chimmy said:

---

He has a fair point--Castor is awful. The GOP should dump this guy, if they can. Have him call in sick tomorrow.

---

They can't. Schiff's rules, remember? Nunes tried to yield to Jordan instead of Castor and Schiff went off.

chimmy said:

---

He has a fair point--Castor is awful. The GOP should dump this guy, if they can. Have him call in sick tomorrow.

---

Castor could take a 15 minute nap during his time, the witnesses can say 100% of what the dems want. It doesn't matter, because the dems are "prosecuting" non-crimes and just pretending this is a big deal.

Their narrative will get blown up in the senate. So let them waste their time. Keep our good lawyers working on other things. Jim Jordan and Nunes are doing enough with their allotted time.

Just a reminder that a meeting with Zelensky no matter how much Zelensky might have wanted it, is not an official act under federal bribery statutes, according to SCOTUS.

aggiehawg said:

---

Just a reminder that a meeting with Zelensky no matter how much Zelensky might have wanted it, is not an official act under federal bribery statutes, according to SCOTUS.

---

aggiehawg,

Yes, that post of yours was noticed. That pretty much sinks this `shampeachment' from another direction.

In the end so far, none of these "witnesses" have offered anything other than "concerns" or "feelings". The Dems are prepared to impeach a sitting POTUS on the basis of policy differences of underlings because Trump moved their cheese. That's it. That's all they have. Dress it up as bribery or extortion all you want Dems, that dog ain't hunting any more than quid pro quo was.

4stringAg said:

---

In the end so far, none of these "witnesses" have offered anything other than "concerns" or "feelings". The Dems are prepared to impeach a sitting POTUS on the basis of policy differences of underlings because Trump moved their cheese. That's it. That's all they have. Dress it up as bribery or extortion all you want Dems, that dog ain't hunting any more than quid pro quo was.

---

Make no mistake -the system has failed. Had the Democrats taken the Senate -- it would be already happening--that "dog hunting". Its only because we held the Senate that some semblance of order can remain.

titan said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

In the end so far, none of these "witnesses" have offered anything other than "concerns" or "feelings". The Dems are prepared to impeach a sitting POTUS on the basis of policy differences of underlings because Trump moved their cheese. That's it. That's all they have. Dress it up as bribery or extortion all you want Dems, that dog ain't hunting any more than quid pro quo was.

---

Make no mistake -the system has failed. Had the Democrats taken the Senate -- it would be already happening--that "dog hunting". Its only because we held the Senate that some semblance of order can remain.

---

The Senate was a key of the 2018 elections. It is the firewall.

But, the Russian hoax was hot and heavy in the 2018 elections and probably was a huge swinging factor to turn the house dem. Talk about interference in domestic politics. And it worked. How different would this first trump term be if he had a unified congress.

titan said:

---

Can you answer this: What does rule of law and truth either one --- let alone respect for the process - have to do with the Democratic Party declaring insurgency in Inauguration week 2017?

What is your take on that? It determines all else.

---

Titan: Good grief. There is no insurgency. Nor is there a Deep State Coup comprised of career DOJ, CIA, FBI, State Dept folks.

Why the political rightwing has voluntarily chosen to surrender itself to deluded conspiracy theories since 2008 is a question that many Americans have wondered, myself included.

Political opposition to a POTUS does not = an "insurgency". Likewise, Mitch McConnell was not declaring a GOP insurgency when he said he wanted to make Obama a one-term President. Political parties and American citizens have always engaged in political opposition and in political rhetoric. Consider opening a history book and reacquainting yourself with one of the fundamental traits of American democracy, if you doubt what I'm saying.

You used to engage in serious examination of facts and critical thinking. Now you participate in deluded conspiracy theory threads, and you unquestioningly accept GIGO-level information from sources like Paul Sperry and Sean Davis. I'm surprised to see that. Whatever it is that has caused most of the rightwing to engage in silly conspiracy fantasies, it seems to have gotten a bit of a hold on you, too.

