posted December 19, 2019 03:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
So much gas lighting going on from the right here...its the trump supporters who are the danger

Trump is advocating violence in his supporters, he has threatened that they may revolt, he has encouraged hitting people during his rallies...find some similar behavior from pelosi if you can

---

If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun.

“fight in Congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box.”

“Maybe someone will assassinate him,”

Urging people to march, bleed, and die in the streets.

"I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House,”

“people have to die,” over the election results.

“If we don’t do something about this president, I will,”

posted December 19, 2019 05:18 PM            

Now, they're getting cold feet, prosecutor shivers and holding off sending their cooked up, phony impeachment to the US Senate for trial.

Now, demokrats want to investigate more...but, the impeachment in the House is all about the investigation. That's supposed to done, complete and over with.

posted December 19, 2019 05:23 PM            

During a press conference on Thursday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) stated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is admitting defeat by not sending articles of impeachment over to the Senate.

posted December 19, 2019 06:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
[b]McCarthy: Pelosi Admitting Defeat by Not Sending Impeachment Articles
Ian Hanchett
19 Dec 2019

During a press conference on Thursday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) stated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is admitting defeat by not sending articles of impeachment over to the Senate.

McCarthy said, Now, we have the own speaker of the House who is so embarrassed that she admits the failure of this impeachment that she will not even send it to the Senate. She's admitting defeat by not sending it, by refusing to send the impeachment over, she knows this outcome is not good. She knows the facts are not there. There's no basis for it.
http://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/12/19/mccarthy-pelosi-admit ting-defeat-by-not-sending-impeachment-articles/ [/B]

---

posted December 19, 2019 07:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Where's the high crime or misdemeanor? Neither Article alleges a real crime. Fake impeachment!

---

posted December 19, 2019 08:05 PM            

But, the impeachment of Trump was such an urgent matter that waiting to call real 'fact witnesses' was unthinkable.

As usual, demokrats lie. No urgency whatsoever or those Articles of Impeachment would already be in the US Senate.

posted December 20, 2019 11:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Where's the high crime or misdemeanor?

---

Gently--- This was defined and explained on the days of the first hearings that lay the foundation.
Involved 'what' impeachment is, and 'why' this provision was made.

One of the definitions involved 'what is meant' by the term high crimes and misdemeanors as-written in the language of the Constitution.

Congress and anyone who watched the broadcasts remotely {like myself!} were educated {and treated} to this history lesson, and 'definition of terms used'.

Here is a youtube from last October. Describes and includes history of previously impeached presidents; explains what is meant "Constitutionally" by the term high crimes and misdemeanors.

Constitutional Law Language
is different from common-day English definition of terms

(topic) .. What Are ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’?
(WSJ, October 7, 2019, *educational*)
[5:54] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M58f1YXM40

Definition and Historical implementation

*~
This might be really simplistic!

Say that YOU 'hire' a person to manage a part of your household or business for you. It involves your giving them carte-blanche, a blank-check permission. You give the key to your front door-- and you TRUST them. You don't expect them to misuse or steal your belongings, your reputation. You hired them because of their qualifications to do the job, AND, trust that they make their decisions according to how you run your affairs.

This decision to hire for the job implies that you have a "trust" in their innate Character and Integrity. You expect them to handle all-things with for you. They represent 'you' to others in the business world, and social interactions and reputation.

If anything seems a bit-questionable, you have the right to ask them to come-into-account. They explain reasoning behind decisions they made, according to the way (the rules) that you expect them to follow as they represent your interests.

If any errors are made, then corrections happen. Maybe further meetings for Understanding with you, perhaps they needed further training or mentoring? Your doing-so says that you have not lost-trust with them to represent your interests.

*~

Let's go back to the 'example' I left in another post about my ex-husband, who told (a lie to) my kids that he was NOT breaking the rule (of Law) about 'Drinking and Driving'.

Drink … + … Drive
On the way home, he would drive to the package store.
My kids were waiting in the backseat.
He would go into the package store.
Come back to the parked car.
Enter.
Would open and guzzle (two) beer(s).
Start the car.
And drive the rest of the way home.

