Senate Impeachment Hearings

[Synopsis]

46 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

This adds nothing and demonstrates blind faith... You sound like a Jim Jones worshipper... No one is perfect, not even your false prophet...

 

B/A

 

      

 

Blind Faith in WHAT, pray tell, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper???!!!

 

1 hour ago, Synopsis said:

Fake News. False Narrative. Fake AND False Premises.

NO!!!

 

I do NOT have blind faith in Fake News, AND/OR False Narratives, AND/OR Fake AND False Premises.

 

Unlike YOU, of course, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

OF COURSE, I have NO Icons SO WHY, pray tell, ATTEMPT to label ME (NOTE: ME) as a Jim Jones worshipper???!!!

 

EVEN MORE Fake News, AND/OR False Narratives, AND/OR Fake AND False Premise from YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

IF YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, are referring to The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump AS BEING A false prophet, WOULDN'T HE HAVE TO CLAIM HIMSELF AS BEING A PROPHET THEN UTTER FALSE PROPHESIES???!!!

 

EVEN MORE Fake News, AND/OR False Narratives, AND/OR Fake AND False Premise from YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

icon

 noun

Save Word

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In

 

\ ˈī-ˌkän  \

variants: or less commonly ikon

Definition of icon

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a graphic symbol on a computer display screen that represents an app, an object (such as a file), or a function (such as the command to save)

b: a sign (such as a word or graphic symbol) whose form suggests its meaning

2: an object of uncritical devotion : IDOL

3: EMBLEM, SYMBOLthe house became an icon of 1960's residential architecture— Paul Goldberger

4[Late Greek eikōn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians

5: a usually pictorial representation : IMAGE

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/icon

 

The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump UPHOLDS the Oath Of Office AND IS NOT WORSHIPPED AS AN ICON BY MYSELF OR OTHERS. TO ACCUSE OTHERWISE IS FURTHER IS EVEN FURTHER FAKE NEWS, FALSE NARRATIVES, AND FAKE AND FALSE PREMISES FROM YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

Rule Of Law based on The Constitution Of The United States Of America Constitution TO INCLUDE The Ratified Bill Of Rights AND Associated Law IS WHAT MATTERS AND IS BEING UPHELD BY The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump AND ALL True The United States Of America Patriots WITHOUT FAKE NEWS, FALSE NARRATIVES, AND FAKE AND FALSE PREMISES.

 

UNLIKE YOU, of course, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

Grow a Brain, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, AND REMOVE YOUR "cognition" FROM YOUR, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, "safe" "space"!!!

 

YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, have consumed WAY, WAY TOO MUCH OF THE LIBERAL KOOL AID WITH THE TOXIC "chocolate" "floaters" (YUK!!!)!!!

 

      

 

           

 

[bostonangler]

2 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

 

      

 

Blind Faith in WHAT, pray tell, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper???!!!

 

NO!!!

 

I do NOT have blind faith in Fake News, AND/OR False Narratives, AND/OR Fake AND False Premises.

 

Unlike YOU, of course, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

OF COURSE, I have NO Icons SO WHY, pray tell, ATTEMPT to label ME (NOTE: ME) as a Jim Jones worshipper???!!!

 

EVEN MORE Fake News, AND/OR False Narratives, AND/OR Fake AND False Premise from YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

IF YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, are referring to The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump AS BEING A false prophet, WOULDN'T HE HAVE TO CLAIM HIMSELF AS BEING A PROPHET THEN UTTER FALSE PROPHESIES???!!!

