Okay.
So stay with me, tell me if I missed something.
Last time there was widespread armed conflict in the US was the civil war. That conflict was kicked off by individual state legislatures voting to secede from the Union. You could wish for something like that again, but as of now the state legislatures are completely dominated by the same two-party system. The national parties use the state parties as their pawns, more or less.
The time before that, was the time that caused Jefferson to remark about the tree of liberty. That was Shay's rebellion. Shay's rebellion earned enough sympathy that Shay himself got an amnesty and the candidate favored by most of the rebels won the next governor's election. The Shay's rebellion gave us the constitutional convention. Jefferson was actually writing to argue against convening a constitutional convention, saying that rebellions like Shay's should happen from time to time.
So look around today.
Which group of people is most like Daniel Shays?

In simple terms, people that wear MAGA hats have already started the revolution.  Your party is being left behind since it's been taken over by socialists.

The people that wear the MAGA hats won an ordinary election. They either took over or, depending on your perspective, got taken over by one of the two parties. It amounts to a rearranging of the deck chairs, if we're talking about solving the problem of a two-party system..

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Im buying a MAGA hat now. Or 20

---

The people that wear the MAGA hats won an ordinary election. They either took over or, depending on your perspective, got taken over by one of the two parties. It amounts to a rearranging of the deck chairs, if we're talking about solving the problem of a two-party system..

Yes, it was an ordinary election - until half the country refused to accept the result.  That's the definition of a Civil War.

---

The Republicans should allow witnesses and call every government employee in those agencies. Force the Democrats running for president to spend all year in DC for every day. No campaigning for you.

---

I didn't take it to mean that at all. 

If the claim is that the president's re-election is in the national interest, therefore doing whatever necessary to achieve said re-election (inferring that includes the solicitation of foreign assistance in doing so) isn't impeachable...that's a hell of a slippery slope. 

Am I not hearing the Dershword Salad with ranch correctly?

I read more of what Dershowitz said, and it sounds like you understood him correctly.  
He's wrong.  
The US Constitution can never work this way.

What if Obama had sent some FBI spooks to provoke riots in Republican heavy parts of swing atates, and then cracked down on those riots right before election day?
He would be allowed to do that, right? If he thinks his party winning the election is in the national interest?

Any Senator voting to acquit must publicly reject Dershowitz' argument or else forfeit their claim to be supporting and defending the Constitution.

...  I must be going insane.  

Alan Dershowitz said, "If the president has mixed motives, on the one hand to act in the national interest (meaning that the underlying use of official office is in and of itself in the national interest) but there also exists personal political interest (It might make my election chances better) then that's not a corrupt intent or an abuse of power."  

I've only been saying this for what... Two months now?  He's not saying that the fact the president faces Re-elect is exculpatory, he's saying that it ultimately irrelevant as long as the underlying official act is properly predicated.  As it relates to initiating an investigation, it is based SOLELY ON WETHER OR NOT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD FIND THE FACT PATTERN SUFFICENT TO WARRANT FURTHER INQUIRY.  Pam Bondi laid out the case for it.  

Conversely, and most hypocritically, it is the Democrats that argue SOLELY BECAUSE JOE BIDEN IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE that he is granted defacto immunity from prosecution because suddenly he's a "political opponent" no matter what the underlying fact pattern is.  

The most delicious part of the whole thing is that with every passing day we learn more and more about the proven facts that Biden's former administration did in fact solicit foreign governments to investigate the Trump campaign SPECIFICALLY TO GET AROUND the standard of probable cause or reasonable suspicion and violate the constitutional rights of American Citizens.  We know that his party paid money to Russian and Ukrainian officials for false information used in the Steele Dossier.  They used active human sources to try and infiltrate the campaign.  We know that Jim Comey and the FBI lied about Michael Flynn's candor during his interview and we are now learning that they targeted his family members to coerce him into a guilty plea.  Paul Manafort was thrown in Jail based largely in part based on Ukrainian Propoganda and thrown in solitary to try and get him to flip on the president.  

But you want to sit there and pearl Clutch because the president of the United States paused aid for 6 weeks, never told his Ukrainian counterparts to exert leverage, and released the aid when lobbied by congressional republicans just because he mentioned the fact that Joe Biden committed extortion in plain sight?  Please.  

