Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) said today that she would vote to convict President Trump if the impeachment smear moves to the Senate.

I don't suppose Klobuchar, or any of the senatorial candidates for president would see it as a conflict of interest to vote to convict the person against whom they are running.

In fact, if impeachment went to the Senate, I would raise a ruckus if Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Klobuchar did not recuse themselves from voting in this sham/e.

What a bucket of eels.

She knows she'd vote to convict even before the trial or even articles of impeachment being published? She sounds very open-minded...is she also "prayerful" about it?

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) said today that she would vote to convict President Trump if the impeachment smear moves to the Senate.

I don't suppose Klobuchar, or any of the senatorial candidates for president would see it as a conflict of interest to vote to convict the person against whom they are running.

In fact, if impeachment went to the Senate, I would raise a ruckus if Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Klobuchar did not recuse themselves from voting in this sham/e.

What a bucket of eels.

Absolutely excellent point. Could they participate in the impeachment proceedings? Probably. But should they vote in the end on an outcome? Absolutely not as it is a total conflict of interest. Klobuchar is simply too stupid to have even considered this aspect before opening her pie hole.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) said today that she would vote to convict President Trump if the impeachment smear moves to the Senate.

I don't suppose Klobuchar, or any of the senatorial candidates for president would see it as a conflict of interest to vote to convict the person against whom they are running.

In fact, if impeachment went to the Senate, I would raise a ruckus if Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Klobuchar did not recuse themselves from voting in this sham/e.

What a bucket of eels.

Absolutely excellent point. Could they participate in the impeachment proceedings? Probably. But should they vote in the end on an outcome? Absolutely not as it is a total conflict of interest. Klobuchar is simply too stupid to have even considered this aspect before opening her pie hole.

Klobuchar should be expelled from the Senate for using her position of power as a US Senator to benefit herself...

Kloubachar is polling at a whopping 2.2% among all the nominees currently. She's a irrelevant trying to be relevant.

Oh but they swore to an oath to uphold the constitution. They are duty sworn. They wouldn’t be doing the job they were elected to do if they didn’t vote to impeach.

Seems we should require Senators to read the Constitution, prior to swearing an oath to up hold the Constitution.

Which article is it that allows voting to convict someone before the trial, or even before the bringing of charges?

Maybe we should proceed directly to conviction based on not liking whomever was elected.
Right from oath of office to hanging from the gallows.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Seems we should require Senators to read the
Maybe we should proceed directly to conviction based on not liking whomever was elected.
Right from oath of office to hanging from the gallows.

That's essentially what the other side has done, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
. . . and, FU OPEC.

Oil. While I disagree with staunch leftist oil haters, I have concerns about our national oil policy. I agree that we should drill and reach those resources over the obnoxious, environmentalist's objections.

For decades the United States has maintained a Strategic Oil Reserve of a 90 day supply of untapped oil reserves to counter OPEC price or supply manipulation or if we have a time of emergency. Your chart sent me to checking what has happened to our reserve during our new export surge.

The reserve was maintained in Louisiana and Texas to allow us to draw on it within 13 days. Much to my disappointment, this chart shows what has happened to our reserves:

LINK

The thing that concerns me about becoming a net exporter by, in part, tapping our emergency reserves, is the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource. Once we run out, it’s gone.

One complaint that developing countries have against the United States is that they say we have stripped them of their non-renewable natural resources and now they have little to sell, leaving them without the resources that would allow them to advance.

Are we now doing this to ourselves? It’s one thing to buy non-renewable energy resources from other countries but now that we’re exporting more, are we robbing ourselves of a lifeblood that we will need for our future?

The United States uses a lot of oil to operate every day – the most in the world. Yet, we are going to export that non-renewable natural resource that no one needs as much as we do. If we draw down our reserves, from whom will we get oil when our supply runs down a lot?

And, at what price will we need to procure it? Will we then be subject to the base laws of supply and demand? If it’s scarce but needed, the price then goes sky high?
Maybe we will find alternatives by then. One could only hope.

For now, it seems that we hear little of our energy policy and how it may impact the future. Maybe I’m just not listening to the right sources but I’m not gleeful about becoming a net exporter if we’re tapping our strategic reserves to do it.

If our strategic reserves gives us the power to tell OPEC that we can ignore their manipulations, what happens if we draw our self-sufficient resources down?

President Trump has not explained his policy thus far in a way that I've heard. Maybe I missed it.

Maybe OPEC sees this as a path that gives them the last laugh.

It isn't a conflict of interest for any candidate running for president to vote to remove him.

Foremost, impeachment is a political process and not a court of law where the rules of evidence apply. As a judge friend told me yesterday when discussing this, heresay, multiple levels of heresay and something scratched on a bathroom wall are not excluded as a matter of law or procedure. Once you understand that there is no book of rules that govern the entirety of the procedure, the idea that there's a conflict disappears with it.