 

EVEN MORE Fake News, AND/OR False Narratives, AND/OR Fake AND False Premise from YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

icon

 noun

Save Word

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In

 

\ ˈī-ˌkän  \

variants: or less commonly ikon

Definition of icon

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a graphic symbol on a computer display screen that represents an app, an object (such as a file), or a function (such as the command to save)

b: a sign (such as a word or graphic symbol) whose form suggests its meaning

2: an object of uncritical devotion : IDOL

3: EMBLEM, SYMBOLthe house became an icon of 1960's residential architecture— Paul Goldberger

4[Late Greek eikōn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians

5: a usually pictorial representation : IMAGE

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/icon

 

The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump UPHOLDS the Oath Of Office AND IS NOT WORSHIPPED AS AN ICON BY MYSELF OR OTHERS. TO ACCUSE OTHERWISE IS FURTHER IS EVEN FURTHER FAKE NEWS, FALSE NARRATIVES, AND FAKE AND FALSE PREMISES FROM YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

Rule Of Law based on The Constitution Of The United States Of America Constitution TO INCLUDE The Ratified Bill Of Rights AND Associated Law IS WHAT MATTERS AND IS BEING UPHELD BY The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump AND ALL True The United States Of America Patriots WITHOUT FAKE NEWS, FALSE NARRATIVES, AND FAKE AND FALSE PREMISES.

 

UNLIKE YOU, of course, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper!!!

 

      

 

           

 

Grow a Brain, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, AND REMOVE YOUR "cognition" FROM YOUR, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, "safe" "space"!!!

 

YOU, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, have consumed WAY, WAY TOO MUCH OF THE LIBERAL KOOL AID WITH THE TOXIC "chocolate" "floaters" (YUK!!!)!!!

 

      

 

           

 

 

Awesome... Another diatribe of nothingness... You really ought to get a job.

 

B/A

[Synopsis]

Just now, bostonangler said:

 

Awesome... Another diatribe of nothingness... You really ought to get a job.

 

B/A

 

I HAVE a job, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, WHEREAS YOU,  pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, HAVE NO BRAIN AND YOUR "cognition" IS FULLY "embedded" IN YOUR, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, "safe" "space".

 

YOUR, pettifogger BostonTangledUpper, CRANIAL NOTHINGNESS "cavity" SO DESPERATELY NEEDS FILLING WITH REAL INTELLIGENCE!!!

 

YYYEEEAAAHHH BBBAAABBBYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Enigma2a]

Did anyone actually watch the televised impeachment inquiry hearings? Well I did. Everyone of the witnesses were asked specifically if there were any first hand knowledge of an impeachable offence that POTUS did, and not one could provide an answer or they stated that they knew of no impeachable offense or crime was committed by POTUS. The only witness that actually talked to POTUS was AMB. Sondenlin (sp?) and in his opening statement he stated there was a Quid pro Quo, but in the end he actually stated the he presumed that is what POTUS meant.

 

pre•sume prĭ-zoo͞m′►
intransitive verb    To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
intransitive verb    To constitute reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove.
intransitive verb    To venture without authority or permission; dare.

 

 

 

[Karsten]

 

 

Karsten

[Karsten]

BREAKING: Documents Show Schiff May Have Mischaracterized Evidence

 

https://www.analyzingamerica.org/breaking-documents-show-schiff-may-have-mischaracterized-evidence/?utm_source=msp

 

Karsten

[bostonangler]

It's plain to see... Party before constitution is the new mantra....

 

B/A

[coorslite21]

 

 

The Constitution on impeachment

Article 2 section 4 

 

 

The final section of Article II, which generally describes the executive branch, specifies that the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States” shall be removed from office if convicted in an impeachment trial of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Two clauses in Article I lay out the role of the House of Representatives and the Senate in impeachments and in trials of impeachment. In practice, impeachments by the House have been rare, and convictions after a trial by the Senate even less common. Two Presidents, one Senator, one cabinet officer, and fifteen judges have been impeached, and of those only eight judges have been convicted and removed from office.

 

This sparse history has given Congress relatively few opportunities to flesh out the bare bones of the constitutional text. The Impeachment Clause was included in the Constitution in order to create another check against abuses by government officials and to give Congress the ability to remove from power an unfit officer who might otherwise be doing damage to the public good. Unsurprisingly, most “civil officers of the United States” who have found themselves damaged by scandal have preferred to resign rather than endure an impeachment. The House and Senate have refused to act on impeachment charges against individuals who were not then holding a federal office. The Senate early on decided that members of Congress should be expelled by their individual chambers rather than be subjected to an impeachment trial. Presidents have acted quickly to remove problematic members of the executive branch. As a practical matter, judges and Presidents have been the primary targets of impeachment inquiries.

