B.J. Porter

The Jury Collaborates with the Accused - Mitch McConnell

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

No crime?  No, the President has not been charged with a crime.  But, we all know why that hasn't happened, and it is not because he hasn't broken the law.

Regarding the law, the GAO has weighed in.  Mind you, the GAO is independent and currently run by a GWB appointee, so spare us the messenger attack.

GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

Of course, this report was released after the Articles were sent over.  But, they support the allegations carried within.

@Dog should be by in short order to dispute the money was ever withheld.

There are a lot prominent experts, Derchowitz for example, who say the GAO got it backwards. Biden would seem to agree...

"I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sean said:

Apparently, a High Crime or Misdemeanor is in the eyes of the beholder. In my opinion, and I would think any reasonable observers opinion, the offenses by Trump (those that have been made public as of 4:24 PM today) are certainly grounds for Impeachment. Watch Maddow tonight, there will be more. Take your MAGA hat off first or you might spontaneously combust. 

Those opposing impeachment obviously don't understand what a 'misdemeanor' is or why the founding fathers included it in the reasons for impeachment.  High crimes are obvious.  A misdemeanor is a 'minor wrongdoing'.  

Clearly the founding fathers were setting a high standard for the behavior of the president.  Not only could a president be impeached for a 'high crime', but smaller infractions were fair game as well.  That's why they chose the words they did.  Tremendous power comes with great responsibility.  Not that Trump realizes that.

The Righties that claim to be 'strict Constitutionalists, and most of them are, like to pick and choose how strict they are, as is Eva Dent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Those opposing impeachment obviously don't understand what a 'misdemeanor' is or why the founding fathers included it in the reasons for impeachment.  High crimes are obvious.  A misdemeanor is a 'minor wrongdoing'.  

Clearly the founding fathers were setting a high standard for the behavior of the president.  Not only could a president be impeached for a 'high crime', but smaller infractions were fair game as well.  That's why they chose the words they did.  Tremendous power comes with great responsibility.  Not that Trump realizes that.

The Righties that claim to be 'strict Constitutionalists, and most of them are, like to pick and choose how strict they are, as is Eva Dent.

By your reading a president can be impeached for jaywalking. That makes no sense.

What the constitution actually says is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. The “or other” indicates that the framers considered that an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor had to be on the order of treason or bribery. This reading has the benefit of making sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

Those opposing impeachment obviously don't understand what a 'misdemeanor' is or why the founding fathers included it in the reasons for impeachment.  High crimes are obvious.  A misdemeanor is a 'minor wrongdoing'.  

Clearly the founding fathers were setting a high standard for the behavior of the president.  Not only could a president be impeached for a 'high crime', but smaller infractions were fair game as well.  That's why they chose the words they did.  Tremendous power comes with great responsibility.  Not that Trump realizes that.

The Righties that claim to be 'strict Constitutionalists, and most of them are, like to pick and choose how strict they are, as is Eva Dent.

Yes, the founding fathers certainly didn't include it so that the losing party could remove a President.  

The good news is that the Constitution is working.  There is not going to be a removal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Dog said:

By your reading a president can be impeached for jaywalking. That makes no sense.

Think of the children. The president should be setting an example of good-demeanor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Think of the children. The president should be setting an example of good-demeanor. 

The President can be impeached for jaywalking if 2/3 of the Senate says so. 

What will they say here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

By your reading a president can be impeached for jaywalking. That makes no sense.

What the constitution actually says is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. The “or other” indicates that the framers considered that an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor had to be on the order of treason or bribery. This reading has the benefit of making sense.

No you illiterate fool.  A misdemeanor is just that, a misdemeanor.  That's why they used that word.  Otherwise it would be redundant by your misinterpretation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, The Joker said:
11 hours ago, El Boracho said:

Where in the Articles of Impeachment is a mention of anything even hinting at partisan? That is a characterization you (or your handlers) have applied. It is not in there.

Who voted for those articles?   Not a single republican.  First time in history that an impeachment vote was completely by one party.  
Jerry Nadler said it pretty clearly back in 1998

the warning Rep. Jerry Nadler issued back in 1998, during Republicans’ drive to impeach President Bill Clinton: “There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come.

Your mention of the party loyalty over the United States as exhibited by Congressional Republicans is a fine example if the partisanship you are pretending to oppose.  The next step will be not a single Republican Senator voting any other way than to acquit (having already pledged to do so before even receiving the articles) is another prime example.