LIARS.  @#$* LIARS.  

I used to be a liberal.  The mental gymnastics required to keep such a twisted narrative going for the sake of #ORANGEMANBAD is just too much.  

Long and Short, theres reason to believe that Joe Biden is corrupt.  Him running for president doesn't change that.  #HATEONALANIFUWANTTO

---

Conversely, and most hypocritically, it is the Democrats that argue SOLELY BECAUSE JOE BIDEN IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE that he is granted defacto immunity from prosecution because suddenly he's a "political opponent" no matter what the underlying fact pattern is.  

Tell me which of the Democrats impeachment managers said this, and when.
Or are you lying?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I read more of what Dershowitz said, and it sounds like you understood him correctly.  
He's wrong.  
The US Constitution can never work this way.

What if Obama had sent some FBI spooks to provoke riots in Republican heavy parts of swing atates, and then cracked down on those riots right before election day?
He would be allowed to do that, right? If he thinks his party winning the election is in the national interest?

Any Senator voting to acquit must publicly reject Dershowitz' argument or else forfeit their claim to be supporting and defending the Constitution.

...  I must be going insane.  

Alan Dershowitz said, "If the president has mixed motives, on the one hand to act in the national interest (meaning that the underlying use of official office is in and of itself in the national interest) but there also exists personal political interest (It might make my election chances better) then that's not a corrupt intent or an abuse of power."  

""If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is of the public interest."

Dershowitz is saying we don't have to, and should not, try to decide for ourselves what's in the national interest to answer this question.  He's saying that all that matters is if the President believes it's in the national interest. This is already incorrect. Senators can and should decide for themselves what the national interest is. That's bad enough. Then Dersh adds that the President is allowed to think of his re-election as being in the national interest for the purposes of this question.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Conversely, and most hypocritically, it is the Democrats that argue SOLELY BECAUSE JOE BIDEN IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE that he is granted defacto immunity from prosecution because suddenly he's a "political opponent" no matter what the underlying fact pattern is.  

Tell me which of the Democrats impeachment managers said this, and when.
Or are you lying?

I'm sorry.  Have they or have they not framed this entire mess based on election interference?

---

...  I must be going insane.  

Alan Dershowitz said, "If the president has mixed motives, on the one hand to act in the national interest (meaning that the underlying use of official office is in and of itself in the national interest) but there also exists personal political interest (It might make my election chances better) then that's not a corrupt intent or an abuse of power."  

""If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is of the public interest."

Dershowitz is saying we don't have to, and should not, try to decide for ourselves what's in the national interest to answer this question.  He's saying that all that matters is if the President believes it's in the national interest. This is already incorrect.  Senators can and should decide for themselves what the national interest is. That's bad enough.  Then Dersh adds that the President is allowed to think of his re-election as being in the national interest for the purposes of this question.

"The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal,"

Again, what is he saying?  The facial legality of the underlying act is determinative of corrupt intent.  Why?  Because political self interest and political subjectivity is universal!  

So in this case we'll say it again for the slow people.  Is there probable cause to suspect joe biden of acting in his personal financial and legal interest?  Yes!  Was that in an arena that rose to federal criminality?  Yes.  Does the president have the authority to direct properly predicated investigations?  Yes.  Does he have the constitutional, statutory, and treaty obligations to root out corruption in our relationship with Ukraine? Yes.  Does he have the authority to pause aid ultimately released before the end of the fiscal year without  special message to congress?  Yes.  

So you have completely lawful actions and pedication to investigate a us citizen.  As such, the fact that joe biden is running for president or that Trump is running for president isn't a corrupt intent.  It would be a corrupt intent if a.) It were plainly unlawful or b.) It benefited the president financially.  

In campaign finance law this is why they dont define "thing of value" to include things like damaging information on an opponent, official actions that may be favorable to a campaign etc. Etc. Because all politicians undertake their LEGAL OFFICIAL DUTIES with the interest of getting elected.  The foundation of a democratic society is the synthesis between the interest of the official to be re-elected and thus the accountability to voters who have an interest in good governance.  

If u want to impeach the next president because their immigration plan polled well then were going to be here for a while.

