1.) Obstruction charge is dead on arrival.  It will fail on a party line vote (all Dems will vote for conviction.)  There are legitimate issues of separation of powers and those needed to be adjudicated through the Supreme Court.  Pelosi didn't bother so that's the end of it.

2.) Abuse of power charge ... mostly fail on a party line vote (all Dems will vote for conviction) but some RINO's with a personal hatred of Trump, like the quisling Romney might vote to convict out of hate.   However they won't have 67 votes needed to convict.  An obvious case that investigating Biden corruption is not only not abuse of power, but commendable use of power.

So why did Pelosi submit such a weak case and why did it pass the House on a party line vote and why will all the Dem Senators vote  to convict ... probably because internal polling shows the party base, or a big chunk of the base, wants impeachment.  And the first rule of politics is don't lose your base, because swing voters are enough to carry you to victory if the base doesn't turn out.   Pelosi and the Dems see the healthy economy as a vote depressing factor.  They need to keep up the daily two minutes of hate if they hope to motivate the base to get up off the couch and vote.  This is all about the November election, nothing really to do with impeachable offenses ... since they have publicly been looking to impeach Trump since he started running for President.  They aren't fooling anyone, not even their base.  

She didn’t want impeachment and she STILL doesn’t. As you state, it is due to her nut base that is forcing the issue on her, as there was a revolt coming, and she knew this.

 
The Dims HAD to have multiple articles since they really have nothing big on Trump. One article would look so painfully weak, so they threw the asinine “obstruction of congress” (OOC) into the mix.  

 
So not only is OOC not mentioned in the constitution, but according to the Dims with this article, the mere act of going through the constitutionally protected action of using the courts to settle a dispute between two branches would be impeachable! Of course this is obviously ludicrous on its face, as Jonathan Turley so eloquently pointed out during the house phase of impeachment.

 
So we move to “abuse of power”(AOP) and this is where Dershowitz is just going to destroy the Dims. Of course he will point out that AOP isn’t mentioned in the constitution either, specifically with regards to impeachment/removal, but then he will systematically destroy this article with his very long list of past presidents actions as examples of their own “abuse of power.”  

 
He will mention FDR’s jailing of 100,000+ Americans simply bc they had slanted eyes, JFK’s illegal wiretapping of MLK’s phone, Lincoln’s suspension of “habeas corpus”, etc etc etc and how virtually ANY and EVERY president could have been in violation of this article and thus subject to impeachment.

 
Let’s be honest. All of this has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING Trump may have done, as it is ALL about the 2020 election. The Dims are praying their chances are better off with the “Trump was impeached” albatross hanging around his neck.  

 
This trial, and attempted removal, will obviously fail, and Trump will look invincible afterwards, as he will have beaten the Bush dynasty, the Clinton dynasty, the Republican establishment and now impeachment.

 
What will Trump then do? Tout the incredible economy, the stock market, take victory laps for new trade deals with Canada/Mexico, the Euros and China.  

 
He will look like a winner, and a champion for the middle class, as he then rolls out a massive infrastructure bill, which will be WILDLY popular with the unions so Dems will HAVE to play along.    

 
Imagine the scene at the White House during the signing ceremony when Trump high fives Richard Trumpka, and they bear hug while the Dims will be forced to paint a smile on their thoroughly beaten face.  

 
In addition, Trump will role out a very precisely targeted “Tax Cut 2.0”, which will be aimed solely at the middle class.

 
Trump will look like he is fighting every day for the working man, with tangible results that have made their lives better, while Dims will look like the true losers they are as they were the feckless and feeble peeps who tried to remove him and failed miserably.

 
Think about this; how often do you ever hear the Dims talk about the economy and what they would do to help the middle class? Its been all Russia! Russia! Russia! or Ukraine! Ukraine! Ukraine! or Racist! Racist! Racist! for almost FOUR years!

 
They will destroy any good will they had left with the working class with things like “free college”, “Medicare For All”, and higher taxes to pay for these, and of course, higher gasoline/home heating costs to fight “global warming” with a carbon tax.

 
So ask yourself; how will all THAT look to working people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc? Lol

Additional numbers ...  

A conviction in the Senate would require 20 GOP Senators to cross over to support conviction with the 45 Dems and 2 independents to get to 67 conviction votes.    Keeping in mind that not a single GOP House member voted for peach mint.

This is why you don't send partisan party line peach mints out of the House.  

And Trump enjoys 97% approval of GOP voters.  If 20 GOP Senators vote to convict they would be going against 97% of their party base.   Good luck with their next election.

the bullshit so we don't have to read the rest of your post unless we are interested in bullshit. Finally, an honest post from you.  

