Nah, be smarter to run the trial just to have all the liars testify, and the "evidence" examined. What's done in the dark shall be brought to the light. With the added bonus of blogging down the communists running for office.
Mitch McConnell has already stated one of his key trial rules (the Republican Senate gets to set the majority of those) is that there is zero witness testimonial. None. No witnesses. How fucked is that?
What witnesses? More college motherfuckers to talk shit about Trump? A State Department employee who seems to forget who works for who? A "first hand" whistleblower who only heard from a friend of a coworker's aunt's dogwalker who's totally legit? And I bet he totally never talked to the anyone before hand or during, he pinkie promised!
It’s all somewhat moot really. By the time all this would be done with we are talking maybe 6-10 months left until the elections. Unless the Senate specifically forbids it (perhaps more unlikely than an actual impeachment-) Trump is free to fun again in 2020 anyway, where he may very well be re elected wether he is impeached or not. So basically, it could all just amount to a few months without him as president before he took up the job again. In the unlikely scenario that he is removed from office AND forbidden to hold future office or loses in 2020- Pence would be president for a few months time, mitigating any real changes he could make as he likely already has a slew of projects as Vice President-
So he’d either have to drop those or catch up someone else to take them over while he himself was taking over as president- and as we know with new presidents there is a period of at least a few months required for such hand offs, so pretty much whatever happens things will more or less continue on as they had. The only variables are of the impeachment (regardless of outcome) might hurt or actually help Trumps chances in 2020, and wether they’d bar him from future office IF he was impeached. And even then- impeachment might not remove him from office anyway- so.... it’s just another day basically.
Ya gotta love how Republicans are all about upholding the sanctity of the Constitution up until a Republican president violates both reasons for impeachment layed out in the Constitution and it's not politically advantageous for them to hold such a position anymore.
@famousone I don't know why you are trying to defend what they themselves admit they do. Multiple republicans have flat-out stated that it's all about winning, and they consider there to be two sets of rules, one if you are on their side, another if you are not.
Kavanaugh? Horrible example; look what Mitch did with Garland and then the fact that he flat-out confirmed if RBG passes, even if the election is a month away, he'll try and force through a conservative Supreme Court justice. That's the exact shit I'm talking about, two sets of rules. It's bullshit and they're hypocrites for it.
Look at Lindsey Graham (and any representative that was there for Clinton's impeachment and voted for impeachment, but won't now, as his comments reflect all of them) when in 1999 he said impeachment doesn't even require a crime, it's about the integrity of the office. Even if Trump committed no crimes, there's no doubt he's brought shame and has shat all over the oval office, so by Lindsey's own words, it warrants impeachment. Lindsey now? He's on the record saying he won't even LOOK at the evidence.
Look at those house republicans that stormed into the hearings demanding they are open to the public and then ordering pizza; when the democrats complied, they got butthurt again. They claimed they weren't having a fair shot to question witnesses, but if you watch the hearings they had EVERY chance afforded to them under the law. They could call witnesses if they wanted, but they didn't, and they could have cross-examined, but they really didn't (they used that time toying with hoaxes and tangents). If Trump were defensible you'd think they would have questioned any of the people that could clear him, but instead Trump demanded they ignore the subpoenas. All that time, republicans complaining they can't call witnesses.... seriously. SERIOUSLY, what the fuck?
Think very carefully about whether you really want to dive into who's done what throughout history.
And your opinions aren't facts. Thanks to President Trump we are no longer the world's piggy bank, blood bank, or fool. Overbearing regulations are going away, the border is being secured, and Americans are taking back what's ours.
They've been trying to pull off a coup since before he took office, before he could do a damn thing. You don't dance with the Devil unless you want to dance forever.
So stating what people have actually said (not verbatim, no doubt, but close enough the intent isn't lost and on easy to find quotes) is just opinion? Like... if I say Trump claimed he could "grab them by the pussy", that's now an opinion? Literally every point I made are things that actually happened.
Republicans don't share ALL the blame; Harry Reid deserves a lot of it as well, as he the one who enabled them onto this path.
1) As a trade policy, isolationism isn't wise... we grew our economy after WW2 precisely because we were the world's piggy bank.
2) Blood bank: Again, I actually agree with Trump on the general idea, just not his methods.
3) Fool? That depends. Now THIS is an opinion: Israel is the only country that has been playing us for fools. It may seem like North Korea is as well, but that whole situation is such a political quagmire, everyone involved could be considered foolish.
You know damn well what the opinion is.
You wanna hear a fact? SCOTUS is meant to be originalist and constitutionalist. Who threatened to arbitrarily enlarge SCOTUS just to have a "living document" majority?
So no, not every point is a fact, and there's no evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and when your top witness both lies about the source AND is in bed with Schiff, he has no credibility.
You gonna find another bureaucrat to bitch about the President of the United States not following their will? Here's another fact, Executive Privilege exists. Think it doesn't apply? That's SCOTUS' call, not Schiff's.
He’s anti-Semitic because he’s critical our relationship with another country? Even if you are against Israel as a state that’s anti-Zionist. You have to actually hate Jewish people regardless of their location to be anti-Semetic.
China's been fucking us over decades.
Israel is a steadfast ally (even after Obama tried to fuck them) that might be more hated for nonsensical reasons than we are.
Try again.
You cannot be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. That's like saying "Italy's got no right to be a nation, but I'm totally not anti-Italian".
Israel is a shining beacon of humanitarianism, restraint, and civilization constantly under siege by genocidal terrorists and regularly crucified for the heinous crime of self-defense.
Nevermind the implication of "The Jews running everything". Who is a prominent figure in 20th century history who championed that mindset? And what exactly did they do?
