The Right Side of the News

I don't know why they didn't impeach Trump for Mueller's felonies. I do know it didn't take any fishing to find more reasons to impeach him. The reasons were presented to the Democrats without asking in spite of the administration's efforts to illegally cover them up.The Constitution does not list all valid impeachable offenses. Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Power were in Nixon's charges and Obstruction of Justice was in Clinton's charges. So there's precedent for both.Nor are the offenses required to be felonies; misdemeanors are specifically mentioned and misdemeanors are not felonies. Although obstruction of justice can be a felony.Too much reality for you , of course.

You don't know why they didn't use Mueller's list? Oh really, well if they had actually been felonies, the way the Trump haters have been chomping at the bit to get rid of the man tens of millions of their fellow citizens voted for, it's hardly likely they'd have passed them up considering their impeachment value. Obviously they have no impeachment value. But then the Articles of Impeachment they did finally come up with, after fishing for three years to find anything they thought they might be able to use for the purpose, are a joke anyway.The "misdemeanors" in then Constitution are not the kind that go by that name today, they referred to serious offnses specific to the Presidency according to discussions I've heard. Our use of that term and of the term "bribery" are trivial compared to what the Founders had in mind, which involved actual threats to the integrity of the nation itself, selling it out to a foreign power and that sort of thing. But then our Supreme Court violates the intent of the Constitution all the time so why not Congress? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I bet you mean your favorite RWNJ lies. Heard any discussions by lawyers specializing in the Constitution? Any kind of lawyers?Trump's invitation to a foreign power is a threat to our national security, extorting a foreign power to interfere in the integrity of our elections. Trump's refusal to cooperate with legal Congressional oversight is a direct attack on our Constitutional system of government. (Don't bother to claim Congress is acting illegally, we all know that's just a meaningless noise uou mske and you can't name any specific illegal acts, nor can your RWNJ liar sources.)

quote:

---

Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Power were in Nixon's charges and Obstruction of Justice was in Clinton's charges. So there's precedent for both.

---

But precedent means nothing to you?

Mark Levin is a lawyer and knows a lot about the Constitution and American history. Lawyers are always being interviewed on the talk shows too.Trump did absolutely nothing to coerce or extort a foreign power or invite a foreign power to meddle in our election. I guess I'm not allowed to call this a lie but that's what it is.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Mark Levin is a lawyer and knows a lot about the Constitution and American history.

---

He knows that he wants to destroy the Constitution. Doesn’t he have insane ideas about freedom of the press, too?

quote:

---

Trump did absolutely nothing to coerce or extort a foreign power or invite a foreign power to meddle in our election.

---

Except for telling them that vital military aid depended on it.

quote:

---

I guess I'm not allowed to call this a lie but that's what it is..

---

Dies that mean that you feel pressed to use the word like everyone else does, instead of using it to refer to truths you want suppressed?

Levin wrote the book "Unfreedom of the Press" which came out a few months ago and has sold more than half a million copies by now IIRC. I have the book but haven't yet read it, though he read quite a bit of it on his program. Lots of research involved, the history of how we went from a free press to a press which abandoned the timehonored standard of objective reporting and became the mouthpiece of the Liberal/Left.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So he is a loon who writes nonsense. Nasty far-right nonsense.Not exactly the sort of authority you want to rely on.

Not when the event happens well over a year before the upcoming election, involving only one of about 20 candidates who is nowhere near the nomination. The claim of election interference is quite a stretch - it's obviously the same as most all the accusations against Trump, grasping at anything they can, not because of any concern about politics, but about a personal hatred against Trump. It would have been best for the country if Clinton's escapades would have gone unnoticed, but they didn't, and Clinton clearly lied under oath to a Federal Grand Jury. Trump hasn't come close to that. It's always interesting to see those on the far left showing concern for the Constitution. For some reason, democrat presidential candidate Tom Steyer's facebook drivel shows up on my facebook feed. This is what he said, back on December 4th, I think it was. I copied it to my notepad, because I expected it to be deleted, apparently it was. But this is a fact, though you and of course Percy won't believe it.

quote:

---

A lot of candidates talk about the climate crisis, but words are meaningless if they’re not followed by action. I’m the only Democrat running for president who will use emergency powers of the president and declare a national climate emergency on day one.

