(12-10-2019, 12:07 PM)Gabe Wrote:

(12-09-2019, 10:21 PM)hailtoyourvictor Wrote: Thats not what he said. He said he has no bias left or right and pokes holes in all political b/s. I’m just waiting for an example of a single time he poked a hole in anything on the left. 

I’d even settle for 99% vs 1%. Any. Single. Post. Criticizing the. Left. 


I haven’t seen any.

Been swamped at work for a little bit and still dealing/reeling with the biz closure. Doing my best to passively pay attention while becoming increasingly passive about the Jags. 

Personally, I thought the "left" - meaning Schiff and Nadler - opted to bunt instead of swing for the fences. I think it's much harder, at least in this case, to prove abuse of power vs. obstruction of justice. The meat of this investigation was essentially not even present w/o testimonies from Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. At the very least, Pompeo should have testified. Why they didn't make a bigger deal of this I don't know.  

Additionally, I thought the legal expert testimonies were fluff and a big waste of time...basically fodder for both sides to use to their advantage. Three of em said this, one of them said that - proving "my side" is right. Nadler (as opposed to Schiff) seemed incompetent as Judiciary chair, looked/sounded flustered more often than gaining control of decorum.  If I never have to hear the drama queen Matt Gaetz speak another word, I can die a little more content. Nunes is in some pretty hot water, whether he realizes it or not. 

In all, I think it's probably fine to vote for impeachment now on one of two articles (obstruction) - I think abuse of power would need more time for discovery. I have expectations that it won't last in the Senate unless there's a deep republican state to do what Graham posited they should have done way back in 2016 (i.e. kick him [Trump] out of the GOP). I've read that when it comes to a Senate vote, theoretically a passive-aggressive move to remove him would be for 30 senators to simply not show up that day. 

Given all this, the House's job with impeachment is to essentially determine if they want to indict the President - then send it over to the Senate for Roberts to preside over the case. You can indict with less-than-optimal evidence, but I'd feel better as a citizen if all due-diligence was done, rather than acting quickly for the sake of speed. Maybe the latter isn't the case, but it certainly feels 50% that way. 

I also think Trump is sundowning and it's disheartening to watch.