Is Anyone Here Watching Impeachment TV Right Now?

[justoffal]

Funny. You've already changed the channel, you'd fail that pop quiz for not doing the work necessary.

My inference is you were not hearing anything which supported your opinions, and no one wants to have a cognitive dissonance to bother them.

I've heard all this baloney a dozen times. Are you going to be watching when the Dems are being cross examined?

Yep, every minute of the trial. Of course neither the D's or the R's are being allowed to subpoena witnesses or documents as the D's wanted, and lost in a vote of 53-47 half a dozen times by a majority vote, every single Republican Senator.

We the People watching know that a cover up is in effect, transparency has not only clouded by the members of the Republican Caucus, they have already violated their oath to impartiality.[/QUOTE

Why not explain to the reader, what is funny about transparency and one's oath of office?

Is this funny?: We the People watching know that a cover up is in effect, transparency has not only clouded by the members of the Republican Caucus, they have already violated their oath to impartiality.[/QUOTE

Why not explain to the reader, what is funny about transparency and one's oath of office?

Is this funny?:

"We the People watching know that a cover up is in effect, transparency has not only clouded by the members of the Republican Caucus, they have already violated their oath to impartiality.

[/QUOTE]

Oh please shut the fuck up....
Nobody is interested in your
Double standard..... honestly


Jo

 

[wamose]

You can learn more watching a how to show in Eskimo Swahili.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Sure, those who understand that we are watching history, and in doing so are able to fact check comments made by the Democratic Managers and lawyers defending the Defendant, thus not see the out takes and editorials in the MSM and far right and far left Internet sites to confirm our biases. We should not let someone else who may have an agenda tell us what to believe, and what to claim is fake or irrelevant).

Watching history?

I feel like I should be taking notes, to prepare for a pop quiz in History 101.

Funny. You've already changed the channel, you'd fail that pop quiz for not doing the work necessary.

My inference is you were not hearing anything which supported your opinions, and no one wants to have a cognitive dissonance to bother them.

I've heard all this baloney a dozen times. Are you going to be watching when the Dems are being cross examined?

Yep, every minute of the trial. Of course neither the D's or the R's are being allowed to subpoena witnesses or documents as the D's wanted, and lost in a vote of 53-47 half a dozen times by a majority vote, every single Republican Senator.

We the People watching know that a cover up is in effect, transparency has not only clouded partisanship, the members who took the oath of impartiality have already violated their oath.

Reminds me of the one sided votes in the Intelligence and Judicial Inquiries in the House.

Blocking Republicans.

Seems both sides are partisan.

When were the Republicans blocked? Do you really believe this sophistry has any merit as exculpatory to the behavior of The President? If so, please post the facts, that somehow an opponent of the President's son - Hunter Biden - was so important an issue to withhold weapons/money to a member nation of NATO invaded by Russia, already appropraited by the Congress.

An unrelated to his thread, and to the controversy here, why did President Trump leave a US Military Base in Syria, and allow President Putin to occupy it with his forces and in fact establish hegemony in the middle east?

 

[Auld Phart]

Watching history?

I feel like I should be taking notes, to prepare for a pop quiz in History 101.

Funny. You've already changed the channel, you'd fail that pop quiz for not doing the work necessary.

My inference is you were not hearing anything which supported your opinions, and no one wants to have a cognitive dissonance to bother them.

I've heard all this baloney a dozen times. Are you going to be watching when the Dems are being cross examined?

Yep, every minute of the trial. Of course neither the D's or the R's are being allowed to subpoena witnesses or documents as the D's wanted, and lost in a vote of 53-47 half a dozen times by a majority vote, every single Republican Senator.

We the People watching know that a cover up is in effect, transparency has not only clouded partisanship, the members who took the oath of impartiality have already violated their oath.

Reminds me of the one sided votes in the Intelligence and Judicial Inquiries in the House.

Blocking Republicans.

Seems both sides are partisan.

When were the Republicans blocked? Do you really believe this sophistry has any merit as exculpatory to the behavior of The President? If so, please post the facts, that somehow an opponent of the President's son - Hunter Biden - was so important an issue to withhold weapons/money to a member nation of NATO invaded by Russia, already appropraited by the Congress.