I'm totally fine with Jewish people, I just don't like another government (Israel) having so much influence in our own. It's not that I'm anti-Israel either, it's just the influence. The fact the SCOTUS is supposed to be non-partisan is my entire FUCKING point with what happened. McConnell did what he did SPECIFICALLY so he could get a partisan judge, and has stated that, given the opportunity, he'd FUCKING DO IT AGAIN.
No, what I'm saying is Italy can entirely be it's own nation, I just don't like the fact we are giving them a bunch of weapons and a free $30+ billion a year.
Say we stop giving Israel 30+ billion a year, do you really think they are going to kick us out of our bases in the region? Given their neighbors? No; yet they constantly use that reason to exploit us. There's also the fact of how the cluster-fuck began and then how it was re-ignited post-WW2. Just carving up countries have proven to be a spectacular failure, and all this fighting is based off religious control. We are supposed to be a secular nation; fighting for/against religious beliefs is antithesis to the foundation of our government (although we all know it's really about oil). That rounds out my argument; we've proven we can secure whatever resources we really want in the region without their help; in fact, it's usually easier and requires less bloodshed when they aren't involved, as the religious part just complicates negotiations.
We don't give them weapons, we sell to them.
And it's nowhere near $30 billion dollars a year. We have common enemies. We effectively founded them. And they serve as a bulwark against those who slaughter their own for the unforgivable sins of homosexuality, education, and seeking equality before the law. Nevermind what they do to those who dare to pray wrong.
You have maybe a quarter of the history right and a little bit of the motivation. But the religious war only exists in that Israel is for equality and coexistence, while their enemies want to exterminate them for the crime of having a different faith.
We don't bleed for the Jews, we stand alongside them for liberty and life.
Your singling out Israel in particular is suspect as well. Why not the PLA? Why not Germany? Or Japan? Or the ROK?
You're right about the $30 billion, my bad, it's $3 billion, I don't know why I had that extra zero stuck in my head. They are still the largest recipient of US aid since WW2 ($121 billion total).
.
That part about "founding" them, that's part of the point. Just designating lines willy-nilly after a major war has always been a terrible idea unless you're a colonial country specifically looking to cause internal warfare that you can then leverage.
.
As much as it has tried, that "land" will never be possible for co-existence precisely BECAUSE of how it was founded. Wars over the "Holy Land" occurred long before even Christianity existed.
.
You don't think there are people of the Jewish faith out there that don't want Muslims kicked out as much as Muslims want people of Jewish faith kicked out? Or the same with Christians? That's just naive. That's why the situation is an impossible one to resolve; goddamn extremists on all sides.
Don’t worry at it too much, @funkmasterrex. Next week Trump will decide he doesn’t like Israel and @famousone will say it’s a dangerous theocracy that threatens America.
I didn't single out Germany or China because trade deficits aren't them taking advantage; in fact, quite the opposite. We take their resources with a piece of paper that's basically imaginary; if shit hits the fan, we've been consuming their resources, not ours; that's a win; not being taken for a fool. For a country to incur a trade deficit, one of two things need to occur: They either have to be so poor they have no ability to negotiate the price of their exports, or they are so rich they can buy whatever they can't/don't want to produce themselves. We're clearly in the second category. If you're talking about the PLA with the South China Sea; yeah, that's messed up, but I wouldn't consider our responses foolish.
What happened in Japan and South Korea are both the direct results of treaties and an armistice. In the case of Japan, we wound up building one of our strongest trade partners (same with Germany), and secured relative peace; which is the same thing with South Korea (1/2)
"Extremists on all sides" falls short when one side is perpetually holding back while defending themselves while their opposition offers cash rewards for dead Jewish children.
(2/2) except we got greedy. We cost ourselves thousands of lives, a stupid 70 year stalemate, increased instability (though minor for most of those 70 years) in the region, and arguably caused a famine. That's us playing ourselves. At least we did get to establish trade with South Korea, which vastly increased our influence in the region. Seoul is a pretty crazy city.
@famousone Holding back? If Russia came to America and took Washington DC and handed it to some religious/ethnic group and told Americans that group had a god-given right to it wouldn’t you be a little upset? Israel isn’t holding back, they are holding on for dear life. The only thing stopping the people around them from resetting the borders back to where they were is the giant retarded cousin standing behind them: us.
Explain where my metaphors breaks down. Israel includes not only Jewish but Muslim hotly land. After WW2 we redrew the map and took the land that was owned by one and gave it to the other. Then we said that no one can mess with them unless they go through us. Cue unrest in the Middle East.
Except Israel actively strives for coexistence, even conceding to many of the Palestinian Authority's demands, only to be rebuked and attacked anyways.
Muslims can walk unmolested in the Jewish sector, children who mistakenly wander into the Muslim sectors will be butchered.
Funk, Israel never terrorized anyone. They never conducted guerrilla warfare. Even when they had every right to wage total war and annex their neighbors, or at least drive out the terrorists in their own back yards, they instead strive for reconciliation.
"The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war."
"Except Israel actively strives for coexistence"... not true. Not even as a government. They actively use us to fight for their interests. Oh, leaving a million people on a beach and then cutting off their access to basic necessities may not exactly be guerrilla warfare, as it's more of a siege, but then blaming counter-attacks for it? What would you do if you were being starved out? Israel has been using a passive approach to warfare for 70 years, using tactics that meet the threshold of "humanitarian crisis".
.
It's kind of interesting, it's like you think the only way to fight is with force of arms.
.
I do want to compliment Israel on a thing though: their research into the impacts, both positive and negative, of cannabis has been decades ahead.
