“Gina - “didn’t read” and then proclaiming you unwavering support for a Trump second term sounds like you are saying you are not informed and have no intention of being informed.
Seems the best decisions are made from a position of being informed, not of being ignorant.‘
Harpooner.... are you suggesting HX blogs are a good place to be informed?
Gina not reading our drivel may be the best decision.
There are 36 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted.
If the Don Lemons and Hillary Clinton's stopped condescending and laughing at the deplorables hugging their guns, they might not get so riled up that they be looking to rassle a allee-gator then have sex wit their sister.
So if I get it straight, you have no opinion of your own, no stakes, no values and no interest but you’ll vote for Trump because some democrats are saying things that don’t flatter your sensibilities?
If I were a Senator from either party, this is how I'd vote in the Trump impeachment trial:
I would argue a delicate balance. I would agree with the House Democrats that the President committed a clear abuse of power. I would also argue that Professor Dershowitz is wrong and that an abuse of power can be an impeachable offense. I would argue, therefore, that the offenses committed by the President were impeachable. However, I would argue that committing an impeachable offense is a necessary but not sufficient condition for impeachment. It worries me greatly that impeachment and trial will be both decided exclusively along party lines. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 65 did warn about a partisan impeachment — one that would be decided by the comparative size and strength of parties both friendly and inimical to the accused instead of by the merits. I would state that I fear that partisan impeachments like the Clinton impeachment and Trump impeachment may end up becoming the norm for future Presidents. These simply end up or will end up being solely large political spectacles that fix nothing but the next election. I’d argue that although no criteria for bipartisanship was written in the impeachment clause of the constitution, since political parties were created after the constitution was written, I believe that a successful and fair impeachment and removal should be bipartisan, as an additional check on the impeachment process. It can be done. The Nixon impeachment and removal process would have been bipartisan. Therefore, as a Senator, I would vote neither “yes” nor “no” on the issue of Trump’s guilt, but instead recommend the House come up with a new, bipartisan method on how to handle the abuse of power issue. One option would be a censure.
I would also vote against witnesses because I think the House Democrats have already proven their case that Trump abused his power.
Persay it is true Trump did tell Ukraine, we are holding your aid of 400 million until
you investigate Biden for me..........
The CIA can not investigate Americans, on American Soils thats called Espinonaige!
DOOOOOOOOOOOO you alllllll reallly think
that the President lives in Privacy? You think google doesnt hear him (unless modified by the NSA)
Do you think his phone calls are not recorded? or his emails?
So, you think-------- Intelligence community had no clue he help aide?
Its not called abuse of Power
its called!
LEVERAGE!!!!!!!!
he added a clause to the money he was giving...
If I told YOU, You and YOU! Im going to make you lemonade, and bring it to you on Monday.
And then I say on Monday, Before I give you the Lemonade
I need you to do something for me --- a FAVOR ---
If you were REALLLY Thirsty!!! and needed the lemonade to MAKE MONEY!! and sell it!!
U Would do the Favor?????????
Its called Ethical Hacking....... Its a word.
Anyhow......... Despite him holding aid.
Did he find anything about BIDEN?
OH yeah his son receiving a million from this country or that country
WHY ?? ? ohhh is it cause
when --- or if the BIDENS get elected--- they will AID your Country (whos giviving Biden money)
He Leverage The Money
NOW
Lets find out why the BIDEN was on the payroll for some of these foreign countries!!!!!!!
thats!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!
more wrong------ than holding money to find out what this WRONG IS!
umm i listen to the lawyers today on the trial btw....
innocent until proven guilty, trump doesn't need to exonerate himself, the house already indicted / impeached him based on what so called evidence they had, they don't get to keep amending their " air tight case" and demand the senate do their work
Bottom line for me, I think there was Quid Pro Quo. I think Trump did try to trade aid for an investigation that would discredit Biden (by fact or just implication).
But the only way to make that impeachable is to prove he did not believe there was corruption. I believe he thought there was corruption. Did he really care about it? I don’t know.
Proving he only did it for personal gain is almost impossible. Unless they have someone reputable who says, Trump said to me, “I know the corruption thing is bullsit... but I can use it to destroy Biden.”
Without that, you can’t prove he wasn’t doing what he thought was right.... with an added benefit of making his opponent look bad.
I think we all think or assume there was quid pro quo to some degree but its foolish to think "that NEVER happens" when we give hundreds of millions of dollars to governments.
But with the amount of expressed concern in several TV and Journal media outlets about through the time followed with how it all was essentially pushed out of focus after Biden drops a shit load more money...
How then does someone argue.. "Oh Trump knew there was no corruption and just wanted dirt.."
There *might* be enough dirt there to drag Biden, Obama, and a few other clowns through the mud for years if you can connect the dots with money...
I would prefer that the Congress and Senate get back to the work of the people in stead.