Looks like you and yours had another bad day. Hang in there etcetera.

MetoliusAg said:

---

titan said:

---

Can you answer this: What does rule of law and truth either one --- let alone respect for the process - have to do with the Democratic Party declaring insurgency in Inauguration week 2017?

What is your take on that? It determines all else.

---

Titan: Good grief. There is no insurgency. Nor is there a Deep State Coup comprised of career DOJ, CIA, FBI, State Dept folks.

Why the political rightwing has voluntarily chosen to surrender itself to deluded conspiracy theories since 2008 is a question that many Americans have wondered, myself included.

Political opposition to a POTUS does not = an "insurgency". Likewise, Mitch McConnell was not declaring a GOP insurgency when he said he wanted to make Obama a one-term President. Political parties and American citizens have always engaged in political opposition and in political rhetoric. Consider opening a history book and reacquainting yourself with one of the fundamental traits of American democracy, if you doubt what I'm saying.

You used to engage in serious examination of facts and critical thinking. Now you participate in deluded conspiracy theory threads, and you unquestioningly accept GIGO-level information from sources like Paul Sperry and Sean Davis. I'm surprised to see that. Whatever it is that has caused most of the rightwing to engage in silly conspiracy fantasies, it seems to have gotten a bit of a hold on you, too.

---

What the hell do you call the behavior since Inauguration Day? It was simple question -- you trying to turn it around using the talking point "conspiracy theory" does not evade that. Is an array of proclamations from 2017 really necessary?

That was not political opposition -that was declared intent to undermine from the start and has not let up.

So, let me just repeat the query: Are you calling what was done in January 2017 onward merely "political opposition." ?? The way every single thing Trump tried to do was undermined? The most interesting was the immigration deal that even many of the Dem voters wanted, but it was too important to not give Trump some `victory' and they started contradicting their prior stances.

It has nothing to do with believing the more far-out theories--- but the basic behavior engaged in. You have even your own candidates being accused of being Russian elements. Is this crazy behavior not obvious?

By the way, I don't know who either of these are:

Quote:

---

Now you participate in deluded conspiracy theory threads, and you unquestioningly accept GIGO-level information from sources like Paul Sperry and Sean Davis

---

GCP12 said:

---

If you question Metolius's belief that Donald Trump, world famous billionaire, ran for president to enrich himself and do Putin's bidding, he will call you a crazy right-wing conspiracy theorist.

Don't worry about the fact that he thinks the US president is a Russian agent.

---

The fact that Leftist actually believe a US President is a Russian Agent is the most outlandish, lunatic thought EVER held by weirdo Leftist (or anybody, for that matter). Anybody who believes that should be lampooned and driven from society. Yet, here we are with lunatic leftist running wild, even occupying seats in Congress, and now conducting a sham impeachment of the opposition party President. Strange times, indeed.

titan said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

titan said:

---

Can you answer this: What does rule of law and truth either one --- let alone respect for the process - have to do with the Democratic Party declaring insurgency in Inauguration week 2017?

What is your take on that? It determines all else.

---

Titan: Good grief. There is no insurgency. Nor is there a Deep State Coup comprised of career DOJ, CIA, FBI, State Dept folks.

Why the political rightwing has voluntarily chosen to surrender itself to deluded conspiracy theories since 2008 is a question that many Americans have wondered, myself included.

Political opposition to a POTUS does not = an "insurgency". Likewise, Mitch McConnell was not declaring a GOP insurgency when he said he wanted to make Obama a one-term President. Political parties and American citizens have always engaged in political opposition and in political rhetoric. Consider opening a history book and reacquainting yourself with one of the fundamental traits of American democracy, if you doubt what I'm saying.