@famousone Many Arabs alive today remember the establishment of Israel and importation of citizens from around the world, displacing the people who owned the land which was based on entitlement from two thousand years ago. Israel itself was an act of aggression and invasion from their perspective. Again I ask you to imagine what stance you would take if someone did that in the US. A lot of the turmoil that we have to deal with coming from the Middle East has to do with our allegiance to Israel.
But like... who “owned the land?” Ottomans? Turks? Mongolians? The Pope/Rome? The Jewish? The Egyptians? Palestine was Jewish land until the Egyptians took it. Alexander took it, for a while it was Christian until Muslims took it. It was part of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey until the British told the Arabs they’d support them breaking in gaining independence from them (of course the British understood this to mean they’d become a colony and the Arabs thought they’d become a country.) There was no “Palestine” as a country- it was a name for a region. It’s not like the Jewish had some straight forward way to take it back all those centuries since after leaving Egyptian rule the world wouldn’t see a Jewish state of organized Jewish power for almost 1,000 years.
So I mean- what can you say? If the American Southwest was backed by China and gained independence from the USA- then China started moving Mexicans and Native Americans back to the land and gave them their own home back- what are we going to say there? “That’s not fair?” They took it! Yes. So did America. But my family has lived there hundreds of years! Yes. And before their family was kicked out so your family could live there- so had they. Probably longer.
But the Palestinians didn’t take it from the Jews! Not directly. But do you care if something valuable like your car or bike or whatever was stolen by John, sold to Tod, taken from Todd by Wayne, etc etc...? If you find the last person who has is on your bike and they say “nah man. I didn’t steal this from you. I jacked it from Wayne and have been riding it for a year so it’s my bike now.” You gonna shrug that off and leave? Because if you go to court you would get your car/bike/whatever back under those circumstances since it doesn’t matter who took it from who if it was yours.
“Countries don’t work like that! It isn’t ‘jewish land’ because many groups have controlled it or lived on it!” Ah. Ok. So... it belongs to whom ever has the ability to take it and hold it? So then... Israel belongs to.... the Israelis. If you frame this as a moral issue you can’t win. If you frame it as a political issue you can’t win. After almost 1,000 years the Jewish people returned home, made the long in development Jewish state, and don’t plan to lose it. Or: a country divided up its territory legally in international court creating desperate countries that went to war- one of them did better in that war- the end.
However you slice it up- Americans, a people who took land from the people living there under the British flag, then created their own country through war and annexing the territory of neighboring countries like Hawaii and Mexico, then formed the most powerful military they could muster... huh. Sounds familiar. But I don’t see a lot of Americans lining up to give land back to natives- not a lot of people saying we should reinstate the king of Hawaii and leave their island.
So it’s more than a tad hypocritical when I hear people saying “well Israel should give land back to Palestine...” when they themselves, even if they dislike and decry HOW they came to live in the prosperity they do- they aren’t lining up to give that up on their principals.
Now fundamentally Famousone is right when he says that Israel doesn’t want to destroy Palestine. Palestinians can become Israeli citizens. They can live and work in Israel. They don’t have to convert to Judaism. But Palestine as a national policy calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. Not that they go elsewhere or sign a treaty of land rights or demilitarize. That they die and are erased from the earth.
That’s basically like if post WW2 instead of installing a new German government we’d beaten back the Nazis and said: “ok. Well- we took everything you guys conquered and you just have Germany now. You’ve signed treaties. You just have to promise to keep your Nazi government in Germany this time..” and left the Nazi government a presence in Europe. How’s that work when their fundamental doctrine is to kill all Jews and “lesser” races? Would you, in 1943, have been on the side of the Nazis and said: “gee guys- they’re contained. It’s really unfair to not just give them Germany and the Rhine and say they’ll be cool from now on. Do we REALLY need to take their position of power too?”
Doesn’t fly. Whatever the minutia are we have a nation that wants to ethnic cleanse the Jews, and a nation that just wants to... be Jewish and secure and prosperous. Fighting over land that was owned by foreign countries for 500 years. Two countries that didn’t even exist until the 1940’s.
And if you know your history you’d know that before Israel was what it is today, in its infancy- the Palestinians started the first war between their nations- not because Israel had violated the terms of mandatory Palestine- but a war of aggression to annex territory and eliminate the Jewish state. The Israelis won and fought back the Palestinians. They lost territory. They took it back. So what- the Palestinians want to cry because Israel played their game by taking territory from the Palestinians- but Israel did it better?
Israel doesn’t always “play nice” and would you? Surrounded by people who want to kill you, have started wars with you? And then you’re the bad guy when you fight back and do a better job- then say: “gee... I should prevent this in the future by taking the offensive and establishing a secure border territory...”?
And on the subject of hypocrisy- America and many other countries get a building blown up or two, a public attack- and then go topple and devastate countries thousands of miles away who’s citizens and often governments weren’t involved. We destroyed Baghdad because we THOUGHT the MIGHT have weapons that they COULD MAYBE decide to use against us.
We all talk about a “post 9/11 world” and things have changed from banking to travel and more- over one attack. Imagine if Isis and so on were primarily based out of Canada and were shooting rockets across To New York daily, or of every so often they tried to invade Chicago? Do you think America or most European nations would just shrug and be like: “well... what ya gonna do?” Or “well- maybe we should just give them New York?” Nah. They wouldn’t. While we argue over gun control and mass shootings and while much of Europe passes laws and debates what to do about Muslim immigrants and the potential dangers and social unrest... Israel lives shoulder to shoulder with a government that has sworn to kill them down to the last child- and often tries.
And all that is an American perspective. I said from the Arab perspective it was aggression and invasion. Zionism gave rise to Arab nationalism. The difference in this case is the justification for the formation of the state was 2000 years old. There’s a difference in saying “my great grandfather’s home” and “my people had this 70 generations ago.”
