As I have discussed, the conduct of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., during the State of the Union was reprehensible and she should either promise to comply with the traditions of the House or step down as speaker. She committed three major transgressions against those traditions in changing the greeting to the President, making critical faces behind the back of the President during the address, and then ripping up the address while still in the Speaker’s chair. That last act has led some to allege that she also violated 18 U.S.C. §2071 in the destruction of an official document. That claim is dubious and should not take away from the more serious question of Pelosi violating her duty to remain a neutral representative of the whole house and not just a partisan member or worse a political troll.
At issue is the protection of public records and documents under laws like 18 U.S.C. § 641 (taking of a public record) and 18 U.S.C. §1361 (destruction of a public record). The primary protection of such documents derives from 18 U.S.C. § 2071 which prohibits destruction of government records or attempts to destroy such records.
As discussed by the Justice Department, this is first and foremost a specific intent crime, including according to some courts knowledge of not just the law but the fact that this is a public document. See United States v. DeGroat, 30 F. 764, 765 (E.D.Mich. 1887). Thus, prosecutors must show that a person willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office. If proven it may be punished by imprisonment for three years, a $2,000 fine, or both.
Some have defended Pelosi by saying that she is free from coverage because she is not a “custodian.” That is not a complete defense. There is a separate provision under 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (b) for custodians, but 18 U.S.C. §2071(a) is broader. Thus, I am not sure that I agree with Georgetown Law professor Victoria Nourse that “The point of the statute is to prevent people from destroying records in official repositories like the National Archives or in courts.”
The main problem is that I am not convinced that this is a covered document. The law does not prevent the destruction of any government document in any form. If so, we would have nothing but warehouses from sea to sea. I cannot find any source that stipulates the preservation of this document or even requires that it be given to the Speaker. The Constitution only that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” See Article II, Section 3, Clause 1. A tradition evolved in which the President would give that information in the form of an address. However, the Constitution only speaks to giving the information to Congress (later treated as an address) and not submitting a formal document to the Speaker.
Frankly, I was a bit surprised because the Speaker’s copy is a historic document of significance. It should be preserved as part of the history of the House. It is also “official” in the sense that it is the symbol of the President completing his constitutional obligation to Congress. Yet, it is not list as an official document for custodial or preservation purposes.
Thus, the copy given to the Speaker is a historic document worthy of preservation as .one of two copies hand delivered by the President to the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. There should be no debate that it should be preserved. However, I could not find any reference to the document. Like the neutrality principles shredded by Pelosi, it is a tradition. It is a copy and a court would likely decline to read the law broadly to find a violation on the margins of the defined covered conduct.
This distinguishes the document from those covered by the Presidential Records Act of 1978. That law is more stringent in preventing the destruction of material from the Oval Office and related offices. Under House rules, Pelosi and members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study. She was wrong to do this but that does not make it a violation of federal law.
Let’s go back to the first provision:
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
We know that subsection (b) does not apply to Pelosi as a custodian but this provision also refers to something being “filed or deposited.” This is a courtesy copy that is not filed or deposited with the House. Judging from the fact that I could not find evidence that these copies were archived with the House, I assume that past Speakers have kept the copies as personal property. While years ago I wrote an academic study of such records and criticized the view of presidential papers as personal property, a court would likely view this document as the personal property of Pelosi.
Once again, such allegations allow Pelosi to avoid the more difficult and troubling questions but retreating into the thick forest of federal definitions and regulations. The transgression was against the House itself. This is one of the longest and most cherished traditions that goes back to the English parliament. The Speaker at the State of the Union represents all members — Republican and Democrat. The President appears as a guest of both house of Congress and the Speaker has never in the history of our country shown such demonstrative and partisan opposition as part of the address. It is a terrible precedent to establish and apologists for Pelosi degrade both the House and their cause by trying to excuse or even celebrate this outrageous departure from tradition.
I don’t know about any of you but I spent over 20 years on the streets as a Federal Law Enforcement Officer. I have worked throughout Texas, including on the Mexican border, I worked the streets of NY/NJ and have been in some very tough situations. I also sat in jails and hospitals with criminals of all types. My point is that so many people/politicians/pundits have never been in the muck and dangerous situations as many in this country have. I think the framers set it up right when they thought Congress would come to do the work of the people for a few years and go back to real society. Real society is not Washington DC. It is a good time to think about Congressional term limits. When they are done they should be required to live along the Mexican border and do the job of DHS. They will see what real work is like. If they argue against the Mexican border they can opt to choose working just two years on the streets of NY. Yeah, they wouldn’t serve. Those that do will be dedicated to the people and not to enriching themselves through years of government service. When I look at the judgemental and denigrating statements made about the people by politicians and, I am sad to say, Federal Law Enforcement and intelligence officials it is an affront to those hard working citizens. To not recognized there are bad people out there (Charlottesville) is wrong but to not recognize that good people stand out there on both sides of the issues is also ignorant (not racist). The vitriol has to stop…let’s take it to the polls. Who ever wins wins. But hold those who don’t represent the real hardworking citizens to account at the polls. If you haven’t ever been in the real muck stop spewing about things you think you know about. It is talked about the silent majority. The silent vote is where it should be at!
Kevin….Very good comment! Engaged, caring law enforcement officers like you are great people.
I agree.
Elected office should not be a profession, but a term of service. A close friend of mine thought a good test of whether a person was suitable for elected office was to ask them if they wanted to be a legislator/governor/etc. If the answer was a definite “yes” then they should not be elected–they are either corrupt or seeking personal enrichment in doing so.
“Great men do not seek power; it is thrust upon them.”
— Klingon Proverb
“Who ever wins wins.” The Democrats and their Main Stream Media are going to need a LOT of help with this idea. They don’t like the result? They don’t accept it. They don’t like the votes? They change them. Look at Iowa.
