Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity
  • PriceScope will be conducting a server maintenance April 13th about @ 1 am CST.

    It will includes bug fixes, and security updates.
    If all goes well, the forum should only be down for about 3 hour.
    We apologize for any inconvenience.

How closely are you following Trump's trial, and aftermath?

How closely are you following Trump's trial, and aftermath?

  • Not at all

    Votes: 17 25.8%
  • Very little

    Votes: 17 25.8%
  • Little

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • Averagely

    Votes: 11 16.7%
  • Much

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • Very much

    Votes: 10 15.2%
  • As much as possible

    Votes: 4 6.1%

  • Total voters
    66
  • This poll will close: .

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,780
@Tekate

1) It’s not the “right’s” job to ‘prove’ anything; that’s the Dems’ job to prove guilt. THAT is how it works ... therefore,

2) There’s nothing to ‘answer’ in your post; you’re regurgitating the House’s still unproven allegations. If you’re still confused, see #1 above.

:wavey:
What's unproven? Trump himself admits to the allegations, but says they are not impeachable offenses. That is his legal team's defense strategy. Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney admitted to quid pro quo and told us to "get over it." Giuliani in writing expressed that he was acting solely as the personal lawyer of POTUS and not in any official capacity to our country.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,070
All we hear from the righties is: 'lies spewed over and over again" it's easy to say lies! but the righties give no proof anything is a lie.
And Schiff is the most honest person in DC...:wink2:
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,070
1 daily digest is all i can handle. it deserves more attention but b/c it is reflecting the state of our country and what we need to do to fix it, not as a spectator sport.
Yeah, Ain't it sad that our economy is booming? :(sadand Trump just signed 2 big trade deal with China, Canada and Mexico. Let's return to the Obama welfare state with high unemployment rate.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,070
I'm not bothering, as the Republicans have already announced (long before even the evidence was fully in) what the outcome will be, regardless of what the evidence indicates. How anyone could think this isn't a sham when the outcome has already been fixed is beyond me.
Who needs evidences? The Dems said Trump is guilty 3 yrs ago.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
27,759
Huh?
What's MOT?

I googled MOT.
No help.
Still don't know what/whom you are referring to using the mystery term, MOT.

I looked up MOT in urban dictiona ry.
No help.
Still don't know what/whom you are referring to using the mystery term, MOT.

Sorry I'm not young, cool, or psychic.
Please just quote whomever/whatever you are quoting, or reveal what MOT is ... that is unless you're too cool, macho, feminine, or whatever :roll: to woman-splain something.

Thanks.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
31,577
I assume the red text is a quote, but whom did you quote?
I can't tell.
@Tekate quoted @the_mother_thing

Funny, I said a couple months back that this was a sham and was lambasted for making such a statement.

But in all seriousness, I think you (and others) underestimate some of us on the ‘right’. IF there was 1) actual evidence 2) proving a crime occurred that 3) truly risked national security or brought potential harm to our citizens, voters would be open to removing the president. But so far, there isn’t/hasn’t ... if there was, Dems would have either led off with or leaked that information by now for the historic, solemn, prayerful “HA” moment they so desperately crave.
So holding back funds so one can have their opponent in a possible election smeared isn't a shakedown, can you honestly say that if Barack Obama had done this the 'right' wouldn't be up in arms? Is this what you want in a president? So basically you are saying that a shakedown isn't illegal? As a proud democrat I can say that there is no solemn, prayerful "HA" moment. There is a moment where democrats wish that the US had a president with integrity instead of this thug.



But in all seriousness, I think you (and others) underestimate some of us on the ‘right’. IF there was 1) actual evidence 2) proving a crime occurred that 3) truly risked national security or brought potential harm to our citizens, voters would be open to removing the president. But so far, there isn’t/hasn’t ... if there was, Dems would have either led off with or leaked that information by now for the historic, solemn, prayerful “HA” moment they so desperately crave.
 

Tekate

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,401
@missy Thank you girlie! xo

Kenny, I am 67 years old so I assume you are younger than I am, maybe not but I am not young, cool or psychic.

MOT has history here with many, goes back years here. I could say sorry you didn't get that it was motherofthings, but I did quote her verbiage in red right below her comments so I assumed most people here know who MOT is when it comes to political sides.

I dunno, I may or may not quote etc, I personally find all the quoting blocks annoying and using reply brings the whole post into a reply which I truly find annoying.

Obviously MOT knew what I was saying to her since she replied.




Huh?
What's MOT?

I googled MOT.
No help.
Still don't know what/whom you are referring to using the mystery term, MOT.

I looked up MOT in urban dictiona ry.
No help.
Still don't know what/whom you are referring to using the mystery term, MOT.