An unrelated to his thread, and to the controversy here, why did President Trump leave a US Military Base in Syria, and allow President Putin to occupy it with his forces and in fact establish hegemony in the middle east?

When were the Republicans blocked?

On every issue they brought up in the Intelligence and Judiciary inquiries in the House, leading up to the impeachment hearing.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Funny. You've already changed the channel, you'd fail that pop quiz for not doing the work necessary.

My inference is you were not hearing anything which supported your opinions, and no one wants to have a cognitive dissonance to bother them.

I've heard all this baloney a dozen times. Are you going to be watching when the Dems are being cross examined?

Yep, every minute of the trial. Of course neither the D's or the R's are being allowed to subpoena witnesses or documents as the D's wanted, and lost in a vote of 53-47 half a dozen times by a majority vote, every single Republican Senator.

We the People watching know that a cover up is in effect, transparency has not only clouded partisanship, the members who took the oath of impartiality have already violated their oath.

Reminds me of the one sided votes in the Intelligence and Judicial Inquiries in the House.

Blocking Republicans.

Seems both sides are partisan.

When were the Republicans blocked? Do you really believe this sophistry has any merit as exculpatory to the behavior of The President? If so, please post the facts, that somehow an opponent of the President's son - Hunter Biden - was so important an issue to withhold weapons/money to a member nation of NATO invaded by Russia, already appropraited by the Congress.

An unrelated to his thread, and to the controversy here, why did President Trump leave a US Military Base in Syria, and allow President Putin to occupy it with his forces and in fact establish hegemony in the middle east?

When were the Republicans blocked?

On every issue they brought up in the Intelligence and Judiciary inquiries in the House, leading up to the impeachment hearing.

It was NOT a trial. It was an investigation. No different than the Benghazi investigations. The big difference is the Sect. of State, HRC, testified before the Select Committee.

Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

And, the result of millions of dollars spent by the Majority Republican's in the H. or Rep. they never found any evidence to hold President Obama or Sect. Clinton to accountable for wrong doing.

Trump has stated on the record he wants, or wanted to, testify. Let his Defense Lawyers bring him forth to the trial now, and put him under oath. Then we will have a fair trial, even if he uses the 5th A. to cover his 6.

 

[Auld Phart]

I've heard all this baloney a dozen times. Are you going to be watching when the Dems are being cross examined?

Yep, every minute of the trial. Of course neither the D's or the R's are being allowed to subpoena witnesses or documents as the D's wanted, and lost in a vote of 53-47 half a dozen times by a majority vote, every single Republican Senator.

We the People watching know that a cover up is in effect, transparency has not only clouded partisanship, the members who took the oath of impartiality have already violated their oath.

Reminds me of the one sided votes in the Intelligence and Judicial Inquiries in the House.

Blocking Republicans.

Seems both sides are partisan.

When were the Republicans blocked? Do you really believe this sophistry has any merit as exculpatory to the behavior of The President? If so, please post the facts, that somehow an opponent of the President's son - Hunter Biden - was so important an issue to withhold weapons/money to a member nation of NATO invaded by Russia, already appropraited by the Congress.

An unrelated to his thread, and to the controversy here, why did President Trump leave a US Military Base in Syria, and allow President Putin to occupy it with his forces and in fact establish hegemony in the middle east?

When were the Republicans blocked?

On every issue they brought up in the Intelligence and Judiciary inquiries in the House, leading up to the impeachment hearing.

It was NOT a trial. It was an investigation. No different than the Benghazi investigations. The big difference is the Sect. of State, HRC, testified before the Select Committee.

Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

And, the result of millions of dollars spent by the Majority Republican's in the H. or Rep. they never found any evidence to hold President Obama or Sect. Clinton to accountable for wrong doing.

Trump has stated on the record he wants, or wanted to, testify. Let he Defense Lawyers bring him forth to the trial now, and put him under oath. Then we will have a fair trial, even if he uses the 5th A. to cover his 6.

It was NOT a trial.

I specifically said INQUIRIES, in reference to the Judicial and Intelligence INQUIRIES which lead up to the impeachment in the House.
and ever issue that Collins, etc brought up, was voted down on a partisan 23-17 vote.