I agree with these remarks but please observe that racists also have a right to free speech and assembly. and the police at Chancellorsville were wrongfully told to stand down from protecting those civil rights. Lawful assembly was terminated before it began because of the heckler’s veto in the form of assaults, batteries, and uncounted felonies galore committed by ANTIFA and their fellow travelers against the initial group of lawful protesters. This debacle was stress that preceded the tragic outcome that followed. Which of course was the only focus of the mass media after the fact.
https://qz.com/1144357/charlottesville-independent-investigation-shows-how-the-police-failed/
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wvir/documents/heaphy-reveiw-dec-1.pdf
Nancy Pelosi, “We want to protect ‘our democracy,’ the one in which the “little people” have the freedom of speech as long as they say only what I, Nanshe Peloshe, tell them to say,” and ‘our democracy’ in which the “little people are free to be taxed into penury on my command to support the redistributionist welfare state of, by and for the foreign invader hyphenates.”
That’s my “democracy,” the communist kind – so says Nanshe Peloshe.
There are worse things. Much worse. Get over it and move on.
“In Private, Republicans Admit They Acquitted Trump Out of Fear”
‘One journalist remarked to me, “How in the world can these senators walk around here upright when they have no backbone?”’
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/opinion/trump-senate-acquittal-impeachment.html
“In private” means the reporter made it up.
Only in your little make-believe world, TIA.
I see Gainesville’s using a 3d sock-puppet.
I wrote you this morning with a bit of hope that something could be done to bring peace to these divisions in this country. I just watched Nancy Pelosi’s press conference. I don’t know what to say. Most of the things she said were pure policy differences. Never before have I seen the disgust about an individual, the President of the United States. She would not commit to stopping further investigations. She brought up Charlottesville. There were bad people there! But just like the labeling of us, Deplorables, smelly Walmart shoppers etc, I think if you state there are good people on both sides I think there were individuals who were there and not a part of the bad group. Labeling the President as racist has been a bridge too far. Racism shouldn’t be used lightly. It is a shame what we are in for these next 9 months.
“I wrote you this morning with a bit of hope that something could be done to bring peace to these divisions in this country.”
*******************
Kevin, you have wonderful sentiments but the missing part to your equation is that any agreement requires good faith compromise and trust. The Left eschews that on a daily basis as that
d̶o̶g̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶p̶o̶n̶y̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶w̶ press conference showed. That means conflict either at the ballot box or on the street is inevitable. The ballot box is safer. Let’s see what happens when they surely lose for a second time.
“good faith compromise and trust. The Left eschews that on a daily basis ”
utter nonsense by the guy who thinks he’s the god of thunder
lol
Anonymous:
“utter nonsense by the guy who thinks he’s the god of thunder. lol”
*****************
Me thinks it ye who hath that impression, my dear vassal. Oh and it was Nancy who melted down with the rip up not Trump, right?
MespoThor has a nice ring to it, and if you use it, you can’t be accused of vanity since someone else suggested it.
For the record.
The pro-white or “Racist’ protesters, call them what you will, were Americans with rights of free speech and assembly. They had a permit to protest but that was cancelled by the police, who actually were operating under improper orders to stand aside and let them be violently attacked by the mob of counter-protesters, antifa and the like, who committed countless felonious assaults, batteries, etc., all of which occurred long before the tragic event that followed.
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wvir/documents/heaphy-reveiw-dec-1.pdf
the verdict of American history is clear. Deny free speech and aggrieved people will resort to more forceful and possibly harmful acts to vent their spleen. Communists, anarchists, racists, and the whole motley crew may be unpalatable but they are free to speak within a very wide range under the law. The government must protect their rights too lest it become merely a powerful tool of whatever faction.
“That last act has led some to allege that she also violated 18 U.S.C. §2071 in the destruction of an official document. That claim is dubious and should not take away from the more serious question of Pelosi violating her duty to remain a neutral representative of the whole house and not just a partisan member or worse a political troll.”
*********************
You’re worried about document destruction when Pelosi is leading a seditious coup against a duly elected President with evidence a first year law school student would reject out of hand???
It’s like Custer worrying about noise pollution as the Lakota Sioux are encircling him and whooping it up, firearms blazing. Seems he — like us – have got bigger fish to fry and ought to know it.
Surprisingly Ruth Marcus wrote this indictment of the toddler that Pee-low-see is in the “Democrats die in darkness” paper
On Tuesday night, Pelosi uncharacteristically let Trump own her.
All of which is to say, Pelosi is ahead on points. But on Tuesday night, she lost ground — first with her failure to include the ordinary salutation of respect for the office — “high privilege and distinct honor” — in introducing Trump; and then second, and more flagrantly, with her ostentatious ripping up of the State of the Union text, not once but twice, even as Trump was standing at the podium, basking in Republican cheers.
Pelosi took one set of papers and tore them in half. She briskly arranged another stack and ripped again, before gathering the pile and tossing it on the desk with evident distaste. “It was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternative,” she said afterward.
Maybe so, but it was also a mistake. You could see Pelosi’s fury building through Trump’s speech. She shook her head, examined papers as though she had something more pressing to attend to, looked everywhere but at the president standing right before her.
Every parent — this parent, anyway — has experienced that moment, when your child pushes you over the edge, you snap and you yell — or worse. In that instant, you lose the moral high ground and find yourself, instead, mired in an argument about who behaved worse.
Ruth Marcus, Wah Putz
Pelosi would have been lying to say she felt it was either a privilege or honor to use the title of POTUS with Trump, given that he “won the victory” fraudulently, and has flaunted the dignity and decorum of the office ever since. Trump is the one who lies, not Pelosi. She also would have been a hypocrite to treat the pack of lies uttered by Trump as a valid presidential SOTU. it was nothing but a cheap reality TV performance chock full of lies to try to make Trump appear to be the most-successful POTUS ever, all of which are lies. Trump didn’t own her or anyone else.
Trump is an aberration: cheated his way into the White House, disrespects the right and duty of Congress to conduct oversight, behaves like a vindictive, petulant child when anyone opposes him, insults leaders of foreign countries, won’t hold regular, scheduled news conferences because he ends up shooting himself in the foot, and rules via the Sharpie. None of these things can be said about any other POTUS. Why should Pelosi pretend to respect this creature, anyway? He doesn’t respect her. He refused to shake her hand, and has called her names. Trump is the problem, not Pelosi.
Trump has always liked and respected Pelosi. Go back and listen to the praise and compliments he’s publicly given her. He extended a hand and offered to work together to do something for the country, for the American people, like infrastructure, among other things. Pelosi and Schumer slapped his hand and bitterly and resentfully refused to work with Trump on ANYTHING so that he could not call it a win for himself. The problem is and always has been Pelosi’s unwillingness to work together with Trump to accomplish anything on behalf of the people.
