Anyone wondering why the President of the United States doesn't know the difference between Kansas and Missouri? Miss Teen U.S.A. from South Carolina has the answer:
"U.S. Americans... some-a people in our nation don't have maps!"
Correct. Some-a Americans don't. Some-a of them live in the White House. Some-a of them are dumber than a bag of rocks, more corrupt than Caligula and endorsed by the KKK. Some-a of them are. Really.
 |
| KKK's Best in Show |
But, I digress.
This blog is about Hoboken-- not a depraved, lawless imbecile and his feckless Congressional Cult of Castratos who voted for an impeachment trial without witnesses! Now we know that America is no better than North Korea; our Dear Leader could get away with murder, too- just ask Alan Dershowitz.
This blog is about Hoboken-- not a depraved, lawless imbecile and his feckless Congressional Cult of Castratos who voted for an impeachment trial without witnesses! Now we know that America is no better than North Korea; our Dear Leader could get away with murder, too- just ask Alan Dershowitz.
FULL 2/5 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Miss South Carolina sounds no dumber than many on our city council, or the three members of the public who drone on at every meeting.
ReplyDeleteThe 1st impeachment in America had no witnesses. All the House managers that were there for Clinton (11 high crimes, 6 felonies) voted against witnesses. it was called the Biden-Schumer Rule. It is not the job for Senate to make up for the House deficiencies. Both Nixon and Clinton trials in the House took over 1 year, not 48 days as they went to court to enforce the subpoenas. Only one was issued by the House for Dr. Charles Kupperman who took the unprecedented step of asking for a court ruling. The House then withdrew the subpoena. I could post a hundred Democratic House members who said the information they had was more than sufficient to convict Trump. The fact is that Nixon truly abused power by having the FBI and IRS to go after his political opponents. Just like Obama used the IRS and OSHA to go after his. This is the 1st Presidential impeachment which has no crimes listed unlike Johnson (law later invalidated by SCOTUS), Nixon or Clinton. As Dershowitz said you could impeach at least 40 US Presidents with the flimsy evidence in this case.
ReplyDeleteScott, America's 1st impeachment was Andrew Johnson and the Senate called 41 witnesses. The second impeachment was Clinton and there were 3 witnesses. This is the first Presidential Senate impeachment trial in American History in which no witnesses were called.
ReplyDeleteConstitutionally, the Senate's "job" as you call it is to conduct a trial and then render a verdict based on the evidence. There is literally zero support either in Constitution or in the precedent for the idea that the Senate is limited to the record developed in the House.
While the Constitution gives the Senate the power to define it's "job"in a Senate trial any way it wants, the way the Senate defined it's "job" in this case is both unprecedented and certainly not consistent with a search for truth.
At least Senator Alexander was honest enough to say that no more evidence was needed because the wrongdoing was already proven beyond any doubt.
Senators who say that Trump didn't do are being dishonest. Senators who say that its not proven to their satisfaction that Trump did it wgile refusing to review relevent evidence are being dishonest. Senators who say even if he did it it's not wrong are are either being dishonest or revealing their own lack of moral compass and/or backbone.
The only honest argument available for Republicans is he did it, it's wrong, the Senate could constitutionally remove him from office, but in their personal opinion it shouldn't.
That's what Senator Alexander said. So far, he has the distinction of being the only honest Republican in the Senate. We shall see if any not retiring Senators have the courage and honesty to follow his lead.
The only honest positions a republican can take are
Scott lives in a world where facts don't matter, and to people like him, untruths are real. No other reason explains why he would state something so strongly as factual when a 2 minute web search would make the truth clear.
ReplyDeleteScott is a good man who is a strong committed advocate for people and causes he believes in.
DeleteI think many of us, like Scott, accept and repeat BS from our own "side" too easily not only in national politics but locally as well.
There would be a whole lot less BS put out, and government at every level would work better, if we called BS on our own side's BS instead of repeating it.
Unfortunately, few are willing to do that because whatever our "side"does wrong we fear acknowledging it will empower the "other side" and make things worse. And that may even sometimes be true.
Which is why telling the truth is sometimes hard and even good people like Scott are prone to putting their heads in the sand when they should know better.
Facts don't matter? How about an impeachment with no crimes attached? 1st 100% totally partisan vote? No Presidential lawyer at House hearing? Hearsay evidence almost 100% not allowed in Federal court hearings? 18th witness testimony not released? All 17 witnesses said there was no impeachable crime? Secret hearings not available to public, after stating there was nothing classified? No vote to start impeachment, despite a SCOTUS ruling requiring one? Republicans in House not allowed to call witnesses? Republicans not allowed to ask all the questions they wanted to? Should be 1st time not even 50 votes to convict? All 3 Clinton witnesses were already heard by House, there were no new witnesses. You picked 1 Senator, how statements from the other 52? Just because they don't like Trump, his politics or actions is no way to vote for impeachment.
ReplyDeleteScott, turning a discussion about wrongdoing into a debate about procedures is a deflection.
DeleteIt's reasonable to believe that the impeachment by the House was political and poorly handled. It's reasonable to believe that other Presidents have done worse things than what Trump was impeached for without being impeached. It's reasonable to believe that removing a President from office less than a year before an election for the charged offense you would be wrong for the country.
It is not reasonable to deny that there is a mountain of evidence establishing what occurred. It's not reasonable to deny that the President has withheld still more evidence directly relevent to the issue. It is not reasonable to deny that the Senate failed to even pretend it was engaged in a search for truth.
Republicans have not done a disservice to their country by failing to remove Trump - that is a defensible position.
But by taking on Trump's persona and lying and stonewalling every step of the way they have betrayed their oaths.
Trump improperly pressured Ukraine for personal political gain. It was wrong but in your opinion not impeachable. Why is that so hard to say?
If Republicans were comfortable with that truth they wouldn't have to refuse to hear evidence and lie about the evidence before them.
Why didn't you mention that Alexander was a no vote on witnesses and I'll bet will be no vote on both articles of impeachment? The Constitution is quite clear, a President can only be impeached for " treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors". Back in the day there no felonies so misdemeanors are akin to felonies. Show where these caveats are in the 2 articles of impeachment?
ReplyDeleteScott - let's leave the Constitutional debate to the Constitutional scholars - though it's worth noting that if impeachment required reference to the criminal code, each time Congress amended the federal bribery statute they would be effectively amending the Constitution's impeachment provisions, and that is pretty obviously it seems to me quite clear that is not what the framers intended.
ReplyDeleteSimple question. Senator Alexander explained his vote against witnesses saying witnesses weren't needed because the case was already proven by substantial evidence. He said what Trump did was wrong. However he explained he would nevertheless vote for acquittal because he felt that the wrongdoing fell short of the standard needed to remove the President from office less than a year before the election.
Do you agree with Senator Alexander or not?
Numberscruncher - Anyone who would defend the self-admitted sexual assaulter, emoluments clause-breaking criminal, thief of goods and services at his numerous property holdings, illegitimately-elected and now impeached POTUS, is not a "good man".
ReplyDeleteTrump's job approval in the latest Gallup poll is up to 49%. I think quite a few of the people who comprise that 49%,are good men and women and Scott certainly belongs in that category.
ReplyDeleteHe was a tireless fighter for real reform in Hoboken and, as a private citizen, donated many hours of his time helping to get the City on a better track. In my opinion Hoboken owes Scott and many citizens like him a debt of gratitude notwithstanding how strongly we disagree on national politics.