Impeachment hearings

[Guest]

The entire Trump-Epstein relationship is somehow off of Markk's radar. Funny, that.

I’m certainly not going to defend Clinton for his behavior. I didn’t in the 90’s and I’m not going to start now. I also think Clinton hanging out with Epstein, to whatever degree, was insane. You lie with dogs, you get fleas and all that.

What’s interesting with someone like Markk is how absolutely, as you say, off the radar this relationship was between Dersh, Trump, and Epstein. The Right, the supposed ‘family values’ political ideology, sure does have a lot of weird relationships with rapists, sexual predators, down low homosexuals, and every assorted behavior they say is off limits.

Whatever the case may be, the fact, THE FACT, that the Right had no issue with Dershowitz repping Trump, despite his decidedly anti-Conservative track record by defending OJ, Clinton, and perverts didn’t seem to register, at all, in the conservosphere.

The best the GOP has now, as far as justifying its behavior, is some whataboutism and overtly asserting that there are no morals, but power. They’re looking a lot like those post-modernists they love to blame for the destruction of Western society. Crazy days, for sure.

- Doc

[_Markk]

The entire Trump-Epstein relationship is somehow off of Markk's radar. Funny, that.

I’m certainly not going to defend Clinton for his behavior. I didn’t in the 90’s and I’m not going to start now. I also think Clinton hanging out with Epstein, to whatever degree, was insane. You lie with dogs, you get fleas and all that.

What’s interesting with someone like Markk is how absolutely, as you say, off the radar this relationship was between Dersh, Trump, and Epstein. The Right, the supposed ‘family values’ political ideology, sure does have a lot of weird relationships with rapists, sexual predators, down low homosexuals, and every assorted behavior they say is off limits.

Whatever the case may be, the fact, THE FACT, that the Right had no issue with Dershowitz repping Trump, despite his decidedly anti-Conservative track record by defending OJ, Clinton, and perverts didn’t seem to register, at all, in the conservosphere.

The best the GOP has now, as far as justifying its behavior, is some whataboutism and overtly asserting that there are no morals, but power. They’re looking a lot like those post-modernists they love to blame for the destruction of Western society. Crazy days, for sure.

- Doc

Nadler was Clinton's largest (no pun intended)) supporter in the trial...right? Clinton is every bit a man whore as weinstein and epstien, right. I am showing you hypocrisy, while seeing my own. If I were to be every ones "Holy Ghost" I would have to go live in a cave and not support any party.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

My Lord, Markk. Your inability to stay on topic is damned legendary.



- Doc

[_Icarus]

Romney is no longer invited to CPAC 2020

Welp, that didn't take long for the party of retribution to do its thing.

[_EAllusion]

So, after Republicans have argued that impeachment is wrong because the election should be the arbiter of Trump's presidency (concerning an abuse of power attempting to corrupt that very election), how many of those Republicans are going to then oppose the President's election? I'm going with approximately zeo. Then, I'd bet the house they'll also argue against any arguments that Trump shouldn't hold office because of this affair by saying it was already litigated in this sham trial where Trump was acquitted and we should "move past it." It'll be the perfect companion to the Trump admin justifying stonewalling Congressional subpoenas because they need to go through the Courts then arguing in Courts that they have no authority to adjudicate those subpoenas.

Then, if Trump wins said election with the aid of this malfeasance, that'll be taken as proof by those same Republicans the people support him. Even if he wins while losing majority support.

This is a mirror of what occurs in totalitarian states where sham elections give the ruling party power to set up future sham elections only meant to give a patina of legitimacy to their power. We are not very far off that world. When you think about Trumpworld's relentless lying about nearly everything all the time, it's hard not to see this as a Soviet style party.

[Guest]

So, you’re ostensibly ok with Trump employing an absolute degenerate, who defended a child rapist and ephebophile? Good to know your Christian values are in tact.

The role of a defense attorney as a gateway to protect rights of individuals the government is prosecuting, regardless of the crimes alleged against the accused, is one of the most important and seriously I say it, sacred realms of our system. It is not warranting disgusting acts, it is safeguarding our procedures, the overreaching of government, and the rights that we hold dear. What on earth are you suggesting? That those alleged to be child molesters need only receive degenerates or something as defense counsel? Is this a one-off that defense counsel can just stay away from these crimes or are there others in your subjective judgment of when our government is held to the law?

You remind me of the young, immature and inexperienced that twaddle on, "OMG, how can they defend people like that?" while twirling their hair. Seriously rethink this kind of nonsense.

mikwut

[Guest]

So, after Republicans have argued that impeachment is wrong because the election should be the arbiter of Trump's presidency (concerning an abuse of power attempting to corrupt that very election), how many of those Republicans are going to then oppose the President's election? I'm going with approximately zeo. Then, I'd bet the house they'll also argue against any arguments that Trump shouldn't hold office because of this affair by saying it was already litigated in this sham trial where Trump was acquitted and we should "move past it." It'll be the perfect companion to the Trump admin justifying stonewalling Congressional subpoenas because they need to go through the Courts then arguing in Courts that they have no authority to adjudicate those subpoenas.