She lost control of her caucus. She lost control of herself and her own emotions. That’s not leadership. No one knows who the hell the Democrat party is today. And the only one trying to do *good* for the country is President Trump. Certainly not Pelosi –or her out of control, unrecognizable Democrat party that only stands for obstruction and resistance.
This never gets old:
If she can’t do the ceremonial duties required of her, stand aside and let another one do it. Stenny Hoyer would not have done this. Not that he is all that wonderful but I believe he could do the job which Pelosi did not.
This is why we don’t put overly emotional hysterical women in charge of the country. Can you even imagine???
What I find so disturbing and more importantly extreme anger at times of your kind is that you see trump’s actions as a simple policy disagreement and therefore no consequences light or severe should ever apply. Whether it’s basic violation of his oath of office, Emoulments violations, the impeachment, just being a disgusting human, or attacking a war hero after his death; none of those demand apologies or to resign his position from your kind. Yet the Speaker, who also you have policy disagreement should step down from her position for ripping apart a set of papers where trump mostly lies. Wow and it’s asses like yourself who sit back and are puzzled by those center left. Trump could kill a person on Fifth Ave. on live TV and not only would you blame the murdered person, you would say it’s just a simple policy disagreement.
Chris:
Hey you missed talking point #5: “Trump’s kids are making money from his Presidency.” Soros WILL dock you for this.
That is all.
If he had actual called for her to resign over this, you would have a valid point. As it is, JT suggested that she either begins to act like an adult, or go play and let the grown ups talk. I would politely offer you the same choice.
I’m sorry. I guess stepping down is the same as retaining that person’s current position. What else do you call “stepping down” from a position?
Chris, if that’s what you think, then you have not troubled to spend 5 minutes understanding the other side’s position.
Karen he would benefit from your expert analysis therein. Try to keep it under 100,000 words and you might be successful
/sarc
+10
Maybe take 5 to explain which part of trump’s conduct has been condemned other than the kiss on the hand.
In this piece, Jonathan Turley even mentions the Presidential Records Act, and yet somehow, after two previous essays on what Nancy Pelosi did, Turley still can’t bring himself to mention how Donald Trump rips up documents in the White House, so that his staff have to spend time taping them back together in order to comply with that act.
it’s such a weird omission for Turley to make.
that point is inconsequential in either direction, actually
No, it shows that he’s fixated on Pelosi ripping up a document, which he admits violates no law, and yet he refuses to mention that Trump has done the same thing — and would be in violation of the law if not for his staff, once again, saving him.
Weird, like not mentioning how Hillary Clinton illegally deleted 30,000 emails in violation of the Records Act, wiped her illegal server clean with Bleach Bit, smashed her and her staff’s laptops and phones with hammers, all while under subpoena? Yeah, there’s not amount of tape that can put that together again. They were able to recover a few from a convicted sex offender, who had access to Huma’s laptop.
Of course it’s relevant for you to bring up Trump’s business habit of ripping up papers, only for his White House staff to rescue them. That was reported on 2 years ago. It was never made clear if Trump did this when he first took office, and was instructed on how to comply with the Records Act, or if it is ongoing. I’m glad his staff keeps him compliant with the Records Act. It’s really too bad that Clinton’s did not. And Obama’s, whose staff was aware that he emailed Hillary Clinton using a private email address of his own, in order to circumvent the Records Act. How many of his were among the 30,000 deleted? We’ll never know. BleachBit works great when you want an electronic document to never, ever be found.
It is not required for Turley to bring up every instance of defacing documents, or the list would be long.
As I’ve said before, I agree with the position that it was not against the law for Pelosi to tear up Trump’s speech. Just public rudeness and disrespect. I wonder if she practiced the night before.
Actually the reporting said WH staffers were having to pull ripped bits out of the trash and tape them together. Something like that. Remember reading it.
Hey, anyone catch that awesome gathering in the East Room today? Solid work by Floptop.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
From the NY paper Trump trusts:
https://nypost.com/2018/06/10/trump-routinely-rips-up-papers-that-need-to-be-preserved/
As the FBI has noted, Hillary Clinton was perfectly entitled to delete her personal emails. Just as you or I would be. As for the relevance: if Turley is going to spend three separate posts analyzing Pelosi’s decision to tear up a document while standing immediately behind Trump, it is indeed strange that he would fail to note that Trump does (or did) the same thing regularly.
But she’s already guilty of violating federal law, illegal seating of unqualified candidates and violation of Oath of Office come to mind.
Now out in Iowa the Democrats are blaming Trump supporters for the chaos in the caucus counting. And these socialist want to plan our economy.
4chan was hitting the phone lines hard. But yeah, 4chan gonna 4chan so there’s that.
Here is what I found on how Pelosi’s introduction broke with tradition:
She said, “Members of Congress, the president of the United States.”
The traditional introduction is to say it is, “I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-broke-tradition-introducing-trump-state-of-the-union-2020-2
This reminds me of that constant, low level feuding that goes on between bitter enemies at a social function. All subtlety evaporated with the tearing of the paper. Predictably, this behavior was applauded by many Democrats, who would have been screaming mad if it was done to Obama.
For me, the true litmus test of whether something is right or wrong would be if I would feel the same way if the other side did it.
O’k, now that the latest fiasco is put to bed. What do the Democrats do next, so Trump can $itch slap them around after he wins again.
I also believe that her choice of a pale cream suit was deliberate. The bright, white color draws the eye, so that that everyone would notice her mocking behavior behind the President, as well as when she stood up, to ensure all could see her rip the document. All of it was staged, I believe, from her choice in clothing to the infamous destruction of the speech. I saw video and photographs of her surreptitiously starting little tears in the sides of the pages to ensure they would tear smoothly.
There have been times over the years when I have seriously questioned Nancy Pelosi’s mental acuity. She’s appeared to have lost the plot many times during interviews. There has been a noticeable change in her. But she shows flashes of cunning from time to time that proves she’s still a political force to be reckoned with, if a Machiavellian one. No one plots like Pelosi.
