Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[VRAMdemon]

When Congress decides that certain criminal conduct does not rise to the level of impeachable offenses, it is defining a permissible parameter for future presidential conduct."

Jonathan Turley, 1998, before his prefrontal cortex was wiped and reloaded

https://twitter.com/x/status/1202267251853774850

 

[zinfamous]

lmao

Trump doesn’t have home field advantage in the House. He wants this to play out in the Senate.

Absolute immunity is not a legal defense. Trump’s entire and only defense is the partisan intent of these proceedings and he is making that case to the electorate. His supporters already buy that argument.

He can easily point to this joke as evidence of partisan bias. It falls into “you’re not helping” category.

Yes, the partisanship on the side of the GOP is entirely obvious, because they are not refuting a single factual piece of evidence, simply yelling angrily that they are being "disrespected." ...do you listen to yourself?

Why is Kaplan biased, while the videoed, documented evidence of Turley's clear bias not up for discussion? Is it impossible for defenders of the GOP to be biased?

 

[Gabe323]

I wonder if Melania was outraged just moments before when her husband was calling Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler losers in a press conference.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Can you explain how what she said is indicative of partisan bias?

She was playing to the mob.

If she wants to make a case that executive privilege is not a monarchy, that’s fine. She is welcome to criticize Trump all day within the scope of her legal expertise.

If she wants to make poor jokes, I am sure SNL would be happy to hire her.

Invoking the name of the President’s son in a play on words is an obvious indicator of bias. It wasn’t right when the GOP did it to Obama’s daughters or his wife. It’s not appropriate during inpeachment proceedings.

Guess she just couldn’t help herself.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yes, the partisanship on the side of the GOP is entirely obvious, because they are not refuting a single factual piece of evidence, simply yelling angrily that they are being "disrespected." ...do you listen to yourself?

They don’t need to refute it now because this isn’t the trial portion of the proceedings. Impeachment is a given at this point.

 

[zinfamous]

She was playing to the mob.

If she wants to make a case that executive privilege is not a monarchy, that’s fine. She is welcome to criticize Trump all day within the scope of her legal expertise.

If she wants to make poor jokes, I am sure SNL would be happy to hire her.

Invoking the name of the President’s son in a play on words is an obvious indicator of bias. It wasn’t right when the GOP did it to Obama’s daughters or his wife. It’s not appropriate during inpeachment proceedings.

Guess she just couldn’t help herself.

So, you refuse to accept her apology?

Her entire testimony is immediately discredited?

 

[VRAMdemon]

I will say...Karlan should have known better, for the sake of a pun, she allowed The Republican Perpetual Vctimhood and Grievance Cult to invoke pearl-clutching faux outrage over the privacy of a minor.

OTOH...Barron will be politicized whether Melania/Trump likes it or not and she's got Rush Limbaugh to thank for that.

This allows them an easy way to make the media cycle focus on something else other than the substance of his crimes

 

[fskimospy]

She was playing to the mob.

If she wants to make a case that executive privilege is not a monarchy, that’s fine. She is welcome to criticize Trump all day within the scope of her legal expertise.

If she wants to make poor jokes, I am sure SNL would be happy to hire her.

Invoking the name of the President’s son in a play on words is an obvious indicator of bias.

So the argument is that speaking the president's son's name is indicative of bias. This is really pegging the ridiculous concern troll meter, even for someone who basically does nothing but concern troll like you.

There is no way you or anyone else actually believes something this stupid.

It wasn’t right when the GOP did it to Obama’s daughters or his wife. It’s not appropriate during inpeachment proceedings.

Guess she just couldn’t help herself.

Members of the GOP spoke the names of Obama's wife and daughters many times and nobody cared, because Democrats and their voters aren't stupid enough to buy this pretend outrage.

Insulting someone's family is inappropriate, but that obviously did not happen here. What happened was that someone said Barron's name in a non-disparaging way. It's entirely appropriate and this fake outrage should embarrass anyone participating in it.

