From the Guardian: It wasn’t the US Senate that saved Trump – it was the founding fathers Excerpt: Such a spurious victory as Trump has had may be fine in business. But it has always made for faulty democracy. This PotUS has an emotionally psychic-problem meaning must win every time. (We used to call people like that "spoiled brats".) The sooner we as a nation are rid of him, the better ...
Oh really? Than what was Schiff and the other House managers babbling about for hours on end? Exactly what evidence that the House brought over was not heard? It should have only taken a minute to go over actual evidence since Vindman and Sondland are the only ones I'm aware of with 1st hand info. Vindman was on the call and Trump told Sondland he wanted no quid pro quo. All the others were nothing but reporting hearsay or their opinions.
I agree with that, largely. 'You' laud your "Founding Fathers" and your Constitution, but it really is a worthless document these days. It has so many gaps left for a partisan SCOTUS to fill and it allows for the complete farce (both Houses) we have all witnessed over the last several weeks.
Come on. Give it up. You know as well as the rest of the World does that the Trump and the Senate suppressed the truth, and Republicans shat all over the oath they took when the Trial commenced....with the exception of Romney.
And what truth is that exactly? And how do you know it was suppressed when you don't even know what that "truth" might entail? Would you even accept the truth if it came out against your opinion? Or would you start condemning those saying what you don't want to hear just like you did here?
Why am I not surprised that a leftie considers the Constitution "archaic, ramshackle, and flawed". And of course he lied. He states that the Senate did not hear the "evidence". That is a lie. The House Managers presented their "evidence". All that the "evidence" that the HoR had was fully submitted in its entirety. Including 18 witness testimonies and thousands of pages of documents. It's lies like this that is the reason that there is division in our government and our society. Let me guess...someone will point out "all the lies told by Trump". Go head. :shrugs: Do two wrongs make a right? No. So can it.
One correction, 17 witness testimonies. The 18th, from ICIG Atkinson was classified by Schiff. A GOP Rep who was allowed at that testimony says it blows Schiffs BS apart, but he isn't at liberty to discuss it. Trump should immediately declassify it if Nancy hasn't torn it up.
Seems to me the Constitution is working exactly how it was intended to. Liberals love saying how they love and protect the constitution when they are winning, but as soon as things are not going their way, they say "well, the constitution is outdated garbage anyway, and everyone knows the founding fathers were rich bigots, yadda yadda yadda". You'll never hear conservatives say that the Constitution is obsolete or needs replacing. Because it doesn't.
Anyone notice that the SCotUS has only become a problem since Trump was elected? A bit like the constitution and Electoral College.
Welp. What do you expect a progressive author employed by The Guardian to write? This is pretty funny: "That constitution – bequeathed by British and French liberals – was intended to create a melting pot for global migrants.." Oh well. If Democrats are soothed by thinking that impeached means guilty but acquitted does not mean not guilty, then I'm fine with that. Facts don't change no matter how they want to spin them. It is true that the election will be the final decision on whether Trump, and member of the House of Representatives, should remain in office or not.
Last I knew the HoR never subpoenaed Bolton. As such he was not a part of the "evidence" that the HoR brought over.
They definitely did request his testimony and he refused on the grounds that he had been ordered by trump to remain silent. And he also said that he would file a lawsuit in the event any subpoena would be issued. And the Senate is capable and did consider a great deal of evidence outside of the official house report. Just like they did hear the reporting - but no testimony - about John Bolton's personal knowledge of trump wanting a quid pro quo of the military aid for the investigations.
We're about to find out, aren't we? Investigation into the Biden's never happened. It's just now starting. "We write to request information about whether Hunter Biden used government-sponsored travel to help conduct private business, to include his work for Rosemont Seneca and related entities in China and Ukraine," the senators [Grassley and Johnson] wrote, referring to the company co-founded by the younger Biden. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...confidential-info-on-hunter-biden-report-says
And who would you replace him with? A socialist who had a heart attack less than a year ago? A billionaire pushing 80? A fake Indian? A gay mayor with word Butt in his last name and whose only governing experience is running a crime ridden Chicago suburb that has bullet proof glass in their gas stations? Or former Vice President whose son was earning millions from a gas company in a country with GDP per capita under $10k per year? Trump is very easy to beat, many would vote for anyone sane. Somehow, Democrats failed even at that simple task. Trump is relatively OK when comparing him to Democrats best lineup this year.
I would love to see Joe Biden and his wife woken up in the middle of the night at gunpoint like the Manaforts.
No American should be treated like that. It seems highly likely that Hunter Biden is at least guilty of what most would consider "white-collar crimes" of the wealthy. Most Americans in that category get charged with hefty fines and no jail time (or a short sentence). Manafort is in prison, probably for life. Well, we'll see what happens. The Biden's are innocent until/unless proven guilty of any crimes. Republicans are better at sticking with due process and rule of law, unlike the other party.