One thing Trump has done for sure is move the boundaries of what constitutes gall. Today, we have Turley complaining about Pelosi refusing to say it is a privilege and honor to introduce the biggest crook ever to cheat his way into the White House, saying she was “making faces” (she wasn’t, I’ve seen the same facial expressions at times when she is walking and/or speaking) and tearing up the pack of lies just spouted by Trump, as if such affronts to the American people deserve respect. She explained that it was the least offensive alternative under the circumstances. Why do you think she wears a replica of the Mace of the Republic?
Trump owes the American people more: at least to stop lying, but he can’t because the truth undermines his fragile ego which requires him to be the biggest, best and most-successful, so he just lies. His alleged economic successes that he trumpeted and which drew standing ovations from the gutless Republicans, don’t exist. Job growth was higher under Obama, the economy grew more under JFK, Obama and even Jimmy Carter, whom Trump loves to trash. Real wages, adjusted for inflation, rose more slowly under Trump (0.6%) versus Obama (1.1%). The GDP under Obama was statistically the same as Trump. Manufacturing is not booming: in fact, there has been a 5-month slump. Trump inherited a robust, booming economy from Obama, who turned around the worst economy since the Great Depression. Trump claims the economy he inherited was a mess, which is nothing but another lie. In fact, the trajectory of economic indicators under Trump is flattening. Trump’s claim about people going off food stamps implies that the reason is that they got good-paying jobs and don’t need this help, which is another lie. His administration simply changed the rules to qualify for SNAP benefits, thus cutting off large numbers of people Trump has NOT made history with the economy, and his attacks on Obama are simply fraudulent.
Then, the lies about protecting pre-existing conditions, even though his administration is actively litigating striking down this part of the ACA. He lied about America becoming energy-independent under his Administration: that was Obama’s accomplishment. He also lied about wanting to control prescription drug prices: HR 1 has been gathering dust on McConnell’s desk because he won’t allow any Democratic proposals to become law, to provide fodder for the manufactured lie that Democrats are “do-nothing”. The USMCA is not substantially better than NAFTA, and would not have passed without Pelosi demanding protections for workers, yet Trump tries to brag about protecting blue collar workers, and gave Pelosi no credit. He also exaggerates the alleged shortcomings of NAFTA and the alleged benefits of USMCA.
You keep trying to normalize this anomaly, as if someone who has failed at everything except being a reality TV performer (of which this “presidency” is nothing more than another chapter), a serial bankrupter of businesses, a braggart, narcissist, racist, xenophobe, misogynist and chronic habitual liar who cheated to get into the White House is entitled to the respect accorded to, say, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK or even the Bushes He has not earned respect–just scorn, and for Pelosi to pretend that she didn’t just hear lies, unwarranted attacks on Obama and a vainglory narcissism explosion is asking too much. Dignity and integrity are not conferred by cheating to “win” an election. He should be shunned and booed because he doesn’t belong in the White House. In fact, he belongs in prison.
However, worse than all of the lying and the vainglory braggadociousness is Trump’s utter disrespect for Congress and law enforcement. He just simply refuses to cooperate: either with Mueller or with the House, and then brags about being in the right. He has been a cheater and liar his entire life, and this is no different. By allowing him to get away with these abuses of power, Republicans have violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. This is bad precedent. As I said, the fat orange thing pretending to be POTUS is indeed an anomaly, and deserves to be treated as such.
ha ha that is ridiculously incorrect about the economy.
i’m sure you were thrilled by Pelosi’s disgraceful act, just admit it
it was a step towards civil war, a visible one, and you people have no idea what you’re wishing for, nor are you remotely prepared for it.
Kurtz, cut the BS. You and Mespo are probably ageing overweight and spoiled burgers, not guerilla warriors. You don’t scare anyone and the fact that you are trying to tells us you also are not true Americans who revere and protect our democracy, which by the way, is currently being run by those representing a minority of Americans – you. If anyone should be angry it is that majority.
bythebook:
The Remainers’ intense dislike for the working classes among the Leavers is mirrored on this side of the pond, in the elitist attitude towards Republicans in general, and Trump voters in particular. Read this article, and then take a good, hard look in the mirror. I see the same disdain in you. This hatred and bigotry is one of my consistent complaints about the Left.
“Anti-Brexit people in the worlds of culture and commentary unleashed some of the vilest hatred of recent times on Friday night. Their masks fell and we saw what many of us suspected to be the case – that behind the Remoaner facade of cosmopolitanism and tolerance there lurks an extreme, Victorian-level contempt for ordinary people and their stupid voting habits…This is because the one group of people you are perfectly at liberty to hate in our woke era is the white working classes: thick, knuckle-dragging scum.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/03/the-remainer-elites-are-the-true-bigots-of-brexit-britain/
Karen, cut the BS. Mespo and Kurtz are lawyers, not factory workers and probably, like average TruMp supporters, make more thannHillary supporters, make more than me. Hillary won the blue collar vote, just like she won the total vote. You are a well off, almost all white minority now running all branches of government except the House. And you want to threaten revolution?
and for the record white people are not YET a minority. And ten bucks says you are white so don’t be a self-hating type who welcomes your own demographic marginalization.
of course when you live in California, sure you’re a minority. but don’t worry about me, out here i am not, and wherever I go, i move as a fish in the water.
Kurtz, I didn’t say white people are a minority. Nor did I say I hate white people of which I am a proud and appreciative member. I certainly do not worry about you either.
OK. You obviously have come nowhere near California. We actual Californians have been calling for “danger close” artillery support because we were overrun decades ago. California is not a state. California is a conquered communist cesspool. America ignores the invasion at its peril.
bythebook – read my comment, and the article. Then take a good, hard look at your disdain for Trump supporters. It’s very similar to how Remainers talk about Brexit Leavers. Or, you could skip right to the ad hominem and miss the entire point.
Brexit was a form of revolution. Voters changed their government structure.
As for blue collar workers, read this article. Blue collar workers to Democrats, “It’s still the economy, stupid.” It discusses how Clinton lost the blue collar workers in the Rust Belt, and, indeed, most of the country, as well as rural America.
Keep in mind that this article was penned in 2016, soon after her concussion speech. In the years since, the economy h as boomed, and many jobs have been created. People are doing better.