[Partisan Peach Mint is] but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. -- Macbeth (Shakespeare)

Something is rotten in [The White House]. - Marcellus, Act 1, Scene 4 of Hamlet by Wm. Shakespeare

l_p probably got the 97% number from Trump, so that would make Trump the asshole he pulled it out of.  
.
Trump has consistently exaggerated his poll numbers and lied about them being the "highest ever" from Day 1 and at every opportunity.  
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20856738/trump-94-percent-republican-approval-lie
.
Here are the chronological Gallup numbers for Trump Approval by Republicans from Inauguration until now:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx  
Mostly high 80s with a few 90/91s and some dips into the high 70s.

Just read through the Senate's peach mint trial resolution.   Trump CAN object to hearsay evidence.  This is going to be a very short trial.  All Schumer's amendments are going down on a 53/47 vote.  It does keep him on camera, so no doubt he'll stretch them out for as many days as possible.  They say the most dangerous place to be is between Schumer and a camera.

Testimony today was riveting, riveting I say!

Ha ha, I crack myself up.

-- Modified on 1/22/2020 10:05:01 PM

Apparently even the Democrat Senators aren't listening to the Peach Mints.

Gotta love the Democrat's cognitive dissonance ...

1.) This impeachment case is a slam-dunk!!!!
2.) Cover up! We need new witnesses!!!!

Viewership for Weds and Thurs on the three major networks was down more than half from the soaps they displaced.

Looks like the White House defense is taking on the prosecution claims directly with exculpatory facts.  In order to convict in normal USA trials, the prosecution must convince "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "to a moral certainty."  If there are other explanations, the prosecution must show they are unreasonable on their face and not merely that the prosecution explanation MIGHT be true.

This is, of course, why all the Dem members of the Senate are now screaming for "more witnesses!!"  They know the case presented by the House is insufficient.

Rand Paul says after the prosecution case that there are 45 votes to immediately dismiss.  That leaves a pool of 55 left to convict ... not even close to the 67 votes needed.   I figured RINOs like Romney might convict out of personal hatred, but even that seems unlikely now.  They may even get some Dems to search their consciences and vote innocent.  (ha ha, yeah like that would happen.)

It's not a matter of conscience, it's a matter of staying in office. I could most definitely see Joe Manchin or Doug Jones voting to acquit, and even more once it's a given that Trump is NOT going to be removed from office. There are of course over 40 Dims who would vote to convict even if Schifty were to admit on national tv that he made the whole thing up and was withdrawing as a "manager" lol

Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin where Trump won with razor thin margins in 2016. Flip just a statistically few voters in those states, hold the blue states, and Trump loses the election to Biden.

            We already know the Senate is going to acquit.  The swing voters are the ones the Dems are trying to persuade. You can see this in the masterful approach by Mr. Schiff a/k/a relentless repetition. He begins with “ this is what I’m going to tell you.” Then he tells you. Then he says “this is what I just told you.” Today he did a news conference  saying “remember what we told you?” The Senate? They were not even there.

          You would never use that approach if you were really trying to persuade the Senate - it’s just as annoying as it is  persuasive. But if you tune in for 15 or 20 minutes a day in the last three days – which is about all I could handle- you’re going to hear the same story of Trump’s bumbling attempt to solicit foreign help for his reelection couched  in a tone of “isn’t this awful?”

          The crack Trump Legal Defense Team hasn’t figure this out yet, as we see from defense counsel’s  opening arguments “they didn’t mention burden sharing” – what about the Mueller Report? What about the FISA application?” None of these arguments will rehabilitate Trump. They are falling into the trap of arguing for the short term. And they missed an opportunity to slam Biden today – something that would really help Trump. I bet he is NOT pleased.

We already knew before your admission that this was just a partisan election gambit by the Dems rather than a legitimate impeachment.

Brand new NY Times poll has him down to The Bern by EIGHT points. Yikes...

 
But I do appreciate the honesty about this all being a sham show for the election. That was painfully obvious from day one as the articles are shit but just nice to hear it from a lib.

 
The Dims made a calculation that barraging Trump with negative Schiff Show nonsense day after day would hurt his approval and help their own electoral chances. Too early to tell on that front but doubtful.

 
Let's see what day 2 has in store re: Biden, as the ratings on a Saturday will be terrible. My guess is that they are saving that for primetime Monday.

And Hillary and Obama are both itching to torpedo Bernie.  I personally don't think it is because they have any actual policy disagreements with Bernie.  Just that he is too honest of being an open Communist.  They are more stealth communists.