 

[fskimospy]

I will say...Karlan should have known better, for the sake of a pun, she allowed Republican perpetual victimhood and grievance cult to invoke pearl-clutching faux outrage over the privacy of a minor.

OTOH...Barron will be politicized whether Melania/Trump likes it or not and she's got Rush Limbaugh to thank for that.

I think it's reasonable to say she made a tactical error because she should have known that Republicans would pretend to be offended by someone acknowledging that Barron Trump exists, but apologizing was pointless because no one is actually mad.

Objective people with common sense don't care because it's obvious her statement was fine. Anyone pretending to be mad about it isn't going to care that she made an apology either though because again, they are only pretending to be mad anyway.

 

[Stokely]

If Trump can get away with having important people not testify (in the investigation performed by the ONE entity that can actually investigate the WH) then he's already won. He's a fucking dictator, granted he's a weak one because he hasn't yet had any opponents killed (much as I think he would if he could.) He's quite simply above the law if he gets away with obstructing an investigation against him, and without trying to hide it in the slightest.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The electorate doesn't decide his legal defense either. Either this is a legal dispute, and partisanship/bias is irrelevant, or it's a electorate decision and the whole thing is a farce anyhow. So which is it?

Senators are going to weigh their votes by the mood of the electorate, and its going to be a party line vote.

Senators like Susan Collins defected from their party to acquit Bill Clinton. Not sure she’s inclined to do so again given how the left have been sh!tting on her since Kavanaugh.

This is all political theater.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Senators are going to weigh their votes by the mood of the electorate, and its going to be a party line vote.

Senators like Susan Collins defected from their party to acquit Bill Clinton. Not sure she’s inclined to do so again given how the left have been sh!tting on her since Kavanaugh.

This is all political theater.

So then you admit that this has nothing at all to do with whether Trump did anything wrong, that the Republicans are going to vote party line, damn the consequences to the rule of law and future abuses of executive power?

 

[fskimospy]

Senators are going to weigh their votes by the mood of the electorate, and its going to be a party line vote.

Senators like Susan Collins defected from their party to acquit Bill Clinton. Not sure she’s inclined to do so again given how the left have been sh!tting on her since Kavanaugh.

This is all political theater.

Can you name even one bad thing Republicans do that isn't the Democrats' fault?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Hell 95% of the people who come in contact with Trump for a short or long period of time come out thinking he's a horrible person. Trump has perpetual "bias" just do to who he is and how he treats people.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Can you name even one bad thing Republicans do that isn't the Democrats' fault?

Quite a few. Started a war in Iraq. Made Sarah Palin and the Tea Party a thing. Nominated Donald Trump. That list is easy to compile. Your point?

 

[Starbuck1975]

So then you admit that this has nothing at all to do with whether Trump did anything wrong, that the Republicans are going to vote party line, damn the consequences to the rule of law and future abuses of executive power?

I thought that was obvious and a given at this point

 

[fskimospy]

Quite a few. Started a war in Iraq. Made Sarah Palin and the Tea Party a thing. Nominated Donald Trump. That list is easy to compile. Your point?

I wonder if I use the search function if I can't find one or more posts by you saying that Democrats are partly to blame for Republicans nominating Trump because they have been so mean to conservatives, etc. over the years. I think the odds I can are pretty good.

 

[cytg111]

Which wall of the echo chamber are you displaying it on?

Exhibit nr 3000

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I thought that was obvious and a given at this point

I just want to hear more Democrat-haters point this out. I cannot fathom how you can detest Democrats so much, but still just flippantly disregard egregious violations of governmental processes. Even if I hated Democrats, I'd still support them in this procedure because it needs to be done. Likewise, I'd happily support Republican congressmen if Democrats were supporting clearly illegal behavior.

So what's the deal? Why is this all Democrat's fault, all the damn time?

 

[cytg111]

This is all political theater.

In which case you have accepted that you living in a dictatorship ruled by Dumb Capone.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I think it's reasonable to say she made a tactical error because she should have known that Republicans would pretend to be offended by someone acknowledging that Barron Trump exists, but apologizing was pointless because no one is actually mad.

Objective people with common sense don't care because it's obvious her statement was fine. Anyone pretending to be mad about it isn't going to care that she made an apology either though because again, they are only pretending to be mad anyway.

You have to approach a hearing like this as you would the HUAC hearings in the 1950's. You are facing unethical demagogues. They are hostile. You really are allowed zero mistakes. It was a tactical error.

She should have known that you can't have fascism without a preoccupation with yourself as both a perpetual victim and an indestructible force.

 

[zinfamous]

Quite a few. Started a war in Iraq. Made Sarah Palin and the Tea Party a thing. Nominated Donald Trump. That list is easy to compile. Your point?

I noticed "nominated" Donald Trump; not "elected."

I suppose you are still in the camp of: those that didn't vote for him are to blame for his election?

 

[woolfe9998]

Jim Jordan or some other GOP fuckhead yesterday says "we all know that all the democrats are just going to vote to impeach, this was a foregone conclusion!"

And a conservative reporter asks Pelosi if this is all just because she "hates" Trump.

Well gee, we all know that GOP will all vote against impeachment. It's a foregone conclusion. And we all know that Trump and the GOP hate the democrats. So what are we to make of all these feelings? Who's being more partisan? Or is it just a stalemate and we should just throw up our hands?

Fortunately, with both parties voting in lockstep, there is still a way to tell who is being more partisan. Look at the goddamn facts. Whichever party is voting against the grain of the evidence is probably the one who's truly being partisan.

But they want to skip that step and go right on to accusing the dems of bias. This has been their MO all along. From Strok and Paige on down. It's as if Trump being such a detestable shitbag is their best defense. See, they all hate Trump for being such a scumbag, so we want you to ignore the fact that him being such a scumbag means he actually doing scumbaggy things which causes people to hate him.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Jim Jordan or some other GOP fuckhead yesterday says "we all know that all the democrats are just going to vote to impeach, this was a foregone conclusion!"

And a conservative reporter asks Pelosi if this is all just because she "hates" Trump.

Well gee, we all know that GOP will all vote against impeachment. It's a foregone conclusion. And we all know that Trump and the GOP hate the democrats. So what are we to make of all these feelings? Who's being more partisan?

Fortunately, with both parties voting in lockstep, there is still a way to tell who is being more partisan. Look at the goddamn facts. Whichever party is voting against the grain of the evidence is probably the one who's truly being partisan.

But they want to skip that step and go right on to accusing the dems of bias. This has been their MO all along. From Strok and Paige on down. It's as if Trump being such a detestable shitbag is their best defense. See, they all hate Trump for being such a scumbag, so we want you to ignore the fact that him being such a scumbag means he actually doing scumbaggy things which causes people to hate him.

There was actually an argument from Turkey yesterday that we shouldn't impeach because he's hated so much, due to implicit bias. I wonder how far that'd reach in a court of law.

'Your honor, I submit that we cannot hold a trial against this Hitler-esque figure on the premise that everyone hates him, so nobody can judge his actions. If his face is punchable, you must acquit.'

 

[woolfe9998]

There was actually an argument from Turkey yesterday that we shouldn't impeach because he's hated so much, due to implicit bias. I wonder how far that'd reach in a court of law.

'Your honor, I submit that we cannot hold a trial against this Hitler-esque figure on the premise that everyone hates him, so nobody can judge his actions. If his face is punchable, you must acquit.'

Yes, and why are they all being so mean to him? It's not his fault he's such a dirtbag. He can't help it. See how hypocritical the dems are being, always championing people with disabilities unless their name is Trump! Shouldn't they be calling Trump "morally disabled" or "differently abled" instead of all these mean names?