And what are Democrats offering in 2020? It appears to be a race as to who would be the most effective jobs killer. Plus, the party has made painfully clear that it is racist and sexist against white males, and considers anyone without a college degree, the ones who actually keep the country running, to be ignorant rubes unworthy of respect. A degree in gender studies or transgender activism does not make the bearer smarter or more worthy than the skilled mechanic who keeps complicated automobile machinery running. But you wouldn’t know it from the trend in rhetoric about stupid Trump voters.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/25/blue-collar-democrats-to-party-its-still-the-economy-stupid.html
I just hope Democrats lose, because I don’t want us to suffer the same loss of freedoms, jobs, and basic amenities as other far Leftist countries.
You should take a moment to look into the tremendous cost of each of the front runners platforms. Have you thought about how we would pay for it, what it would do to the economy, and how it might affect jobs?
Karen I read you post and no, I’m not taking reading assignments from you. You’ll have to make your point all by yourself. I assume the same responsibility .
To repeat, Hillary won the blue collar vote. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that most blacks and Latinos are blue collar. The average income of Trump voters was higher than Hillary’s. Deal with it.
A lecture from a TruMp supporter on the budget is too much. Do you have even a single clue?
Trump won the non-college educated white vote by better than a 2-to-1 margin; about 65% to Hillary’s 30%.
I haven’t seen specific breakdown of the overall blue collar vote, but the claim that Hillary won that vote is questionable.
bythebook – then you gave an incorrect statement, that Hillary won the blue collar vote, and proclaimed yourself uninterested in looking it up, even when provided a link. Then you repeated the incorrect figure yet again.
Perhaps the problem is that you are not reading the supporting documentation offered. You are either interested in being accurate, or being inaccurate, but partisan.
Karen, your link includes no data, and blue collar whites are only part of blue collar workers.
Hillary won the blue collar vote in 2016. Deal with it.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/
The graph uses questionable metrics and therefore makes suspect conclusions that could be derivative of manipulation.
The span of each income element is inconsistent:
Column | Constituent Income Range
1 | 30,000
2 | 20,000
3 } 40,000
4 | 100,000
5 | 150,000
6 | infinite over 250,000
The ranges are inconsistent with regard to each other. It starts with 30k then drops to 20k then doubles itself for column 3. This harkens to the high possibility of selective sampling due to formulating the columns into ranges that support a particular intended conclusion and they are at least arbitrary in deviation. The graph would have greater credibility if it instead used sampling of equal ranges. The best this type of graph can accomplish is to furnish data that is suspect and at worst it is a crafted statistic to show a false conclusion.
Darren – No, it doesn’t do that. Put on your glasses.,
Number of respondents: 24,537 respondents
LMAO…..yeah, those numbers include flyover states, Rust Belt states and them good ol’ Midwestern values people that Hillary killed off as deplorables. LOL
How to Lie With Statistics
https://www.worldcat.org/title/how-to-lie-with-statistics/oclc/1014298802
Of course Anon lies just for kicks but then Im repeating what EVERYONE observes on the blog
#trollsgonnalie
btb:
“Kurtz, cut the BS. You and Mespo are probably ageing overweight and spoiled burgers, not guerilla warriors.”
********************
I’m happy to prove my metal against yours anytime and any place. I bet Kurtz will too. And by the way, we do scare some people — like you. Its all because we expose your sophistry on a daily basis and you are powerless to do anything about it. You rant and rave about facts that are opinions, surmises that are unsupported conclusions and talking points you can’t possible understand given your utter dearth of education on the topics. So we chortle at your backwards pronouncements, revel in your constant comeuppances and just stand in awe at the Dunning-Kruger experiment that unfolds daily before our eyes. Carry on. Everyone loves a clown and most especially those poor souls who have no idea they are a clown to most everyone else. it was Charlie Chaplin’s secret and you have unwittingly resurrected it.
Mespo, all of what you say is correct but Anon is unable to incorporate it.
Maybe a definition of Dunning -Kruger will help Anon understand.
“What Is the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their skills.
The concept is based on a 1999 paper by Cornell University psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger. The pair tested participant avoid this on their logic, grammar, and sense of humor, and found that those who performed in the bottom quartile rated their skills far above average. For example, those in the 12th percentile self-rated their expertise to be, on average, in the 62nd percentile. …”
It also tells people like Anon how to avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect but I think he is too far gone to question anything he disagrees with.
In this case, as a humanitarian, I will post the address for Anon.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect
“What Is the Dunning-Kruger Effect?”
“The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their skills.”
Allan needs to take that in…because it certainly applies to him.
Anonymous the Stupid, so far in our conversations of 2 you always come in second and almost never can back up what you say. I think you are too Stupid to understand much of anything.
The man-child of the blog just can’t help himself. He speaks and others laugh…at him.
Mespo, by test your metal, you mean who has the biggest gun?, I’ll bet my tool collection is bigger and better and probably my truck.
Let’s cut to the chase. We both have too much to lose to get in street fights. If you threAten otherwise, you’re either just another internet tough guy or a fool.
As to our posting skills, your best work – your only work – is snark, and even that at a journeyman level. I only have an AA degree Mespo, but – without boasting – I’m smarter than you and have the confidence to post factual and substantive messages. If I’m wrong, try proving it some day.
“I’m smarter than you and have the confidence to post factual and substantive messages. If I’m wrong, try proving it some day.”
*********************
Self-declared victories (and compliments) are the most fleeting kind!
Wait. Again, I’m confused and getting confuseder.
Allan and/or Anon is admonishing Mespo with reference to Dunning-Kruger?
Mespo wrote Dunning-Kruger, didn’t he?
George:
He’s explaining it to our dunce, Anon.
Why don’t you do your homework and cite me some reliable sources that disprove what I said about the economy and Trump’s lies?
The “disgrace” was the fat liar and his choreographed reality TV show: “The State of the Union, Starring Donald J. Trump as the President who produced the best economy in the history of the world in just 3 short years, featuring performances by a 100 year old real Tuskeegee Airman, a single black mother, a 2 year old former premature baby and her mother, a reunion of a soldier with his family, and Rush Limbaugh as the Presidential Medal of Freedom winner.” Ta Dah! The only things missing were a band, ringleader, clowns, elephants on parade wearing little hats, and girls in skimpy costumes. Well, to be fair, we did have clowns: those gutless Republicans who cheered when Trump was lying.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom had previously been given to Mother Teresa and Rosa Parks. Who on earth believes Rush Limbaugh belongs in their number?