Funny how you only see partisanship on one side.

I should add, your take is simply wrong.  Not a single vote for Impeachment was cast.  If you want to bitch about this being partisan on the part of the Democrats, you should say every single one of them voted to Impeach.  But, that isn't what happened.  

In each article, there were Democrats who broke ranks and voted AGAINST the majority of their party.  Not a single Republican did that.  Not one.

Impeachment Results: How Democrats and Republicans Voted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

 

Your mention of the party loyalty over the United States as exhibited by Congressional Republicans is a fine example if the partisanship you are pretending to oppose.  The next step will be not a single Republican Senator voting any other way than to acquit (having already pledged to do so before even receiving the articles) is another prime example.

Funny how you only see partisanship on one side.

I should add, your take is simply wrong.  Not a single vote for Impeachment was cast.  If you want to bitch about this being partisan on the part of the Democrats, you should say every single one of them voted to Impeach.  But, that isn't what happened.  

In each article, there were Democrats who broke ranks and voted AGAINST the majority of their party.  Not a single Republican did that.  Not one.

Impeachment Results: How Democrats and Republicans Voted

That is a false comparison.  Impeachment is a severe undertaking.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

No you illiterate fool.  A misdemeanor is just that, a misdemeanor.  That's why they used that word.  Otherwise it would be redundant by your misinterpretation.

So you really believe a president can be impeached for jaywalking. You probably shouldn't be calling other people fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

So you really believe a president can be impeached for jaywalking. You probably shouldn't be calling other people fools.

Yes, if the majority of the house and 2/3s of the Senate decides such.  But, of course, it would be difficult to imagine such a scenario.  Politicians would probably make up some shit that sounded way worse than jaywalking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yes, if the majority of the house and 2/3s of the Senate decides such.  But, of course, it would be difficult to imagine such a scenario.  Politicians would probably make up some shit that sounded way worse than jaywalking.

Well then the constitution has been rendered moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well then the constitution has been rendered moot.

how so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Trump asked if Johnnie Cochran, OJ Simpson's lawyer, was available first?

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump plans to add three seasoned lawyers to his impeachment legal defense team, people familiar with the matter said, including Kenneth Starr, the hard-charging prosecutor whose work led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment. Alan Dershowitz, the constitutional lawyer, and Robert Ray, Starr's successor at the Office of Independent Counsel during the Clinton administration, are also joining the team, the people said.

The three are expected to join a legal team headed by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and outside attorney Jay Sekulow, who are still expected to deliver statements on the President's behalf on the Senate floor. A spokesman for Trump's legal team said Dershowitz "will present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal."

In a statement, the legal team said, "While Professor Dershowitz is non-partisan when it comes to the Constitution -- he opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and voted for Hillary Clinton -- he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution." "He is participating in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent," the legal team said.

Starr and Ray are expected to play a constitutional and historic role during the proceedings to support Cipollone and Sekulow. Trump has relied on Dershowitz for advice throughout the Mueller investigation and during his impeachment. The two had been in discussions about Dershowitz joining for several weeks.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-legal-team-alan-dershowitz-ken-starr/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

how so?

That stuff about bribery treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors is moot. The president can be impeached for wearing white after labor day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Dog said:

So you really believe a president can be impeached for jaywalking. You probably shouldn't be calling other people fools.

Yeah, a President can be impeached for jaywalking. If a House majority votes to impeach a President for that jaywalking that President is impeached. If a Senate then convicts a President for that jaywalking that President is removed from office.

I assume that you don't like this but that's just tough. BTW, your boy Shitstain wasn't impeached for wearing a white hat after Labor Day. You can read about that here:

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755rh.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well then the constitution has been rendered moot.

:lol: fuck I love your hatred of the Constitution and the founding fathers :lol:

when it comes down to it - you aren’t conservative and that’s your fundamental anger at this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

That stuff about bribery treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors is moot. The president can be impeached for wearing white after labor day.

It is not moot.  The only issue is who has the final say on interpreting what it says.  In this case, it is the majority of the house and 2/3 of the senate.  How else would you like to do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Yeah, a President can be impeached for jaywalking. If a House majority votes to impeach a President for that jaywalking that President is impeached. If a Senate then convicts a President for that jaywalking that President is removed from office.

I assume that you don't like this but that's just tough.