 

Much of the controversy surrounding the Impeachment Clause has revolved around the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” a phrase that is unique to the impeachment context. The Clause seems to rule out the possibility of Congress impeaching and removing officials simply for incompetence or general unfitness for office. Impeachments are not a remedy for government officials who are simply bad at their jobs. It is a remedy for abuses of public office. But the line between general unfitness and abuse of office can be blurry.

 

The first Senate conviction in an impeachment trial was of a federal judge, John Pickering, who was charged with issuing rulings that were “contrary to his trust and duty as a judge” and “in violation of the laws of the United States,” as well as appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication” in a manner “disgraceful to his own character as a judge and degrading to the honor of the United States.” The judge’s son filed a petition with the Senate explaining the “real situation,” that his father “has been, and now is, insane.” The judge no longer had the mental capacity to commit high crimes. While the Senate preferred not to delve into that question in detail, it was uncomfortable voting on a resolution stating that the judge was “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.” The senators simply concluded that he was “guilty as charged,” and voted to remove him from office. The Senate was not anxious to say that Pickering had committed a crime, but neither was it willing to leave him on the bench.

 

While the Pickering case was idiosyncratic and awkward, it raised issues that remain unresolved about the scope of the impeachment power. Can a government official be impeached and convicted for innocent mistakes, or must they have bad intentions? Is it sufficient to justify an impeachment and conviction if a government official commits acts that are “disgraceful,” contrary to the “trust and duty” of their office, or “degrading to the honor of the United States,” or can impeachment only be justified when an official has committed criminal acts? Do “high crimes” include only criminal offenses for which one could be prosecuted in a court of law, or can they include other forms of misconduct? Are some violations of the law too trivial to be considered “high crimes” that would justify an impeachment? Can private misdeeds justify an impeachment, or must the actions in question be connected to the conduct of the office that an individual holds?

 

While still serving as a member of the House of Representatives, Gerald Ford once said that impeachable offenses are whatever a majority of the House considered them to be. The burden is on those who want to bring impeachment charges to persuade a majority of the members of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the members of the Senate that an act is so serious as to justify removing an individual from office. The impeachment power is a tool that most members of Congress are unwilling to use if it can be avoided, but they have also wanted to preserve it as a tool that is flexible enough to be used in any exceptional circumstances that might arise.

 

 

This to me outlines why the whole process is suspect.....and really needs to be redefined.......Ford summed it up pretty well.......

 

 

Perhaps Pelosi and Schiff would have gotton a more positive response to the " mean tweets" that Trump uses all the time.........seems those are covered vaguely as well.......

 

Is it sufficient to justify an impeachment and conviction if a government official commits acts that are “disgraceful,” contrary to the “trust and duty” of their office, or “degrading to the honor of the United States,

 

JMO.......     CL

[Karsten]

Republican Security Council

 

· 1 hr ·

 

 

 

Six GOP Senators Denounce Adam Schiff After Today's Presentation. Where is the evidence? These are incredibly weak arguments.

Lead House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff has now completed a 2½ hour overview of the the Articles of Impeachment.
The Senate is taking a 20 minute break and the first to emerge from the chamber was Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who said "We learned nothing new from Schiff. He proved they don't have a case."
He was followed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), photo, who said "Their basic argument is you cannot trust elections.
"You cannot trust the democratic process so we need to overturn the last one. I was surprised by that. I did not anticipate that."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said "Chairman Schiff is lying again. Russia did not help Trump win the 2016 election.
Where is there any evidence for this outrageous Russia claim?"
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) "Schiff was not impressive and I am still amazed by Rep. Val Demings (D-FL). She is an Impeachment Manager who was advocating impeachment prior to the whistleblower.
"She has now publicly admitted that the reason the House did this was because going to court wouldn't have been quick enough to get this done before the election. This is all about politics."
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) "Schiff deliberately misrepresented Impeachment evidence again. Democrats know they cannot win in this climate, and so they decided to impeach the president."
Sen. John Barrosso (R-WY) "We just sat through two and a half hours, and we learned nothing new.”