 

[Olde Europe]

I specifically said INQUIRIES, in reference to the Judicial and Intelligence INQUIRIES which lead up to the impeachment in the House.
and ever issue that Collins, etc brought up, was voted down on a partisan 23-17 vote.

Name one issue they brought up and that was actually pertinent to the inquiry, reasonably related to uncover the truth about Trump's extortion of Ukraine, and voted down, please.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Yep, every minute of the trial. Of course neither the D's or the R's are being allowed to subpoena witnesses or documents as the D's wanted, and lost in a vote of 53-47 half a dozen times by a majority vote, every single Republican Senator.

We the People watching know that a cover up is in effect, transparency has not only clouded partisanship, the members who took the oath of impartiality have already violated their oath.

Reminds me of the one sided votes in the Intelligence and Judicial Inquiries in the House.

Blocking Republicans.

Seems both sides are partisan.

When were the Republicans blocked? Do you really believe this sophistry has any merit as exculpatory to the behavior of The President? If so, please post the facts, that somehow an opponent of the President's son - Hunter Biden - was so important an issue to withhold weapons/money to a member nation of NATO invaded by Russia, already appropraited by the Congress.

An unrelated to his thread, and to the controversy here, why did President Trump leave a US Military Base in Syria, and allow President Putin to occupy it with his forces and in fact establish hegemony in the middle east?

When were the Republicans blocked?

On every issue they brought up in the Intelligence and Judiciary inquiries in the House, leading up to the impeachment hearing.

It was NOT a trial. It was an investigation. No different than the Benghazi investigations. The big difference is the Sect. of State, HRC, testified before the Select Committee.

Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

And, the result of millions of dollars spent by the Majority Republican's in the H. or Rep. they never found any evidence to hold President Obama or Sect. Clinton to accountable for wrong doing.

Trump has stated on the record he wants, or wanted to, testify. Let he Defense Lawyers bring him forth to the trial now, and put him under oath. Then we will have a fair trial, even if he uses the 5th A. to cover his 6.

It was NOT a trial.

I specifically said INQUIRIES, in reference to the Judicial and Intelligence INQUIRIES which lead up to the impeachment in the House.
and ever issue that Collins, etc brought up, was voted down on a partisan 23-17 vote.

So the evidence to hold the Defendant to answer was voted on, and the evidence was found by six votes to be sufficient to bring forth to the entire H. or Rep. Articles of Impeachment, which passed The House and has brought us here to today.

Now both sides of the aisle should have the opportunity to subpoena witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, as well as documents, which will then (I assume) be reviewed by the Chief Justice for relevance.

But No, the Senate Leader has asked for a vote on witnesses and documents, and the Senate has voted 53 to 47 to deny The President the benefits to provide witnesses and documents as exculpatory evidence.

The President and his legal counsel have decided to file a demurrer, once a motion to dismiss is reviewed by the Chief Justice, and if he dismisses it.

There is no other reason than all in involved in the Defense of Donald J. Trump believe he is guilty as charged, and have decided to allow Moscow Mitch to once again engage in Misfeasance, an act that is legal but improperly performed.

 

[Auld Phart]

Reminds me of the one sided votes in the Intelligence and Judicial Inquiries in the House.

Blocking Republicans.

Seems both sides are partisan.

When were the Republicans blocked? Do you really believe this sophistry has any merit as exculpatory to the behavior of The President? If so, please post the facts, that somehow an opponent of the President's son - Hunter Biden - was so important an issue to withhold weapons/money to a member nation of NATO invaded by Russia, already appropraited by the Congress.

An unrelated to his thread, and to the controversy here, why did President Trump leave a US Military Base in Syria, and allow President Putin to occupy it with his forces and in fact establish hegemony in the middle east?

When were the Republicans blocked?

On every issue they brought up in the Intelligence and Judiciary inquiries in the House, leading up to the impeachment hearing.

It was NOT a trial. It was an investigation. No different than the Benghazi investigations. The big difference is the Sect. of State, HRC, testified before the Select Committee.

Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

And, the result of millions of dollars spent by the Majority Republican's in the H. or Rep. they never found any evidence to hold President Obama or Sect. Clinton to accountable for wrong doing.

Trump has stated on the record he wants, or wanted to, testify. Let he Defense Lawyers bring him forth to the trial now, and put him under oath. Then we will have a fair trial, even if he uses the 5th A. to cover his 6.

It was NOT a trial.

I specifically said INQUIRIES, in reference to the Judicial and Intelligence INQUIRIES which lead up to the impeachment in the House.
and ever issue that Collins, etc brought up, was voted down on a partisan 23-17 vote.

So the evidence to hold the Defendant to answer was voted on, and the evidence was found by six votes to be sufficient to bring forth to the entire H. or Rep. Articles of Impeachment, which passed The House and has brought us here to today.

Now both sides of the aisle should have the opportunity to subpoena witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, as well as documents, which will then (I assume) be reviewed by the Chief Justice for relevance.

But No, the Senate Leader has asked for a vote on witnesses and documents, and the Senate has voted 53 to 47 to deny The President the benefits to provide witnesses and documents as exculpatory evidence.

The President and his legal counsel have decided to file a demurrer, once a motion to dismiss is reviewed by the Chief Justice, and if he dismisses it.

There is no other reason than all in involved in the Defense of Donald J. Trump believe he is guilty as charged,

"and have decided to allow Moscow Mitch to once again engage in Misfeasance, an act that is legal but improperly performed." like Nadler and Schiff did in their committee meetings, the vote will be 53-47.

No witnesses, no documents, nada.


Impeached, but not removed.

 

[Rye Catcher]

When were the Republicans blocked? Do you really believe this sophistry has any merit as exculpatory to the behavior of The President? If so, please post the facts, that somehow an opponent of the President's son - Hunter Biden - was so important an issue to withhold weapons/money to a member nation of NATO invaded by Russia, already appropraited by the Congress.

An unrelated to his thread, and to the controversy here, why did President Trump leave a US Military Base in Syria, and allow President Putin to occupy it with his forces and in fact establish hegemony in the middle east?

When were the Republicans blocked?

On every issue they brought up in the Intelligence and Judiciary inquiries in the House, leading up to the impeachment hearing.

It was NOT a trial. It was an investigation. No different than the Benghazi investigations. The big difference is the Sect. of State, HRC, testified before the Select Committee.

Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

And, the result of millions of dollars spent by the Majority Republican's in the H. or Rep. they never found any evidence to hold President Obama or Sect. Clinton to accountable for wrong doing.

Trump has stated on the record he wants, or wanted to, testify. Let he Defense Lawyers bring him forth to the trial now, and put him under oath. Then we will have a fair trial, even if he uses the 5th A. to cover his 6.

It was NOT a trial.

I specifically said INQUIRIES, in reference to the Judicial and Intelligence INQUIRIES which lead up to the impeachment in the House.
and ever issue that Collins, etc brought up, was voted down on a partisan 23-17 vote.

So the evidence to hold the Defendant to answer was voted on, and the evidence was found by six votes to be sufficient to bring forth to the entire H. or Rep. Articles of Impeachment, which passed The House and has brought us here to today.

Now both sides of the aisle should have the opportunity to subpoena witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, as well as documents, which will then (I assume) be reviewed by the Chief Justice for relevance.

But No, the Senate Leader has asked for a vote on witnesses and documents, and the Senate has voted 53 to 47 to deny The President the benefits to provide witnesses and documents as exculpatory evidence.

The President and his legal counsel have decided to file a demurrer, once a motion to dismiss is reviewed by the Chief Justice, and if he dismisses it.

There is no other reason than all in involved in the Defense of Donald J. Trump believe he is guilty as charged,

"and have decided to allow Moscow Mitch to once again engage in Misfeasance, an act that is legal but improperly performed." like Nadler and Schiff did in their committee meetings, the vote will be 53-47.

No witnesses, no documents, nada.

You're wrong, but let's agree to disagree. Time will tell the result of this case, for the jury will vote 53 to 47 to acquit, and then we will wait to Nov 3rd and see what happens then.


Impeached, but not removed.

