


Well, he's right so far... and maybe that's why he did it - who knows? I doubt any party can hold its ground for 200 years though.

Fun fact : did you know the predecessor to the Democratic Party was called the Democratic-Republican Party and that people just called them Republicans? That was during the First Party System.

Dynamics my friend, it's a thing.

Yeah, I'm experiencing that now...

Before I go down this rabbit hole, let me just point out that NO conspiracy or distraction can excuse the Senate's refusal to weigh the "evidence". It's very simple. The fact of the matter is, Senate Republicans are refusing to do their job. Even if the House were making all this stuff up... it is STILL the Constitutional duty for Senate to weigh the evidence. Even if Trump were saving the world from "bad people"... it is STILL the Constitutional duty for Senate to weigh the evidence. So if you're trying to excuse Senate Republicans for violating the Constitution, you're wasting your time.

That being said... let's see what you got.


1. Your sarcastic "dangerous Russian encroachment upon its borders" is a poor description of the fact that Russia has actually invaded their country and taken control of significant parts of it including Crimea. The fact that you can present such details about Privatbank without even knowing that Russia has invaded tells me that you just found an article that you THINK provides an excuse for what Trump did.

2. It's not Trump's place to decide if they should get the funding. Congress approved the funding and Trump's job was to deliver it. If Trump had any issues with the corruption in the Ukraine, he should have made that case to Congress but he didn't.

3. After Trump's quid-pro-quo was leaked, he sent the money anyway. Which means your argument against sending money to corrupt Ukraine really isn't helping his case.


Yeah, so? The entire former Soviet Union is drowning in corruption, that includes both Russia and the Ukraine. We can talk about corruption in the former Soviet republics all day but in the end NONE of it matters to the impeachment case here in America. Bottom line... Trump tried to secretly bribe a foreign president for personal gain and that's a violation of our constitution and the fact that you are trying to make excuses for that violation is an acknowledgment that he is guilty (with an explanation) so again, you're not helping him.


That's an obvious sign that the U.S. under Trump is losing control of the situation. The EU is just getting tired of Trump's idiot games. They may come back to the fold when we get a decent president again but the world may never regain the confidence it once had in American long-term commitment. Trump is losing everywhere actually, North Korea made a joke out of him, even Iraq is demanding that we leave now since Trump pulled that bonehead move on Soleimani who was an invited guest in their country.

BTW, I know it's important for your BS rhetoric to keep referring to Iran as a the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism but statistically speaking, the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism is the United States of America.


So? Are American private citizens not allowed to sit on boards of foreign companies?


LOL - "a flare for lavishness" and "running a super-exclusive fashion boutique named after himself" Gee, who does THAT sound like? LOL



Again, it's not Trump's place to overrule Congress. The IMF and the World Bank have rules about what a country can do with the money they get. If we don't have the confidence in those rules, then our elected legislators should not have approved the aid. If Trump had information about the corruption in the Ukraine that would be cause for concern, he should have addressed Congress about it. But he didn't. Chances are he DID know about all this, or certainly, Pompeo should have... It's not like everything you just described happened inside a week. So, why didn't Trump follow normal protocol and express his concern to Congress?

I'm betting it's because if Congress decided NOT to appropriate the funds, Trump would not have had that same leverage to bribe Zelensky with.

Anyway - thank you for giving me so much ammunition. I really enjoy shooting holes in your lame-ass excuses with your own bullets.

It's really good to see this kind of wisdom brought up every now and then linda. As much as people here disagree on details and philosophy, the one thing we all have in common is a concern for our country and it's people.

1. 90% of the media is commercial, which means they are compelled to support perspectives that will attract an audience to their ad space. So logic dictates that if you disagree with 90% of the media, you are probably also disagreeing with 90% of American consumers.

2. Lying, obfuscating and transference are vices found on all sides and there's really no way to quantify it because most lies go undetected. You're throwing stones in a glass house pal.

3. polling results didn't give Obama two terms.


So is this all going to be baseless ranting or do you have any substantial facts like how LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The "squalor, crime and misery" embodied by the "black welfare society" is the second phase of racial resentment following the 13th Amendment. The first one being the Jim Crow laws. The white folks that feel threatened by black folks hated the fact that they couldn't be chained up anymore. So they created a new system of oppression in the Jim Crow laws. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, Jim Crow started to crumble and so now those feeble-minded white folks reverted to basic whining and crying about "squalor, crime and misery".

It's what spineless people do.

I guess your expectation got in the way of your perception - lol!


Serious accusation there, where's the proof? ...Or should I just treat your opinion as gospel. ;)

Let me ask you a question Bernie... which side is asking to consider evidence and which side is refusing to consider evidence? Can you at least figure that one out?


I see, so when someone you want to protect is being charged, you dismiss the evidence then call the charge unsubstantiated. LOL!

I seriously doubt anyone can be stupid enough to fall for this. This is whole thing has turned into a test of how far people will go to deny the obvious.


Try writing sentences that don't reek of BS. ;)

Yeah... I'm currently between projects, so I have a little more free time but somehow my "honey do" list got a lot bigger. LOL

Well, they certainly turned it into a Dog and Pony show. As far as I am concerned, Trump isn't even the main issue here - it's Congress that's effectively being tested. The evidence against Trump is so overwhelming it's not even a debate anymore so the focus is shifting to the senators themselves.

Many of them are continuing to insist there is no proof of wrongdoing but their ONLY argument is... "because I say so". It's what you call flat-out denial, which is why they don't want to argue or debate the evidence.

In fairness to true conservatives (as opposed to the rabid right) it seems there ARE Republicans in Congress with an interest in doing what's right but they are being heavily warned not to vote against Trump. Word got out from the Trump entourage that if senators “vote against the president,” their “head will be on a pike.”

So the question is... will Congress fail to rein in a corrupt president and what kind of precedent will that create for us in the future?

I think conservatives need to seriously think about this because demographic trends indicate the liberals will continue to have a natural edge on democracy for years to come and a precedent that says it's OK for a ruling party to keep a president in office by dismissing all the evidence against him could well bite them in the ass if when that president and ruling party turns out to be Democrat.

If there is one thing the Right needs as they slip into minority status it's a reverence for the Constitution that protects people from abusive majorities.

Yeah... I already explained the process to you and you refuse to listen. So if you want to continue criticizing people who are following a process you don't care to understand. Knock yourself out. Politicians LOVE folks like you.