---

There's not a dime's worth of difference between all the Democrat candidates, that's the reason none of them are opening up a commanding lead against the others. The climate change terror has been ramped way up since the Obama administration. Whichever Democrat gets the nomination will be planning to do something this drastic on "day one". What do you think Steyer's plan is? To declare martial law? To....search and seize all wood burning stoves?EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural PeopleThis link is from 2014, the government appetite for this and other types of seizures has been going on for a long time, the current climate change frenzy make it a bigger threat now than ever before. The Electoral College reflects the will of the American people, not mobs in inner cities of California.

quote:

---

Not when the event happens well over a year before the upcoming election, involving only one of about 20 candidates who is nowhere near the nomination. The claim of election interference is quite a stretch - it's obviously the same as most all the accusations against Trump, grasping at anything they can, not because of any concern about politics, but about a personal hatred against Trump.

---

Of course it’s electoral interference. Politicians are gearing up for the primaries. Some have already dropped out. It is not too early at all. Especially as it can be drawn on for some time while the investigation is supposedly progressing (even if there is no investigation).

quote:

---

It would have been best for the country if Clinton's escapades would have gone unnoticed, but they didn't, and Clinton clearly lied under oath to a Federal Grand Jury. Trump hasn't come close to that.

---

Clinton did not abuse the powers of his office in anything like the way that Trump did. For that reason Trump is far more deserving of impeachment.

quote:

---

It's always interesting to see those on the far left showing concern for the Constitution. For some reason, democrat presidential candidate Tom Steyer's facebook drivel shows up on my facebook feed. This is what he said, back on December 4th, I think it was. I copied it to my notepad, because I expected it to be deleted, apparently it was. But this is a fact, though you and of course Percy won't believe it.

---

I don’t think that there is anybody on the far left here. I’m certainly not. Steyer’s tweet sounds like an overreaction, maybe even grandstanding. Or maybe not. Trump declared a national emergency over his silly wall. Trump also declared a national emergency over telecom equipment suppliers. That’s two this year. Declaring a national emergency doesn’t seem to be that big a deal. It’s a way to get things done.I’m not going to argue about the stoves, but pollution is a health issue and the problem looks more like one of implementation than the basic idea.However, the ban was not on all stoves. It was an emissions restriction and stoves that met it were permitted.

quote:

---

The Electoral College reflects the will of the American people, not mobs in inner cities of California.

---

Well now we know that you don’t like democracy.

In past messages, you have pointed to lists of "Trumps lies". Sarcasm and exaggeration are part of Trump's personality, everyone knows that. Could it be that about 95% on Trump's lie list are comparable to what you claim as Schiff's sarcasm and exaggeration? Double standard? Yes, no problem so far. Yes. Sorry, it was a big fat one. Schiff used the word "dirt". Nothing like anything Trump said. Trump's words were more about ~justice~. Your phrase "long ago debunked" is a Democrat talking point, nothing near the truth. There are a lot of unanswered questions about crack-head Hunter Biden's actions, and how they related to the Biden Vice presidency. Schiff just skipped over details of what Trump was referring to. Most on the far left would describe them as you do - "long ago debunked" and "there was no server", but those listening to him who aren't on the far left might have been interested in some of those details. "seven times" and "you better listen good". Big fat lies. Trump might talk like that at more informal times, or to the fake news media, but Trump has more respect for foreign leaders than to talk to them like that. "Don't call me again". Lie - that whole paragraph was nothing but lies and misrepresentations. That's the reason I seldom bother to offer you evidence, you dismiss it with one sentence. If you'd have read those links, you'd see there is evidence for Schiff's other many lies, including his lie about the knowledge of the identity of the whistleblower. Yes, it is justified. Trump has been called far worse for far less. That was your biggest whopper of this thread. I don't call other posters names. Uh, what I did was provide links to support what I said in past messages, since you asked for it. I didn't see any point in repeating what I'd said in past messages. Here's a hint, EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID ABOUT HIM IN THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS! Sheesh, I love this place! Most, if not all of the cages for kids at the Mexican border were done during the Obama administration. This constant picking on Trump for doing comparable things as most all other past presidents is just more of what I referred to in my message to PaulK, not done in any concern about politics, just done because of a personal dislike for Trump. That's what the entire impeachment fiasco is about. Only last year, Nadler was saying that an impeachment must have significant support from both sides of the aisle.

quote:

---

If you’re serious about impeaching a president, it cannot and should not be done on a partisan basis. You have to have, at least by the end of the process, buy-in from the Republicans, or at least a good number of Republicans, Nadler said in a Feb. 2018 MSNBC interview.