If you read the articles from the links I posted in the previous blog, it was clear that Republicans supported the removal of Shokin as part of our fight against corruption in Ukraine. Now the same Republicans are trying to claim Biden went after Shokin to stop him from investigating corruption.
It undercuts Trumps claim about going after Biden. Not my opinion. Just the facts.
Wow, that last part was pretty dumb. The Clinton campaign had more recorded contact with Russians than the Trump campaign. Its not against the law for either side to talk to Russians, for fucks sake.
It is against the law to pay a foreign national to affect a presidential campaign and we already know who did that, on the record. With the willing help of US intelligence services, then thoroughly investigated and debunked.
Trump's a POS but some of you have trouble thinking straight.
Commentators such as Chris Cuomo (who is NOT a Republican) have stated that just because offenses are impeachable doesn't mean you need to automatically impeach. There are other factors, often political, that are involved. I invoke the need for bipartisan support.
I mentioned that, like the impeachment, the trial is partisan. Probably not one Republican will support removal. The party line vote for impeachment and removal is the problem with the process, in my opinion, and is why impeachment shouldn't have been chosen from the get-go.
Just because someone commits an offense that could be considered severe enough to remove one from office, doesn't mean you SHOULD remove someone from office. You can make an analogy to someone who commits a felony where the judge CAN sentence the person to 1 to 15 years in prison. This doesn't mean the judge will. Often, the felony is turned into a misdemeanor, or the sentence is lighter than what the judge can administer.
I'm saying the same should go for Trump because the impeachment/trial spectacle fails the bipartisan support test, which I believe is essential.
My solution is this: I think the Dems should have compromised on impeachment and gone for the lesser action of censure (in both the House and Senate) if they could have attracted some bipartisan support for it.
My reasoning is this: If a few Republicans supported a censure measure that 1. condemned Trump's quid pro quo and 2. warned Trump not to seek future foreign assistance in the 2020 elections, Trump would be less likely to do such a thing, because he needs the support of these Republicans, particularly Republican Senators. It would be in his political interest not to piss them off.
Even a few Republican Senators may have made a difference since the Republican majority in the Senate is so slim.
If you think this is a stretch, I would say you may be right, but it's better than an impeachment and acquital, where Trump may feel emboldened now to seek out foreign support in 2020.
Well if 40% of Americans want America to be more like Afghanistan, then who am I to argue? But let's just dispense of this whole liberty, freedom, justice crap because you want the legislative branch collapsed into the executive like it's Burma or Egypt. It's clear none of you care about the Constitution except for the 2nd.
"You're apparently not understanding my argument. It has nothing to do with what the other side did or didn't do. When Russians contacted the Trump campaign indicating they wanted to provide them with damaging information on Clinton, the correct response would have been to forward it to the FBI. The fact that they didn't is a big reason why many assumed that the campaign was not only happy to get the help but actively working with the Russians."
Think about what you just said there. One side may or may not have been contacted by a foreign national to use Oppo Research to beat it's political rival, meanwhile the other side ACTUALLY did hire a foreign national to provide bogus totally debunked Oppo Research on their political rival.
Meanwhile, they used that bogus material to have the intelligence services open a counter-espionage investigation of the rival including wire-tapping, email tapping, etc. and then telling the rival that there was no investigation ongoing even though there was.
So, it's OK for one side to do it and get away with it, meanwhile the other side is supposed to report any and all bullshit offers even though they didn't take them up on it? Ask yourself why the FBI didn't go to the Trump campaign and tell them of their concerns about possible foreign interference while they were doing the counter-espionage? Do you think they were doing the same to Clinton even though hubby had done a $500k speaking engagement in Russia while she was Secretary of State AND her team had countless contacts with Russians?
C'mon Sam, you seem like you're trying to be a reasonable guy but this is beyond the pale. You gotta treat both sides the same or it's just a Mongolian Clusterfuck out there.
"She had her computer servers destroyed in order to hide criminal activity and the mishandling of classified information.
Most if not all of that has been proven false to most of America’s liking. "
Not hardly, Hillary did purposely set up an email server in her home to handle State Dept. email. Her State Dept. email address was not used, only the home server one which was known to Obama and other high ranking government officials. Then, when found out, the same guy that set it up was told to break it down and trash it...........then was given Immunity by the FBI without offering up any quid pro quo for that immunity.
133 emails with classified info, stamped with a big C that she said later she didn't know what that meant, lol. That's either criminal misconduct OR criminal negligence, either way the actual law doesn't care.......that's why the wording on the report was changed by Peter Strzok from "grossly negligent" (criminal offense) to "extremely careless" (meaningless). Strzok said in the joint Hearing of the House Oversight & Judiciary committees that metadata indicates that his computer made the change, but he said he can't remember doing it.
and Funny