Melania can then start measuring for the gold pleated drapes. lol

As the Bernie campaign worker said, if Bernie doesn't get the nomination on the first ballot, Milwaukee burns.  (Because on the second ballot the super-delegates i.e. establishment hacks, get to vote.)

Lindsey Graham is waving off Biden stuff.  Why gild the lily?  It just prolongs the inevitable.  So I think the defense will follow that advice.  They might mention Biden, since the prosecution brought Biden up.  But I am guessing they will avoid any mentions of anything that would lead to increased calls (beyond the Dem's current panic) for more witnesses.  

I think the defense strategy is to get the 53 Republican votes.  If they can do that it's probably the best victory they can hope for.  Months of witness testimony is not going to improve on that.  So why go there?

since  Senator Mitch McCoverup has rigged the trial and the Republicans are not going to honor their oath. (I will say that the Democrat Senators who said they would vote for removal before the trial are almost as bad).

          Trump has already been forever impeached- it’s in the book as we say. And they don’t use asterisks in that book - *it was not legitimate.

              This is what we call the Texas TwoFer – Trump gets impeached AND the publicity may flip the swing states.

           Could we get a ThreeFer? Senator Mitch McCoverup’s disapproval rating is 50% in Kentucky and his approval rating 37%- and this was before the bad publicity he  received for rigging the trial so badly even the Republicans said no to his initial rules.  Plus the guy will be in his eighties if he gets another term.

         Trump personally appeared in Kentucky for the governor and he was shown the door. So maybe the rare Texas Threefer –Trump impeached, Biden wins, McConnell loses, ....Trump indicted for tax evasion?....ok Stop right now.

The Democrats are engaged in a desperate attempt to prevent the Republicans from naming the next Supreme Court Justice.  No holds barred to either weaken Trump so the Ds regain the Presidency, or weaken 4 R Senators so they regain the Senate.  The only facts are that Trump delayed release of the funds to Ukraine and he asked they look into a couple of corruption related items.  No linkage has been shown, Ukraine was not directly (or immediately) told of the delay in the funds, and did not do what was requested on the corruption related items and still got the funds.

Can you picture how the next Supreme Court Justice nomination process would go with split POTUS and Senate?

Schiff is a proven liar in regards to Trump and investigations into him.  First on the Russian collusion narrative where he claimed he had the evidence.  Second on the FISA court issues where after Nunes released a memo claiming serious issue in the FISA warrants with regards to Carter Page et al, Schiff who had access to the same documents said flatly there were no issues.  The truth on both of these issues has come out and Schiff was spewing a false narrative.  There is also the issue with the 18th deposition that was taken by the House in the secret impeachment hearings.  This apparently calls into question the veracity of the "Whistleblower".  It has been kept in secrecy by Schiff.  If the Senate (or public) insists on seeing documents in the Impeachment trial, this should be item 1.

I would expect the Trump defense to cite all of these and ask the question why you can believe anything Schiff says.  And Trump and the Senators in question will hammer this as the defense to the public over what the Ds say about this whole impeachment process during the upcoming elections.

Assume Schiff lied about Russian collusion and FISA. Neither “lie” was presented as evidence on which the House voted to impeach and, in fact, had nothing to do with the impeachable offenses committed by Trump.  

         If Schiff withheld information about the whistleblower’s  veracity, what difference did that make? Again, nothing that the whistleblower said was presented as evidence of impeachable offenses. The whistleblower provided the basis for the House to conduct the impeachment investigation which led to identifying the witnesses who should be deposed and called as witnesses in the public hearings.  These public hearing witnesses plus media reports and Trump’s own statements – not the whistleblower – provided the evidence that led the House to impeach. If he hates Trump, loves the Dems, and lied about some portions of his complaint - so what?

      Finally, you say  “I would expect the Trump defense to cite all of these and ask the question why you can believe anything Schiff says.”  Are you sure that is a wise move? If Schiff twice lied and withheld a deposition – and by your reasoning should not be believed about anything-  what should we do about the statements made by Trump (“I did nothing wrong” etc) who is a pathological liar on a scale we’ve never seen before (what is it, 15000 lies and false statements and counting per Wash Post?).

        Pat Cipollone is already being accused of the “biggest lie ever on the Senate Floor for saying “Trump is a man of his word.”  So by your reasoning, we can’t believe anything he says either.

Maybe you should table that recommendation.

