Earleen

The idea being floated around is that when the Senate starts the trial, the first thing is an objection from the President's lawyers that the Articles are unconstitutional. The argument being that the Constitution specifies the impeachment crimes and the Articles differ. Like in any judicial trial, that then becomes a decision of the judge, in this case, Roberts who presides over the trial. Roberts then rules the Article sent by the House as being unconstitutional. That will then reestablish the dignity of the Constitution, the rule of law, and establish new guidelines for any future impeachments. Instead of the direction it is not heading, that being continual harassment of the President using the House majority. It is unprecedented and making new law. And one for the history books. But something has to be done to stop the behavior such as that shown by the democrats for the past 3+ years.

And there are a couple hundred dead Russians. Shot down by a Russian missile that the idiot Putin had given to an army of incompetent misfits.

Today, the news will run all the short snippets of the various democrat candidates regarding the current problems with Iran. Mainly Trump's response to the Iranian threat of retaliation for Trump killing the Iranian head terrorist, Soleimani. When you hear those responses, ask yourself the question if that candidate could actually run the government for the best interest of the people. Or would they place the country in the position as the passive inferior to external adversarial powers with frequently stated ambitions to kill you. In particular, imagine the squeaky voiced academic Elizabeth Warren handling a blood and guts decision. Or Bernie having to step outside of his take-the-money-and-redistribute-it ephemeral solution for all things and handle a long term difficult problem that can't be solved by taking your money. The democrat party put 20 candidates on the stage. They all seem to be either crazy women or weak men. None capable of governing.

Today, the news will run all the short snippets of the various democrat candidates regarding the current problems with Iran. Mainly Trump's response to the Iranian threat of retaliation for Trump killing the Iranian head terrorist, Soleimani. When you hear those responses, ask yourself the question if that candidate could actually run the government for the best interest of the people. Or would they place the country in the position as the passive inferior to external adversarial powers with frequently stated ambitions to kill you. In particular, imagine the squeaky voiced academic Elizabeth Warren handling a blood and guts decision. Or Bernie having to step outside of his take-the-money-and-redistribute-it ephemeral solution for all things and handle a long term difficult problem that can't be solved by taking your money. The democrat party put 20 candidates on the stage. They all seem to be either crazy women or weak men. None capable of governing.

That way we could better understand the basis of their political biases. Like why they are for or against the assassination of Soleimani. You would think that a Shia would be automatically and understandably against it. But you would think that a Sunni would be automatically and understandably for it. It looks like Obama is Shia. Giving $150,000,000,000 to Iran by executive decision including $1.5 billion cash from a "secret" government fund without a whimper from Congress.

The current events could be real fun. We could argue about what Iran will blow up and what the US will blow up. But, in particular how fast the response will be. My bet is with the US. If Iran blows something up, part of Iran will be missing before the dust is settled from their attack. Do you think Trump has them set up to walk into a trap? Like please, please attack a ship so we can blow your nuclear facilities out of existence?

Now the news will move to a fight with Iran and impeachment will be a distant memory. She can quietly throw it in the trash can of history with such excuses that in a time of crises, it is no time to talk about impeachment. Pelosi is off the hook and off the front page.

Now, the deep state democrats (Hillary democrats) are saying that they may have a 2nd and 3rd impeachment charge against President Trump. Have you considered that all of this may be more than just a poor attempt to harass the President? That the main purpose is to prevent any of the democrat candidates to get sufficient support to win the nomination at the democrat convention. By keeping the democrat preliminaries out of the news. The idea being that 3 or 4 candidates, as determined by the primary voters are on the first ballot, and none can win a majority. The 2nd ballot then opens up to allow the democrat Super delegates to vote, and they are all deep state Hillary supporters. Hillary's name is put in, and there is a unanimous vote for Hillary. Once she is nominated, the democrat argument will be that since she is selected by voters, her criminal issues should be set aside and let the voters decide. And, Trump is impeached, so he is a crook, worse than Hillary.

So, now a couple of days after Nancy hid the impeachment somewhere in the House and may be lost it, the democrats are threatening to have a 2nd impeachment over some other process/testimony that they are not happy with. So, the question is, if Nancy does find the lost homework, and does send it to the Senate, shouldn't the Senate just have a quick vote to see if it needs to proceed, and then decide not to proceed and reject the impeachment. Not even to give it trial status. The reason being that if the House starts multiple impeachments for the next year, the Senate will not want to give the historical impression of being fooled by or being a stooge of Nancy and the House. For the Senate to proceed traditionally is to give the impression that McConnell is the stooge of Pelosi.

Remember back in 2016 how the democrat delegate vote was stacked against Bernie? No matter how well he did, Hillary got all of the superdelegates, i.e. people chosen by the Hillary insiders to vote for her. So, why do you think anything has changed this time? Have you looked at the democrat rules this time? To make it fair, the first ballot will be only elected delegates, the result of the voters in the primaries. And, the democrat party will keep that vote split up so that on one can win the nomination. But the second vote at the convention is the important one because it is where the Superdelegates can start voting. Thus, the first vote removes all of the delegates from consideration because none can win. Then, Hillary places her name in nomination for the second vote. All of the Super delegates + some of the elected delegates vote for her. Hillary wins. So, the question is why go through all of the exercise of a democrat primary when its rigged so that none of them can win. All of this exercise is simply cover for Hillary. The democrat party is deep state and they are manipulating all the voters who vote democrat. It is not a fair election.