You're wrong, but let's agree to disagree. Time will tell the result of this case, for the jury will vote 53 to 47 to acquit, and then we will wait to Nov 3rd and see what happens then.

 

[Auld Phart]

On every issue they brought up in the Intelligence and Judiciary inquiries in the House, leading up to the impeachment hearing.

It was NOT a trial. It was an investigation. No different than the Benghazi investigations. The big difference is the Sect. of State, HRC, testified before the Select Committee.

Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

And, the result of millions of dollars spent by the Majority Republican's in the H. or Rep. they never found any evidence to hold President Obama or Sect. Clinton to accountable for wrong doing.

Trump has stated on the record he wants, or wanted to, testify. Let he Defense Lawyers bring him forth to the trial now, and put him under oath. Then we will have a fair trial, even if he uses the 5th A. to cover his 6.

It was NOT a trial.

I specifically said INQUIRIES, in reference to the Judicial and Intelligence INQUIRIES which lead up to the impeachment in the House.
and ever issue that Collins, etc brought up, was voted down on a partisan 23-17 vote.

So the evidence to hold the Defendant to answer was voted on, and the evidence was found by six votes to be sufficient to bring forth to the entire H. or Rep. Articles of Impeachment, which passed The House and has brought us here to today.

Now both sides of the aisle should have the opportunity to subpoena witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, as well as documents, which will then (I assume) be reviewed by the Chief Justice for relevance.

But No, the Senate Leader has asked for a vote on witnesses and documents, and the Senate has voted 53 to 47 to deny The President the benefits to provide witnesses and documents as exculpatory evidence.

The President and his legal counsel have decided to file a demurrer, once a motion to dismiss is reviewed by the Chief Justice, and if he dismisses it.

There is no other reason than all in involved in the Defense of Donald J. Trump believe he is guilty as charged,

"and have decided to allow Moscow Mitch to once again engage in Misfeasance, an act that is legal but improperly performed." like Nadler and Schiff did in their committee meetings, the vote will be 53-47.

No witnesses, no documents, nada.

You're wrong, but let's agree to disagree. Time will tell the result of this case, for the jury will vote 53 to 47 to acquit, and then we will wait to Nov 3rd and see what happens then.


Impeached, but not removed.

You're wrong, but let's agree to disagree. Time will tell the result of this case, for the jury will vote 53 to 47 to acquit, and then we will wait to Nov 3rd and see what happens then.

You're wrong, but let's agree to disagree.

wrong?

Why do you expect the Senate to be less partisan than Nadler and Schiffs committees?

Removed?

Dems need 19-20 Republicans to remove.

I doubt they get 5, if that.

 

[Rye Catcher]

It was NOT a trial. It was an investigation. No different than the Benghazi investigations. The big difference is the Sect. of State, HRC, testified before the Select Committee.

Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

And, the result of millions of dollars spent by the Majority Republican's in the H. or Rep. they never found any evidence to hold President Obama or Sect. Clinton to accountable for wrong doing.

Trump has stated on the record he wants, or wanted to, testify. Let he Defense Lawyers bring him forth to the trial now, and put him under oath. Then we will have a fair trial, even if he uses the 5th A. to cover his 6.

It was NOT a trial.

I specifically said INQUIRIES, in reference to the Judicial and Intelligence INQUIRIES which lead up to the impeachment in the House.
and ever issue that Collins, etc brought up, was voted down on a partisan 23-17 vote.

So the evidence to hold the Defendant to answer was voted on, and the evidence was found by six votes to be sufficient to bring forth to the entire H. or Rep. Articles of Impeachment, which passed The House and has brought us here to today.

Now both sides of the aisle should have the opportunity to subpoena witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, as well as documents, which will then (I assume) be reviewed by the Chief Justice for relevance.

But No, the Senate Leader has asked for a vote on witnesses and documents, and the Senate has voted 53 to 47 to deny The President the benefits to provide witnesses and documents as exculpatory evidence.

The President and his legal counsel have decided to file a demurrer, once a motion to dismiss is reviewed by the Chief Justice, and if he dismisses it.