---

Tell me which of the Democrats impeachment managers said this, and when.
Or are you lying?

I'm sorry.  Have they or have they not framed this entire mess based on election interference?

Here's a difference between you and me: I answer rather than avoid questions.
Yes, the Democrats are calling what Trump did "election interference."
But they did not say that Joe Biden is immune from investigation.  Hillary got investigated.  So did Trump.  The Democrats are saying that there was no reasonable suspicion to investigate Joe or Hunter. They acknowledge that Hunters position looks like a conflict of interest.  But a prosecutor has to care about more than that.  He has to have at least one specific, written crime in mind before he should investigate, and certainly before he announces to the public that he is investigating.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm sorry.  Have they or have they not framed this entire mess based on election interference?

Here's a difference between you and me: I answer rather than avoid questions.
Yes, the Democrats are calling what Trump did "election interference."
But they did not say that Joe Biden is immune from investigation.  Hillary got investigated.  So did Trump.  The Democrats are saying that there was no reasonable suspicion to investigate Joe or Hunter. They acknowledge that Hunters position looks like a conflict of interest.  But a prosecutor has to care about more than that.  He has to have at least one specific, written crime in mind before he should investigate, and certainly before he announces to the public that he is investigating.

In other news, Victor Shokin filed a criminal complaint against joe biden for illicit influene....

Extortion... corrupt practuces... misappropriation of funds....  and if u get a prosecutor fired just to protect your kid that's bad right?

The framing of the argument as "election interference" is a direct reference to bidens status as a political opponent being an aggravating factor when in fact it's irrelevant.  And you're free to disagree that there is probable cause.  So is Schiff Pelosi and the rest of u.  That's not the question.  In determining corrupt intent you have to determine if ANY reasonable person would find it suspicious.  Unfortunately for u, even the precious news sites you cling to pointed out that having your son go to work for a corrupt oligarch ALREADY UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION is a bad idea.  

Play stupid games, you win stupid prizes....

---

I'm sorry.  Have they or have they not framed this entire mess based on election interference?

Here's a difference between you and me: I answer rather than avoid questions.
Yes, the Democrats are calling what Trump did "election interference."
But they did not say that Joe Biden is immune from investigation.  Hillary got investigated.  So did Trump.  The Democrats are saying that there was no reasonable suspicion to investigate Joe or Hunter. They acknowledge that Hunters position looks like a conflict of interest.  But a prosecutor has to care about more than that.  He has to have at least one specific, written crime in mind before he should investigate, and certainly before he announces to the public that he is investigating.

Dawg. I can't believe you come back every day to post here.

There has to be better things you could do with your time.

---

Here's a difference between you and me: I answer rather than avoid questions.
Yes, the Democrats are calling what Trump did "election interference."
But they did not say that Joe Biden is immune from investigation.  Hillary got investigated.  So did Trump.  The Democrats are saying that there was no reasonable suspicion to investigate Joe or Hunter. They acknowledge that Hunters position looks like a conflict of interest.  But a prosecutor has to care about more than that.  He has to have at least one specific, written crime in mind before he should investigate, and certainly before he announces to the public that he is investigating.

Dawg. I can't believe you come back every day to post here.

There has to be better things you could do with your time.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is funny. Nadler rushes back to the podium, completely ignoring protocol and Schiff's attempts to stop him, to get a last ladleful at the buffet of stupid. 

https://twitter.com/julio_rosas11/status...8060758021

---

Nadler ran for that lectern like it was Golden Corral. He would not be denied by the pencil-neck whispering, Jerry Jerry Jerry....

---

Can you imagine being in a place in your life where you hate Donald Trump so much that you put your faith in clowns like Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff? I mean, waking up and having to look at yourself in the mirror every morning just praying that these guys know what they are doing is hard to think about. It is embarrassing.

---

Uh, oh! The NYT is releasing more information! 

What an absolute clown show.

---

Uh, oh! The NYT is releasing more information! 

What an absolute clown show.

Yes, it is. All participants.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Impeachment is serious business, dammit! Don't make me pull this press conference over!

https://twitter.com/anangbhai/status/122...ment-trial

---

Trump should give Pelosi a Stone Cold Stunner on the podium at SOTU.

---