Then, if Trump wins said election with the aid of this malfeasance, that'll be taken as proof by those same Republicans the people support him. Even if he wins while losing majority support.

This is a mirror of what occurs in totalitarian states where sham elections give the ruling party power to set up future sham elections only meant to give a patina of legitimacy to their power. We are not very far off that world. When you think about Trumpworld's relentless lying about nearly everything all the time, it's hard not to see this as a Soviet style party.

Seriously, I am not just being contrarian. As good of a writer as you are it is often times missed. You are so naïve. It isn't close to totalitarian states, where a backdrop far beyond just a leader seeking more power, is at play. The entire populace, history, system in place, economy etc.. all play major roles. Do you think Schiff has just pure motives or do you think he is thinking a Senate seat, a later run for president. Hint. it is the latter. Do you think democrats sit there like they are at church and say a little prayer for them be guided by God's moral light, for “F”'s sake. Their thoughts are about power. Even if they do say that prayer it is done through a lens of believing that is what is required for more or sustained power. The whole charade on both sides is about power. If one side can narrate a present fact pattern in a moral hue for the populace so be it, but don't preach that makes moral stewards on one side of a fence and moustache twirling villians on the other and that has been the history of the matter since the signing of the Declaration. All that crap is about power on both sides. To not recognize this basic fact is be a child, naïve and silly.

It is our system that is noble, the system checks the dark hearts of men. It doesn't do it by being a borrower of your moral worldview that in a secular age is not a universally shared view. Our system did not contemplate the democrats would be good and moral and the Republicans would be nefarious. It knew men are corrupt. It knew there does not exist power without corruption. Only our system checks those things, imperfectly but within a pragmatic and balancing range. We hope for our rights, our economy and our freedom to be protected within the ingredients of our Constitution that power seekers use in their ascendency. Those democratic checks are all we have. So it is when those rights (like the IG report recently) are attacked and ignored by political ongoings we should be outraged. That outrage should be universal. Not over the meanderings of men and power. That is checked within our system and sways back and forth over time.

Trump will leave office and another man who half the country or a good portion despises will ascend to office. And so it will go. What you miss is corruption in whatever form should always be fought and not just accepted. But even it, even it must give way to our individual rights. The ballot box should always win over a partisan vote in either the House or the Senate.

mikwut

[_mikwut]

Hi Honor,

ikwut wrote:
So can any of you articulate, granting for the time that Trump is completely guilty of the impeachment articles, what is the standard for a National Security Advisor to break with Presidential privilege? Or is it just an intuitive thing.

mikwut

Considering John Dean was working with Senate investigators while still Nixon's attorney and testified less than two months after being fired by Nixon let's assume zero days. Call it intuitive but it seems like privilege - attorney/client, executive, or whathaveyou - isn't under an obligation to extend for any length of time past the point Congress wants to hear from them. As to Bolton making statements, it seems the standard is only until the Senate declines to take interest in what said person knows that they view to be in the interest of the nation. You know, the new standard where feelings one holds regarding ones own value to the nation Trump's rule of law and justifies ones actions regardless of what they are? That standard?

I am seriously interested in your thoughtful ideas. Please read my two posts above one to Doc, and one To E. This is really a pattern I see on this board where a smearing of our individual rights opposed to government power grabbing is misunderstood within some intuitive moral backdrop that is assumed to be shared by all, at least intelligent people.

The privilege's we have whether lawyer, priest, spouse and up to the executive office are of the utmost importance for our Constitutional system. Where I disagree with E the most respecting his totalitarian fears is that we should not fear that politicians are power hungry folks, but rather, that some other coloring, costumed as moral and right takes the place of rights protecting us from that innate corruption found in all men especially those in power, from the government that is made up of those men. When the government tramples against those, then god help us all. When a president gets a blowjob, when a president is not convicted in a partisan hearing regardless of his dark motives for more power, these power struggles will fade into the process of history and mere process. When we disregard rights for what we believe is a moral high ground, a fact pattern we think overrides those rights, is when totalitarian fears should really lie.

mikwut

[Rosebud]

This article explains the attitude of the annoying little s*** Miwat

https://theconversation.com/humans-are- ... twRDpiV1B4

"A human being’s very sense of self is intimately tied up with his or her identity group’s status and beliefs. Unsurprisingly, then, people respond automatically and defensively to information that threatens their ideological worldview. We respond with rationalization and selective assessment of evidence – that is, we engage in “confirmation bias,” giving credit to expert testimony we like and find reasons to reject the rest"

"I'd like you to do us a favor"

"Unwelcome information can also threaten in other ways. “System justification” theorists like psychologist John Jost have shown how situations that represent a threat to established systems trigger inflexible thinking and a desire for closure. For example, as Jost and colleagues extensively review, populations experiencing economic distress or external threat have often turned to authoritarian, hierarchicalist leaders promising security and stability."

[_Chap]

Trump will leave office

You're sure of that?

If Trump gets a second term after his conduct in his current term, all bets are off as to whether he ever will leave office thereafter. After all, he has the advice (in private, no note takers) of Putin, who seems to have perfected the art of permanent office holding in his country.

Once it would have been unimaginable that this could happen in the US. But now? Not so much ...