But the Palestinians never had Palestine. The same colonialism that created Israel created Palestine. Before that Palestine was just a part of Turkey/the Ottoman Empire for about 500 years. People lived there, but under another government not their own. Then the region “belonged” to The UK. Then the UK created two countries. Then one of those countries- Palestine- attacked its neighbor. Egypt attacked its neighbor. The argument that Zionism gave rise to Arab nationalism is just saying: “if Israel didn’t exist, no one would want to destroy it!” Well... yeah... but what’s the solution there? Tell the Jews to go back to their country... Israel is the only Jewish country. Ask them to please stop existing so we can end Arab nationalism?
The same act and the same entity that created Israel. So we can argue that it was unlawful or unethical to create Israel- but if the UK didn’t have the authority to create Israel they didn’t have the authority to create Palestine since they annexed that land through conquest. So then what do we have? A patch of land with no legally recognized government. Well... then if there’s no legally recognized government, and the UK isn’t the government- it’s fee real estate isn’t it? “Palestinians wether recognized or not claimed the land and lived there!” Ok. So they granted themselves the right to govern. So... why couldn’t the Jews already living in the region at that point grant themselves the same ability? By who’s authority does that land belong to anyone? By who’s authority does either government exist? If the recognized government of the region doesn’t have that authority- who does?
But again- one must know their history. There were Jewish settlers in the region BEFORE the formation of mandatory Palestine. They faced anti semitism and aggression as well BEFORE Israel existed. So you have things mixed up. Israel exists because Jews weren’t welcomed. Alone they were weak. Without Israel it’s likely most or all Jews would have been driven away or killed in the region long ago. Palestine isn’t welcoming Jews with open arms. Israel will accept Palestinians and Arabs just fine.
It’s not so complicated in that regard. Israel welcomes you, whoever you are, as long as you come in peace. Palestine does not. Israel doesn’t care what Palestine does as long as it stays out of Israel’s way and lets them be. Palestine wants to erase Israel and the Jewish people from the earth. How much debate does that need? The last time a tiny country decided to eradicate the Jews they almost did. Do you expect the Jewish people to just smile and wave and say: “well- a second Holocaust was bound to happen. We did ok last time. It’ll be fine...”?
You keep explaining this to me like I said that Israel isn’t a legitimate state. I don’t hold that belief. I am positing that the perception of stolen land is what caused the Arab nationalism that has caused the enmity towards Israel and the US by association.
That’s the point. History is an important teacher. It’s good to understand it- especially when talking about.. history. The true roots of Arab nationalism go back to at least the 1800’s. Modern Arab nationalism starts in the 20th century with notable Arab philosophers and intellectuals- through the Arab congress in the early 1900’s. We see the first real spark of Arab nationalism in the revolts against the French and English in the 1920’s. This is about the time Mandatory Palestine was created. After the first electrical station was created in the area- the first attacks against Jews occurred. The next month- another. The British tried to create a self governing Palestine but Arab representatives refused to cooperate with any government that had Jewish participation.
Arab nationalists rose to power and began the first in a series of violent campaigns against the Jewish people. By the 1930’s- well before Israel existed- there had already been countless councils and such for anti Zionism and transarabism.
Arab nationalism DOES NOT stem from Zionism or from the Israelites. Loooong before the Balfour declaration the Arab nationalist movement was well in swing- first against Turks, then against Europeans, then against the Jewish people.
It has nothing to do with Jews. Jews happen to be in the same place. If it was Dutch or Chinese it wouldn’t matter. The Arabs don’t want people there who aren’t Arab. It’s that simple. It’s more complicated because it is Jews- thanks to antisemitism. There WAS one Palestine. A nation of Jews and Arabs. A nation that was to be self governing without colonial interference. And then... the Arabs rejected ONE Palestine because they didn’t want to be a nation with Jews in government. Ok. So they got what they asked for. A separate Jewish nation was created.
It’s REALLY simple. The Jews aren’t leaving. They are there. That’s done. Long done. The Jews had been waiting to go back for almost 1,000 years. No matter what- someday- the Jewish people were going back. So the options are: Create one state of all people’s in Palestine: or- create an Arab nation and a Jewish nation from the lands of Palestine. The Arabs rejected option one. They don’t like option 2- the Jews aren’t leaving. They have no other home to go to- so the option left is “erase them.”
So is reject the premise Zionism is anything but an interchangeable variable in Arab nationalism. Again- as I said- that statement is just like punching someone in the face and saying they wouldn’t get punched if they weren’t standing in front of your first- you wouldn’t be so violent if they weren’t in the same room. Horse crap. If it were someone else standing in the room you’d punch them too because it isn’t about who is in the room- it’s about you wanting to have the room to yourself.
You didn’t ask your Mom to marry some guy and move his kid in. But here is your new step sibling. You’re sharing a room. You don’t want them there but they are there. They can go live on the streets or die. Otherwise they live there now. So if you’re gonna punch them in the face until they punch back- and they punch harder- what did your dumb ass expect?
When mom and dad get tired of your fighting and split the room and they are posses you have the better wall plug and you’re pissed they have the window- so you try and take their window and they deck you and take your wall plug- what do you expect?
When they came in and said- “look. This ain’t ideal for either of us but I live here now. I have a sweet gaming PC and a cool stereo that we can share, let’s make our room awesome...” then you say “No! I will never cooperate with you. The only thing I want from you is for you to die. Not move out- die.” What are they supposed to do? When you try to kill them in their sleep you don’t think they’ll sleep with a weapon? Put up a barrier between you and their bed?