This performance was beyond disgusting, even for reality TV, which is all that this was. Why on earth should Pelosi or anyone else pretend that a sham POTUS who is lying about his alleged accomplishments should be treated like those who went before him who didn’t lie or disrespect the right of Congressional oversight? It is a double standard. There has never been any more deceitful and narcissistic POTUS in U.S. history. When he lies and turns the SOTU into a reality TV show, there is no requirement to pretend that this is acceptable. Nancy should have taken the gavel and bonked him in the head with it. No worries. That toupee would protect what’s left of his brain.
“His administration simply changed the rules to qualify for SNAP benefits, thus cutting off large numbers of people”
Obviously not amount of facts will get through to Natacha, who is not interested in learning.
But for anyone else:
The revision did not affect anyone with dependents. It only applied to those of working age who live in areas of low unemployment. (Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents, or ABAWD). It required some effort to at least look for work. Critics call that unfair but typically won’t explain why.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-072419
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/12/20/usda-secretary-sonny-perdue-snap-benefit-reform-workers-welfare-column/2343066002/
He changed the rules, disqualifying people, and that’s why there are fewer people receiving SNAP. IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY GOT GOOD JOBS BECAUSE OF HIS LIES ABOUT THE ECONOMY. That’s what I said, and that’s the truth.
SNAP is ok but it’s abused like so many other welfare programs. Bill Clinton did a solid overhaul of welfare when he was in office. Back then there was more sanity across the aisle.
Here is the actual text of the revision, which explains what it does, and the goals. Receiving one time assistance will no longer qualify the recipient for categorical open ended assistance. This has been used as a means in which to circumvent meeting minimum qualifications for ongoing assistance.
“The Food and Nutrition Act has clear parameters regarding the income and resource limits that SNAP households must meet, and categorical eligibility is intended to apply only when the conferring program has properly determined eligibility. Extending categorical eligibility to participants who have not been screened for eligibility compromises program integrity and reduces public confidence that benefits are being provided to eligible households.”
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
I was not aware that Pelosi’s introduction of the President deviated from tradition.
Pelosi did not destroy the document; she destroyed a copy of the document. She was very rude, but I think it’s a non starter to claim that she broke federal law. That would be a slippery slope. The original document itself is available for preservation in accordance with the Records Act. If it were up to me, I would preserve the torn pages of her copy, as well, as a testament to political gamesmanship.
Deleting all traces of 30,000 emails using BleachBit while under subpoena is an example of destroying documents. This got around the Records Act. Any emails that go through the State Department must be reviewed by State, to determine which are personal and which should be preserved. Clinton ran around that requirement. But she’s a Clinton, so she’s coated with Teflon. Should’t that nonstick coating be starting to scratch off by now?
“political gamesmanship”? Really?
Stop your Hillary pivoting.
Natacha – did you hear the DNC acronym now means Do Not Count? Why? Because Democrats don’t count the votes they don’t like. They don’t accept election results they don’t like. Friends don’t let Democrats run anything, let alone an election. Democrats ‘ruin’ what they ‘run.’ Just say no!
Good one. It reminds me of how the Democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, or force it to follow the popular vote. That would mean they should not count most of the states in the Union, who would no longer have a say. It would be all about CA and NY, and perhaps TX, which is getting split.
Just another way to Do Not Count.
Yes, Karen, that is what they tell you on Fox, and you really, really believe it, too.
Anonymous at 12:53 said:
“Because Democrats don’t count the votes they don’t like. They don’t accept election results they don’t like.”
———–
Well, take a look at this would ya…
From the article, below — about the 2012 Iowa GOP caucus:
“The results from eight precincts went missing and were never recovered, according to the Register, and officials found paperwork irregularities in results submitted from 131 precincts.”
“Iowa GOP seeks to prevent repeat of botched 2012 caucuses”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/262186-iowa-gop-seeks-to-prevent-repeat-of-botched-2012-caucus
I gave an example of an act that really was the destruction of documents in defiance of federal law, an act everyone is familiar with.
Let’s get Vanks and Jared’s laptops up there too. Hillary’s server would be boring. Javanka could keep it real.
The Speaker at the State of the Union represents all members — Republican and Democrat.
It’s far more than that. The 435 elected members represent all of our citizens. During the SOTU, 50 States are represented by 100 Senators. The Speaker of the House is thus acting as the Leader of the audience representing all the states and all of the people, not just the 535 members of Congress and invited guests.
The Demos are headed for defeat if they continue on this hatred, morose, woe is us attitude. For those old enough, remember how long the presidential campaign of Paul Tsongas lasted? All I remember of his ideas was a woe is us campaign. The economy is in shambles, poor us, we have lost our way and are wondering in the wilderness. People vote for the person that is the most upbeat, not downtrodden.
It is truly a relief to see the Trump fans have been revived from the vapors brought on by Speaker Pelosi’s political incorrectness, what with their legendary high standards for decorum, tradition, and common decency. For myself I’m sorry they had to see that and I hope they were able to clear the children from the room and block grandma’s eyes from such disconcerting and norm breaking behavior. On a night when the family gathers innocently to watch the star of The Apprentice, husband of 3 wives, founder of Trump University, and dressing room attendant for Miss Universe contests opine on ugly women, Shifty Schiff, and Crazy Nancy, as well as his novel escorting tactics involving hand grips for beautiful women much younger than him and suggestions for removing protesters from his speeches, tonbe distracted from his “vision” – not of the future, but of the past, delivered with fantastical embellishments only he would use and belive – by the Speaker is an outrage!
This must not stand!
Thank you Mr Manners of the legal community! We need someone who tirelessly and without prejudice calls strikes when the Democrats are up and balls when the GOP is at bat. If it’s witnesses, they were imperative for the Democratic House, but of no concern when the GOP Sente was in charge, When Biden says something questionable you appropriately try him in public and give the President his deserved space to lie like a m-fer, every day and all day. When the President fouls the nest with name calling, obscenities, even aimed at past presidents, you give him the space to be Trump. Bravo!!