I don't like it... I like my reading of the constitution better. It has to be a a serious offense on the order of treason or bribery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 6:02 AM, Jules said:

Good point.  Rules for federal level elections should not be determined by the states. 

Is that to suggest my state has less or more importance in a Presidemtial election? This is the United States, 50 seperate entities.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

I don't like it... I like my reading of the constitution better. It has to be a a serious offense on the order of treason or bribery.

I also agree with your reading of it.  But, again, who is the final arbiter of that meaning?  In this case, the majority of the house and 2/3 of the Senate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

It is not moot.  The only issue is who has the final say on interpreting what it says.  In this case, it is the majority of the house and 2/3 of the senate.  How else would you like to do it?

By reading the constitution as I spelled out in post 1212.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jzk said:
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

 

Your mention of the party loyalty over the United States as exhibited by Congressional Republicans is a fine example if the partisanship you are pretending to oppose.  The next step will be not a single Republican Senator voting any other way than to acquit (having already pledged to do so before even receiving the articles) is another prime example.

Funny how you only see partisanship on one side.

I should add, your take is simply wrong.  Not a single vote for Impeachment was cast.  If you want to bitch about this being partisan on the part of the Democrats, you should say every single one of them voted to Impeach.  But, that isn't what happened.  

In each article, there were Democrats who broke ranks and voted AGAINST the majority of their party.  Not a single Republican did that.  Not one.

Impeachment Results: How Democrats and Republicans Voted

That is a false comparison.  Impeachment is a severe undertaking.  

What comparison.  The Republicans were absolutely a bloc, with not a single Rep breaking ranks.  That cannot be said for the Democrats.

Yet, you want to label it as "partisan" in a swipe at the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

What comparison.  The Republicans were absolutely a bloc, with not a single Rep breaking ranks.  That cannot be said for the Democrats.

Yet, you want to label it as "partisan" in a swipe at the Democrats.

We aren't picking favorite ice cream flavors.  The default vote for impeachment is "no."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

We aren't picking favorite ice cream flavors.  The default vote for impeachment is "no."  

You misspelled "careful consideration of the evidence."

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

We aren't picking favorite ice cream flavors.  The default vote for impeachment is "no."  

And 2 Dems voted that way on 1 article and 3 Dems voted that way on the other. 

Yet, you still want to pretend they were one solid, mindless voting bloc.  That would be the GOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't like it... I like my reading of the constitution better. It has to be a a serious offense on the order of treason or bribery.

Lying about a BJ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't like it... I like my reading of the constitution better. It has to be a a serious offense on the order of treason or bribery.

You should read the articles of impeachment. They quote the Constitution as to Congressional authority and Presidential duty.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755rh.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't like it... I like my reading of the constitution better. It has to be a a serious offense on the order of treason or bribery.

You should read the articles of impeachment. They quote the Constitution as to Congressional authority and Presidential duty.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755rh.pdf

I don't think Dog will read it, he counts on Foxy News to tell him what's in it... just like he did with the Mueller report.

If you don't read it, you can spread any kind of bullshit you like and think to yourself how honest and fair you are.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Lying about a BJ?

If under oath, yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

There are a lot prominent experts, Derchowitz for example, who say the GAO got it backwards. Biden would seem to agree...

"I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.”

Wonder why @Dog didn’t mention Alan “I swear the masseuse that gave me a massage at the pedophiles house was of age” Dershowitz is on the Presidents team and not an independent expert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't like it... I like my reading of the constitution better. It has to be a a serious offense on the order of treason or bribery.

Originalism is dead baby, Republicans killed it off to defend Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't like it... I like my reading of the constitution better. It has to be a a serious offense on the order of treason or bribery.

I mean isn't that exactly what the president did with the withholding of funds to Ukraine?  Bribed them to investigate Biden FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN with congressionaly approved funds?  If its not bribery, nor corruption (which I think the founding fathers would also feel to be an impeachable offense), then what was it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

We aren't picking favorite ice cream flavors. 

unless one is "Shitstain" flavor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dacapo said:

unless one is "Shitstain" flavor 

Or if you prefer, Previously Owned Chocolate.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dacapo said:
18 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

We aren't picking favorite ice cream flavors. 

unless one is "Shitstain" flavor 

That comment did not come from me.  It came from jzk (Post #1234).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

That comment did not come from me.  It came from jzk (Post #1234).

i know....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sail611 said:

I mean isn't that exactly what the president did with the withholding of funds to Ukraine?  Bribed them to investigate Biden FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN with congressionaly approved funds?  If its not bribery, nor corruption (which I think the founding fathers would also feel to be an impeachable offense), then what was it?