He would emotionally VEHEMENTLY claim that he was NOT "factually" 'Drinking-and-Driving'--
as the kids had reported to me {?little whistleblowers?},
which then, I challenged him about.

He also intimidated the kids by expressing HIS disappointment in them {meaning that they had a special~private relationship with secrets from me} when he accused them {in front of me} of being 'snitches'??

I felt betrayed. My 'trust' in him to do the right thing-- by my kids, my own car, and that he was putting lives in jeopardy-- was VIOLATED.

My TRUST I had in him... that he Could or WOULD "make right-decisions" (on my behalf) was broken.

He consciously knew-better.
As an adult, he understood the implications.
He was aware of the spirit of the meaning behind drinking and driving.

My ex elected to lie and attempt to TWIST and deceive my children as to 'what' the rule of law meant;
and further disregarding the public-safety,
as he made the personal choice to go rogue-to the wisdom behind the Laws and rule NOT to drink+drive.
Dishonest.

It was an uncovering reflection to me about an unknown character flaw I didn't realize he had.

Oh!.. someone in that other thread asked me if we were still together?

No.

We married on Dec. 26th of that year, Day after Christmas.
Judge signed the Divorce Decree for Dec 21st, ~8 years later.

{This time of year holds bittersweet memories of events from my past...
AND, good memories of Christmas Seasons Past too.
It's my Favorite time of year.
Holds sorrows and joys. I've had a rich life.
And I hope The Lord allows me more years, healthy years, with which to make Good Memories.}

I know its early, but
Merry Christmas,
Happy Holidays,
And
Happy Healthy VERY Prosperous New Year.

I'm sure they'll be a thread here for that later.

posted December 20, 2019 01:28 PM            

What you provided about the woman who suggested 'assassination' (then retracted what she said as 'wrong') is exactly what I was trying to say.

There are some mentally unbalanced {even emotionally-enraged} individuals (or group) who are at an ovewhelmed "tipping-point" who could 'lose' their mind or composure, and IN that moment 'chose' to act-out whatever inner-rage they had.

That woman who SAID it, would have definitely been a 'trigger' for these individuals. Although each individual is held-responsible by law for 'what' they did, this woman COULD just have been the-straw that 'broke the camel's back'?
.. She would carry the 'inner-blame' in her conscience, for having INCITED these off-balanced persons to ACT out that plan, which they probably had been conceiving before she 'released' the idea from her lips.

Recently in the news, there was a story about a woman who badgered her boyfriend (by tweets) to commit suicide. He did. There's a judge and court that holds her responsible for his death.

Trump has been defending white nationalists and neo-nazis by his NON-sensitivity regarding the pain of the racially hurt by hatred and hate-crimes. {He's also mocking persons with disabilities and grieving-individuals.}

Truly and personally, I was SHOCKED by the neo-nazis being SO vociferous and up in the front sections during his rallies and run for election. It ran a cold-chill through my soul. I was deeply and very-afraid as I heard their 'heils'. Echoed what happened in Nazi Germany at start of the 1900s.

He, as commander and chief, who didn't squelch their behaviors, has emboldened these HATE groups to murders and destruction.

In giving him a 'benefit of doubt',
I wonder "how aware" he truly IS of his words-- the effects on crowds and individuals as he uses his dramatic style of expressive-speech. Does he "realize" that people-who-love-him have been acting-out some of the violent things he has said to 'do'? I have heard some other scary things from mouths of supporters. They are READY to start a civil-war for the love-of-him should he either incite it, OR, not-win re-election.

EVEN if it's a "joke"... some folks are living on the edge of tipping their balance, and they can and HAVE taken things literally.

I remember watching youtubes on what to say, and not-say, when you are an influencer of the Public. There are terms to use, and NOT to use, because it can incite people {who are already upset} to be 'triggered' into harm, self-harms.

There's a difference in what to say publicly, and what you say when you're in a group of like-minds, and you're jokin' around (cussin'! LOL). In a private-setting, depending, you get to unleash your opinions and folks like yourself understand what it means.

But when you're a Public Speaker, the need to have sensitivity to your audience is vital. Some of the things our "President" Trump is saying at his "re-election" rallies are stunning just~awful.