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Karsten

 

 

 

 

[coorslite21]

4 minutes ago, Karsten said:

Republican Security Council

 

· 1 hr ·

 

 

 

Six GOP Senators Denounce Adam Schiff After Today's Presentation. Where is the evidence? These are incredibly weak arguments.

Lead House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff has now completed a 2½ hour overview of the the Articles of Impeachment.
The Senate is taking a 20 minute break and the first to emerge from the chamber was Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who said "We learned nothing new from Schiff. He proved they don't have a case."
He was followed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), photo, who said "Their basic argument is you cannot trust elections.
"You cannot trust the democratic process so we need to overturn the last one. I was surprised by that. I did not anticipate that."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said "Chairman Schiff is lying again. Russia did not help Trump win the 2016 election.
Where is there any evidence for this outrageous Russia claim?"
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) "Schiff was not impressive and I am still amazed by Rep. Val Demings (D-FL). She is an Impeachment Manager who was advocating impeachment prior to the whistleblower.
"She has now publicly admitted that the reason the House did this was because going to court wouldn't have been quick enough to get this done before the election. This is all about politics."
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) "Schiff deliberately misrepresented Impeachment evidence again. Democrats know they cannot win in this climate, and so they decided to impeach the president."
Sen. John Barrosso (R-WY) "We just sat through two and a half hours, and we learned nothing new.”

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Karsten

 

 

 

 

 

It is a Schiff show once again.......just as when he said he had definative proof on Trump and Russia in 2016.......

Perhaps it;s time for some defamation lawsuits.......unfortunately if seems like that is the quickest way to quite these people down......

 

HRC sure backed off on Sanders right after Gabbard announced her lawsuit for defamation....

 

CL

[Karsten]

listened all day and now I am totally confused.....Is it Trump, Zelinsky, Rudy or just who is on Trial....The Liberals at reaching for star and hoping maybe one will make sense.

 

I would think one day of rebuttal from Trump's team will shut this down......The Left has nothing but their hurt feels, hearsay, opinions and never ending stories. Then back to the Russian's did it, No Ukraine did it, Russia is going to Invade and demand Trump Removed, Ukraine hates us now because Trump Pissed them off.....What a Joke this is all turning out to be and the Trump Team hasn't even said a word Yet.

 

Karsten

[bostonangler]

GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz praised Democrats' impeachment presentation and skewered Trump's defense as looking like 'an 8th-grade book report'

• Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, one of President Donald Trump's most vocal congressional allies, praised House Democrats for the way they presented the case against Trump in his impeachment trial.

• The Democrats made their case to the public as if it were "cable news," Gaetz told Politico, commending their use of multimedia during the trial.

• Meanwhile, the defense team's case looked like "an eighth-grade book report," Gaetz told Politico. "Actually, no, I take that back," he said, adding that an eighth-grader would know how to use PowerPoint and iPads.

• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida is one of President Donald Trump's most vocal defenders in Congress.

He has repeatedly gone to bat for the president and shielded him amid a snowballing impeachment process in which Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The president is standing trial in the Republican-controlled Senate, which is widely expected to clear him of wrongdoing.

But Gaetz doesn't seem impressed with Trump's defense so far.

After the first day of opening arguments on Wednesday, during which seven House impeachment managers — acting as prosecutors — laid out their case against the president, Gaetz told Politico they presented their case to the public as if it were "cable news," and he praised their use of multimedia.

Meanwhile, the defense team's case looked like "an eighth-grade book report," Gaetz told Politico. "Actually, no, I take that back," he said, adding that an eighth-grader would know how to use PowerPoint and iPads.

Other Republican lawmakers also offered grudging praise of the Democrats' performance.

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told reporters during the first day of the prosecution's opening arguments that the evidence itself was news to many senators.

"Nine out of 10 senators will tell you they haven't read a full transcript of the proceedings in the House," Kennedy said. "And the 10th senator who says he has is lying."