Sorry I'm not young, cool, or psychic.
Please just quote whomever/whatever you are quoting, or reveal what MOT is ... that is unless you're too cool, macho, feminine, or whatever :roll: to woman-splain something.

Thanks.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
5,962
@Tekate I’m not sure where/why you get “MOT” when referring to me. You don’t seem to have a problem properly identifying other users by their correct names and/or properly quoting others’ posts.

I also don’t understand your need to reference my ‘post history’ ... seems entirely irrelevant if you just stick to the discussion at hand vs. trying to make it personal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JrJ

Alexiszoe

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
621
The amount of evidence some Republicans need to convince them that Trump is guilty reminds me of a Dave Chapelle skit on jury selection for R Kelly peeing on an underaged girl tape (this was way back in 2003, when Kelly still had substantial supporters).

Essentially to convince the character the crime did happen beyond a reasonable doubt, he also needed to see the following in the R Kelly tape:

  • Girl holding 2 forms of govt ID while being peed on by RK
  • A cop witnessing the whole thing
  • 4 or 5 of Chappelle's friends at the scene witnessing and taking notes
  • R Kelly's grandma in the tape identifying and naming R Kelly on tape, while he pees on the girl

And when asked by the prosecutor isn't it a bit excessive, the character replies:

"No its not excessive! The burden of proof is on the state! On the state! You have got to prove, to ME, beyond a reasonable doubt, that R Kelly is a pisser!"


 

Tekate

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,401
1) the Dems did prove his guilt and very well.

2) yes there was, I will ask you again "If this were Obama and he shook down a country to try and start investigations 1) against his possible opponent and 2) reinvestigate possible Ukrainian interference in the next election" as to shake down I mean: Obama says: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it."(a)

and

I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

If Obama then withheld aid to Ukraine


What would YOU have thought? I don't speak for all the left and you don't speak for right but as you defend Trump I ask you what you would have thought if this were Obama, or the candidate that won the popular vote in the 2016 election even?

Trump was not my choice and he's been a bad choice for America but right now the electoral college elected him and we are stuck with it, but from all I have read I don't believe the democrats are trying to rehash '16, but they are dumbstruck by how the republicans can just set aside all their prior beliefs and lie. We cannot undo '16.

So if this were a left leaning president would you be so quick to say the evidence was unproven with all the proof the House has?



(a) https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770

(b) https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

@Tekate

1) It’s not the “right’s” job to ‘prove’ anything; that’s the Dems’ job to prove guilt. THAT is how it works ... therefore,

2) There’s nothing to ‘answer’ in your post; you’re regurgitating the House’s still unproven allegations. If you’re still confused, see #1 above.

:wavey:
 

Tekate

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,401
well to be honest I thought of you as the mother of things..

in order to stick to the discussion we must discuss personal beliefs TMT :) because we base everything we think on our personal beliefs. What kind of proof would the right need to believe that Trump is a lying SOS? that's been proven.

How can you even say it's 'unproven' when he was convicted in the house?

@Tekate I’m not sure where/why you get “MOT” when referring to me. You don’t seem to have a problem properly identifying other users by their correct names and/or properly quoting others’ posts.

I also don’t understand your need to reference my ‘post history’ ... seems entirely irrelevant if you just stick to the discussion at hand vs. trying to make it personal.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
5,962
well to be honest I thought of you as the mother of things..

in order to stick to the discussion we must discuss personal beliefs TMT :) because we base everything we think on our personal beliefs. What kind of proof would the right need to believe that Trump is a lying SOS? that's been proven.

How can you even say it's 'unproven' when he was convicted in the house?
Let’s be grown-ups and just use our ‘usernames’, if you don’t mind. Feel free to call me whatever you want behind my back.

Rather than play the “whataboutism” game (your previous post) and throwing out red herring “what if Obama ...” arguments - and again - sticking to THIS discussion/topic/issue ... can you please point to the evidence (not opinions) that proves guilt in this case? It’s really a very simple question.

And no, Trump was not “convicted in the house”; he was charged in the house. If he was convicted in the house, there’d be no need for a ‘trial’ in the Senate. Apparently, Dems just want to think he was already convicted because they want to rewrite the rules of impeachment as well as our Constitution, apparently.
 

Tekate

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,401
Too much to type in my book you can be TMT and I can be TK or Kate or katetheGREAT Tekate, whatever you want... all nicks except Kate which is my name whichever you want to call me, minor point to me anyway.

True he was charged in the house BUT the Senate must convict him.. but IN MY OPINION there was enough evidence that he SHOULD be convicted so I stand corrected, I knew this but just forgot but none the less YOU ARE CORRECT.

So you bandy about that DEMS want to rewrite rules if impeachment as well as our Constitution, PROOF that the Democratic party wants to rewrite the rules and the constitution, you write these statements with no pointers no proof and no corroboration, if I am wrong and can say I was wrong and move on, if you have proof of these statements then point or copy and paste with pointer, I am always happy to read.