---

and;

quote:

---

He added that if you’re really serious about removing a president from office for high crimes and misdemeanors, you shouldn’t do that unless you get at least an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for him, of the other side, to agree, reluctantly perhaps, to agree that ‘yeah, you had to do it,’ because otherwise you’ll have 20 years of recriminations. we won the election, you stole it from us. you don’t want to divide the country that way.

---

https://www.conservativedailynews.com/...ty-impeachment-push(this is a conservative source, so go ahead and dismiss those actual quotes)Nadler has obviously done a 180 on those statements he made. Why? Because of pressure from others in his party? This impeachment is nothing more than a political stunt.There are 31 Democrat congressmen who won their 2018 in districts that Trump won in 2016. How they vote in the impeachment hearing in the House will be carefully noted by their voters in the 2020 elections. There's nothing more cruel and appalling in U.S. history than one entire political party exploiting an America hating, foreign AUTISTIC 16 year old girl. She actually used the word "existential" in one of her public rants, as if that word is a normal part of a 16 year old's vocabulary. Her handlers should consider avoiding making it so clear that she's brainwashed and programed. I never used the word "only", I claimed the mainstream media regularly does it, without applying that same standard to angry Democrats. Other posters get by without supporting their points any better than I do, because conservatives are outnumbered here by about 30 to 1. It's the main reason there are so few conservative posters here. Yes, texts written by opinionated liberals. You really do apply double standards. He always says it in response to questions and accusations, about his various firings, something past presidents have routinely done, with no one questioning them about it. Do you have no concern about the next Democrat president declaring a climate change national emergency on "day one" of their presidency? I am, I can do nothing to stop them, though I think what they're doing is bad for the country. By enjoying, I was mainly thinking about the Republicans like Doug Collins and Jim Jordan getting comparable amounts of time to make their points. There's no question they've got something in mind, since they've gone back on what Nadler said about support from both sides of the aisle, concerning impeachment. That's really not just Nadler's statement, it's been common sense throughout the history of the country. Maybe what they have in mind is a destruction of the Electoral College. That combined with this one-sided impeachment, could turn out to be an advantage for them. The same standards should always apply. The prosecution of a president shouldn't be based in any way on how much he is personally liked by the opposing party.I yield back, permanently (for now) Have a wonderful Christmas! I enjoy going at it with you.

Neither do I, but it still doesn't explain why you included an asterisk next to the gay lefties as if to insinuate that it denotes extra leftyness. Its entirely possible that they were selected as tokens to show to the world, "hey, were so much better because we employ gay people." The media makes lots of tokens -- token black people, token gay people, token this, token that. What? You don't think FOX news has tokens of their own? Get serious, Marc. What??? The leftwing media selects leftwing journalists to represent them?!?! Get outta town!!! Well, I for one am overwhelmed, shocked and appalled... In other news FOX selects Tucker Carlson on the basis of his conservative viewpoints. Back to you, Marc.So its scandalous if a leftwing publication selects leftwing demagogues but not scandalous if a conservative outlet selects rightwing demagogues? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Such as a "leftwing publication" as MSNBC? Listening to their commentators' and hosts' interpersonal banter and self-qualifying comments, I see a different picture.I have heard several MSNBC hosts and commentators self-identify as life-long Republicans. Senior Chief Malcolm Nance (USN, ret.) self-identifies as a life-long conservative, but the problem, he says, is that he is a Colin Powell conservative -- patriotic to Country, Constitution, and America -- which the Trumpists now brand as "radical Left".So then a "leftwing publication" as MSNBC did in fact not just select "leftwing demagoguess" (CAVEAT: you did not imply such strict recruitment criteria nor do I imply that you had done so), but rather they have recruited many actual conservatives who just happen to refuse to drink the Kool-Aid of Cult-45 and hence remain sane and still aware of Reality. Interestingly, Tucker Carlson was on MSNBC for three to four years: 2005-2008. Yeah, I was also surprised to hear that several months ago.