You used to engage in serious examination of facts and critical thinking. Now you participate in deluded conspiracy theory threads, and you unquestioningly accept GIGO-level information from sources like Paul Sperry and Sean Davis. I'm surprised to see that. Whatever it is that has caused most of the rightwing to engage in silly conspiracy fantasies, it seems to have gotten a bit of a hold on you, too.

---

What the hell do you call the behavior since Inauguration Day? It was simple question -- you trying to turn it around using the talking point "conspiracy theory" does not evade that. Is an array of proclamations from 2017 really necessary?

That was not political opposition -that was declared intent to undermine from the start and has not let up.

So, let me just repeat the query: Are you calling what was done in January 2017 onward merely "political opposition." ?? The way every single thing Trump tried to do was undermined? The most interesting was the immigration deal that even many of the Dem voters wanted, but it was too important to not give Trump some `victory' and they started contradicting their prior stances.

It has nothing to do with believing the more far-out theories--- but the basic behavior engaged in. You have even your own candidates being accused of being Russian elements. Is this crazy behavior not obvious?

---

Funny how you think this behavior started with the Democrats.... Thinking back, maybe the ten Benghazi investigations were a bit overkill and came off as a little over zealous. But as the Republicans later admitted that it wasn't really about finding the truth but about hurting a candidate's chances. Could only imagine if Hillary won, I'm sure we would have investigation number eleven leading to articles of impeachment.

Quote:

---

Funny how you think this behavior started with the Democrats.... Thinking back, maybe the ten Benghazi investigations were a bit overkill and came off as a little over zealous. But as the Republicans later admitted that it wasn't really about finding the truth but about hurting a candidate's chances. Could only imagine if Hillary won, I'm sure we would have investigation number eleven leading to articles of impeachment.

---

You pretend that Hillary announced her candidacy while she's Secretary of State? Really?

Whataboutism....

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Funny how you think this behavior started with the Democrats.... Thinking back, maybe the ten Benghazi investigations were a bit overkill and came off as a little over zealous. But as the Republicans later admitted that it wasn't really about finding the truth but about hurting a candidate's chances. Could only imagine if Hillary won, I'm sure we would have investigation number eleven leading to articles of impeachment.

---

You pretend that Hillary announced her candidacy while she's Secretary of State? Really?

---

You're smarter than that....

Quote:

---

Funny how you think this behavior started with the Democrats.... Thinking back, maybe the ten Benghazi investigations were a bit overkill and came off as a little over zealous. But as the Republicans later admitted that it wasn't really about finding the truth but about hurting a candidate's chances. Could only imagine if Hillary won, I'm sure we would have investigation number eleven leading to articles of impeachment.

---

I actually very much doubt that. Not a right out of the gate stream of schemes and actions to just impeach for winning the election. Bringing up Benghazi is not a good idea, as it still doesn't smell very good -- and at best it was a masterpiece of impotent response.

I am not talking about `political opposition' but the level of it, and the tone and tactics used. And actually, every liberal know is ticked off by it. But they are `real' people and not the kind that are in party leadership or the media -- both worlds of absolute ideological bubbles.

You might note I am one of the ones on record scorning the Clinton impeachment.

Just an Ag said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

If you question Metolius's belief that Donald Trump, world famous billionaire, ran for president to enrich himself and do Putin's bidding, he will call you a crazy right-wing conspiracy theorist.

Don't worry about the fact that he thinks the US president is a Russian agent.

---

The fact that Leftist actually believe a US President is a Russian Agent is the most outlandish, lunatic thought EVER held by weirdo Leftist (or anybody, for that matter). Anybody who believes that should be lampooned and driven from society. Yet, here we are with lunatic leftist running wild, even occupying seats in Congress, and now conducting a sham impeachment of the opposition party President. Strange times, indeed.

---

It goes further. Some of them believe two of their candidates are, and now they are even running down President Obama's wave off about them being too radical. Surely Obama is a benchmark the Left can refer to??

aggiehawg said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Funny how you think this behavior started with the Democrats.... Thinking back, maybe the ten Benghazi investigations were a bit overkill and came off as a little over zealous. But as the Republicans later admitted that it wasn't really about finding the truth but about hurting a candidate's chances. Could only imagine if Hillary won, I'm sure we would have investigation number eleven leading to articles of impeachment.

