Trump

[SydneyRover]

Meanwhile Greta Thunberg gets under the skin of the most powerful idiot in the world

   Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

    So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill! https://t.co/M8ZtS8okzE
    December 12, 2019

[SydneyRover]

This is an interesting article apart from the trump angle.

''Donald Trump is attacking both Jews and the left with one clean blow''

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/12/donald-trump-is-attacking-both-jews-and-the-left

[SydneyRover]

Nice barnet

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/donald-trump-mike-bloomberg-past-new-york-rivalry

[bpoolrover]

Been survives impeachment,complete waste of money for them as was never going to happen

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm not sure why you say that Bpool.

It needed 4 Republican Senators to vote against him to have him removed from office.

6 Republican Senators are on record as saying that they agree that he did commit the offences he was charged with. That clearly shows that a vote against him was a distinct possibility.

For reasons best known to themselves, 5 of those 6 voted in his favour.

[SydneyRover]

Been survives impeachment,complete waste of money for them as was never going to happen

That's like saying we shouldn't investigate crime because of the cost, but it's on the record forever trump has been impeached.

[bpoolrover]

No it’s not they don’t vote to see if guilty or not

[BillyStubbsTears]

What does a jury do Bpool?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Actually, one thing a jury DOES do is it gets to see evidence from questioning of witnesses.

6 of those Republican Senators went on the record saying that they believed Trump had done wrong.

Then all 6 voted against calling any witnesses.

Then 5 of those 6 voted in Trump's favour.

I suspect there would be one or two calls for a mistrial verdict if a normal jury told the judge they believed the defendant was guilty, said they didn't need witnesses, then voted to acquit the defendant.

And of course THIS is what it was about. Showing the Republican party in its true colours. And the key outcome,which will be amplified and replayed throughout this year is the fact that for the first time in US history, a senator has voted against a President from his party in an impeachment trial. And not just any senator. The last Republican Presidential candidate. He stood up in the Senate today and said Trump was guilty and should be removed from office.

That's a game changer.

[bpoolrover]

I have done just service and it is a joke but he was never going to get impeached was he so was a waste of money?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bpool.

Watch this. Watch every minute of it.

This is the last Republican to stand for President. Do you reckon HE thinks it's a waste of time? Watch him nearly break down with emotion when he describes the responsibility that he and his colleagues are trusted with to uphold their Constitution.

You REALLY think that's a waste of money? You've got an odd handle on democracy if that's the case.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Ds-rnsJo0_yI&ved=2ahUKEwjkt56xzrvnAhWzUBUIHRhfCkIQwqsBMAB6BAgEEAQ&usg=AOvVaw11dOqRnP1Ctcuvs0-xVYXt

By the way, if it's too long to watch, just look at 0:40-1:05 and then cut to 4:05.

Those clips WILL go down in history as the words of a man who puts his duty to his country and truth above party affiliation. You can how much that tears him apart. His colleagues should hang their heads in shame that they don't have his strength.

[bpoolrover]

The point is bst every person including you new that trump would not lose, if you were to sue someone and your solicitor said there is no chance you will win but it will cost you millions to do would you do it? My point about jury service was, you have republicans and democrats who were always going to vote for there own party, in jury service your only meant to go off facts, so yes morally yes try get trump impeached financially it was a joke, let him see rest of his time in office out then go to the public vote

[SydneyRover]

What about this bp, did you agree with jonson that it would be spaffing money against the wall?

''Police uncovering 'epidemic of child abuse' in 1970s and 80s PM told to say sorry for remark about ‘spaffing’ money up wall as 4,024 claims lead to guilty verdicts''

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/05/police-uncovering-epidemic-of-child-abuse-in-1970s-and-80s

[bpoolrover]

Not at all Sydney

[SydneyRover]

good as I was getting a little concerned that you might be wandering over to the dark side

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bpool.

Have you listened to that speech by Mitt Romney?

Do you get how serious the charges against Trump were?

