The GOP’s Four-Point Defense Of Trump Is Devastating

And while the start of the "investigation" may have been justified due to the very low threshold for opening a counter-intelligence investigation, the "investigation" should have come to a screeching halt during the FISA application. Therefore, since the investigation was illegal from the FISA app forward, all information and all investigations after the illegal FISA was issued are null and void, including the fake impeachment.

a reply to: Arnie123

Did you elect your representative to go to Washington to play high school power struggle games?

Or did we elect them to do serious and important work?

And eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Boadicea

Why do you doubt there is going to be a trial?

Because McConnell has said that if it is sent to the Senate, he will put it to an immediate vote for conviction or acquittal (presumably based upon the evidence presented in the House), and if the Senate votes for acquittal in the initial vote, no trial will be held. And I believe that there is no chance for even a majority -- much less a super majority -- voting for conviction in the Senate.

McConnell et al can say that they're just saving the taxpayers the time and expense and energy of an unnecessary trial that was headed for acquittal anyway.

Unless the house does not vote to impeach on wednesday. I think the chances of that are quite slim.

I'm about 50-50 on that. I think it's all politics now, and whatever they think will play best for the election year ahead. At this point, the Dems can truthfully say that they did everything they could... they tried to do the right thing... and then point at the Republicans thwarting their efforts in the most partisan way donchaknow!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Arnie123

Did you elect your representative to go to Washington to play high school power struggle games?

Or did we elect them to do serious and important work?

And eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

Well considering the players in Washington post Trump certainly played high school power struggls games, did you honestly think Trump would walk easily and freely amongst the children?

We did after all elected Trump to do serious and important work, of which he has been trying to do, but those pesky high school power struggles, already embedded, have a knack at obstructing Trump, you already know this tho?

The irony in your final line is exactly what Trump has had to do in this never ending chess game of politics.

So, just to reiterate,

The Dems used Impreachment pre 2016, during 2016 and after 2016 election.

Meanwhile, Trump works, no paycheck, just works, seated the highest number of judges as well pushed for new Trade deals via USMCA and the China re-orient trade deal.

Dems pushed upon Mueller, Media and now impeachment.

Meanwhile, Trump works, no paycheck, just continues to work, showing more and more progress.

You would need the 5 senators running for prez to excuse themselves from the Senate Trial.

After all optics.



Trump haters do not have the votes.

a reply to: Arnie123

You cannot justify immoral and unethical behavior, no matter what your opposition does.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Arnie123

You cannot justify immoral and unethical behavior, no matter what your opposition does.

I justify whatever the President has to do, within legal means.

If we wanted a divine god of heavenly rule, then I'll push for revolution to install an Emperor.

However, we are humans living in a democracy and Trump has to fight fire with fire and so he does.

I'm sorry, but immoral and unethcial is what the Dems are doing to Trump.

Let me state my position, we are defending and fighting for our President who is continually obstructed by the Democrat congressional leadership.

With over 90% of negative liberal media news stories, as well as the vast majority of liberal media hollywood and the education system by extension, I am a fierce defender of Trump because if he fails, the Immoral and unethical behaviour from the Dems you've witnessed will go further beyond that.

a reply to: Arnie123

FALSE.

LOL! Only to contradict yourself in the very next sentence!!!

We voted for our leaders, yes? Get to work Trump, that's all. I am not going to micro manage every single aspect of his life and leadership, barring DEATH, RAPE AND SERIOUS CRIMES, he is free to do whatever. You may be SCARED, FEAR the unknown ,but that doesn't give you the excuse to micro manage a leader ensuring YOUR way of life. To me, results and actions determine how much I pay attention to our leaders. As long as the lights are on and we are doing good, I could care less how things are done.

So, in other words, you do care... you care very much... and you presumably put that care into choosing the best candidates to vote for and to get the job done -- "lights are on and we are doing good" -- hence no need for micro-managing.

And nothing wrong with that position. As long as we maintain appropriate safeguards so that no president can abuse the power.

a reply to: Arnie123

Fighting for a president is not American. Fighting for a constitution is very American.

I think your priorities are skewed here. And I think your willingness to sell souls to fight for a man (rather than an office) is a major issue.

It makes your position no better than that of the people you see as your enemy.

a reply to: Boadicea

That isn't contradicting myself, False is in relation to your previous post, in that I don't care what goes on in those phone calls, AT ALL.

How you morphed that into some feeble "ha" moment is beyond me.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Arnie123

Fighting for a president is not American. Fighting for a constitution is very American.

I think your priorities are skewed here. And I think your willingness to sell souls to fight for a man (rather than an office) is a major issue.

It makes your position no better than that of the people you see as your enemy.

I disagree, I trust in the President to exercise the safeguard the Constitution, he is the elected representative we entrust per our vote, so in essence, yes, it is very American to fight for our leader, our brothers and sisters.

You're simply breaking it down to its absolute basis, of course we don't fight for anyone man not charged with protecting the foundations of our way of life.

a reply to: Arnie123

Cult of Personality. Worked out well for Russia, Italy, and Germany.

No thanks. I prefer to safeguard institutions, not people.

a reply to: Arnie123

How you morphed that into some feeble "ha" moment is beyond me.

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me.

No worries. I won't try to give you too much credit again.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Boadicea

agreed. Graham and McConnel need to shut the hell up,and at least pretend to be serious about doing their job here.

This "we are already decided" is only arming the opposition.

I find it refreshing that DC pols are being honest about their intentions.
if they waited for days or weeks before saying this they'd be criticized for secrecy.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Boadicea

Why do you doubt there is going to be a trial?

Because McConnell has said that if it is sent to the Senate, he will put it to an immediate vote for conviction or acquittal

That would be dumb. There are still a lot of RINOs in the Senate.

If you wanna go that route, you simply vote on a motion to dismiss. If it fails, then the trial is on.

But having an actual vote on convict/acquit is stupid, until after a trial.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

That would be dumb. There are still a lot of RINOs in the Senate.

Very true. I think of them as "Never Trumpers," but pretty much the same lot. I suspect though that they don't want a full trial either, for the same reasons: Their own dirty deeds could come to light.

If you wanna go that route, you simply vote on a motion to dismiss. If it fails, then the trial is on.

But having an actual vote on convict/acquit is stupid, until after a trial.

I hadn't thought about a motion to dismiss -- excellent point. Thank you.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I hadn't thought about a motion to dismiss -- excellent point. Thank you.

Also I'm pretty sure that is what I heard Lyndsey Graham say he was gonna do - but I'm not sure how much control he has over the event.

This line of defence is not required or wise. Republicans should not engage in baseless accusations by defending against them.
The far better defence is just 2 points.

1) The President has complete power to order investigations into potential corruption and the fact that Joe Biden is running for President or that the Democrats disagree that Ukraine interfered in 2016 is completely irrelevant to the situation and not at all a hinderance to the President's decision to investigate, whether he seeks the aids of allies for information or not.

2) Asking the Judicial branch to arbitrate between the Executive and Legislative is entirely constitutional and it is absurd to suggest that doing so constitutes obstruction of justice.

a reply to: Boadicea

This is why Shiff was ready to cry he when closed the hearings
a couple weeks ago. He was so mad at Trump for out foxing
him again he almost cried. lol

CNN is blatantly interrupting and even blanking out guests who talk about Democrats that will vote no, or leaning towards voting no, against impeachment.