YOUR opinion on if this were OBAMA is not a red herring, it was a legitimte question, the right brings up CLINTON LIED ABOUT GETTING A B-----B FROM LEWINSKY" that is breaking the law. It is intertwined in the rights wrong belief that the president must break a law to be impeached.
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,780
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is a legal analyst for Fox News. He joined the network in 1998 and currently serves as the senior judicial analyst. He provides legal analysis on both FNC and Fox Business Network (FBN). Here's his Op Ed published today:

Trump's Senate impeachment trial -- What does it take to remove a president?


The editorial concludes with (emphasis mine):

"Where does all this leave us at the outset of Trump's Senate trial? It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because Republican senators have told him so. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and the law. What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted."
 

ItsMainelyYou

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
37
Longtime lurker and mild political junky.
He was impeached. End of story.
It's a done deal and the asterisk is forever his legacy.
The only thing the Senate can do is removal. Which they have made clear they will not.
There can always be more articles presented to the House.
After Lev Parnas's receipts, pictures, texts and videos implicating many more people adding to the already existing pile, there may well be.
* Also, if this is going to be an actual trial there needs to be witnesses and evidence.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,070
How can you even say it's 'unproven' when he was convicted in the house?
What so sad about this crazy impeachment is from now on any Prez. from the opposing party can be impeached by the majority of house for spitting on the sidewalk. Will it be a norm to have impeachment hearing every yr from now on if we have an opposing party Prez. vs the house?
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,780
Longtime lurker and mild political junky.
He was impeached. End of story.
It's a done deal and the asterisk is forever his legacy.
The only thing the Senate can do is removal. Which they have made clear they will not.
There can always be more articles presented to the House.
After Lev Parnas's receipts, pictures, texts and videos implicating many more people adding to the already existing pile, there may well be.
* Also, if this is going to be an actual trial there needs to be witnesses and evidence.
Hi there fellow Mainer! :wavey: (I'm assuming)
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,070
* Also, if this is going to be an actual trial there needs to be witnesses and evidence.
If the Dems want to hear from Bolton then why didn't the house issue him a subpoena ?
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
20,773
What you posted, MariaD, gave me a little heart. When I see an always Trumper like Judge Napolitano be able to discern that President Trump did something wrong, I can still feel a glimmer of hope that some people who have supported him can find their way back to the rule of law.

Basically, however, I am disheartened to the point where, although I probably know far more about the impeachment than most people, I am no longer paying attention to it 24 hours a day. And I am happily tuning out much of what Trump's attorneys say. I am outraged that the White House Counsel went to bat for Trump instead of for us, the American people. My outrage will no longer bring me into the street, however. Obviously the American people got the person they wanted as president. So I will continue to vote in every election (I just voted in a special election this week), but I am afraid the American people got what they asked for.
 
Last edited:

JPie

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
2,657
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is a legal analyst for Fox News. He joined the network in 1998 and currently serves as the senior judicial analyst. He provides legal analysis on both FNC and Fox Business Network (FBN). Here's his Op Ed published today:

Trump's Senate impeachment trial -- What does it take to remove a president?


The editorial concludes with (emphasis mine):

"Where does all this leave us at the outset of Trump's Senate trial? It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because Republican senators have told him so. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and the law. What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted."
Did you see the comments section of that editorial? It's like a cult. @Alexiszoe is right about the parallels to the Dave Chapelle skit, but the depressing thing is that it's real life and it's every person who still supports Trump.

Edited to add: @AGBF I don't think it's a distinctly American problem; other countries have also trended towards embracing fascism in the past few years. Offhand, I would point to the Philippines, Brazil, & Poland.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
20,773
Did you see the comments section of that editorial? It's like a cult. @Alexiszoe is right about the parallels to the Dave Chapelle skit, but the depressing thing is that it's real life and it's every person who still supports Trump.

Edited to add: @AGBF I don't think it's a distinctly American problem; other countries have also trended towards embracing fascism in the past few years. Offhand, I would point to the Philippines, Brazil, & Poland.
I know you are one of the "good ones", JPie, so I really don't want to fight. However, I feel bound to say that because other countries are moving towards fascism does not mean America losing its Constitution is not a problem. Or even that it is not a uniquely American problem. None other countries you named had our history.We were unique in having a long history of democracy.
 

sarahb

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 20, 2012
Messages
1,898
If the Dems want to hear from Bolton then why didn't the house issue him a subpoena ?
The reason the dems couldn't move on the subpoena issue (Bolton was initially subpoenaed but the House withdrew it when he said he would fight it), is:

The House began the process to initiate impeachment with an announcement instead of a floor vote. By not holding a floor vote, the House Judiciary Committee did not have subpoena power.

