1 minute ago, Mavideol said:

still amazed with so much bla bla bla (BS) from the Republicans, all about the Dems did that but didn't did that, rushed things but not 1 time the Republicans denied the facts, not 1 time....
HE did it, lock him up

trump for PRISON

2 hours ago, rabas said:

Trump: Never wanted to be president, but I'm gonna get those idiot Democrats.

 

Trump: I resign.

 

Trump: May I introduce the next President of the United States, the first woman, first female minority, first ethnic non-American, first woman of color, and a true Indian, Nikki Haley. 

 

Dems: Who to run? Old white man Bernie? Old white man Biden? Second richest old white man Bloomberg?

 

After 3 years of total nonsense, Democrats loose their entire voter base.

 

trump was a Democrat until 2015!

3 words.... lock him up

2 hours ago, rabas said:

Trump: Never wanted to be president, but I'm gonna get those idiot Democrats.

did you know Trump used to be a democrat 555

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

He who laughs last? 

Trump's soaring popularity insures a crushing landslide in the fall. Heh... 

Like you lost the house?

3 hours ago, rabas said:

 

 

After 3 years of total nonsense, 

 

His first lawyer in jail

His campaign manager in jail

More to come.

9 minutes ago, jany123 said:

In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body^{[2][better source needed]} and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic^[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy.^[8]

 

mmm... a republic, you say (proudly)?

 

wiki says in regards to the usa, a republic is a government in which elected officials represent the citizens..... and exercise power according to the rule of law... including separation of powers... and is also known as s representative democracy

 

So... elected officials / representative democracy... mmmm... a flawed democracy, due to the electoral college means of voting, according to the UN

 

exercise power according to the rule of law... the _trump is being impeached for contravening the rule of law, isn’t it?

 

includes separation of power.... the _trump has been determined to have undermined the separation of power, hasn’t it?

 

it’s all rather debatable, but I’m pretty sure that your take, as quoted, does not define a republic.

We can cut through a lot of speculation...

 

The United States of America are a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.   https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html

 

I read an interesting article about this today.

 

There are basically two options:

a) He is declared guilty

b) He is declared to be above the law

I wonder how the senators will decide. And in case they decide he is above the law then I hope every one of them will be prosecuted for willfully ignoring the constitution.

 

"This will be a pivotal moment for America. If the Senate does not call the witnesses, it is in effect saying that Mr Trump is above the law. That would be an extraordinary abdication of constitutional responsibility."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/16/the-guardian-view-on-the-trump-trial-a-defining-moment-for-the-rule-of-law

 

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

 

The wise, very wise, founding fathers of the Republic of the United States of America, ensured that the POTUS would not be elected by simple majority but through their Electoral College system. They wanted, very wisely, to ensure all states were fairly represented, and to stop the tyranny of the majority.

 

“The wise, very wise, founding fathers” did not construct what is now the electoral college... in fact, the devolution of democracy, as seen by changes to their vision, upset those wise men.

 

Madison and Hamilton (architects of the electoral college) were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the original intent that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

 

As an aside, it amuses me to think that some people feel that the founders were somehow wiser than modern scholars, despite over 200 years of learning since the treachery of the colonies.

8 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

This GAO report is merely another nail in the coffin.

There is no coffin. The Democrat party is in the process of playing the absolute last card. No more then two weeks and this is all over. Trump remains in office, and stronger then ever. What is left? Barr and Durham.

6 minutes ago, jany123 said:

“The wise, very wise, founding fathers” did not construct what is now the electoral college... in fact, the devolution of democracy, as seen by changes to their vision, upset those wise men.

 

Madison and Hamilton (architects of the electoral college) were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the original intent that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

 

As an aside, it amuses me to think that some people feel that the founders were somehow wiser than modern scholars, despite over 200 years of learning since the treachery of the colonies.

What treachery are you trying to infer here? And why?

18 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I read an interesting article about this today.

 

There are basically two options:

a) He is declared guilty

b) He is declared to be above the law

I wonder how the senators will decide. And in case they decide he is above the law then I hope every one of them will be prosecuted for willfully ignoring the constitution.