As for Israel and causing US Arab aggression... Horse crap too. Arab nationalism rejects interference of outside powers. You think that the US meddling with OPAC and using political and economic force to ensure we can have military power in that region, that we can have some of the sharpest petrol in the world- has anything to do with Israel? The Arab world has enough reasons to be mad at the US. We blew up Iraq... twice. We have meddled in politics in Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc. etc. we impose “western democracy” and “western ideals.” We try to shame nations for their treatment of women, minorities, etc etc. we get involved in conflicts and grudges going back thousands of years at a clan level.
So sure- Israel is one more reason for Arab nationalists to oppose the US- but many Arab nationalists are fundamentalists. They believe in Islamic states, in Islamic or sect laws, in things fundamentally opposed to “progressive and decadent western culture.” They find our attitudes towards women, homosexuals, LGBTQ+, drugs, alcohol, blah blah blah to be as offensive and misguided as we often see theirs.
So nah. There is conflict there no mater what. And again- it is one side that is not willing to compromise. The other side is willing to make compromise to allow everyone to live together.
Trump has been impeached, so now the trial goes to the Senate. There's a small step missing here though, the House has to formally bring the articles of impeachment to the Senate; that's something they don't have to do immediately, and can be used to try and ensure a "fair trial". It's impossible to get a fair trial out of this situation though, as you already have GOP Senators that have claimed they are going to ignore any evidence (literally not even read any witness testimony from the house inquiries or anything) and just vote not to impeach; picking party over country.
Calm down. No one said anything about there being evidence or not (in this reply chain at least). All @funkmasterrex said was that some of them said that they've already decided their vote regardless of what evidence is presented, which is, as they said, unfair.
As far as testifying is concerned, I'd just like to point out that the second article of impeachment was in part due to Trump, his lawyers, and his team refusing to testify under oath, in addition to blocking others from doing so.
But that’s the round about I brought up the last time famous talked about “fair” this or that. It is unfair that they testify under oath... but what is the alternative? That they not be under oath? And... how is it “unfair” to compel a person to tel the truth under legal consequence? And if they “got them last time..” by perjury under oath- why don’t they... just tell the truth and then if they’re innocent there is no crime? If they can’t tell the truth... why not take the 5th as that is exactly what it is for- to prevent you from self incrimination under oath? So answer the stuff you can truthfully and plead the 5th on the rest?
Pleading the 5th isn’t supposed to be counted against you. Let’s say it might be though- a perception of guilt? Well... ok... but if using your rights to not testify makes you look guilty... then how does it make sense to refuse to testify on the grounds you’re afraid to look guilty? Doesn’t refusing to testify make you look guilty? Do you understand what I’m saying?
How do you have a “fair trail” where you can’t question anyone under oath and jurors are on record saying they won’t consider ANY evidence? If you were on a jury and pulled that you’d be in contempt and likely recused.
So let’s say the WHOLE thing is a BS farce- there is no credible evidence. There is no “evidence.” It’s all a show and an attempt by democrats to railroad a guy. A “hoax.” Isn’t... isn’t that what a trial is for? To have a chance to pick apart the flimsy evidence, defend your innocence?
And Trump has said he trusts his “fine republican senators.” He’s said he has faith they’ll “do the right thing” and are “smart” that they’ll see this “hoax” as a “hoax.” Ok- so what is the risk in going before a majority senate which you say you trust, having these smart and fine republicans look at the fake and flimsy allegations, tell the truth under oath, and expose the entire “hoax” to America and everyone? How is it not fair to go into a jury room where you already have jurors who have said they will render verdict in your favor no matter what- and you assert you’ve done nothing wrong, and that the prosecution has manufactured false evidence that anyone can see is a hoax?
The executive is not subservient to the legislature. They did cooperate before, it was a waste of time that only accomplished wasting everyone's money.
So the house tries again, and the President claims Executive Privilege. "Obstruction!" They cry. But it isn't, Washington himself established Executive Privilege, every president has had the ability to invoke it.
"But accountability" They counter. Accountability is still enforced. The reason we have three official branches of government is so that the third can break a stalemate. The Legislature and Executive can't agree? That's where SCOTUS comes in. Not having the patience to deal with the Court, obstruction doesn't make.
Seeing as how Pelosi is in no hurry to send it to the Senate and officially complete the Impeachment, they clearly had the time to get SCOTUS involved.
Nevermind how unamerican it is to argue that "The innocent have nothing to hide", the executive still has work to do, and won't be able to do it if they're beholden to some committee's timetable. Might explain why a hostile committee would try to hold their equal beneath their whims.
One of the tasks of the legislative branch is to keep the executive branch in check, the executive absolutely is subservient to the legislature on issues like this.
The Executive is never beneath Congress. When two branches are at a stalemate, the third makes the call. Congress can subpoena all they want, but the President has every right to resist until SCOTUS says otherwise.
That's not entirely true. Congress has it's own jail for people who ignore subpoenas, they just haven't used it in this instance. Would it give more credibility to Congress if the SCOTUS ruled in their favor? Absolutely; but it's not required.
If you think the executive is immune, you're effectively saying the executive is above the law, which we all know isn't true; as that would make the President a King and not a President.
...but it's not going in circles. It's not even going in a line, it's a point. A singularity: The President is not above the law... literally a . <--- a point (and the statement "period").
You're also forgetting the fact that even in his "transcript", which isn't really a transcript, it's a memo... he confirms exactly what he's being accused of. His defense has now become "so what?" If somebody fails to rob a bank or murder somebody, attempted robbery and attempted murder are still crimes. See how far the defense of "so what?" gets you; even with the power of executive privilege.