Agreeing with BlueRoemer. Yes, he is and HAS been inciting the public, the general-public, to wrong-behaviors and promotes awful emotional-hatreds of individuals and groups.

For all the other commenters here, I appreciate what was said, and, also implied.

{Thanks }

posted December 20, 2019 02:12 PM            

We are proud and congratulate you on earning that Law degree. You have had many of us being your "cheerleaders" making encouraging comments to you, in several threads, over those years of grueling study.

"Constitutional Law" is a specialty-branch of law.

posted December 20, 2019 02:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirage29:
Originally posted by Randall:
As a person with a law degree, I can tell you that there is no statutory crimeof "Abuse of power." ..

We are proud and congratulate you on earning that Law degree. You have had many of us being your "cheerleaders" making encouraging comments to you, in several threads, over those years of grueling study.

"Constitutional Law" is a specialty-branch of law.

With you being a lawyer, and while you are now headed towards an advanced degree in it .., surely you might be surprised and expand your understanding of another specialty of law, were you to listen with beginner's-attention to the simple short video I linked?

---

posted December 20, 2019 04:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
If anyone can post the statute, I will admit I am wrong. A crime has a statute, and it has elements.

---

No one will post such a statute because there isn't one.

Someone said the basis for the impeachment was laid out at the beginning of the hearings. Laid out by whom? And what makes anyone think that a partisan democrat saying something makes it true.

There were no High Crimes or Misdemeanors delineated in this impeachment process. Demokrats may as well have said we're impeaching President Trump for wearing mismatched socks. If Nancy Pee-Lousy ever works up the courage to send this trash to the Senate, it will be given the respect it's due, which is none.

posted December 28, 2019 11:40 AM            

Nancy Pelosi has the right to submit Donald Trump to an ‘involuntary’ psych evaluation: Yale psychiatrist

(Pelosi's father was a great a supporter of the Zionist in addition to being involved in the Mob in Baltimore. Pelosi,though going through the motions is not going to push for trump's impeachment trial.trump has already shown multiple signs of mental deficiency but Pelosi has not acted on any of trumps psychoticc behavior and speeches todd)

A Yale psychologist who has repeatedly sounded the alarm about President Donald Trump’s mental health has cautioned that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is not doing enough to respond to the danger it poses.Bandy X. Lee, a professor of psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine who serves as president of the World Mental Health Organization, began warning about the dangers posed by the president’s mental health before his election. Lee then edited the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President” and convened a conference on the president’s mental health at Yale shortly after the president’s inauguration. She was recently joined by psychiatrists across the country in calling for the Judiciary Committee to convene a panel of mental health experts to weigh in on the ongoing impeachment proceedings.

Lee also “translates” some of Trump’s tweets on her own Twitter feed, which she described to Salon as a “public service.” Lee said she wants her “translations” to help readers see past Trump’s efforts to muddle reality with his “negative influence.” She recently “translated” Trump’s scorching six-page letter to Pelosi accusing her of trying to “steal the election” ahead of the House vote to impeach him in a Medium post.

Arguing that the letter effectively serves as a “confession,” Lee said that Trump’s letter was an example of the president projecting his own motives onto Pelosi. But Lee warned that Pelosi has not done enough to respond to the president.

posted December 28, 2019 11:48 AM            

President Donald Trump’s speech in Florida over the weekend provides evidence that he is suffering from cognitive decline, according to a psychiatric expert.

Seth Davin Norrholm, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory University School of Medicine, said Monday that the president’s recent rant about Christmas included at least three signs of mental problems.

“So if anybody wants to be a nice conservative, talk show host is not a bad living, I would say. But I have to say, he’s a very unique guy and he’s a great man and he’s been a great friend. So thank you to Rush. Thank you,” Trump said.

“And let me begin by wishing you a beautif — look, do you remember this? Do you remember this? Remember, they were trying to take Christmas out of Christmas. Do you remember? They didn’t want to let you say Merry Christmas,” Trump continued.

“You’d go around, you’d see department stores that have everything red, snow, beautiful, ribbons, bows. Everything was there. But they wouldn’t say Merry Christmas. They’re all saying Merry Christmas again. You remember?”

