https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/the-articles-of-impeachment-are-very-weak/
Andrew McCarthy reviews the pro-impeachment arguments and finds they are invalid.
One can arrive at the same conclusion by a different path. Ask, “What would happen if we ignored Trump’s ‘impeachable offenses’?”
The answer is nothing.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I guess you ignored the American Conservative’s take on it.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-case-for-impeachment-is-overwhelming/?fbclid=IwAR1TNwVHzepUzAUODRMxyGXvAdLsEVJrEXTtX0sKJHGs7A58Qn1XrNMXDzI
Credit to Mr. Davidson for posting this the other day on another thread.
More proof that you only post about things which back your argument, even when they come from similar sources (Conservative sites).
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “More proof that you only post about things which back your argument, even when they come from similar sources (Conservative sites).”
So what? Are you accusing me of a personal failure of some sort? What is it? In fact, what is your basis for breaking the forum rules by committing an ad hominem attack?
Apart from all that, you might notice that McCarthy’s piece addresses the argument Daniel Larison puts forward at TAC, and dismisses it. It is therefore meaningless to suggest I “ignored” the TAC item.
LikeLike
@Green
Forced myself to read it all and found the same combination of lies, distractIons and deflections that the GOP has fallen back on as they search for straws to grasp.
They will continue to try to “sell” this type of silliness to the “base” hoping that enough weak minded low knowledge voters buy-in…
The election my be nothing more than a referendum on just how savvy the American electorate is….
Rut Roo.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What “silliness” are you referring to?
LikeLike
If you feel you have failed, then that is your issue, not mine.
If you posted the TAC piece and then the NR piece as a balance between the arguments for and against impeachment, from the right alone, then it would be a balanced review on your part. However, because McCarthy dismisses the argument put forth by Larison, and you agree with McCarthy, which is your right, you show your fealty to Mr. Trump, your king and savior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s kinda sad to see the old white 1950s mindset try to hold on as the social norms evolve and the demographics continue to shift.
The irony is that trump may be absolutely the worse avatar for the GOP to have embraced.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “If you posted the TAC piece and then the NR piece as a balance between the arguments for and against impeachment, from the right alone, then it would be a balanced review on your part.”
Again: So what?
LikeLike
Arrogant guy, aren’t you? You don’t care what he does. You would be the one cheering if he DID shoot someone on 5th (or Pennsylvania) Ave. Good for you.
LikeLike
RE: “Arrogant guy, aren’t you?”
Can’t answer the question, can you?
LikeLike
I don’t answer rhetorical questions such as “So what?” Your counterfactual nonsense will continue regardless of what I answer.
Pissing contest with skunk advice is ringing in my head.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I don’t answer rhetorical questions such as ‘So what?'”
Then let me clarify. When I ask “So what?” it is not a rhetorical question. I expect an answer
LikeLike
Skunk. I’ve asked you the same thing and get counterfactual nonsense. When you ask “So what?” you show you don’t give a shit about anyone’s opinion but your own.
LikeLike
RE: “you show you don’t give a shit about anyone’s opinion but your own”
I don’t care about the opinions of people who can’t support them. If you want me to care about your opinions, you’ll have to do better than call me names.
LikeLike
The OED is preparing to replace a picture of Parliament with a picture of the US Senate next to next to the definition of “kangaroo court”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marsupials Be Us !
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Senate Trial will indeed be interesting.
All those witnesses Schiff and Nadler would not allow to be heard will speak under oath.
“If you would strike at the King, take care that you kill him” – Shakespeare
LikeLike
@Tabor
I hope so, can’t wait to hear Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, et al, under oath…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt that an oath, and the threat of perjury, would give pause to a Trump supporter, hence Bolton MAY be the only one they would not call.
LikeLike
You mean the trial that Magic Mitch McConnell is talking about making disappear with a flat out acquittal even before any witnesses are heard?
Planning an acquittal prior to any evidence being hear is malfeasance of the highest order.
And you mean the witnesses that refused to testify to the House committees will all of a sudden have no problem testifying UNDER OATH to the Senate?
LikeLike
You do understand that in a Senate trial witnesses can be subpoenaed and sworn in, right?
The refused witnesses were Hunter and Joe Biden, Alexandra Chalupa, David Hale, Tim Morrison, Nelie Ohr, Kurt Volker and Devon Archer, Hunter’s business partner.
And McConnell does pan on a trial, not a dismissal.
LikeLike
“You do understand that in a Senate trial witnesses can be subpoenaed and sworn in, right?”
Trick question? Of course, and the door will swing both ways.
Regardless, if you could look beyond your hatred you might see that this criminal behavior, if blessed by the Senate, will continue to benefit Putin as he increases Russian influence at our detriment.
Your hero is nothing more than a useful idiot…
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Democrats have already called their witnesses, and controlled what questions they could be asked, Now it’s the GOP’s turn.
LikeLike
“The Democrats have already called their witnesses, “…
Yet how many of those witnesses they called were barred form testifying and had to have subpoenas, ignored, issued? Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo; Not heard from under oath.
LikeLike
The Democrats had the option to go to court to have those subpoenas validated, or rejected, and chose not to do so.
Remember that those subpoenas were issued when lawyers from the administration were barred from attending, thus denying the President the ability to assert executive privilege, and leaving him no choice but to refuse to cooperate until the courts ruled, and provided for due process.
LikeLike
He’s already planning the acquittal. In most minds, that is the definition of kangaroo court.
How about the witnesses for the House? They were subpoenaed and refused to show up under the orders of his highness, DJT. And the witnesses the GOP wanted called were completely irrelevant.
LikeLike
@Tabor
Perhaps…
https://www.lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachment-litigation
LikeLiked by 1 person
What kind of trial is it where the jurors coordinate with the defendant?
A Potemkin trial… sticking with the Moscow Mitch theme.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tyranny is more often a whisper than a shout.
“Who shall rid me of this turbulent priest?”
“I would like you to do us a favor though…”
.
LikeLiked by 2 people
King??! I think I see your problem here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shakespeare wrote Henry 4th? long before there was such thing as a President.
LikeLike
He’s still not a king, nor anything like one.
In fact, he is so much unlike a king that there is actually a prescribed method, sans a national razor, currently being invoked to remove him.
Moreover, the veiled threat in Shakespeare’s quote would be an abuse of power for a President.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Henry was not the one who spoke the line, it was one of the potential assassin’s associates.
LikeLike
but of the powers of a king, not the limited powers of a US President.
LikeLike
In the overall scheme of things, this is nothing but a bunch of noise in the Democratic party plot to influence the 2020 election with public money. Don’t look too deep into it but it is amazing that Democrats aren’t even trying to cover up their true intentions. Isn’t that a case for impeaching them and expulsion?
LikeLike
More mud in the water.
LikeLiked by 1 person