News Us politics - read first post before comment

[Mee]

Agree, and well-put. My point was only that the average public is more familiar with criminal and civil law (what I'm referring to as "rule-of-law"), than they are with constitutional law. As a populace, we don't interact with constitutional law nearly as much.

So, I'd have been better to say that. That when most people say "law", they are thinking of criminal and civil law, as opposed to the laws about how to make those laws (ie, constitutional law, extreme oversimplification)

Thanks. I had a brief ( non lawyer role ) stint in criminal law and it was fascinating. I have had a longer stint Supporting a lawyer who interacts with various governments on policy.

This helps form my opinion on where honesty, corruption are lacking and I have had to change my mind, and often I rest in tortured indecision. Even accepting best of worse scenarios.

But people cannot form opinion on unheard/ seen evidence.

 

[mumstheword]

Mums, you seem to be responding to (and disagreeing with) the content of my post. And I'd like to be able to offer you a meaningful response.

But apart from substantiating my point about existing public resentments, I can't make any link whatsoever between the issues you've referred to, and the issues I was discussing regarding the impeachment itself (which is about the content of a single phone call, and alleged misuse of foreign aid - and that is all) or the impeachment process.

This inability to distinguish issues, because of existing resentments, subtantiates my point exactly. The impeachment process seems to be feeding those resentments, and the inherent mistrust of the democratic system that they represent.

It's not a separate issue at all, actually. Did you watch any of the impeachment hearing?

Adam Shiff banged on about "Russia", which is a, proven, fallacy, in relation to Trump and his integrity, as the elected leader of the administative branch of the US government.

However, the Ukraine "meddling in the election" is an actual thing. Paid for by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and other's.

This is, partly, what is behind this "impeachment" carry on and the 3 year long media and Dem campaign to have Trump thrown out of office. Do you not recall that they've been calling for impeachment the whole time he's been in office? YEARS before the alleged "phone call" which anyone can read the transcript of, and which President Zellinski (sp?) himself said there was "no pressure". So what is the impeachment ACTUALLY about?

Watch and listen, to what Adam Schiff, number uno impeachment "manager" and prime driver of this whole ridiculous farce said, in his closing statements.

He's trying to further the "Russian collusion"-conspiracy hoax. Which is truly, factually, and completely debunked. See above link to article posted by the Albatross about Seth Rich AND the Mueller report. And the Barr/Durham investigation into FISA abuse and the origins of the Spygate ACTUAL conspiracy, perpetuated by the Dems and their, TDS suffering, Trump-hating, media pundits.

And, if you really want to know who is, honestly, looking into ALL of the FACTS, go read a ton of, or watch, Tom Fitton, at Judicial Watch, for actual IMPARTIAL and FACT BASED news on this whole debarkle from Hillary losing, her "email scandal", and the ongoing, years, long, hissy fit by the Dems, their media pundits and the "deep state" who HATE Trump and resent Americans who voted for him and not their darling Mrs Clinton.

Which, this impeachment process is just (more of) same shit, different day, and more and more and more, and on and on and on, at taxpayer's expense and, truly, just a disrespect of the democratic process and an.undermining of the constitution and a true "Abuse of power", by the Dems, and NOT, as they would have us believe, the president.

 

[Sideways]

Did you watch any of the impeachment hearing?

I assume you mean the 25 hours of opening statements? Good grief no! 25 hours of my life I'd never get back!

 

[The Albatross]

Whelp... there ya go. "... 25 hours of opening statements? Good grief no! 25 hours of my life I'd never get back!". Not personal as the impeachment is simply not in the scope of important things for most in the US. BUT it has immense potential to "fundamentally transform" politics/impeachment irrespective of who/which party is in power from this day forwards.

I actually have put the time in and have an MRI this afternoon but am not missing one minute. I'll be in catch up mode when I come home this evening.

Meanwhile, Veritas outted two more Bernie Bro's in a 17 minute 4th segment of campaign staffer/activests.

And Biden's been slice, diced, minced and shredded.

Obi's "I'll have more flexibility after the election... " "I'll transmit to Putin..." Was held up to scrutiny last night as a true "quid pro quo" … since under Obi's watch Putin swept in and scooped up the Crimea with not a peep from the US Obama Administration.

"If the President tasked the head of the IRS to go after his political opponents, THAT would be impeachable. If his DOJ hacked the private computer of a critical journalist, THAT would be impeachable. If he gave a pallet of unmarked bills to the largest state sponsor of terror..." Oh wait. He did and nothing happened.

Not millions but billions of tax payer dollars are missing with regard to Ukraine. There is a money trail for how money is being laundered back to certain US politicians. Potus shit in the gravy train and establishment politicians seeking personal enrichment don't like it one little bit. More later.

 

[The Albatross]

Okay so... starting today: "Republicans and Democrats will alternate questions. The questions will only be directed toward Democrat House managers and attorneys representing President Trump. Senators are not allowed to ask each other questions and cannot directly challenge answers once they were given. Questions will not be asked by Senators directly, but instead will be submitted in writing to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will then read them out loud. The questions cannot be asked anonymously and must be signed by the Senators submitting the question. Questions can also be submitted as a group and around a dozen questions will be allowed before Majority Leader Mitch McConnell calls for a break. Democrat managers and attorneys for the President can take as much time as they'd like to answer submitted question. There is no time limit on their response.
Like previous days, the Senate will convene at 1 pm et to begin."

Ideas and theories abound. Some floating censure of the House... but there's really no need for much of the conjecture as the way will be set hopefully by Friday. If there is a tie for witnesses/no witnesses SCOTUS Roberts breaks the tie. Which is why I said, eyes on Roberts earlier on as a goodly number on the right have reason to believe he's corrupt/compromised.