But tearing up a copy of lies before the woman and children? We must have higher standards than that!
i’ts a signficantly provocative public act which diminishes the Congress as an institution. you get it or you dont
the key distinction is that it is a public act in a public office in a public venue
all the beefs with trump did bad stuff relate to prior acts, moreover, even his reckless talk on twitter is not that bad given the venue is well “Twitter” which is a morass anyways and a private medium.
you know what they used to do when they declared war? Literally rip up treaties. this is a symbolic speech of dangerous implications. you can scoff that it was irrelevant but it was not.
We agree Kurtz. You either get it or you don’t.
Aren’t you the guy who posts photoshopped pics of Trumps head on some muscle bound shirtless torso? I mean other than the President himself?
i dont think so. hail to the chief trump is the video i like to post. i havent actually watched it more than once however,. could be. lol but that’s my private act on a private medium. im a nobody.
Pelosi is Speaker of the House. And that was a State of the Union address, full of good news for all. She’s made a clear signal that she elevates her partisan schemes over all. Clear as day. Unfit for the office even in a ceremonial role.
I have to say I’m sad about this ,because I used to kind of like her. She’s been dragged down the primrose path by the worst voices in the Swamp.
Can you imagine Tip O Neill doing something so offensive and disgraceful? Total lack of decorum.
Kurtz, you ignore the fact that we have had 3 years of a disgraceful and dishonest president doing things every day that we can’t imagine Reagan or any other past president doing.
BTW, the speech was full of lies, not good news.
“BTW, the speech was full of lies, not good news.”
Anon, you keep saying that but almost every time you provide proof that proof is a lie itself. You don’t know how to tell the truth.
Social norms have decayed in the relevant time frame quite a bit. Did you think only the Democrats could capitalize on that? It’s natural that eventually those norms would decay at the top too on both sides.
That doesn’t mean norms dont matter. Nor that any one person should presume to throw decorum out the window.
Decorum is very important for lawyers to maintain civility in conflict. It is not an empty sepulchre. Civility is necessary for calm discussion of difficult matters of consequence.
That issue is even more important in legislative bodies.
If the Democrat leadership keeps on doubling down on their increasingly risky bets, they may exhaust their bankroll and end up in a pickle. They are doing what gamblers are always told NOT to do– they are chasing their losses.
And why are they going for broke? They’ve outlived Republican presidents before and can easily do it again. With this symbolic speech of ripping up the address document, their behavior has reached a point of visible irrationality.
Kurtz, you have not only forgiven Trump’s unprecedented bad behavior – no past president including Reagan has acted so poorly – you have celebrated him. You have no standing to even discuss standards.
Oh, I have standards when it comes to venues. I am in and out of court all the time in front of Democrat judges and they suit me fine. There is nothing partisan nor uncivil in my work. I totally support them as public servants and they all do their jobs fine by me. I show up on time, I am prepared, i stake out reasonable positions, and I only speak when spoken to and keep it short and to the point. I’m civil to other lawyers and confine my gutter talk and sketchy political opinions and poor behavior to private venues. If anything, I’m very timid and too careful. But my actions in these premises informs my opinions on the subject.
The nice thing about the internet is that we can speak frankly in a way that we can’t in venues like court. Even here, it’s important to speak with civility, even if we can spice it up, argue, and toss in some ad hominems for fun. I welcome different opinions from all those who take their precious time to offer them. But this is a private medium.
By contrast, public venues and decorum thereof, absolutely matters. Trump actually delivered a very solid and reasonable speech on the event in question and Pelosi was going to rip it up no matter what. That’s clear from her sneaky pre-ripping of it which is all caught on video. Pathetic!
I tell you, i have never seen a lawyer rip up another lawyer’s copy in court. Not in the most heated hearings. Not even lawyers who are known for excessively adversarial talk have done this. I have heard lawyers scolded for incivility but this act was unlike nothing i have ever seen in Congress and certainly nothing like what i see in the small humble public venues i operate.
Maybe you don’t perceive how lawyers may perceive this. Ripping up a solemn paper is an act of war. It’s like taking off your jacket and rolling up your sleves and putting your fists up. It’s really quite a lot more significant than how you are downplaying it, and that’s why Turley has reacted the way he has. You pretend Turley is a big Republican and I tell you he is certainly not. he is a dignified professor and he’s staked out a strong condemnation of Pelosi. All the whataboutisms about Trump are besides the point of her behavior in her solemn capacity and ceremonial duties. Ask yourselves why. Turley said she should resign! Wow. Very strong.
step back from the brink Democrat partisans., You are coming unglued.
Kurtz, you have not only forgiven Trump’s unprecedented bad behavior – no past president including Reagan has acted so poorly – you have celebrated him. You have no standing to even discuss standards.
bythebook – I have forgiven LBJ popping out his d**k so reporters could see how big it was and lifting his beagles up by their ears. I do not forgive him for the deaths in Vietnam.
Anon, doesn’t like Trump’s personality though if Trump were on the Democratic side of the aisle Anon would love him as the best President ever.
Anon lives in a bipolar world and can’t think futher than party. That is why he can’t see all the good Trump has done. It was mentioned in the State of the Union Address. Anon can deal with only two variables at a time. Good or bad. Republican or Democrat, yes or no…there is nothing inbetwen for Anon.
Kurtz, you have not only forgiven Trump’s unprecedented bad behavior – no past president including Reagan has acted so poorly – you have celebrated him. You have no standing to even discuss standards.
Again, what you are making reference to are fictions. They do not have any reality outside your mind.
btb:
Favored by 76% of those viewing it and by 82% of independent voters. Keep telling yourself it was bad, that you are smart and Hillary is really the President.
SOTU Viewership in 2019 – after Trumps pasting in the midterm election – was 30% higher.
Good times.
you ignore the fact that we have had 3 years of a disgraceful and dishonest president doing things every day that we can’t imagine Reagan or any other past president doing.
Your lack of imagination, compounding what is already a deficit in rational and reasonable thought, is what has led you to be absolutely out of touch with reality over the last 3 years. Normal people make mistakes, learn from them and then change the way they think. You just keep digging, as if you’ll discover somewhere below you exists facts to prove your truth. 🙂
I think you forgot to add, “nanny-nanny boo-boo.”
bythebye says this:
” If it’s witnesses, they were imperative for the Democratic House, but of no concern when the GOP Sente was in charge”
back to civics 101. The House BRINGS the impeacment, the Senate VOTES on it. The Senate does NOT conduct the investigations. go back and read Turley on the subject if you want it spelled out clearly. The President had a colorable claim of immunity which the House refused to try in the Article III courts which do have a legit role in the process.