Since the House was unable to enforce any subpoena, they couldn't call Bolton, Mulvany, any & all records etc etc.

The process has been crippled from the start, & is the reason why the House Managers are pressing the Senate so strongly right now to call for witnesses & materials.
 

cmd2014

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
2,474
Funny, I said a couple months back that this was a sham and was lambasted for making such a statement.

But in all seriousness, I think you (and others) underestimate some of us on the ‘right’. IF there was 1) actual evidence 2) proving a crime occurred that 3) truly risked national security or brought potential harm to our citizens, voters would be open to removing the president. But so far, there isn’t/hasn’t ... if there was, Dems would have either led off with or leaked that information by now for the historic, solemn, prayerful “HA” moment they so desperately crave.
I don't underestimate anyone. I'm not American, I don't listen to American news, and I'm not affiliated with the Democrats in any way - and what has come out in the international news based on the House hearings is that there is evidence that indicates that Trump did what it is being said that he did. He himself even admitted to it. The real question is whether this meets the standards set out in US law that this was a crime, whether it's at a level worthy of impeachment, and whether your elected representatives in the House and the Senate are capable enough of putting down partisan politics long enough to actually hear and consider the fullness of the evidence there is and come to a fair and reasoned decision according to the law regarding whether or not he should be removed from office.

Mitch McConnell has made it is clear for months now that there will be no hearing or consideration of the evidence or of coming to a fair or reasoned decision according to the law (after all, if you announce your decision before you've heard evidence, it means that you have no intention of coming to a fair or reasoned decision according to the law). He has also made it clear that this whole thing is more about self-interest and partisan politics than the truth.

You would probably argue that the other side has as well. If so, shame on everyone. What each and every member of your elected government has sworn to do is to serve the people who elected them and to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. This should mean putting down partisan politics and doing what is right for the country, regardless of what issue is on the table. It should also mean maintaining the checks on power as set out in your constitution in regard to the powers of the president. I don't think they are doing this, do you? The whole thing is a sad commentary on the running of your country at the moment. Sadly, similar issues are occurring in other longstanding democracies around the world, so maybe it is a commentary on the failure of democracy as a form of government given that we humans can't seem to get our heads out of our tribal asses long enough to see the big picture for us all.

I also don't underestimate the propaganda machine of politically motivated news stations (on both sides that are particularly prevalent in the US), such that people are given very skewed and incomplete information that is used to deliberately to shape public opinion. This will be used in this case as well to convince "the right" that no crime was committed, that there is no evidence, that this is a witch hunt, etc. And people who want to believe it will believe it, regardless of what evidence is presented. Again, I know you would argue that it's the same on the other side too - and you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that people will ignore truth just so that they can keep rooting for their side.

What I really think is that democracy in a lot of places (but particularly in the US at the moment) has somehow become a sports match where team allegiances have become more important than 1) good governance, 2) having elected representatives actually represent the people who elected them, and 3) following the law. The whole thing is a joke. It's an example of how badly a democracy can devolve when people succumb to self-interest at the expense of everything else. So, that's why I think the whole thing is a sham, and why I won't trouble myself by watching it because the end is assured. I hope the US can get itself sorted out so that your elected officials can go back to actually running your country and doing what is right for your people rather than continuously having pissing matches with each other just so that they can feed the base and get votes.
 

bludiva

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
2,165
What so sad about this crazy impeachment is from now on any Prez. from the opposing party can be impeached by the majority of house for spitting on the sidewalk. Will it be a norm to have impeachment hearing every yr from now on if we have an opposing party Prez. vs the house?
please don't equate what trump did - illegal - and what clinton did - immoral - with spitting on the sidewalk. agree that impeachment should not be used as a partisan tool and all we are learning from this process is that the two party system is failing american citizens big time.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
27,759
Thanks Missy and Tekate.

I put MOT on ignore a while back.
Also I posted I was doing so, just to explain why I'd not be responding to her if she addressed me.
But I can't expect everyone to have seen that post or remember seeing it.
I didn't see his/her post, and am accustomed to people using the quote feature.

That's why I didn't know what MOT was, or that it was even a poster.
No biggie. =)
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
27,759
well to be honest I thought of you as the mother of things..

in order to stick to the discussion we must discuss personal beliefs TMT :) because we base everything we think on our personal beliefs. What kind of proof would the right need to believe that Trump is a lying SOS? that's been proven.

How can you even say it's 'unproven' when he was convicted in the house?
What does TMT and SOS mean?
 

JPie

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
2,657
@AGBF I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I agree that this trend towards fascism is absolutely a problem in America, and particularly disturbing given our history. I'm disheartened because it's not an anomaly but possibly part of a larger, global trend.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top