Uh, no. If it weren't pretty-boy Trump involved I think suddenly you'd have no trouble recognizing the difference between lies and parody. But it is a big fat lie, and it was Trump telling it. That it was such a big lie, a string of lies, really, is why Schiff's characterization of it as digging up dirt on his political opponent is so appropriate. It would probably provide the most clarity if Trump's lies were addressed one by one, so here we go: There was not at the time "a lot of talk about about Biden's son." There was never any prosecution of Biden's son nor even any consideration of it. By "a lot of people" Trump can only mean himself and Giuliani. Administration staff was telling Trump what everyone else knew, that there was no truth to these Biden allegations, that they had their origins in Russian misinformation campaigns. Biden bragged only once that he threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid from the Ukraine if they didn't address problem Prosecutor General Shokin. Biden was the point man in carrying out U.S. policy in coordination with the EU to have Prosecutor General Shokin removed because of his reluctance to carry out investigations into corruption. His removal was sought in order to allow investigations to proceed forward again, not to halt investigations. You've been informed of these facts at least several times now. Perhaps you can tell us about crack-head Hunter Biden's actions and what those unanswered questions are? This is a request for facts, not dubious innuendo. Now you're just making up things up to complain about. You accused Schiff of skipping over details of what Trump was referring to, but if there are details hiding behind Trump's veneer of lies and innuendo then Trump doesn't mention them either. If Schiff had included any details Trump didn't mention you would have just complained about that. For you it's just, "If Schiff says something, call it a lie and complain about it."Please stop doing that unless there is some substance behind what you're saying. "Seven times" was not chosen at random. Here are the seven:

1. Mentions investigating Cloudstrike and the DNC server supposedly spirited away to the Ukraine.
2. Mentions investigating the Bidens.
3. Says he'll have the Attorney General call and asks Zelensky to get to the bottom of it.
4. Talks about Giuliani and tells Zelensky he wants him to speak to him.
5. Reiterates about working with the Attorney General.
6. Says he'll have Giuliani and Barr give him a call to get to the bottom of it.
7. Says again that he'll have Giuliani and Barr call.

There you go, seven times, not a lie. And it was parody anyway. Spot on is pretty incredible accuracy by the standards of parody. If we pretend that it wasn't a parody of Trump as crime boss and not a verbatim reading of the transcript then yes, Trump did not say "Don't call me again." You're apparently insistent on calling this a lie, so let's grant for the sake of argument that it is a lie. How serious a lie do you consider this? Is this something that feels at all significant or material to the demands the Trump administration made of the Ukraine regarding our election? But you didn't provide any evidence, only bare links, which is a violation of the Forum Guidelines, which I provide you again:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

We don't do "debate via link" here. People in debates here are not expected to dig through links looking for the evidence that supports your opinion. That's your job. Do your job for a change. If you'd read your own links and then you'd know what "Schiff's other many lies" are and would be able to tell us in your own words.And let's say for the sake of argument that Schiff is lying about knowing the identity of the whistleblower. Since federal law is designed to protect whistleblower identities, how is that material? Just to be clear once more, you believe Trump is justified in issuing insults and attacks at anyone at any time on any subject because he has himself been insulted and attacked at some other time and place and on some other subject. Don't know what the smily means. Does it mean you understand I didn't say anything about you calling other posters names? Anyway, obviously I was referring to the name calling you're engaging in against politicians you don't like, mostly Schiff these days. You seem to believe that if you insult someone that you've made some kind of substantive point, which is complete nonsense and I have no idea why you think this or continue doing it. Now you're just making things up. You already conceded that you hadn't responded to the Trump attacks/insults I've posted. You gave the excuse that it would have required a team of people. Your links couldn't possibly be referring to what you'd said in past posts because you'd just admitted that you hadn't responded. Furthermore, even if you had responded it isn't other people's jobs to figure out which links go with which arguments in which posts. That's an absurd task to give anyone. It would be nice if you'd just provide substantive arguments instead of excuses. So he's not responding to anything specific. In you mind the mere fact of impeachment hearings justifies calling the Democrats "the Party of lies and deception" while offering no evidence or even a clue of what lies and deceptions he's referring to. Again, let us concede for the sake of argument that Obama was more cruel than Trump with illegal immigrant children. How does that justify Trump cruelty? If you can provide evidence that what you say of Obama is true then I would be as critical of him as you are. But virtually all your accusations emerge out of thin air as if composed of whole cloth, to mix my metaphors. This isn't true. Characterizing opposition to Trump as driven by mere personal dislike ignores mountains of evidence of truly cruel, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, greedy and self-serving things that Trump has done. Finally, something true. I'm sure Nadler still believes the bipartisan sentiments he expressed with hope last year, but they unfortunately came into conflict with his oath of office due to the seriousness of Trump's crimes. Again, the seriousness of the crimes is driving impeachment. Foreign government influence was a great concern for the Founding Fathers who authored the Constitution. Soliciting foreign interference for private political gain is practically the epitome of impeachment. Well, of course. Trump is very popular in some Democratic districts. When a Representative or Senator is elected, are we electing their knowledge, judgment, discernment and integrity, or just their ability to conduct polls of their constituents to judge which way the political winds are blowing so they know which way to vote in Congress? You're going to pile insults on an autistic 16-year old girl who happens to disagree with you on a scientific issue? Good show! This is more of the kind of thing I referred to earlier about your reliance on name calling at the expense of informed and evidence-based dialog. Well, Fox News does it, too. So if Fox News is an acceptable media outlet to you then I guess Trump *is* furious and does lash out at times, just like the mainstream media has reported. There may be many more conservatives here than you think. If by conservatism you mean what Trump has done, like greatly increase deficit spending, oppose free trade, attack allies, cozy up with enemies and invite foreign intervention in our elections, then it isn't a conservatism most true conservatives would recognize. Trump is not an actual conservative but a political chameleon who in this political incarnation is pandering to an extreme right wing base. Why do you say this? The headlines quote Trump's actual words as captured in video that I also included. Trump said, "I can do whatever I want," the media quotes Trump saying, "I can do whatever I want," and you somehow interpret this as a demonstration of liberal bias. What you say is hard to interpret as anything other than extremely illogical thinking. Actually he first time he makes this claim is in a speech where he says that the possible conspiracy issues investigated in the Mueller report are meaningless because Article II gives him the power to do whatever he wants: I don't know what this has do to with this discussion, but I don't believe declaring a national emergency is the right way to deal with climate change. I think it should be part of national policy. Yeah, how about that, after all the complaints that they weren't getting comparable time during the private hearings, we find in the transcripts that they were getting comparable time, and that continued during the public hearings. Does this lack of candor bother you at all? I think everyone wishes this could be a bipartisan process, but the Republicans have successfully closed ranks and now appear to be considering a whitewash in the Senate where no witnesses are called. I hope that doesn't happen. Agreed. Neither article of impeachment contains any inkling of personal dislike but is strictly based upon documentary evidence and the testimony of witnesses.--Percy