There is no other reason than all in involved in the Defense of Donald J. Trump believe he is guilty as charged,

"and have decided to allow Moscow Mitch to once again engage in Misfeasance, an act that is legal but improperly performed." like Nadler and Schiff did in their committee meetings, the vote will be 53-47.

No witnesses, no documents, nada.

You're wrong, but let's agree to disagree. Time will tell the result of this case, for the jury will vote 53 to 47 to acquit, and then we will wait to Nov 3rd and see what happens then.


Impeached, but not removed.

You're wrong, but let's agree to disagree. Time will tell the result of this case, for the jury will vote 53 to 47 to acquit, and then we will wait to Nov 3rd and see what happens then.

You're wrong, but let's agree to disagree.

wrong?

Why do you expect the Senate to be less partisan than Nadler and Schiffs committees?

Removed?

Dems need 19-20 Republicans to remove.

I doubt they get 5, if that.

The testimony by witnesses under oath were credible (IMO). But the Republican Members of both committees didn't cross examine them, they attacked their character and veracity. They didn't ask questions which might lead to a reasonable doubt, in fact that is exactly what the defense team has done this far into the trial.

I already agreed that the Senate will acquit The President. But, if the lawyers for the Defendant don't put on a defense, the talk for the next nine months will be hell for those senators who voted to acquit trump when they have no means to justify their vote, when didn't have any rebuttal to the evidence already in the public domain, and sure to grow as books are published and documents are leaked.

 

[Olde Europe]

I already agreed that the Senate will acquit The President. But, if the lawyers for the Defendant don't put on a defense, the talk for the next nine months will be hell for those senators who voted to acquit trump when they have no means to justify their vote, when didn't have any rebuttal to the evidence already in the public domain, and sure to grow as books are published and documents are leaked.

In a way, I have to admire that, Rye. You actually believe the Red State dwellers will actually give their Senators a hard time for an acquittal that isn't fact-based, but based on their fealty to the Dear Leader?

We've already seen on the first day of the Impeachment Trial what the "defense" is going to look like, and it cannot be different in the days to come. The reason for that is, Trump did what he is accused of doing, and the only question that remains is one of judgment: Do the Abuse of Power and the Obstruction of Congress constitute an assault on the Constitutional order of sufficient severety to warrant conviction and removal? I, for one, do not believe that GOP Senators, except for one or two marginal seats, will have a hard time "justifying" their decision, or will be given a hard time by their voters. The entire rightarded blabbosphere will spend the next weeks and months tearing down the process as a horrible, horribly unfair assault on not just the Dear Leader, but on his voters, depriving them of their "duly elected president".

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

No deflection. Hearsay. No one stated they directly heard him say such.

Why do you play stupid? You know the Republicans won't allow any such person to testify. You know this, and you continue to play your stupid political reindeer games. No thanks.

Now back to hearsay you murdered someone. Should I believe it?

More pointless reindeer games. I don't care what the fuck you do. Stop making it about me personally. I'm not the protagonist of this story.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I already agreed that the Senate will acquit The President. But, if the lawyers for the Defendant don't put on a defense, the talk for the next nine months will be hell for those senators who voted to acquit trump when they have no means to justify their vote, when didn't have any rebuttal to the evidence already in the public domain, and sure to grow as books are published and documents are leaked.

In a way, I have to admire that, Rye. You actually believe the Red State dwellers will actually give their Senators a hard time for an acquittal that isn't fact-based, but based on their fealty to the Dear Leader?

We've already seen on the first day of the Impeachment Trial what the "defense" is going to look like, and it cannot be different in the days to come. The reason for that is, Trump did what he is accused of doing, and the only question that remains is one of judgment: Do the Abuse of Power and the Obstruction of Congress constitute an assault on the Constitutional order of sufficient severety to warrant conviction and removal? I, for one, do not believe that GOP Senators, except for one or two marginal seats, will have a hard time "justifying" their decision, or will be given a hard time by their voters. The entire rightarded blabbosphere will spend the next weeks and months tearing down the process as a horrible, horribly unfair assault on not just the Dear Leader, but on his voters, depriving them of their "duly elected president".