---

You pretend that Hillary announced her candidacy while she's Secretary of State? Really?

---

You're smarter than that....

---

I'm certainly more informed than you. As to our relative intellectual capacities, I will let yours speak for itself.

---

Your own party leadership agrees with me, so you might want to consider....

leftcoastaggie said:

---

titan said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

titan said:

---

Can you answer this: What does rule of law and truth either one --- let alone respect for the process - have to do with the Democratic Party declaring insurgency in Inauguration week 2017?

What is your take on that? It determines all else.

---

Titan: Good grief. There is no insurgency. Nor is there a Deep State Coup comprised of career DOJ, CIA, FBI, State Dept folks.

Why the political rightwing has voluntarily chosen to surrender itself to deluded conspiracy theories since 2008 is a question that many Americans have wondered, myself included.

Political opposition to a POTUS does not = an "insurgency". Likewise, Mitch McConnell was not declaring a GOP insurgency when he said he wanted to make Obama a one-term President. Political parties and American citizens have always engaged in political opposition and in political rhetoric. Consider opening a history book and reacquainting yourself with one of the fundamental traits of American democracy, if you doubt what I'm saying.

You used to engage in serious examination of facts and critical thinking. Now you participate in deluded conspiracy theory threads, and you unquestioningly accept GIGO-level information from sources like Paul Sperry and Sean Davis. I'm surprised to see that. Whatever it is that has caused most of the rightwing to engage in silly conspiracy fantasies, it seems to have gotten a bit of a hold on you, too.

---

What the hell do you call the behavior since Inauguration Day? It was simple question -- you trying to turn it around using the talking point "conspiracy theory" does not evade that. Is an array of proclamations from 2017 really necessary?

That was not political opposition -that was declared intent to undermine from the start and has not let up.

So, let me just repeat the query: Are you calling what was done in January 2017 onward merely "political opposition." ?? The way every single thing Trump tried to do was undermined? The most interesting was the immigration deal that even many of the Dem voters wanted, but it was too important to not give Trump some `victory' and they started contradicting their prior stances.

It has nothing to do with believing the more far-out theories--- but the basic behavior engaged in. You have even your own candidates being accused of being Russian elements. Is this crazy behavior not obvious?

---

Funny how you think this behavior started with the Democrats.... Thinking back, maybe the ten Benghazi investigations were a bit overkill and came off as a little over zealous. But as the Republicans later admitted that it wasn't really about finding the truth but about hurting a candidate's chances. Could only imagine if Hillary won, I'm sure we would have investigation number eleven leading to articles of impeachment.

---

Benghazi was never spun into a weak attempt at impeachment. I also don't think anyone thought an actual crime occurred, just a huge scandal and ignoring their duty.

HRC impeachment would have been headlined by Clinton Foundation donations (Possible actual bribery), revealing classified information, and destroying evidence.

All actual crimes.

But please libs, keep up this charade. You are SOOoOooO close to proving the non-crime of quid pro quo.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Funny how you think this behavior started with the Democrats.... Thinking back, maybe the ten Benghazi investigations were a bit overkill and came off as a little over zealous. But as the Republicans later admitted that it wasn't really about finding the truth but about hurting a candidate's chances. Could only imagine if Hillary won, I'm sure we would have investigation number eleven leading to articles of impeachment.

---

You pretend that Hillary announced her candidacy while she's Secretary of State? Really?

---

You're smarter than that....

---

I'm certainly more informed than you. As to our relative intellectual capacities, I will let yours speak for itself.

---

Your own party leadership agrees with me, so you might want to consider....

---

That Hillary declared her candidacy for POTUS before Benghazi?

Answer the question.

aggiehawg said:

---

Setting a meeting or not setting a meeting is not an "official act" according to the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Holding: The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, makes it a crime for a public official to "receive or accept anything of value" in exchange for being "influenced in the performance of any official act." An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event -- without more -- does not fit that definition of "official act." Because jury instructions in the case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell were erroneous, and those errors are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, McDonnell's convictions are vacated.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 27, 2016.

---

LINK

---

Nice try, but the case facts are materially different, and McDonnell wouldn't apply.

The McDonnell decision had to do with a governor having a meeting with a donor to hear what "thing of value" the donor wanted in return for the donor's political donation. The Scotus ruled the meeting itself was not a thing of value nor was the decision to have a meeting with a donor an official act by the governor.

In Trump's case, we're talking about an official state visit to the White House for the President of Ukraine. The granting of a state visit to the Ukrainian head of state Zelensky was itself one of the "things of value" Trump was trading, and Trump's decision to grant it to Zelensky was indeed an official act since the President alone has the power to make that decision and meeting with foreign heads of state falls within the boundaries of official duties of the President.

Also, you conveniently didn't address the other "thing of value" that ex-DOJ prosecutor Whitis noted: the $400M+ in aid that Trump ordered withheld.

aggiehawg said:

---

Answer the question.

---

Talking to yourself?

titan said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just a reminder that a meeting with Zelensky no matter how much Zelensky might have wanted it, is not an official act under federal bribery statutes, according to SCOTUS.

---

aggiehawg,

Yes, that post of yours was noticed. That pretty much sinks this `shampeachment' from another direction.

---

No, it doesn't.

The bribery stuff is nonsensical. The reason GOP keeps bringing it up is because they know how stupid it makes the democrats look.

Oh Boy! MetoliusAg law with Hawg....

This aught to be good.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Funny how you think this behavior started with the Democrats.... Thinking back, maybe the ten Benghazi investigations were a bit overkill and came off as a little over zealous. But as the Republicans later admitted that it wasn't really about finding the truth but about hurting a candidate's chances. Could only imagine if Hillary won, I'm sure we would have investigation number eleven leading to articles of impeachment.

---

You pretend that Hillary announced her candidacy while she's Secretary of State? Really?

---

You doubt your boy Kevin McCarthy's admission?

On reflection, you answered my question actually.

Actually we can reach an agreement. My main basis for scorn is the behavior of the Left Democrats since Inauguration 2017 (nay, even election day) as really abnormal and beyond the usual partisanship. With things like undermining attempts to secure the border by any means necessary skating pretty close to having nefarious goals. Then you have trumped up Mueller matter, and the already built-in undermining set up by the prior admin. The Democrats have been trying to come up with a way to remove him since Jan 2017. Even the Bill Clinton one wasn't quite that flaky. So this latest effort to remove carries no gravitas - no weight -- is bogus.

However, you think the same behavior since Inauguration Day is sufficiently `normal' and with precedent as to think there is no grounds for concern. Nor does the Mueller thing look shady to you. Hence, the Schiff impeachment looks legitimate to you as much as it does not to me and using the same reference point, and by that belief about 2017, it holds up.

That difference is something we can agree on. How one sees the impeachment depends on how one sees the Left DNC-MSM "resistance" all the dossier and Mueller stuff, fighting securing the border, and actions since Jan 2017.

Okay. Perfect grounds to agree to disagree. The starting lens of how 2017 is viewed is too different. Simple. Has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or anything else-- just how those actions are differently seen.

Ag00Ag said:

---

Oh Boy! MetoliusAg law with Hawg.... This aught to be good.

---

It was fun for me (dunno if it was for her) the previous two times she and I tangled on legal stuff. I schooled her on the case facts of the FBI's search warrant for Manafort's rented storage unit, and I cleared up some of her misunderstandings about FISA warrants.

What I like about this setting is very little interruptions with the questions. Rapid firing questions.