Do you think he committed those offences?

Don't you think that Congress had a responsibility to History to follow through the impeachment process?

Why aren't you questioning WHY more Republican Senators didn't follow Romney's lead?

[bpoolrover]

That’s not the point thou bst, it was never going to happen and most media outlets seem to think all its done is made him stronger now, his approval rating in his party is at over 90 percent making him the second ever most popular president in that party according to a new poll, so no they were never going to turn on him were they? In this country if the cps no there is no chance of a conviction in a court of law then it does not go to court as would be pointless even if they thought they were guilty

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bpool. This is not remotely the same as a criminal trial. It's pointless to judge it by those standards.

Congress has a DUTY to press impeachment charges if they think there is a case. That is regardless of the prospect of conviction.

You are saying that, because Republican Senators:

1) refused to engage with the process
2) refused to allow witnesses
3) voted in favour of Trump despite having publicly stated that they believed he was guilty,

that Congress should ignore it's obligation under the Constitution.

Once again. Did you listen to that speech by Romney?

[bpoolrover]

Yes I did and I think he probably if not certainly is guilty that does not change the fact that he was never going to lose, tell me what was gained from them doing it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'll say it again.

Congress has a DUTY to take this action if there is evidence that the President has committed impeachable acts.

Mitt Romney said that explicitly and unambiguously in that speech.

[Sandy Lane]

BP, if you want to hear it from an American here is my two cents.

it was important to uphold our constitution - which deemed what he did a crime.  It was important to amass evidence (as it were) since one of the articles of impeachment was obs of justice - which he used to suppress emails, materials and witnesses.  What person would refuse to allow information and witnesses in a trial that could exonerate them?   Also, as you know he bribed an ally using previously approved congressional money to leverage Ukraine for his own political gain.

What is going to stop another president from asking for foreign help for their own political purposes.  This opens up our country to security concerns because that president is now beholden to that foreign power. 

So yes it was a lot of money as was the Mueller trial, but they were important to preserve democracy.  If the Dems did not look into what this president did and ask for a trial, imho they would have been as guilty as Trump of debasing the constitution.  Also I think the cost of the Mueller investigation was justified as it verified the true amount of Russian interference into our 2016 election, for one.

It’s important because Trump is impeached forever, and this is important so history is aware that he was accused of committing crimes against his own country.  Most ppl knew he would be acquitted, but many republican senators have admitted privately they are scared of him and his ability to not only block their re-elections, but threaten their family and future.  Not a good look for them and the US.  That’s what makes it so important what republican Mitt Romney did.  It gave us honest Americans hope for the future.

So yes I think it needed to be done regardless of cost.  As far as I can tell most people, except those who blindly follow him and his lies, believe the cost was justified. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Here's one Republican Senator explaining why she voted to acquit Trump, even though she believes he committed impeachable offences.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481782-collins-admits-comments-about-trump-learning-a-lesson-are-aspirational?amp=1&amp_recirculation=1

Senator Collins said, "The president [asked a foreign] federal government to investigate a political rival [my comment. That's an impeachable act. No debate whatsoever.] And he should not have done that. And I would hope that he would not do it again."

Then she was asked what made her hope he wouldn't do it again, given that that hope was the reason she gave for voting to acquit him. She'd said earlier in the week that she was sure Trump had learned a big lesson from this process and would commit offences like this in future, so she'd vote to acquit him.

Trump then spent most of his State of the Union address on Tuesday saying he'd done nothing wrong and he had nothing to apologise for.

Collins then voted to acquit him on Weds.

Then when asked what confidence she had that Trump would change, she said, "well I may have been wrong about that."

I wonder what people like that see when they look in the mirror. I wonder if they sense how history will treat them?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Yes I did and I think he probably if not certainly is guilty that does not change the fact that he was never going to lose, tell me what was gained from them doing it?

Making sure the American public know what a crook their President is, as well as what a lot of their Senators think about justice, that's what.