In other news... brokered convention is looking like a likely scenario. Some scuttlebutt about Podesta and other HRC sycophants being named by the DNC chair to their Convention Committee: DNC chair names John Podesta & other Clinton loyalists to Convention Committee, triggering revolt from voters fearing 2016 2.0 Lawdy, lawdy I hope they televise their convention. I'm looking forward to every second of it.

The NYT hit piece/Bolton manuscript leak was authored by none other than Maggie Haberman... outed long ago as a Democratic operative: Wikileaks Proved Maggie Haberman Is a Dem Operative Wikileaks Proved Maggie Haberman Is a Dem Operative and Her NYT 'Expose' Should Go in the Garbage

Chuckie Schumer pulls a PR stunt and offers a gallery seat to Parnas… knowing full well that ankle bracelets aren't allowed in the gallery.

DNC Bundler and bad boy Ed Buck (Adam Schiff's friend) might have some very graphic photos coming out. But Dailymail dot com has obtained a photo that is disturbing as his "pal" is a young male juvenile and there is much that is disturbing in the photo. For those so inclined...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1222445469793542145

 

[somerandomguy]

Those reading the above should consider the sources - Russia Today (!), PJ Media, and Some Guy on Twitter - before coming to any definite conclusions.

 

[The Albatross]

It's incredibly frustrating that, for whatever reason, members decide that this is a thread that they can't regulate themselves in, or don't need to.

This could be an incredibly interesting and relevant thread, where we could come to practice discussion of topics of interest other than ptsd, in a regulated way. Instead, it routinely gets bombarded with hysterics.

??? Who's having hysterics or not able to "regulate themselves or don't need to"? I don't see any of that.

What seems to be getting lost in all this is that the person on trial is the President of the US. And yet, partisan politics, rather than the rule of law, are going to decide his guilt.

The upshot of that is that the President may not be above political game-play, but he is, apparently, above the law.

I'm in favour of alleged law-breaking being decided by the courts. Or at least, independently of the parliament. If someone has broken the law, try it in a court, regardless of their station.

HUH? "... partisan politics rather than rule of law are going to decide his guilt" "the upshot of that is the President may not be above … but is apparently above the law". Ludicrous.

We don't have a "parliament" though don't worry the House of Representatives are trying to make this so as hard as they might.

Convicting a corrupt president isn't the same thing as overturning an election, despite the propaganda the White House is churning out.

That is not even what is happening here. Yes, it is about over turning an election and invalidating 63 million votes AND influencing 2020 by striking his name off the ballot 9 months before a general election. IF successful. Not that I think they will be successful.

I don't even care one way or the other about if it goes to witnesses. POTUS has been under the most intense overt and covert scrutiny of any American president in the history of the US. What IS new... is the democratic house manager's talking point that 2020 election won't be "fair" and they can't "trust" the voters.

 

[The Albatross]

Yes, that is pretty much the whole of the president's defense.

The fact that he'll be acquitted means it's basically true and he can do anything he likes.

It is far from the "whole of the president's defense".

POTUS doesn't want acquittal. He wants exoneration.

What Nixon did was far less corrupt than what our current president is (allegedly) doing, but both parties in Congress could work together in those days and actually cared about the rule of law.

Disagree. POTUS withheld various foreign aid prior to Ukraine aid delay. Nixon's party break in was a criminal act. There is nothing criminal in either of the articles of impeachment. So, please explain how in your opinion, what Nixon did was far less corrupt than President Trump?

Those reading the above should consider the sources - Russia Today (!), PJ Media, and Some Guy on Twitter - before coming to any definite conclusions.

With all due respect, the source of the photo re: Ed Buck's photo with drug paraphernalia is a UK Dailymail photo. The analysis/zoom in is from anons/some guy on twitter. PJ Media is a well credentialed conservative site (me being a conservative) but that has no bearing on the fact that Assange & Wikileaks outted Maggie Haberman as a DNC Operative from way way back... and no surprise that she is the source for the leak of Bolton's manuscript from the office where Lt. Col. Vindman's twin brother is in charge.

No. Random... I don't wait for legacy media. But thank you for warning about my sources. At least I provide them whereas you all are free to bloviate on with baseless opinion without a fact or sourced basis.

 

[Neverthesame]

What happened to the pelvis of the black person in the boots? It seems somewhat disproportionate to the legs and upper thorax.

Also how tall is Buck?

I've not chosen a side about this, I'm asking because shit looks weird to me in the photo.

 

[somerandomguy]

Russia Today, though! As soon as Trump got elected all of a sudden the Russians were good guys to you folks ... because they got your guy into the White House.

Russia Today, @The Albatross? Really? Russia Today. Apparently half the country thinks it's a legit source. More legit than the Post or the Times!

 

[Sideways]

@The Albatross - you seem to be be happy to make this thread your personal soapbox, and an opportunity to keep us all educated about what's going on in Washington and what it all means. Good for you.

But this:

Ludicrous

Please - don't bother quoting me, when I've clearly spent time setting out a considered personal opinion, to simply tell me my ideas are 'ludicrous'.

Borders on bullying, as nothing more than name-calling for the sake of it. That's dysregulated behaviour right there.

 

[mumstheword]

The question remains, How important is the democratic process and the constitution? It's not about whether one likes or dislikes the president, feelings aside, is it important to maintain the rule of law? Democracy?

Hearsay, conjecture, "strong feelings" and unsubstantiated rumours do not a president displace, unless the people doing the displacing think THEY are above the law.


What will be REALLY interesting will be if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden get called as witnesses.