House impeachment managers took center stage again on Thursday for the second day of opening arguments. On Wednesday, they gave senators — and the public — an overview of Trump's months-long scheme to force Ukraine to launch politically motivated investigations targeting his rival while withholding vital military aid and a White House meeting that Ukraine's president desperately sought.

On Thursday, the impeachment managers began laying the constitutional groundwork they said supports Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

Arguments began at 1 p.m. ET and are expected to go until roughly 9:45 p.m. Democrats will get one more day to make opening arguments, after which Trump's defense will get a chance to mount a rebuttal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-rep-matt-gaetz-praised-193837056.html

 

 

B/A

[coorslite21]

7 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz praised Democrats' impeachment presentation and skewered Trump's defense as looking like 'an 8th-grade book report'

• Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, one of President Donald Trump's most vocal congressional allies, praised House Democrats for the way they presented the case against Trump in his impeachment trial.

• The Democrats made their case to the public as if it were "cable news," Gaetz told Politico, commending their use of multimedia during the trial.

• Meanwhile, the defense team's case looked like "an eighth-grade book report," Gaetz told Politico. "Actually, no, I take that back," he said, adding that an eighth-grader would know how to use PowerPoint and iPads.

• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida is one of President Donald Trump's most vocal defenders in Congress.

He has repeatedly gone to bat for the president and shielded him amid a snowballing impeachment process in which Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The president is standing trial in the Republican-controlled Senate, which is widely expected to clear him of wrongdoing.

But Gaetz doesn't seem impressed with Trump's defense so far.

After the first day of opening arguments on Wednesday, during which seven House impeachment managers — acting as prosecutors — laid out their case against the president, Gaetz told Politico they presented their case to the public as if it were "cable news," and he praised their use of multimedia.

Meanwhile, the defense team's case looked like "an eighth-grade book report," Gaetz told Politico. "Actually, no, I take that back," he said, adding that an eighth-grader would know how to use PowerPoint and iPads.

Other Republican lawmakers also offered grudging praise of the Democrats' performance.

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told reporters during the first day of the prosecution's opening arguments that the evidence itself was news to many senators.

"Nine out of 10 senators will tell you they haven't read a full transcript of the proceedings in the House," Kennedy said. "And the 10th senator who says he has is lying."

House impeachment managers took center stage again on Thursday for the second day of opening arguments. On Wednesday, they gave senators — and the public — an overview of Trump's months-long scheme to force Ukraine to launch politically motivated investigations targeting his rival while withholding vital military aid and a White House meeting that Ukraine's president desperately sought.

On Thursday, the impeachment managers began laying the constitutional groundwork they said supports Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

Arguments began at 1 p.m. ET and are expected to go until roughly 9:45 p.m. Democrats will get one more day to make opening arguments, after which Trump's defense will get a chance to mount a rebuttal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-rep-matt-gaetz-praised-193837056.html

 

 

B/A

 

The defense hasn't presented yet.....starting Saturday they'll get their 24 hours.....makes me wonder about the credibility of the article......just the facts...

CL

[bostonangler]

7 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

The defense hasn't presented yet.....starting Saturday they'll get their 24 hours.....makes me wonder about the credibility of the article......just the facts...

CL

 

His actual words....

Graham also speaks a good presentation.

And Kennedy of LA says, 9 out of 10 republican senators never read the impeachment documents and the 10th one is lying if they say they did... In other words, they are surprised by what they are learning. 

 

History will remember who stood for what... Truth, Justice, The American Way... Some politicians don't care about their legacy, but others don't want history to remember them in a bad way... They all know the truth... But will they stand for truth? We'll see.

 

B/A

[Shabibilicious]

6 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

His actual words....

Graham also speaks a good presentation.

And Kennedy of LA says, 9 out of 10 republican senators never read the impeachment documents and the 10th one is lying if they say they did... In other words, they are surprised by what they are learning. 

 

History will remember who stood for what... Truth, Justice, The American Way... Some politicians don't care about their legacy, but others don't want history to remember them in a bad way... They all know the truth... But will they stand for truth? We'll see.