[SydneyRover]

I wonder if there is an opportunity for a private prosecution?

[MachoMadness]

Here's one Republican Senator explaining why she voted to acquit Trump, even though she believes he committed impeachable offences.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481782-collins-admits-comments-about-trump-learning-a-lesson-are-aspirational?amp=1&amp_recirculation=1

Senator Collins said, "The president [asked a foreign] federal government to investigate a political rival [my comment. That's an impeachable act. No debate whatsoever.] And he should not have done that. And I would hope that he would not do it again."

Then she was asked what made her hope he wouldn't do it again, given that that hope was the reason she gave for voting to acquit him. She'd said earlier in the week that she was sure Trump had learned a big lesson from this process and would commit offences like this in future, so she'd vote to acquit him.

Trump then spent most of his State of the Union address on Tuesday saying he'd done nothing wrong and he had nothing to apologise for.

Collins then voted to acquit him on Weds.

Then when asked what confidence she had that Trump would change, she said, "well I may have been wrong about that."

I wonder what people like that see when they look in the mirror. I wonder if they sense how history will treat them?

Collins is one of several particularly gutless Trump supporters I call the hand-wringers. They'll wring their hands and make these meek public statements that seem to indicate they're really agonising over how to vote, but when the chips are down they vote to support him every single time. I have no idea why anyone on the left holds out any hope for these people. I was surprised Romney actually went through with it. Collins is a lost cause, though.

[ravenrover]

The Russians have just announced the result of the next presidential election, congratulations Mr Trump

[BillyStubbsTears]

Here's one Republican Senator explaining why she voted to acquit Trump, even though she believes he committed impeachable offences.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481782-collins-admits-comments-about-trump-learning-a-lesson-are-aspirational?amp=1&amp_recirculation=1

Senator Collins said, "The president [asked a foreign] federal government to investigate a political rival [my comment. That's an impeachable act. No debate whatsoever.] And he should not have done that. And I would hope that he would not do it again."

Then she was asked what made her hope he wouldn't do it again, given that that hope was the reason she gave for voting to acquit him. She'd said earlier in the week that she was sure Trump had learned a big lesson from this process and would commit offences like this in future, so she'd vote to acquit him.

Trump then spent most of his State of the Union address on Tuesday saying he'd done nothing wrong and he had nothing to apologise for.

Collins then voted to acquit him on Weds.

Then when asked what confidence she had that Trump would change, she said, "well I may have been wrong about that."

I wonder what people like that see when they look in the mirror. I wonder if they sense how history will treat them?

Collins is one of several particularly gutless Trump supporters I call the hand-wringers. They'll wring their hands and make these meek public statements that seem to indicate they're really agonising over how to vote, but when the chips are down they vote to support him every single time. I have no idea why anyone on the left holds out any hope for these people. I was surprised Romney actually went through with it. Collins is a lost cause, though.

Susan Collins eh?

This is precisely what Democracy needs in the 21st Century.

https://mobile.twitter.com/asmith83/status/1225901847745093632

[BillyStubbsTears]

And...back into Trump's swamp of illegality we dive.

Julian Assange's lawyer has today claimed in court that he has a witness to a senior Republican approaching Assange with an offer from Trump to pardon him, but only if Assange publicly states that the Russians weren't the source of the Clinton emails that he released in 2016 (the ones that won Trump the election).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51566470

Of course it would be illegal for Trump to request a beneficial act and then pardon someone under criminal investigation.


Apparently, the senior Republican is Dana Rohrabacher. That's the man known as "Putin's Favourite Congressman", so often has he pleaded Russia's case in Congress.

Oh aye. And Rohrabacher is also big buddies with someone else you might know, who visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy a couple of days before Wikileaks published the Clinton e-mails. You might know him.



It's a f**king cess pit of corrupt self-interest, undermining democracy. They'll be brought to justice. Eventually. And you lot who have supported Farage and Trump will see it. Eventually.