The transcript with Ukraine? No quid pro quo, no threats, no bribes, and no mention of any upcoming campaigns. Biden is a real piece of shit, only got in the navy because daddy was VP, and then the fucker immediately got kicked out for shit that would've seen me on the way to Leavenworth. Ukraine's prosecutor was fired because he dug into why a drug addled American with no experience in Ukraine or Natural Gas was put on the board. Uncle Joe straight up bragged to the media about how he threatened Ukraine's aid just to have the man fired.
Trump felt that was unfair to our ally, so he called Ukraine to say that it was embarrassing and there's no reason to hold anything against the former prosecutor. January 23, 2018, right on camera straight to everyone.
As for the circle
"Executive privilege"
"Congressional oversight"
"Executive privilege"
"Congressional oversight"
"Executive privilege"
Feel free to keep it going. Or just get SCOTUS to make the call.
"Do Us a Favor". You know EXACTLY what that means. There is also the fact that during that time, the money WAS withheld.
It doesn't matter if it was Biden or Hitler or fucking Gandhi. It is a crime.
See, that's the thing. Congress, specifically the house, CAN immediately end that back and forth because they have their own jail. You haven't figured out why they haven't used it yet, have you? They know that will just further divide this country, even though it's totally legal and within their power. They are purposefully trying, as best they can, to demonstrate restraint; to avoid the optics of partisanship. Can you imagine the super-volcanic reaction FOX NEWS would have if half the cabinet were arrested by the house?
Story time: When I was in NorCal "going" to college (I was enrolled but I went to a grand total of two astronomy classes; I took a pre-test, got a 100 on the pre-test and just... didn't go back and never went to any other of the classes; I'd have to call them for my records to really even remember what classes I was enrolled in... I was really there just to learn how to master growing dank buds, which I did)... anyway... during that time I had a roommate that was an obvious sociopath. For the most part he was cool, as he could recognize his sociopathic tendencies and try to control them; something I tried to help him with while he taught me a little bit of brazilian jiu-jitsu. Anyway, there was this girl with an adderall addiction that basically became obsessed with my roommate. One day she offered to loan him $200 for what he claims were above ground soil bags for our grow; which I knew was bullshit as I already bought them. I flat-out told her too her face that he is lying and (1/2)
That loses it's oomph when you know that if someone asks the time and he says 1730 when it's really 1727 that they'd count it as a lie.
A really big lie that actually hurt my family was "If you like your doctor...".
she will never see that money again. Ever. He was in the room while I said it and he just started laughing and nodding his head with a smirk. He knew I was telling her the truth. He never paid her back, she still kept "loaning" him things and eventually her grandmother forced her to move. I actually liked this girl, we'd hang out and watch disney movies together and, ironically, she didn't smoke weed; because she was my friend is why I tried to tell her the truth. You remind me of her.
Except they don't count shit like that. Obama has around 380. That "if you like your doctor" lie was only undercut by the GOP house, by the way. Nixon had around 1,800. Both of them took over 5 years to do that. Trump has not only told more lies than any president in history, he's done so twice over in less than three years. Now, I'll give him this; messages were harder to reach mass audiences in the past, so all those numbers are not precise, but they ARE accurate (yes there is a difference)... but even taken to extremes of the accuracy, it's still over 2x the lies of every president before him.
Oh no, a politician lies. How shocking.
Pray tell, how much money has he tried to secretly give Iran? How many wars did he start? How many Americans has he killed? How many times has he sided against civilian law enforcement? How many times has he tried to subvert the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 14th amendments?
Nothing about the Iran deal was secret... and it was their fucking money. We would have had to paid interest on it had it gone to the UN, and we wouldn't have had at least a framework of a nuclear deal; which, by the way, was functioning. Are we talking physically fought wars or trade wars? Ideology wars? He's started a lot of wars. With anything that doesn't involve physically fighting, he's a warmonger. Civilian law enforcement? He bribed the head of the National Border Control Council to alter their stance on their own internal assessment on border control measures so he could get his stupid fucking wall, which is only about 15 miles longer than what was there before, has cost us millions (projected billions), and hasn't done a goddamn thing. Why? Because he really likes things with his name on them. He actually succeeded in subverting the 1st amendment; and ironically that goes back to Israel. Nation, religion or ethnicity being the core issue for the "protection". (1/??)
He hasn't messed with the 2nd amendment, but he does think it's a good idea to give teachers guns. As someone who should be training with a gun, you should be able to see how that, without proper and constant training, is a horrible idea.
.
What are you getting at with the 4th, 5th, 10th amendment?
.
As for the 14th amendment, he's actually trying to kill the process that got his father-in-law and his mother-in-law into the US. That's hilariously fucked up.
Under cover of darkness with zero fanfare. And don't even pretend it was inevitable, the UN can't do shit to us. The Nuclear Deal was shit. Internal policing, no surprise inspections, for fuck's sake, Iran's primary goal with nuclear anything to to destroy Israel! They've said so repeatedly! And surprise, surprise, they never kept their end.
He didn't start the trade war, China did in the 70's. We're just finally hitting back. He hasn't started any physical wars, nor ideological wars. He is our response to the leftist's unrelenting attacks against anyone who dares to dissent. And he hasn't subverted the first amendment, particularly not with anything that has to do with Israel.
As for the wall, if he bribed anyone maybe you should charge him for it. But it's irrelevant, he didn't need their support for the wall. Which does work and is already greatly expanded.
Now I've said it a million times, nobody wants to give teachers guns. But you know what's a worse idea? Knowingly making it illegal for our children to have any effective defense against aggression. You don't need proper and constant training, you simply need basic familiarity and a willingness to defend children.
4th: Red flag laws, attempts to strip no-fly listees of their rights, and warrantless surveillance. Peddled by the left.