I hadn't considered the voters in Red States. I have in-laws, nephews and nieces in Texas and Florida, and I've traveled to the Red States in the South missing only Alabama. Of course my visits were to urban centers, and the people I've met are not the rubes so many believe they all are. I suspect that the hate and fear rhetoric in all of America has worn thin, and unless some evidence is produced during the trial that this entire process is a fake or a hoax, some Senators will lose their seats in unexpected states (maybe that is wishful thinking, but time will tell).

 

[Olde Europe]

I hadn't considered the voters in Red States. I have in-laws, nephews and nieces in Texas and Florida, and I've traveled to the Red States in the South missing only Alabama. Of course my visits were to urban centers, and the people I've met are not the rubes so many believe they all are. I suspect that the hate and fear rhetoric in all of America has worn thin, and unless some evidence is produced during the trial that this entire process is a fake or a hoax, some Senators will lose their seats in unexpected states (maybe that is wishful thinking, but time will tell).

You got rubes, and crooks, and very fine people in every group of sufficient size, and it wasn't my intention to denigrate Red State dwellers. What's striking me, though, is the platform of "us v. them" that seems well aimed at mostly rural voters, with an at least somewhat warranted grudge against those high up there who, in their perception, have forgotten them. Whatever...

My point was, large parts of the GOP's constituency are already convinced, and their media environment will work on it, "that this entire process is a fake or a hoax". That was the defense strategy on the first day, and I would assume there is more to come. Much more. They will not in any serious way deal with the facts of the matter (these would be damning), but with the Bidens and the "unfair" assault on Trump. That's the "hoax" they will be decrying, day-in, day-out. At least, that's what I expect. Much as I'd like to join your "wishful thinking"...

 

[blastoff]

No interest in hearing the dims’ Senate circle jerk marathon.

I’ll tune in once Trump’s guys get out the long knives and commence slicing and dicing the articles to shreads along with pencilneck’s and fatboy’s reputations.

 

[Votto]

Be honest.

Do you think anyone else is?

Quick, let's for a committee and see if anyone is.

Well get to the bottom of it in no time, but first we need a hearing and form another committee to get the ball rolling to see if we even should, assuming we don't drag our feet by filing the papers for all of this, but I think that is only common sense.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I hadn't considered the voters in Red States. I have in-laws, nephews and nieces in Texas and Florida, and I've traveled to the Red States in the South missing only Alabama. Of course my visits were to urban centers, and the people I've met are not the rubes so many believe they all are. I suspect that the hate and fear rhetoric in all of America has worn thin, and unless some evidence is produced during the trial that this entire process is a fake or a hoax, some Senators will lose their seats in unexpected states (maybe that is wishful thinking, but time will tell).

You got rubes, and crooks, and very fine people in every group of sufficient size, and it wasn't my intention to denigrate Red State dwellers. What's striking me, though, is the platform of "us v. them" that seems well aimed at mostly rural voters, with an at least somewhat warranted grudge against those high up there who, in their perception, have forgotten them. Whatever...

My point was, large parts of the GOP's constituency are already convinced, and their media environment will work on it, "that this entire process is a fake or a hoax". That was the defense strategy on the first day, and I would assume there is more to come. Much more. They will not in any serious way deal with the facts of the matter (these would be damning), but with the Bidens and the "unfair" assault on Trump. That's the "hoax" they will be decrying, day-in, day-out. At least, that's what I expect. Much as I'd like to join your "wishful thinking"...

When the pretrial was presented to the people, almost 70% in polls wanted to hear witnesses. I can't image less American's likely voters will be less now that the prosecution has made their case.

All the R's have, so far, is "ain't it awful", "so what" and "yes but". I look forward to the R's effort to actually put on a defense. I hope each Senator has listened with an open mind, and not allow their vote to make Pogo's words ("We have met the enemy and he is us") spot on.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that Moscow Mitch is an enemy of democracy, and that means he is an enemy of We the People.

 

[Rye Catcher]

For those who read !2 Angry Men and To Kill a Mocking Bird, an/or served on a jury understand this:

Jury duty is an opportunity for what is called “direct democracy”, the right of each person to vote his or her conscience.

The members of the Senate will face We the People and vote, will they vote on the evidence presented?