 

According to @Dog, the money was never withheld.  I guess he could label it a pause in funding, or a hiatus.  But, he has made clear he believes it was NOT withheld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jzk said:

We aren't picking favorite ice cream flavors.  The default vote for impeachment is "no."  

unless one is "Shitstain" flavor

 

 

Sorry BD, didn;t mean to imply that was your blather....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, warbird said:

Is that to suggest my state has less or more importance in a Presidemtial election? This is the United States, 50 seperate entities.....

What the fuck are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dacapo said:

unless one is "Shitstain" flavor

 

 

Sorry BD, didn;t mean to imply that was your blather....

No worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Those opposing impeachment obviously don't understand what a 'misdemeanor' is or why the founding fathers included it in the reasons for impeachment.  High crimes are obvious.  A misdemeanor is a 'minor wrongdoing'.  

Clearly the founding fathers were setting a high standard for the behavior of the president.  Not only could a president be impeached for a 'high crime', but smaller infractions were fair game as well.  That's why they chose the words they did.  Tremendous power comes with great responsibility.  Not that Trump realizes that.

The Righties that claim to be 'strict Constitutionalists, and most of them are, like to pick and choose how strict they are, as is Eva Dent.

Like that phrase at the beginning of the 2A they always manage to conveniently forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

According to @Dog, the money was never withheld.  I guess he could label it a pause in funding, or a hiatus.  But, he has made clear he believes it was NOT withheld.

I think the word I used was delayed. Withheld it clearly was not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules said:
34 minutes ago, warbird said:

Is that to suggest my state has less or more importance in a Presidemtial election? This is the United States, 50 seperate entities.....

What the fuck are you talking about?

That's Gabby's Authentic Frontier Gibberish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

I think the word I used was delayed. Withheld it clearly was not.

Delayed enough to be against the law. Whithheld it clearly was, until the whistleblower's report hit the fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sail611 said:

I mean isn't that exactly what the president did with the withholding of funds to Ukraine?  Bribed them to investigate Biden FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN with congressionaly approved funds?  If its not bribery, nor corruption (which I think the founding fathers would also feel to be an impeachable offense), then what was it?

 

It has been presumed that he bribed them for personal gain but the text of the phone call indicates that he asked them to investigate potential corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

I think the word I used was delayed. Withheld it clearly was not.

Delayed enough to be against the law. Whithheld it clearly was, until the whistleblower's report hit the fan.

"Delayed"  "Paused"  It's all pretext.  Pretext is a legal term for bullshit.

PRETEXT: The reasons assigned to justify an act, which have only the appearance of truth, and which are without foundation; or which if true are not the true reasons for such act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jules said:

"Delayed"  "Paused"  It's all pretext.  Pretext is a legal term for bullshit.

PRETEXT: The reasons assigned to justify an act, which have only the appearance of truth, and which are without foundation; or which if true are not the true reasons for such act.

Pretext is Doggie's stock in trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jules said:

"Delayed"  "Paused"  It's all pretext.  Pretext is a legal term for bullshit.

PRETEXT: The reasons assigned to justify an act, which have only the appearance of truth, and which are without foundation; or which if true are not the true reasons for such act.

Yes, the impeachment charges are just a pretext for the Democrats hating Trump.  No one really gives a rats ass if Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for releasing the funds.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

It has been presumed that he bribed them for personal gain but the text of the phone call indicates that he asked them to investigate potential corruption.

You must find it ironic that the United States has become more corrupt under Trump than the Ukraine ever dreamed about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

It has been presumed that he bribed them for personal gain but the text of the phone call indicates that he asked them to investigate potential corruption.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Yes, the impeachment charges are just a pretext for the Democrats hating Trump.  No one really gives a rats ass if Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for releasing the funds.  

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

It has been presumed that he bribed them for personal gain but the text of the phone call indicates that he asked them to investigate potential corruption.

You must find it ironic that the United States has become more corrupt under Trump than the Ukraine ever dreamed about.

And again, this is the "text of the phone call" that was chopped and channeled before release...and it still looks bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
18 minutes ago, Jules said:

"Delayed"  "Paused"  It's all pretext.  Pretext is a legal term for bullshit.