5th: Presumption of innocence, fair and speedy trials, the right to face one's accusers. All subverted by the left.
10th: State and federal overreach beyond constitutional bounds infringing on the rights reserved for the people. Leftists shit on it for fun.
14th: Favorable treatment towards invaders over born and naturalized citizens, stacked on top of issues with attacking other rights, going so far as to condemn citizens who exercise their rights while letting alien MURDERERS walk. Just another Tuesday in Cali.
You might want to look up the actual numbers within even the US military firing weapons. Constant training, repetition specifically, is paramount. What if a drill starts and the teacher mistakes the situation as an actual alert; pulls out their firearm and squeezes because of an adrenaline rush with a loaded gun and the bullet hits a kid? I know the probability of that sounds minuscule, but remember there are nearly 4.2 million teachers, K-12, in the US, teaching around 100 million children; even with training accidents will happen; without it? So much worse. The scenario I presented is also pretty fathomable, considering variations of it occur every single day across the US.
Okie dokie, onto the 4th, 5th, 10th and 14th...
4th: Red flag laws are a 2nd amendment issue, not a 4th. There is a reason the 4th uses the words "unreasonable". A reasonable seizure is legal.
5th: Until the whistle-blower, Trump WAS considered innocent. This trial has been speedy, he has had the (1/??)
right to face his accusers, and he denied them and threatened the whistle-blower. THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS NOT THE ACCUSER. A whistle-blower is the one who said "hey, something messed up might have happened" and then gives that evidence for investigation. That is a "what-if", not an accusation. The accuser, in this case, is Congress; they heard the whistle-blower and asked for evidence and then drafted the articles of impeachment (the formal accusation). All that shit was televised because of the GOP (who, again, then got butt-hurt about it and peddled conspiracy theories) complaining about closed hearings.
10th amendment: I'm still confused where you are going with this, but if you think being the current President absolves one of past crimes, you're sorely mistaken.
14th amendment: I can actually see an argument for this one, as the "took our jobs" argument would actually hold a colossal weight... if Americans would ever actually consider doing those jobs again. That is in flux.
As for Cali's government, I'm not going to debate you on the fact it's filled with morons; for the most part, it really is. It's still a lovely place; aesthetically.
And, well, economically, due to federal policy, they still receive less on their dollar than any other state.
Your scenario is absolute bullshit. I won't even dignify it with a breakdown, you should be able to smell the manure you typed up.
And I'm not talking about the impeachment, I'm taking about the endless assaults on our rights and liberties.
Anonymous accusation is nowhere near reasonable cause to assault and steal from innocent people.
Nor is it cause to ruin people's lives with smear campaigns and trial by public opinion. Again, nothing to do with congressmen or presidents, but there's at least one Supreme Court Justice who knows what I'm talking about.
If you really wanna talk about Trump though, do not even try to claim that the Democrats didn't consider him guilty before the votes were even counted.
10th Amendment, nothing to do with the impeachment, just federal overreach that Trump has actually been killing, unlike most of his predecessors, especially the last three.
"Anonymous accusation is nowhere near reasonable cause to assault and steal from innocent people."
Except it's not anonymous anymore; it's been verified by other sources and nothing has been stolen and nobody has been assaulted.
Smear campaign? If you painted shit on the wall, you painted shit on the wall... especially when you admit you painted shit on the wall and then claim you have the fucking canister hid.
Thank you for the clarification on your 10th amendment stance; and in that regard I wouldn't say just the past 3; it's a long list going back since the beginning; some righteous causes, some not.
I had to check with that "t'was"... I kept getting the URL link post error and I couldn't figure out what was causing it.
Anyway, that, having a stogie and feeding my cat has caused me to forget the question I was going to ask.
People have already been killed in no-knock raids because of red flag laws.
And when the fuck did Kavenough smear shit on the wall? Nevermind Depp, and all the little people ruined by false accusations.
And your opinions aren't facts. Thanks to President Trump we are no longer the world's piggy bank, blood bank, or fool. Overbearing regulations are going away, the border is being secured, and Americans are taking back what's ours.
Republicans don't share ALL the blame; Harry Reid deserves a lot of it as well, as he the one who enabled them onto this path.
2) Blood bank: Again, I actually agree with Trump on the general idea, just not his methods.
3) Fool? That depends. Now THIS is an opinion: Israel is the only country that has been playing us for fools. It may seem like North Korea is as well, but that whole situation is such a political quagmire, everyone involved could be considered foolish.
You wanna hear a fact? SCOTUS is meant to be originalist and constitutionalist. Who threatened to arbitrarily enlarge SCOTUS just to have a "living document" majority?
So no, not every point is a fact, and there's no evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and when your top witness both lies about the source AND is in bed with Schiff, he has no credibility.
You gonna find another bureaucrat to bitch about the President of the United States not following their will? Here's another fact, Executive Privilege exists. Think it doesn't apply? That's SCOTUS' call, not Schiff's.
Israel is a steadfast ally (even after Obama tried to fuck them) that might be more hated for nonsensical reasons than we are.
Try again.
You cannot be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. That's like saying "Italy's got no right to be a nation, but I'm totally not anti-Italian".
Nevermind the implication of "The Jews running everything". Who is a prominent figure in 20th century history who championed that mindset? And what exactly did they do?
And it's nowhere near $30 billion dollars a year. We have common enemies. We effectively founded them. And they serve as a bulwark against those who slaughter their own for the unforgivable sins of homosexuality, education, and seeking equality before the law. Nevermind what they do to those who dare to pray wrong.
We don't bleed for the Jews, we stand alongside them for liberty and life.
Your singling out Israel in particular is suspect as well. Why not the PLA? Why not Germany? Or Japan? Or the ROK?