Why not? We know why. They did not because that was a waste of their time and money. They would have run up against a wall and they would have lost the intended effect which was solely to rile up their base of activists like you.
They rushed it along to completion because they knew it was doomed. And so it was. They exploited the impeachment process with a complete lack of sincerity. It was fake, in a word.
Nothing in the constitution supports your BS about investigations and in no other Senate impeachment hearings in our nation’s history have there been zero witnesses.
byb:
“Nothing in the constitution supports your BS about investigations and in no other Senate impeachment hearings in our nation’s history have there been zero witnesses.”
******************
I guess the 13 sworn deposition transcripts complete with directs and crosses accepted into the Senate record aren’t “witnesses” in your unlettered mind. You musta missed that day in your civil procedure class.
And I suppose Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 providing: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment, and Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 providing: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments means nothing to you. Maybe you need a dictionary.
You’re out of your league but watching you flail in batting practice is really fun. Keep pointing at that wall, Babe. You gotta hit on one of them, right? Take it easy on him Kurtz. Try underhanded.
Mespo understands neither history or the constitution.
There have been 15 prior impeachment trials in the Senate. Every one included new testimony from witnesses. Nothing in the constitution limits hearing from witnesses to the House.
bythebook – the Senate runs the Trial. They decide if there will be additional testimony or witnesses. This time the answer was NO.
Paul, and the Senate for the first time in our history decided to not hear witnesses and continue Trump’s stonewalling. Up is not down no matter how many times you try to rephrase it.
bythebook – the Senate heard the testimony of 13 witnesses of the 18 who went into Schiff Star Chamber. Please don’t lie like that, it does not become you.
Paul, your attempt at semantical confusion does not make my statement a lie, Your character is now in question as much as your intelligence.
The Senate heard no new witnesses for the first time in our history, even though a 1st person witness was available and the administration had completely stonewalled the House investigation.
bythebook – the Senate heard from no new witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial. They just viewed video of testimony they were interested in from previous witnesses.
Paul, that’s false. The Senate took 3 new recorded depositions during the Clinton impeachment, even though, unlike the Trump impeachment, the facts were not contested, the WH had surrendered thousands of documents, the president was deposed, and there was a voluminous record partly due to the 2 years of work from an independent prosecutor.
I appreciate you dropping your previous false contention and expect you to rescind your accusation.
bythebook – name the three “new” witnesses.
The House Democrats said they had overwhelming evidence and that they didn’t need to call more witnesses. They could have used the process set out by the Constitution and precedence but they chose the Nancy Pelosi solution of throwing a temper tantrum. The Senate rightfully should have thrown out the impeachment day one since it was purely political and there was no evidence of a high crime.
If this type of action continues then the Presidency will forever be under the constant threat of impeachment which then loses all meaning.
Anon can’t think past the tip of his nose so he doesn’t consider the effect on the nation long term and has never discussed that all important consideration. His entire thought process is impeach or don’t impeach. Democrat talking points impeach so therefore he sides with impeachment and repeats talking points without knowing what they mean. Arguing with Anon is like arguing with a parrot. When the parrot runs out of talking points it flys away.
Paul, the 3 new witness depositions during the Senate Clinton impeachment hearing were Lewinsky, Vern Jordan, and Sid Blumenthal.
NYTs, Feb 6, 1999.
Paul – KMA
That’s a pretty thin branch you’ve crawled out on.
Now, about that apology.
bythebook – they gave new depositions, they were not NEW witnesses. No apology is due.
“they gave new depositions, they were not NEW witnesses. No apology is due.”
Paul, now Anon will run away.
Paul, if Anon stopped lying how would you recognize him?
Allan – excellent question for which I do not have an answer. 😉
Paul, if he were Pinocchio you would invariably trip over his nose.
Alan Dershowitz is a manifestation of an older sort of social-liberal or social-democratic politics, one which had objects rather more elevated than stomping on fancied social enemies or the assiduous pursuit of emotional self-validation. You have from younger cohorts a few wonks who promote policy in service of some conception of the public interest (Harold Pollack or the late Mark Kleiman), but that’s not the language of gliberal and leftoid politics today, and it’s completely alien to anything Gainesville, Jill, Natacha, Shill, or Enigma are wont to discuss (much less their nosepicker camp followers). You should see our Facebook wall. Street-level Democrats come in three varieties: (1) sentimentalists, (2) haters, and (3) [null set].
Paul, the discussion is about Mespo’s – and apparently your – false claim that the Senate by the constitution and by principle does not call witnesses. Well, in fact it has in every other impeachment hearing in our history before this one, including Clinton’s, though you’re trying to weasel out of it.
It’s a bad look Paul, and my previously benign to neutral view of your presence here is done. With your magpie assent to the usual dull suspects here calling me a liar though I’m THE ONLY ONE PROVIDING FACTS AND SUPPORTING DATA, led off by your calling me a liar in your first exchange is proof of your dullness and moral failure. When you’re wrong, be a man and own it.Until then…… GFY.
Paul wrote: “they gave new depositions, they were not NEW witnesses. No apology is due.”
To which Anon foolishly replied: “and apparently your – false claim that the Senate by the constitution and by principle does not call witnesses. Well, in fact it has in every other impeachment hearing in our history before this one, including Clinton’s, though you’re trying to weasel out of it.”
It appears Anon is weaseling out of this and will soon run away. The Senate need not add witnesses and it was the House’s job to do so. The House didn’t because the House Democrats stated they had an overwhelming case and therefore didn’t need other witnesses while at the same time refusing the Witnesses desired by Trump.
The variables have been increasing and the more the variables increase the more confused Anon gets. He is unable to deal with multiple variables.
bythebook – even you have agreed, the Clinton impeachment did not call new witnesses. The House managers in this impeachment trial wanted to call new witnesses, yet the cases was rock solid.
The 2 Articles of Impeachment were
Based on “Revenge” and “Hatred”.
They both lost.
The cauldron of Revenge and Hatred boiled over.
Nancy succumbed to the pressure in a very childish
Manner.