MORE EVIDENCE OF COGNITIVE DECLINE 👇👇👇
– slurred speech
– semantic paraphasia (inserting wrong word)
– phonemic paraphasia (combining words to form a likely nonsense word) https://t.co/XLRc740ci2

— NeuroPsychoPhD (@SethN12) December 23, 2019
Norrholm has previously called for the president to receive a thorough neuropsychiatric evaluation, saying that “Trump’s communicative abilities appear to be deteriorating.”

“While we have no doubt that behaviors exhibited by Trump are similar to symptoms observed in persons suffering from dementia, we are concerned that while no specific diagnosis can be definitively ruled out, the public behaviors displayed by Trump may be explicable by multiple individual or combined issues other than (albeit possibly including) a degenerative neurocognitive disorder,” he wrote in September along with psychiatrist David M. Reiss.

posted December 28, 2019 12:40 PM            

A clear violation of the American Psychiatric Association rules of ethics. No Psychiatrist is permitted to comment on individual's psychiatric health without a personal examination.

posted January 06, 2020 03:45 PM            

John Bolton announces he’s willing to testify in Trump’s impeachment trial in surprise move

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton said Monday that he would be willing to testify in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial if the Senate issues him a subpoena.

Read his full statement below:

During the present impeachment controversy, I have tried to meet my obligations both as a citizen and as former National Security Advisor. My colleague, Dr. Charles Kupperman, faced with a House committee subpoena on the one hand, and a Presidential directive not to testify on the other, sought final resolution of this Constitutional conflict from the Federal judiciary. After my counsel informed the House committee that I too would seek judicial resolution of these Constitutional issues, the committee chose not to subpoena me. Nevertheless, I publicly resolved to be guided by the outcome of Dr. Kupperman’s case

But both the President and the House of Representatives opposed his effort on jurisdictional grounds, and each other on the merits. The House committee went so far as to withdraw its subpoena to Dr. Kupperman in a deliberate attempt to moot the case and deprive the court of jurisdiction. Judge Richard Leon, in a carefully reasoned opinion on December 30, held Dr. Kupperman’s case to be moot, and therefore did not reach the separation-of-powers issues.

The House has concluded its Constitutional responsibility by adopting Articles of Impeachment related to the Ukraine matter. It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered Constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts.

posted January 10, 2020 11:48 AM            

Swing voters worry Trump attacked Iran to distract from impeachment: ¡¥If so, he doesn¡¦t deserve to be president¡¦

„K
„J
„³
‡T

Swing voters expressed some concerns about President Donald Trump¡¦s order to assassinate Iranian general Qassim Suleimani ¡X although they¡¦re still largely supportive of the airstrike.

A recent focus group, comprised of 11 voters from Pennsylvania who flipped from Barack Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016, conducted by Engagious/FPG found some disagreement over the president¡¦s Iran policy, reported Axios.

¡§I respect his decision,¡¨ said 51-year-old Ron B. ¡§He¡¦s our president. He knows more than we know and you just have to trust that it¡¦s in the best interest of us people to do something like that.¡¨

The session was held Monday, a day before Iran retaliated with missile strikes on an Iraq base where U.S. troops are stationed, and shows swing voters are inclined to trust Trump ¡X for now.

00:00

00:45

¡§He tells it like it is,¡¨ one voter said. ¡§He takes the bull by the horns,¡¨ said another.

But some participants are already nervous about the situation and how it¡¦s played out so far.

¡§It¡¦s time that we take care of home and stop getting ourselves involved in these other situations that we don¡¦t need to be in,¡¨ said 72-year-old Don E.

Some of the voters were suspicious of the president¡¦s motivations.

¡§It depends on if we trust the information that he was giving us,¡¨ said 38-year-old Joe W., ¡§or it¡¦s just a stunt for him because of the impeachment.¡¨

¡§If an all-out war, that means his information wasn¡¦t clear and he was doing it for self-indulgent purposes, I would say,¡¨ Joe W. added. ¡§If that was the case, he doesn¡¦t deserve to be president. It¡¦s not a time to be playing with the fate of the world.¡¨

posted January 15, 2020 10:40 AM            

The don wants to stop Bolton from testifying; imagine that . Some innocent fearless leader.