.
That part about "founding" them, that's part of the point. Just designating lines willy-nilly after a major war has always been a terrible idea unless you're a colonial country specifically looking to cause internal warfare that you can then leverage.
.
As much as it has tried, that "land" will never be possible for co-existence precisely BECAUSE of how it was founded. Wars over the "Holy Land" occurred long before even Christianity existed.
.
You don't think there are people of the Jewish faith out there that don't want Muslims kicked out as much as Muslims want people of Jewish faith kicked out? Or the same with Christians? That's just naive. That's why the situation is an impossible one to resolve; goddamn extremists on all sides.
What happened in Japan and South Korea are both the direct results of treaties and an armistice. In the case of Japan, we wound up building one of our strongest trade partners (same with Germany), and secured relative peace; which is the same thing with South Korea (1/2)
Muslims can walk unmolested in the Jewish sector, children who mistakenly wander into the Muslim sectors will be butchered.
Funk, Israel never terrorized anyone. They never conducted guerrilla warfare. Even when they had every right to wage total war and annex their neighbors, or at least drive out the terrorists in their own back yards, they instead strive for reconciliation.
"The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war."
.
It's kind of interesting, it's like you think the only way to fight is with force of arms.
.
I do want to compliment Israel on a thing though: their research into the impacts, both positive and negative, of cannabis has been decades ahead.
So the house tries again, and the President claims Executive Privilege. "Obstruction!" They cry. But it isn't, Washington himself established Executive Privilege, every president has had the ability to invoke it.
"But accountability" They counter. Accountability is still enforced. The reason we have three official branches of government is so that the third can break a stalemate. The Legislature and Executive can't agree? That's where SCOTUS comes in. Not having the patience to deal with the Court, obstruction doesn't make.
Seeing as how Pelosi is in no hurry to send it to the Senate and officially complete the Impeachment, they clearly had the time to get SCOTUS involved.
If you think the executive is immune, you're effectively saying the executive is above the law, which we all know isn't true; as that would make the President a King and not a President.
Trump felt that was unfair to our ally, so he called Ukraine to say that it was embarrassing and there's no reason to hold anything against the former prosecutor. January 23, 2018, right on camera straight to everyone.
"Executive privilege"
"Congressional oversight"
"Executive privilege"
"Congressional oversight"
"Executive privilege"
Feel free to keep it going. Or just get SCOTUS to make the call.
It doesn't matter if it was Biden or Hitler or fucking Gandhi. It is a crime.
A really big lie that actually hurt my family was "If you like your doctor...".
Pray tell, how much money has he tried to secretly give Iran? How many wars did he start? How many Americans has he killed? How many times has he sided against civilian law enforcement? How many times has he tried to subvert the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 14th amendments?
.
What are you getting at with the 4th, 5th, 10th amendment?
.
As for the 14th amendment, he's actually trying to kill the process that got his father-in-law and his mother-in-law into the US. That's hilariously fucked up.
He didn't start the trade war, China did in the 70's. We're just finally hitting back. He hasn't started any physical wars, nor ideological wars. He is our response to the leftist's unrelenting attacks against anyone who dares to dissent. And he hasn't subverted the first amendment, particularly not with anything that has to do with Israel.
As for the wall, if he bribed anyone maybe you should charge him for it. But it's irrelevant, he didn't need their support for the wall. Which does work and is already greatly expanded.
4th: Red flag laws, attempts to strip no-fly listees of their rights, and warrantless surveillance. Peddled by the left.
5th: Presumption of innocence, fair and speedy trials, the right to face one's accusers. All subverted by the left.
10th: State and federal overreach beyond constitutional bounds infringing on the rights reserved for the people. Leftists shit on it for fun.
14th: Favorable treatment towards invaders over born and naturalized citizens, stacked on top of issues with attacking other rights, going so far as to condemn citizens who exercise their rights while letting alien MURDERERS walk. Just another Tuesday in Cali.
Okie dokie, onto the 4th, 5th, 10th and 14th...
4th: Red flag laws are a 2nd amendment issue, not a 4th. There is a reason the 4th uses the words "unreasonable". A reasonable seizure is legal.
5th: Until the whistle-blower, Trump WAS considered innocent. This trial has been speedy, he has had the (1/??)
As for Cali's government, I'm not going to debate you on the fact it's filled with morons; for the most part, it really is. It's still a lovely place; aesthetically.
And, well, economically, due to federal policy, they still receive less on their dollar than any other state.
And I'm not talking about the impeachment, I'm taking about the endless assaults on our rights and liberties.
Anonymous accusation is nowhere near reasonable cause to assault and steal from innocent people.
Nor is it cause to ruin people's lives with smear campaigns and trial by public opinion. Again, nothing to do with congressmen or presidents, but there's at least one Supreme Court Justice who knows what I'm talking about.
If you really wanna talk about Trump though, do not even try to claim that the Democrats didn't consider him guilty before the votes were even counted.
10th Amendment, nothing to do with the impeachment, just federal overreach that Trump has actually been killing, unlike most of his predecessors, especially the last three.
Except it's not anonymous anymore; it's been verified by other sources and nothing has been stolen and nobody has been assaulted.
Smear campaign? If you painted shit on the wall, you painted shit on the wall... especially when you admit you painted shit on the wall and then claim you have the fucking canister hid.
Thank you for the clarification on your 10th amendment stance; and in that regard I wouldn't say just the past 3; it's a long list going back since the beginning; some righteous causes, some not.
Anyway, that, having a stogie and feeding my cat has caused me to forget the question I was going to ask.
And when the fuck did Kavenough smear shit on the wall? Nevermind Depp, and all the little people ruined by false accusations.