My statement represents gloating to you ? No gloating here. There was no dancing bananas. You must have me mistaken for someone else.
I have carefully refrained from making any claims of any victory or how this would impact things going forward.
I have stuck to how I feel that this was an effort to impeach Trump since before he took the oath of office. That this was an impeachment looking for a reason.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about what I said above.
Let me try to understand your thinking on this. You believe there has been an effort to impeach Trump since before he took office, an effort constantly and continually looking for a reason to impeach. And because of this effort Trump should get a pass on misconduct that otherwise would be grounds for impeachment?
I was going to make an edit to my above statement regarding Scott's reference to the Rubio rule about how it seems to have applied to Clinton as well.
More later, have to get in the shower and go to work.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 1, 2020 - 5:49am
kurtster wrote:
My statement represents gloating to you ? No gloating here. There was no dancing bananas. You must have me mistaken for someone else.
I have carefully refrained from making any claims of any victory or how this would impact things going forward.
I have stuck to how I feel that this was an effort to impeach Trump since before he took the oath of office. That this was an impeachment looking for a reason.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about what I said above.
Let me try to understand your thinking on this. You believe there has been an effort to impeach Trump since before he took office, an effort constantly and continually looking for a reason to impeach. And because of this effort Trump should get a pass on misconduct that otherwise would be grounds for impeachment?
As soon as yesterday, or as soon as he does something that meets the Marco standard, which he misapplied in this case but give it time, give it time. Truth will out.
Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.—Marco Rubio, admitting that Trump's actions were impeachable, but the damage to the country (and his re-election chances) would be too great, so Trump gets a pass. But by all means, gloat as though this is some sort of victory. For anyone.
My statement represents gloating to you ? No gloating here. There was no dancing bananas. You must have me mistaken for someone else.
I have carefully refrained from making any claims of any victory or how this would impact things going forward.
I have stuck to how I feel that this was an effort to impeach Trump since before he took the oath of office. That this was an impeachment looking for a reason.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about what I said above.
As soon as yesterday, or as soon as he does something that meets the Marco standard, which he misapplied in this case but give it time, give it time. Truth will out.
Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.âMarco Rubio, admitting that Trump's actions were impeachable, but the damage to the country (and his re-election chances) would be too great, so Trump gets a pass. But by all means, gloat as though this is some sort of victory. For anyone.
Rocky and Bullwinkle did help us laugh our way through the Cold War. There is nothing like the threat of nuclear Armageddon to stimulate humour.
buddy: I hear your frustration. I listened to an hour or so of the live Impeachment hearings via NPR this afternoon while doing some woodwork. I could not believe some of the arguments and logical fallacies offered by Trump's lawyers. They sounded like pre-adolescent boys in a play ground.
I was stunned. These are intelligent, educated, articulate (well paid) men who were essentially treating American voters like they were born with FASD and sniffed solvents during the formative years. Presumably lofty, noble notions of 'leadership' left the building a long time ago.
Does this GOP rush to block testimony from witnesses like Bolton remind anyone of the GOP rush during Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings to curtail the FBI's interviews with witnesses to Kavanaugh's alleged bad/drunken behavior ? Gotta keep the truth in the closet, folks!
I haven't followed the impeachment trial closely because it seemed like a foregone conclusion, but Alan Dershowitz apparently made a complete fool of himself.
Here's a 1:38 clip of the interview between Anderson Cooper, legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin (a former student of Dershowitz at Harvard Law) and Assistant Professor Nikolas Bowie (Harvard Law).
Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Trump's legal team, cited Harvard Law Professor Nikolas Bowie as a scholar who supports the argument that abuse of power doesn't warrant impeachment. Bowie told CNN's Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin that Dershowitz is wrong.
For those interested in the full 8:40 interview, here it is on YouTube. Toobin practically jumps for joy at the end.
Rocky and Bullwinkle did help us laugh our way through the Cold War. There is nothing like the threat of nuclear Armageddon to stimulate humour.
buddy: I hear your frustration. I listened to an hour or so of the live Impeachment hearings via NPR this afternoon while doing some woodwork. I could not believe some of the arguments and logical fallacies offered by Trump's lawyers. They sounded like pre-adolescent boys in a play ground.
I was stunned. These are intelligent, educated, articulate (well paid) men who were essentially treating American voters like they were born with FASD and sniffed solvents during the formative years. Presumably lofty, noble notions of 'leadership' left the building a long time ago.
I know, I know.