PRETEXT: The reasons assigned to justify an act, which have only the appearance of truth, and which are without foundation; or which if true are not the true reasons for such act.

Pretext is Doggie's stock in trade.

Pre Text is when "Peaches" drops trou and parks his flabby beee-hind on the shitter, then pulls out his phone.

Executive Time

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

And again, this is the "text of the phone call" that was chopped and channeled before release...and it still looks bad.

Yes and that's why every knowledgeable prosecutor said it was still an impeachable offense, while the paid-to-say-prosecutors at Fox News, said the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Yes and that's why every knowledgeable prosecutor said it was still an impeachable offense, while the paid-to-say-prosecutors at Fox News, said the opposite.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463395-framers-rejected-democrats-criteria-for-impeachment-for-good-reason

"Applying these historical truths to the current situation, the case for impeaching President Trump based on the available evidence is extremely weak." - ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

No you illiterate fool.  A misdemeanor is just that, a misdemeanor.  That's why they used that word.  Otherwise it would be redundant by your misinterpretation.

To these assholes treason is no more than a misdemeanor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jzk said:

No one really gives a rats ass if Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for releasing the funds.  

Except the people who feel the Rule of Law matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463395-framers-rejected-democrats-criteria-for-impeachment-for-good-reason

"Applying these historical truths to the current situation, the case for impeaching President Trump based on the available evidence is extremely weak." - ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Was this before, after, or during him fucking an underage girl at Epstein's place?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

Was this before, after, or during him fucking an underage girl at Epstein's place?

So basically you can't defend the merit of the position, so you have to move on to the ad hominem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jules said:
1 hour ago, jzk said:

No one really gives a rats ass if Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for releasing the funds.  

Except the people who feel the Rule of Law matters.

And the people who don't want a criminal as POTUS.

Neither of which applies to the Trumpian fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

So basically you can't defend the merit of the position, so you have to move on to the ad hominem?

:lol: Tell Dershowitz to talk to Ken Starr about it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jzk said:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463395-framers-rejected-democrats-criteria-for-impeachment-for-good-reason

"Applying these historical truths to the current situation, the case for impeaching President Trump based on the available evidence is extremely weak." - ALAN DERSHOWITZ

At one time, I liked Alan Dershowitz, but I no longer understand him. There seems to be no limit to what fringe argument he will use to paint Trump in a favorable light, even when it stretches the boundaries of believability. Today, all he does is preach to the choir and serve up some pure propagandizing kool-Aid for the Fox News sycophants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

At one time, I liked Alan Dershowitz, but I no longer understand him. There seems to be no limit to what fringe argument he will use to paint Trump in a favorable light, even when it stretches the boundaries of believability. Today, all he does is preach to the choir and serve up some pure propagandizing kool-Aid for the Fox News sycophants.

What part about this particular argument do you find in error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

At one time, I liked Alan Dershowitz, but I no longer understand him. There seems to be no limit to what...

...money can buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules said:

...money can buy.

Possibly, but I was thinking more on the lines of fear of being outed as a frequent passenger of the pedoexpress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

What part about this particular argument do you find in error?

When he questioned the origin of impeachment power and where did it come from for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

So you really believe a president can be impeached for jaywalking. You probably shouldn't be calling other people fools.

That's a ridiculous presumption and you know it you disingenuous troll.

There are some relatively serious crimes that are still considered misdemeanors under the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Like that phrase at the beginning of the 2A they always manage to conveniently forget.

Exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dog  You probably know this being a dog, but maybe you don't given your distinct paucity of intellect.  

Many dog owners are aware that dogs have 2  glands on their hind quarters, on either side of their rectum, called appropriately enough, the anal glands.  These glands produce a distinctive odor, which if your dogs have ever had clogged anal glands, you know what I mean. 

Now what many people don't know is that each and every dog in the entire world makes it's own distinct odor that is unique to that dog, no other dog smells like another.  Kind of like the dog's fingerprint as it were.  What I find amazing is not that the dogs each produce their own individual smell, but that dog's noses are sensitive enough to identify the smell as unique.  That's why dogs smell each other's asses when they meet.  Dogs have incredibly sensitive noses, and for many breeds it is their most dominant way of 'seeing' the world.  

Now Dog, my question for you is this.  Since you love Trump so much and have your head buried up his ass, how would you describe his 'perfume?  Is it presidential as opposed to some mere mutt.  Does it have a hint of criminality?  Does it smell close to what Mich McConnell's or Lindsay Graham's asses smell like?  What about Giuliani?  