 

"This will be a pivotal moment for America. If the Senate does not call the witnesses, it is in effect saying that Mr Trump is above the law. That would be an extraordinary abdication of constitutional responsibility."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/16/the-guardian-view-on-the-trump-trial-a-defining-moment-for-the-rule-of-law

 

Is this article written by objective unbiased opinion writers? Or is trying to spin an opinion based on a desired narrative? Be honest

Edited January 17, 20206 yr by Foghorny

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

trump was a Democrat until 2015!

So was I

24 minutes ago, rabas said:

We can cut through a lot of speculation...

 

The United States of America are a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.   https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html

 

Nice... your quoting us constitution commenting on a perfect world.... the only way you can be a constitutional republic is if yall follow the constitution, including its laws. (And good faith, if y’all want to keep sprouting on about the greatness of the constitution, as it envisioned government acting in good faith)

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Foghorny said:

What treachery are you trying to infer here? And why?

Why? I was clear... because it amuses

 

what treachery? British officers and citizens betrayed their nation by rebelling against it... they were traitors.

9 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Why? I was clear... because it amuses

 

what treachery? British officers and citizens betrayed their nation by rebelling against it... they were traitors.

The empire was given several chances to stop the heavy taxation and tactics, chose to be even more onerous, then the inevitable happened. It was a predictable response

40 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

There is no coffin. The Democrat party is in the process of playing the absolute last card. No more then two weeks and this is all over. Trump remains in office, and stronger then ever. What is left? Barr and Durham.

More and more news about the <deleted> they did:

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/shocking-new-evidence-rocks-trump-impeachment-before-senate-trial-76772933746?cid=sm_fb_maddow&fbclid=IwAR1mXqnqCJbmuNzy79iFUdgtLcbggso46-uw2OmN-yZmOxAs8ek0De8uPfQ    

 

Edited January 17, 20206 yr by FritsSikkink

7 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

More and more news about the <deleted> they did:

Perhaps people have noticed a stream of similiar doomsday announcements regarding the end of Trump coming out of the lying lips of Maddow and this network? The President is NOT going to be removed from Office. Durham is soon to issue indictments that will rock the Democrat party to its core. They will lose in 2020 including losing the House and will not retake the Senate. OK these are my predictions. 

3 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Durham is soon to issue indictments that will rock the Democrat party to its core. 

Any proof of these wild accusations?

20 minutes ago, Foghorny said:

The empire was given several chances to stop the heavy taxation and tactics, chose to be even more onerous, then the inevitable happened. It was a predictable response

Debating the justification of the rebellion is a different matter altogether... but that will not change the fact that treason was committed.

1 minute ago, jany123 said:

Debating the justification of the rebellion is a different matter altogether... but that will not change the fact that treason was committed.

I guess there was a lot of that until the empire was destroyed

The current GAO is led by an Obama appointee.  The agency works for the Legislative Branch, not the POTUS.   No surprise that they'd spring this on the day of the funeral procession to the Senate.  A reasonable and critically thinking individual would have to ask: Why wasn't this included in the impeachment articles?  The answer is simple.  Because Democrats know that the GAO declaration is toothless.

 

According to Alan Dershowitz, Law Professor and registered Democrat, the GAO's announcement regarding federal law is incorrect.  In Dershowitz's interview on Fox News, Dersh said, "The GAO got it exactly backwards."

 

Dershowitz explained that the POTUS, according to the Constitution, has the sole authority to set foreign policy.  If the POTUS determines that a country will not receive aid, and the Congress passes legislation to send aid to that country, the POTUS can stop the aid because the POTUS is the sole authority to set foreign policy.  

 

The Congress cannot compromise or undermine foreign policy with legislation.  This is why previous presidents were able to hold up aid or completely stop it in the past without being impeached for it.  This is another of those pesky "separation of powers" issues between the three branches of government.  It's the same reason why Trump's travel ban was upheld by the SCOTUS.  The POTUS controls that power.

 

Democrats know that the GAO's claims are unenforceable and nothing more than a "declaration."

