WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump resumes in Senate

If what you say is true then the nuclear option never would have been introduced and precedents like the current impeachment sham would never be set.

You'll have to do better to convince me that liberals think ahead. And they sure as hell don't lower deficits. The only time democrats have ever thought ahead was when they decided to make minorities dependent by giving away free money and products, and even that is coming back to bite the left.

 

And we thank you. The long term is better for the right than the left.

With One Year To Spare, Trump Breaks Record for Judges Appointed in First Term
"President Donald Trump has so remade the face of the judiciary that, with a year to spare, he’s already broken the record for judges appointed in his first term.

Surprisingly, the president is taking a victory lap in celebration of the event. (OK … maybe it’s not so surprising.)

Earlier this week, Trump took to Twitter to celebrate the event, which actually happened last month.

Retweeting a video from Mitch McConnell celebrating the 50 judges Trump and Senate Republicans have managed to put on circuit courts — the most in a president’s first term since 1980 and almost as many as President Barack Obama managed to put on in eight years — Trump reminded everyone they’d also managed to confirm 187 federal judges total."
https://www.westernjournal.com/one-year-spare-trump-breaks-record-judges-appointed-first-term/

With Kavanaugh on track for confirmation, Democrats regret triggering 'nuclear option'
"Democrats seemed to realize they are fighting a losing battle after attacks on the judge’s personal finances and his activities while in the Bush White House fell short.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, expressed remorse that her party eviscerated the power of the filibuster five years ago, leaving them no path to stop Judge Kavanaugh, barring Republican defections.
Ms. Klobuchar, who voted with fellow Democrats in 2013 to trigger the “nuclear option” and curtail the filibuster, said she would support reverting to the 60-vote rule should her party regain the Senate.
“I don’t think we should have made that change when we look back at it. But it happened because we were so frustrated because President Obama wasn’t able to get his nominees, but I think we would have been in a better place now,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/2/brett-kavanaugh-has-democrats-in-nuclear-option-re/

Neil Gorsuch confirmation vote: The "nuclear option"
"Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation this week is a foregone conclusion, though at this point, doing so will require changing Senate rules with a maneuver fondly nicknamed “the nuclear option.” The term sounds a little overblown outside the Capitol -- and it sounds even odder when you consider that the nuclear option is used to break a filibuster -- but inside the staid Senate chamber, once invoked, it’ll explode precedent in Supreme Court nominations."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-vote-the-nuclear-option/


I have not forgot. It was a stupid move with long term consequences regardless of the excuse the left uses to rationalize such a stupid move.

 

The heart and soul of the working middle class, not the poorly educated. Maybe you think you're superior because you think anyone without at least 4 years of today's college education is retarded.

 

Address the fact that Trump's own legal counsel - yesterday - said Trump has NOT asserted Executive Privilege.

Again, there is no such thing as Witness Reciprocity. Senate Democrats might be willing to talk about it and they might even be willing to agree with it, but that does not mean that it is a thing.

 

I would never use a term like retarded in that discussion... I use poorly educated only to spoof when Trump acknowledged his base, although in general, I prefer the phrase "low information voter", since as @dagosa pointed out, education-level and desire to have knowledge/actual knowledge are 2 different things..

 

There are no standing legal opinions on the existence of Absolute Immunity. The OLC opinions carry no judicial weight.

 

And each time vulnerable Republicans voted the table the motion, they provided another point of potential campaign fodder during their re-election campaign. Democrats were able to speak fully about their arguments, test out their messaging in front of the Senate, introduce America to their members, and hear all of the defensive talking points from the Trump's legal team.

 

MSNBC just had one of Trumps House Mouthpieces on (Johnson La) discussing Cippilone's clear lie yesterday

"Not even Mr. Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF."

https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment...shameful-lie-about-impeachment-investigation/

He simply couldn't come out an say it was a lie, or even incorrect... disgraceful performance.. He said "Not all Republicans were allowed in", which is true. He said "I wasn't allowed in", which is also true.

But he couldn't discredit that obviously discredited statement.... When you can go on National TV and defend that, you have lost ALL credibility... And Johnson is one of the better ones...

 

You ignore the fact that the reason "Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler decided to do just as soon as they knew they had almost all the Democrats on board to vote for it" is explicitly and solely because Trump ****ed up and got caught ****ing up. It isn't because Democrats had taken over the majority 9 months earlier, it is because he got caught trying to cheat and a whistleblower filed a complaint which Trump's own ICIG investigated and found "credible" and "urgent."

And you are free to believe that future partisan impeachments are more likely. But until you can get more than the ~25% of support for impeachment that every President faces at some point in their tenure, that risk is never going to materialize.

 

Sure there are as was noted yesterday in testimony, when did a court strike down the history going back to Washington. Even the Democrats noted it when it was Holder refusing to comply with subpoena's.

It's laughable that you would not assert with no basis that executive privilege. The Democrats had the chance to take it to court, they chose not to. Now is not the time they present the case they brought.

 

DECEMBER, 2019.

 

For those who wanted to see what is arguably the single best 100 seconds from yesterday:

https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1219807852698722304

And if you don't know, now you know.

 

I never said that there is no basis for executive privilege. I said there is no basis for ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

Get it right.

 

He hasn't had to yet the House only issued the one subponea and then withdrew it. Take it to court and that will be his response as his defense was CLEARLY stating and presenting the indisputable case for it even citing Nadler, Schiff and Pelosi talking about how vital it is to the President. And yes there can be witness reciprocity if that is what they decide, it's the Democrats leaking they might be open to it.

 

That's in litigation. And was one of the most uninformed rulings I have ever read and also involves attorney client privileges.

 

And as I already cited a distinction without merit. Msg#151

 

Hyperbole and specious comments about unimpeachable offenses does not make your case

 

Dibs on the phrase "best 100 seconds" for Stormy's eventual book....

 

The most telling part was the fact that 3 Democrats voted against Impeachment.

 

A distinction made by a federal judge in November. A distinction currently being contested in a federal appeals court. A distinction almost certainly heading to the SCOTUS this summer.

Many seem to think it has merit...

 

The House issued DOZENS of subpoenas. Only one of the witnesses filed a lawsuit to take that subpoena to the courts. More than a dozen witnesses appeared because of those subpoenas.

 

Must sting that no one really cares.

 

Of course it involves attorney client privilege. It also involves Executive Privilege. Both require an assertion in response to a specific question.

Trump was not using that as the reason Don McGahn can't testify. He - and the DOJ - were trying to use ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

 

One was a Democrat in sheep's clothing... Damn, I forgot his name already....

That's what history does to some....

 

Stings so hard that you have to keep repeating a nonsensical idiocy like "no one cares" when your orange god cares so much that he can't stop watching and commenting.