-- Modified on 1/26/2020 10:29:08 AM

It's legit in the legal sense that it passed a majority vote in the House.  It is illegitimate in the ethical sense, since it was passed on a party line vote.  Now every time the House is held by a party different than the president, we can expect impeachment resolutions over policy matters.  The only way that is not going to be true is if the people vote out a lot of House democrats this fall.  Otherwise if they reward them, it will encourage this behavior in the future.

You say McConnell "rigged" the trial.  Can you define that coherently?   The House has been allowed to present its case inf full before the whole Senate.  There is even a vote scheduled to see if more witnesses will be called.  So the whole of the Senate gets to decide if there are more witnesses.  Seems the whole Senate deciding what the Senate will do is well within the Constitutional powers granted to the Senate.  True it's not what the House wanted, but hey, that's separation of powers.

as the Senate has the sole power to set the rules just as the House has the sole power to impeach. I probably should have said the trial is “rigged"  in the common sense of what is a "fair trial" because:

(1) the “foreman” of the jury has admitted he consulted with the “Defendant”
to determine the rules of the trial;
(2) the foreman knows that the vote to allow witnesses is illusionary bc of the party line vote;  
(3) if witnesses are allowed, they must be first deposed and the Senate then votes on whether to allow their testimony-so it only takes 51 votes to keep any  bad Trump testimony off the floor; and
(4) the House managers have no right to make final arguments based on the witness testimony in the Senate or in depositions- the Senate goes straight to deliberations and then votes.

       So I think you are correct that the trial is not “rigged” as far as the Constitution is concerned. That still leaves the question of whether the trial is “illegitimate” and, given the impartial justice oath, McConnell’s consultation with the White House, and the Senators who already have proclaimed how they are going to vote, I don’t see how it could be argued otherwise.

I'd toss you a prop but he is SO off his game this year that he makes the 1976 Tamp Bay Bucs look like world beaters so that would be faint praise. LOL

 
I hope to God his truck has rear view cameras bc at the rate he has been backing it up, he may run over an entire city block of cars before stopping. LOL

 
You would think an "attorney" wouldn't have to be reminded about "Co-Equal branches" and "separation of powers" and all of that silly stuff the drunkards who wrote the constitution just tossed in there for shit and giggles.  

 
They probably didn't REALLY mean it. I mean there was no "auto correct" or even "white out" back then, right? LOL

 
So now the trial ISNT "rigged" when just yesterday it was. LOL

 
And he agreed with me about Iran.

 
And Obama IS now a murderer.

 
At this stage I would tell him to stop posting stupid shit, but I am enjoying this so much I am rooting him on!  

 
#GoMariGo!

In the Clinton impeachment trial Democrats objected to limiting the Senate to just jurors.  This was upheld by SCOTUS Justice Rehnquist.  Democrat Torricelli said they were judges too -- to make decisions based on "larger natural interests" aka advocates.

Here are some of the historical comments ...

"I object to the use and the continued use of the word jurors," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said in vocal objection of the trial.  

Rehnquist ruled in Harkin's favor. "The senator from Iowa's objection is well taken," the chief justice said. "The Senate is not simply a jury, it is a court in this case. Therefore counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors."

Agreeing with Harkin that the senators are also "judges," Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-New Jersey) said the differentiation was important because the expanded duty allows the members to make decisions based on the "larger national interest."

-- Modified on 1/26/2020 8:08:22 PM

are “unethical”
because they are party line votes? Correct? If the party line House impeachment is legitimate but not ethical then all the party lines votes rejecting Schumer’s amendments must be unethical, right?

And if all 53 Senators vote to acquit as we expect, the trial is legitimate but not ethical.  

I see nothing unethical about party line votes- it is just foolish as we see from Obamacare which the GOP has spent the last eight years trying to repeal even though they have no substitute.  

Besides, are you sure you would ever want to use “ethical” and “Trump” in the same sentence? How about the crack Trump Legal Defense Team and ethics? Jeffrey Toobin just called the defense presentation about Joe Biden a “parade of lies.”

Maybe you should rethink this one, Dude.

As Dersh and others have shown, the founders took great pains to avoid having impeachments occur based on party line votes.  They feared every policy disagreement between the House and the Presidency would devolve into an impeachment.

So it's not like other votes.  It's supposed to be a rarely used tool when a president is truly involved in criminal behavior (which according to impeachment trials in history, has not actually ever happened -- no convictions -- and none on the horizon.)

Top podcast has been The Verdict with Ted Cruz.  With nightly episodes, Cruz does a 30 minute podcast after the days events at the Senate peach mint trial.  So far 6 episodes.  It quickly became the top podcast beating Joe Rogan's podcast among others.  You can search for it on youtube.