I'm just curious.  Since my dogs are liberals like me, they couldn't answer my question.  They said they wouldn't get within 4,000 miles of Trump's ass.  

By the way Dog if your anal glands get clogged up, it's more likely to happen with advanced age, the key is to get some more fiber in your diet.  It worked a treat when my senior Lab had that very problem a few months ago.  He was a very fragrant pup for a few weeks.  You can thank me later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

To these assholes treason is no more than a misdemeanor.

No, to these assholes the only time treason becomes a crime is if the accused traitor has a D after their name.

One would think that trying to induce a foreign government to dig up dirt on a rival to clearly be treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

@Dog  You probably know this being a dog, but maybe you don't given your distinct paucity of intellect.  

Many dog owners are aware that dogs have 2  glands on their hind quarters, on either side of their rectum, called appropriately enough, the anal glands.  These glands produce a distinctive odor, which if your dogs have ever had clogged anal glands, you know what I mean. 

Now what many people don't know is that each and every dog in the entire world makes it's own distinct odor that is unique to that dog, no other dog smells like another.  Kind of like the dog's fingerprint as it were.  What I find amazing is not that the dogs each produce their own individual smell, but that dog's noses are sensitive enough to identify the smell as unique.  That's why dogs smell each other's asses when they meet.  Dogs have incredibly sensitive noses, and for many breeds it is their most dominant way of 'seeing' the world.  

Now Dog, my question for you is this.  Since you love Trump so much and have your head buried up his ass, how would you describe his 'perfume?  Is it presidential as opposed to some mere mutt.  Does it have a hint of criminality?  Does it smell close to what Mich McConnell's or Lindsay Graham's asses smell like?  What about Giuliani?  

I'm just curious.  Since my dogs are liberals like me, they couldn't answer my question.  They said they wouldn't get within 4,000 miles of Trump's ass.  

By the way Dog if your anal glands get clogged up, it's more likely to happen with advanced age, the key is to get some more fiber in your diet.  It worked a treat when my senior Lab had that very problem a few months ago.  He was a very fragrant pup for a few weeks.  You can thank me later.

"Does it have a hint of criminality?"

Pure poetry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

 

There are some relatively serious crimes that are still considered misdemeanors under the law.

like grabbing someone by the pussy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

That's a ridiculous presumption and you know it you disingenuous troll.

There are some relatively serious crimes that are still considered misdemeanors under the law.

Misdemeanor does not mean what Dog and other apologists thinks it means in this context.  It is not the meaning in current court usage. 

It means essentially bringing disgrace upon the Office of the Presidency and the country.  Something that the Mad Mango does every minute of every day.   But constitutional lawyers can provide a better definition and understanding than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

like grabbing someone by the pussy

It is not a crime if they let you do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Misdemeanor does not mean what Dog and other apologists thinks it means in this context.  It is not the meaning in current court usage. 

It means essentially bringing disgrace upon the Office of the Presidency and the country.  Something that the Mad Mango does every minute of every day.   But constitutional lawyers can provide a better definition and understanding than mine.

Be careful with that, approximately 42% of the country would say that having  black PResident is totally disgraceful. Or a (shudder) Democrat.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Be careful with that, approximately 42% of the country would say that having  black PResident is totally disgraceful. Or a (shudder) Democrat.

- DSK

All Trump voters are racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jzk said:

All Trump voters are racist?

why do you say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jzk said:

It is not a crime if they let you do it.

What part about this particular argument do you find in error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

why do you say that?

Steam has previously touted the 42 number as being Trump supporters:

"On this planet, the highest number of Yay-Trump recorded is not a majority, it's been pretty close to 42 (the answer to everything) for much of his Presidency"

Then he alleged that 42% of voters are racist:

"Be careful with that, approximately 42% of the country would say that having  black PResident is totally disgraceful. Or a (shudder) Democrat."

So just asking for clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Steam has previously touted the 42 number as being Trump supporters:

"On this planet, the highest number of Yay-Trump recorded is not a majority, it's been pretty close to 42 (the answer to everything) for much of his Presidency"

Then he alleged that 42% of voters are racist:

"Be careful with that, approximately 42% of the country would say that having  black PResident is totally disgraceful. Or a (shudder) Democrat."

So just asking for clarification.

What percentage of American voters do you think is racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites