John Maplethorpe said:hairloom said:thanks for more leftist lecturing trash. When the acquittal occurs there's your proof of no QPQ.John Maplethorpe said:
Tennessee isn't purple as you pointed out. Whether a state is purple has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Has any senator denied the illicit QPQ since the house made its case and Bolton leak? I don't think so.
It's beyond absurd at this point that anybody would deny it, he's lying about it, and it will keep getting confirmed for months.
"Yeah it was wrong but I don't want to remove" is the only honest position left.
Several of the jurors voting to acquit said there was an obvious QPQ.
OJ got 12 acquittal votes, that's not an exoneration. Especially since Senate Republicans participated in the cover-up. Trump has to keep lying because he knows no other way.
Explain the cover up. I agree that Trump himself lied that there was no QPQ. But Mulvaney et al have said from very early on that, yes there was QPQ. That's normal. The question becomes, was it for personal gain and rise to a high crime and misdemeanor.
Much like him saying he has nothing to do with Russia, he lied because the media and democrat blowback makes him think something is illegal about it, so his impulse is to lie about it publically and let his legal team sort it all out. I'm not defending that. It's part of many deep character flaws. But it's not illegal to do business in Russia nor is it illegal or an abuse of power to ask a foreign leader to get to the bottom of something you think is part of a larger pattern of corruption. Like I've said from the outset. The problem shouldn't be Trump asking. The problem should be that a former VP and his child are potentially one part of a much larger problem of corruption throughout our foreign policy apparatus.
Putting Biden as opponent aside for a moment here. The linkages between members of the NCS, Biden, DNC, Congressional Dems, and the Ukraine, has become pretty plain to see. Now maybe it's all legit. Maybe all of these relationships and interrelationships are normal. But at some point the over the top reactions to certain things Trump is picking at have to beg the observation, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".
Going back to the "Jury" here for a moment. For me the key jurors response to all of this, including witnesses, is Rand Paul. The man has stood against Trump on many things in the last 3 years. His entire reputation is built upon being a contrarian if and when he sees something as a government or power overreach. Is he perfect, no? But its really hard for me to look back on Paul's entire career and think, if there was a legitimate need for witnesses Paul would be the first guy to ignore it. Or, if there was an abuse of power, Paul would ignore it. The man was thoroughly unconvinced of anything the House was selling. Why? Is it because hes an agent of Trump? Haha, no. Man is not an always trumper. He's also not one to protect the GOP brand at all costs. He was an enormous critic of Bush. He's been a constant critic of the Neocon factions of the GOP. I don't think Paul is always right, but I do beleive he always calls them the way he seems them. If there was something truly untoward about this situation, he would have been calling for witnesses. Or more properly, calling for the house to go back to the drawing board and put together a proper case. Instead, he was adamant, there is no case here. A man who is HYPER-Sensative to the executive branch encroaching on civil liberties and HYPER-Sensative to American entanglements in foreign affairs. Who takes his role of accountability on the executive branch more seriously than almost anyone on the Hill, this man saw nothing to complain about when it came to the evidence of the the Trump call. Why? Was he paid off? Was he traded something more important to him? Did he see this as a great way to stick it the Democrats?
My money is on he knows something is very wrong with the personal entanglements of members of congress and others inside Ukraine and many other countries and that hes not going to drag out a sham impeachment of Trump for being a dope in the ways he goes about finding these things out and uncovering them. Is Trump a hero here? No, hes a flawed leader going about his way in flawed ways, but I do think he's an outsider taking a look around and asking lots of questions and challenging a lot of SOPs and conventional wisdom of pretty much everything. That's destabilizing, to be sure. But rocking the boat isnt illegal or impeachable.
Has Trump taken being called a Russian operative and traitor and racists and rapist and dictator and stupid and on and on for 3 years, personally? Yes, wouldn't you? I know I would.
Like I've said from the outset. It can be true that Trump is going about his business in all the wrong ways AND the Dems are corrupt liars trying to impeach a President for any little thing they can possibly find.
. 