 

GAO ... big *yawn* 

 

This is just more of what Democrats have been doing -- all those late, fantastic bombshell revelations (that eventually go nowhere) like the Kavanaugh hearings and the gossipblower 1 and gossipblower 2 fiasco.  I fully anticipate more.  It's their modus operandi.

7 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

The current GAO is led by an Obama appointee.  The agency works for the Legislative Branch, not the POTUS.   No surprise that they'd spring this on the day of the funeral procession to the Senate.  A reasonable and critically thinking individual would have to ask: Why wasn't this included in the impeachment articles?  The answer is simple.  Because Democrats know that the GAO declaration is toothless.

 

According to Alan Dershowitz, Law Professor and registered Democrat, the GAO's announcement regarding federal law is incorrect.  In Dershowitz's interview on Fox News, Dersh said, "The GAO got it exactly backwards."

 

Dershowitz explained that the POTUS, according to the Constitution, has the sole authority to set foreign policy.  If the POTUS determines that a country will not receive aid, and the Congress passes legislation to send aid to that country, the POTUS can stop the aid because the POTUS is the sole authority to set foreign policy.  

 

The Congress cannot compromise or undermine foreign policy with legislation.  This is why previous presidents were able to hold up aid or completely stop it in the past without being impeached for it.  This is another of those pesky "separation of powers" issues between the three branches of government.  It's the same reason why Trump's travel ban was upheld by the SCOTUS.  The POTUS controls that power.

 

Democrats know that the GAO's claims are unenforceable and nothing more than a "declaration."

 

GAO ... big *yawn* 

 

This is just more of what Democrats have been doing -- all those late, fantastic bombshell revelations (that eventually go nowhere) like the Kavanaugh hearings and the gossipblower 1 and gossipblower 2 fiasco.  I fully anticipate more.  It's their modus operandi.

And to think most of the evidence against trump are from his own side.

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

As an aside, it amuses me to think that some people feel that the founders were somehow wiser than modern scholars, despite over 200 years of learning since the treachery of the colonies.

It amuses me when people confuse knowledge with wisdom.
 

 

2 hours ago, Foghorny said:

Can you please tell me what would he be in jail for other than your disdain? Just curiuos

 

Read the Mueller report and the impeachment articles.

Edited January 17, 20206 yr by FritsSikkink

8 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

He who laughs last? 

Trump's soaring popularity insures a crushing landslide in the fall. Heh... 

Agree...easy win for Trump in the fall. 

This is yet another nothing burger. Obama was found to violate federal law by the GAO 7 times during his tenure. The OMB has already ruled that this was a procedural hold and rebuked the GAO for this 11th hour hit job on the eve of the impeachment trial. And no, there was no ravenous call to impeach Obama. The same when he ran over 2800 drone strikes in the ME without congressional approval and shipped $1.5 billion USD in cash to Iran. You can't have it both ways. 

2 hours ago, Foghorny said:

I guess there was a lot of that until the empire was destroyed

Lmao..... with the punishment of being hung drawn and quartered, I’d guess you’d be greatly over estimating that.

 

the (american) colonials only got away with it because they were so far away and European affairs were deemed more important.

3 hours ago, Foghorny said:

Is this article written by objective unbiased opinion writers? Or is trying to spin an opinion based on a desired narrative? Be honest

It's an opinion - and that is shown right at the top of the article.

 

Apart from that it seems the facts about what Trump did are pretty clear. But members of one party don't want to listen to the facts. I think that is very sad because it shows that they don't really care about the constitution and justice. They seem to work according to the principle: Our guy did it and that is why we don't care if it is legal or not.

27 minutes ago, NaamGin said:

This is yet another nothing burger. Obama was found to violate federal law by the GAO 7 times during his tenure. The OMB has already ruled that this was a procedural hold and rebuked the GAO for this 11th hour hit job on the eve of the impeachment trial. And no, there was no ravenous call to impeach Obama. The same when he ran over 2800 drone strikes in the ME without congressional approval and shipped $1.5 billion USD in cash to Iran. You can't have it both ways. 

Absolutely correct.