There is none of that in Trump's words, it's all added. All he is saying is that he wants Zelensky to LOOK INTO that incident to FIND OUT what it was really all about. You use the word "find" which you make out to mean he's asking Zelensky to make up something incriminating and that is the big fat lie, he said "FIND OUT" and that has no implication whatever of asking Zelensky to come up with something incriminating no matter what. This is putting words in Trump's mouth to mean something he did not say. And this is what Schiff did, he lied, he misrepresented Trump, it was NOT just a parody, and again that alone would be a gigantic offense but it wasn't a parody it was a lie.And you are adding the stuff about its being long-ago debunked. There is no hint of that in anything Trump is saying and even if you think it was debunked it sounds like he doesn't see it that way or doesn't know anything about what you are referring to. Again YOU are adding things that he did not say, or Schiff added them and you are supporting his lie. There is no hint that he wants anything to be made up, he just wants to know what happened in that incident and that is something he is well within his Presidential role to ask of Zelensky. No such thing was said or implied by Trump as "digging up dirt," it was a simple request for an investigation to find out the truth. We all hear the left's claim that Biden had the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt and it had nothing to do with Hunter Biden, but that is what Trump wants to find out for sure and he thinks it probably WAS about Hunter Biden's being employed by the company under investigation. Although you say it has been debunked, that is what Trump is doubting and wants to find out for sure what really went on. We all want to know. I want to know. That has yet to come out and that is what Trump is asking Zelensky to find out, not invent, find out.Look into. Find out.But that was all a secondary issue because Trump was first of all asking Zelensky to look into the interference in the 2016 election, in which the Ukraine was involved (so was Russia) and on Hillary's side. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Almost all investigations begin with a hint or clue of possible wrongdoing. What incident are you referring to? There was no Burisma incident involving Hunter Biden. All that likely happened was that Hunter Biden began attending Burisma board meetings.And Joe Biden was advancing stated U.S. policy when he worked with our EU allies toward the removal of Shokin as Prosecutor General.Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce ("get in front of a microphone") investigations into Burisma, the Bidens and the Crowdstrike server in order to tarnish Biden's chances in the 2020 election. He didn't care if the investigations ever happened, he just wanted mud to sling at Biden. Can you imagine what he would have tweeted and said at his rallies? Also, Trump's "suspicions" reflect the Russian misinformation campaign that's making the same arguments.Soliciting foreign help for personal political gain is a textbook example of an impeachable offense.--Percy