The latest style of MAGA hat would have a peach embroidered on it. The idea is like some football helmets where you keep adding symbols of special accomplishments. Like, USMCA, border fence, etc. It will be a sharp looking hat, and you will have to buy a new one about every 6 months to get all of Trump's accomplishments. That will keep the money rolling into republican coffers. If hats work, what about tennis shoes. Do you think Trump could take over the tennis shoe business with American made tennis shoes?

So, politics being sort of strange, why is Pelosi holding back on sending the impeachment over to the Senate for trial? The reason given by Pelosi is to negotiate a better deal for her democrats in the House who are now politically vulnerable. But, one would think that McConnell would look at his schedule, give Pelosi a couple of days to produce her work or remove the impeachment from the schedule. Either way accomplishes the goal of the Senate, which is that it is a screw up by the House democrats that should never have happened and the Senate should not have to be bothered with it. It does allow the democrats to blame the Senate, but the counter argument is that it was a blunder by the democrats that should have never happened and the democrats finally shut it down. Too late, but Pelosi shut it down.

1. The democrat party will vote for impeachment based upon a fake impeachment. The 2 stated charges are fake and not backed by fact or evidence. The fake impeachment is simply based upon the one fact that the democrats do not like the President and their emotions are out of control for what little rationalization they have. The real charge being investigating past democrat financial corruption of the previous democrat administration is a crime. The democrat corruption is extensive and extreme, much bigger than Biden. and they have to shut it down at any cost.

2.At the same time the democrat party is being hauled before the FISA courts to explain the devious corruption of obtaining illegal search warrants for the past years. Hundreds of warrants in addition to ones obtained against the President. The FISA judges themselves appear to be derelict and complacent in the scheme. The FISA court being where the Federal court system sends its reprobate judges. A job for the old drunk alcoholic judge. All he has to do is approve the warrant application because the FBI is so honest, clean, and patriotic that it would never violate a regulation, rule or commit a crime. All of this is symbolic of the way the democrats have conducted themselves when in power and against the President when out of power. A government unto itself. All of this is crashing down on the democrats.

3. Take your government back by voting against all democrats at all levels of government.

It seems like gasoline cans were designated by environmental hate groups years ago as a public enemy. And for years we have had regulations in the design of gas cans that make their use intentionally difficult and cumbersome. The erroneous claim by the regulators being that the pouring contraption make the cans more safe and environmental better by reducing spills when actually they cause more spills. These contraptions are made of very cheap plastic and tend to break, and are overly complicated because the designs are ill conceived. When they don't work, they are removed and the gasoline is poured straight from the can. So the question is: Do you really use the contraption that you bought with a new gasoline can or did you replace. If you replaced it, how did you do it.

My count is that about 8 democrat senators would vote against impeachment to avoid the wrath of the voters. In addition to all of the republicans, that would make it about 62 to 38 against impeachment.

If the democrats were not corrupt, they would not have been in Ukraine to be mixed into the Ukraine corruption. To top it off, it is the democrat presidential candidate involved in the corruption. And, then using emotion, they blame Trump for it. This is the most crazy thing and shows that the democrats are incapable of handling political power.

You do know that if the democrats were not corrupt in Ukraine, they would not have been in Ukraine to have been included in the overall corruption that Trump had to consider before he passed out the money? So it is the democrats fault for being there to start with. Not Trump. Then to top it off, the democrats are a female controlled organization. There are no strong males in leadership roles in the democrat party and you can see that in the presidential candidates. The House is run by females in a political cat fight and the old one is losing. So, she did something so stupid that it has historical significance. The nothing impeachment. So there you are. The democrats are a political organization that is radical extreme, hates men and considers corruption to be their right. By the time the election rolls around, those are going to be recognized facts, and the voters will react to it. The democrats will no longer be a national party, but a regional party. The further away you are from being a democrat, the better off you are as a person.

And the liberals have spent years defining "Man" as bad. They were all set to elect a woman (Hillary) to be President and this obnoxious sort of Man showed up, was mean to her, didn't roll over and play nice puppy dog, and beat her unfairly with electoral votes. He won because the voters voted for a Man instead of a woman. So that manifests itself as an inherent hate, even to the extent of impeaching Trump, not because he did anything wrong, but because they don't like him. Don't like him because he acts like a Man.

And the liberals have spent years defining "Man" as bad. They were all set to elect a woman (Hillary) to be President and this obnoxious sort of Man showed up, was mean to her, didn't roll over and play nice puppy dog, and beat her unfairly with electoral votes. He won because the voters voted for a Man instead of a woman. So that manifests itself as an inherent hate, even to the extent of impeaching Trump, not because he did anything wrong, but because they don't like him. Don't like him because he acts like a Man.

It might work. He is obviously not going to be able to make 2 terms and probably not 1. So, Joe Uniden. Now if we can get his son to change his name to Vegan Uniden, the democrats might have found a winner.