 

B/A

 

29 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz praised Democrats' impeachment presentation and skewered Trump's defense as looking like 'an 8th-grade book report'

• Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, one of President Donald Trump's most vocal congressional allies, praised House Democrats for the way they presented the case against Trump in his impeachment trial.

• The Democrats made their case to the public as if it were "cable news," Gaetz told Politico, commending their use of multimedia during the trial.

• Meanwhile, the defense team's case looked like "an eighth-grade book report," Gaetz told Politico. "Actually, no, I take that back," he said, adding that an eighth-grader would know how to use PowerPoint and iPads.

• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida is one of President Donald Trump's most vocal defenders in Congress.

He has repeatedly gone to bat for the president and shielded him amid a snowballing impeachment process in which Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The president is standing trial in the Republican-controlled Senate, which is widely expected to clear him of wrongdoing.

But Gaetz doesn't seem impressed with Trump's defense so far.

After the first day of opening arguments on Wednesday, during which seven House impeachment managers — acting as prosecutors — laid out their case against the president, Gaetz told Politico they presented their case to the public as if it were "cable news," and he praised their use of multimedia.

Meanwhile, the defense team's case looked like "an eighth-grade book report," Gaetz told Politico. "Actually, no, I take that back," he said, adding that an eighth-grader would know how to use PowerPoint and iPads.

Other Republican lawmakers also offered grudging praise of the Democrats' performance.

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told reporters during the first day of the prosecution's opening arguments that the evidence itself was news to many senators.

"Nine out of 10 senators will tell you they haven't read a full transcript of the proceedings in the House," Kennedy said. "And the 10th senator who says he has is lying."

House impeachment managers took center stage again on Thursday for the second day of opening arguments. On Wednesday, they gave senators — and the public — an overview of Trump's months-long scheme to force Ukraine to launch politically motivated investigations targeting his rival while withholding vital military aid and a White House meeting that Ukraine's president desperately sought.

On Thursday, the impeachment managers began laying the constitutional groundwork they said supports Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

Arguments began at 1 p.m. ET and are expected to go until roughly 9:45 p.m. Democrats will get one more day to make opening arguments, after which Trump's defense will get a chance to mount a rebuttal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-rep-matt-gaetz-praised-193837056.html

 

 

B/A

 

I wouldn't put too much stock into what Gaetz has to say.....he is a shoot from the hip, underage consumption, mama's boy type.  His only talent is he plays Trump's narcissism like a fiddle to gain his own fame.....otherwise, he'd just be another in an endless rabble of unknown representatives.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV 

[Shabibilicious]

Ex-Bush Speechwriter Makes Chilling Prediction About How Trump Will React To Acquittal

Lee Moran  HuffPost•January 24, 2020

 

Scroll back up to restore default view.

Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, on Thursday warned of the “further danger” to come if the GOP-controlled Senate votes to acquit President Donald Trump over his Ukraine misconduct.

“The president never views a near-miss as an opportunity for reflection and reformation. He sees it as permission to indulge his every urge,” Gerson wrote in a new column for The Washington Post.

“And his most consistent urge has been to seek unfair advantage in the upcoming presidential election,” he continued. “The months between Senate acquittal and the November vote will be fertile ground for further cheating.”

Gerson also called out the “barefaced bad faith” of Republican senators in the impeachment trial who have complained there’s “nothing new” in the case Democrats are making against Trump, while simultaneously “actively opposing the introduction of new evidence and new testimony.”

“In this matter, elected Republicans are mainly serving, not the president, and certainly not the republic, but themselves,” Gerson wrote. “Having decided that no amount of evidence would be sufficient for conviction, they realize that the presentation of a full and compelling case would convict them of servility and institutional surrender. So a quick and dirty Senate trial is the best way to limit the exposure of their malpractice.”

 

https://news.yahoo.com/michael-gerson-donald-trump-impeachment-trial-080345388.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

 

GO RV, then BV

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

 

[Shabibilicious]

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

45 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Ex-Bush Speechwriter Makes Chilling Prediction About How Trump Will React To Acquittal

Lee Moran  HuffPost•January 24, 2020

 

Scroll back up to restore default view.

Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, on Thursday warned of the “further danger” to come if the GOP-controlled Senate votes to acquit President Donald Trump over his Ukraine misconduct.

“The president never views a near-miss as an opportunity for reflection and reformation. He sees it as permission to indulge his every urge,” Gerson wrote in a new column for The Washington Post.

“And his most consistent urge has been to seek unfair advantage in the upcoming presidential election,” he continued. “The months between Senate acquittal and the November vote will be fertile ground for further cheating.”

Gerson also called out the “barefaced bad faith” of Republican senators in the impeachment trial who have complained there’s “nothing new” in the case Democrats are making against Trump, while simultaneously “actively opposing the introduction of new evidence and new testimony.”

“In this matter, elected Republicans are mainly serving, not the president, and certainly not the republic, but themselves,” Gerson wrote. “Having decided that no amount of evidence would be sufficient for conviction, they realize that the presentation of a full and compelling case would convict them of servility and institutional surrender. So a quick and dirty Senate trial is the best way to limit the exposure of their malpractice.”

 

https://news.yahoo.com/michael-gerson-donald-trump-impeachment-trial-080345388.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

 

GO RV, then BV

 

So am I to believe that Trump cheated his way to the Presidentcy in 2016......and will do even more cheating for 2020....apparently that's Gersons opinion.....

 

Other than he helped write some speeches for Bush.....what makes his opinion "special"?

CL

 

[Shabibilicious]

27 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

So am I to believe that Trump cheated his way to the Presidentcy in 2016......and will do even more cheating for 2020....apparently that's Gersons opinion.....

 

Other than he helped write some speeches for Bush.....what makes his opinion "special"?

CL

 

 

He's no more special than anybody else.....I'd put him in the same category as a Huckabee Sanders, Steph Grisham or the Mooch.  And the Russians cheated for Trump to be elected pres....been corroborated by 17 different U.S. agencies, as you well know.....many are the same agencies Trump relied on to support his decision to take out the Iranian general....so pretty reliable sources.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Enigma2a]

36 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

He's no more special than anybody else.....I'd put him in the same category as a Huckabee Sanders, Steph Grisham or the Mooch.  And the Russians cheated for Trump to be elected pres....been corroborated by 17 different U.S. agencies, as you well know.....many are the same agencies Trump relied on to support system">support his decision to take out the Iranian general....so pretty reliable sources.

 

GO RV, then BV

Shabs,

You are incorrect in your statement ".been corroborated by 17 different U.S. agencies, as you well know..". Please make sure you are providing correct facts. The NY times retracted this on June 29, 2017.

 

Correction: June 29, 2017

A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

 

You Do notice it said"The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

 

As Typical it is found at the bottom of the article.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/trumps-deflections-and-denials-on-russia-frustrate-even-his-allies.html

 

Here is the transcript before congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Enigma2a

[Shabibilicious]

5 minutes ago, Enigma2a said:

Shabs,

You are incorrect in your statement ".been corroborated by 17 different U.S. agencies, as you well know..". Please make sure you are providing correct facts. The NY times retracted this on June 29, 2017.

 

Correction: June 29, 2017

A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

 

As Typical it is found at the bottom of the article.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/trumps-deflections-and-denials-on-russia-frustrate-even-his-allies.html

 

Here is the transcript before congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/

 

 

Okay then....just the 4 really big agencies then.  I stand corrected.  *  Here's the part where a Trump supporter interjects a Deep State comment  *  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Enigma2a]

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Okay then....just the 4 really big agencies then.  I stand corrected.  *  Here's the part where a Trump supporter interjects a Deep State comment  *  

 

GO RV, then BV

You Do notice it said"The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." That means 13 agencies did not agree with the others. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Enigma2a

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, Enigma2a said:

You Do notice it said"The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

 

17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid

By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, July 6th, 2017 at 4:26 p.m.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

 

GO RV, then BV

[Enigma2a]

10 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid

By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, July 6th, 2017 at 4:26 p.m.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

 

GO RV, then BV

Either way facts do matter. Who do you believe. I will leave this here.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Enigma2a