Since it's political, it's entirely fair game for the Republicans to make the argument in front of bright lights that the candidates want to remove the man that will beat all of them. Great stuff but purely political.

You realize that chart shows about an 8% drop in reserves. The indexing on the vertical axis makes it seem like a precipitous drop. Is it possible they occasionally recalibrate what 6 months actually is? Certainly doesn’t look like a big cause of alarm.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
It isn't a conflict of interest for any candidate running for president to vote to remove him.

For myself, in any case, I was just being ironical. It is no more a conflict of interest for these senators to participate in an impeachment trial than it is for the President to ask for an investigation of corruption that happens to involve a political opponent.

They are both doing what they were elected to do. I'm sure that fact is completely lost on someone like Klobuchar though who is pretty much doing in real time exactly what she just said she would vote right now to impeach the president for.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balzé Halzé,

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
It isn't a conflict of interest for any candidate running for president to vote to remove him.

Yet if the Repubs frame the conversation properly they can convince the huge voting majority out there that knows little to nothing about this process that this 'is' a conflict of interest on the part of the Dem's. As you noted, this is political, so why not aggressively frame the subject and sell your version of it to the populace. Use Ned Beatty's comment from the movie 'The Shooter' as your ROI...."...the truth is what I say it is".

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
You realize that chart shows about an 8% drop in reserves. The indexing on the vertical axis makes it seem like a precipitous drop. Is it possible they occasionally recalibrate what 6 months actually is? Certainly doesn’t look like a big cause of alarm.

Maybe not but if it carries on it will. The drop accounts for about 7 days of a 90 day reserve.

But, any drop in non-renewable, emergency reserves should cause questions it seems to me.

How do we pump 50 million barrels back into the ground or the stockpile?

It looks like the loss is accelerating. It shows 5 years of reserves. It dropped during the Trump administration. Twelve more times and maybe it's zero reserves. It looks like the result of a policy choice.

That 50 million barrel reduction, so far, took a little over two years to occur. Do you know why it is being done? I don't know and can't see the value. Do you?

Is this really President Trump working to say "F" you to OPEC?

The chart-maker had the chance to recalibrate the chart if they act as you suggest they could. Maybe if it's worse by summer, you may see an unsettling change.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...impeachment-inquiry/

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote a five-page letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on Sunday, rejecting participation in what Cipollone called a “baseless and highly partisan” impeachment inquiry.

Nadler had given the president and his lawyers until 6:00 p.m. EST to respond to a request to participate in the opening hearing of the Judiciary Committee’ inquiry on Wednesday, focusing on constitutional and legal issues. Democrats had prepared four witnesses, unnamed as of Sunday: three were reportedly in favor of impeachment. Separately, Nadler gave the White House a deadline of Friday, Dec. 6, to participate in the broader inquiry.

In his letter (via Politico), Cipollone said that the Democrats’ process “violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness.” He accused Democrats of deliberately scheduling the opening hearing during the president’s upcoming trip to the NATO Leaders Summit in London this week.

Cipollone further pointed out that the opening hearing would “include no fact witnesses at all,” and that neither the first nor subsequent hearings were clear about what witnesses would be called, or about what rights the president would be provided. (He reserved the right to respond to Nadler’s broader invitation by the Friday deadline.)

The White House counsel disputed Nadler’s claim to be acting in accordance with precedent set during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, noting significant departures from procedures followed on that occasion

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
It isn't a conflict of interest for any candidate running for president to vote to remove him.

Yet if the Repubs frame the conversation properly they can convince the huge voting majority out there that knows little to nothing about this process that this 'is' a conflict of interest on the part of the Dem's. As you noted, this is political, so why not aggressively frame the subject and sell your version of it to the populace. Use Ned Beatty's comment from the movie 'The Shooter' as your ROI...."...the truth is what I say it is".

That is precisely the PR campaign that needs to take r place and I believe it will play out just like that.

Whaaat? SHE'S a victim now??

https://www.washingtontimes.co...ted-crime-calls-don/

Lisa Page says she hasn't committed a crime, calls Trump's fake orgasm 'demeaning'

By Jeff Mordock - The Washington Times - Monday, December 2, 2019
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page whose anti-Trump texts with ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok led to Republicans alleging political bias within the bureau insisted she did not commit a crime, according to a Daily Beast interview released Monday morning.

Ms. Page left the FBI last year after her extramarital affair with Mr. Strzok became public. She said President Trump’s attacks on her prompted her to speak out after more than a year.

In particular, she told The Daily Beast that Mr. Trump apparently mimicking an orgasm during a campaign rally in which he parodied the lovebirds by screaming out, “I love you, Lisa! I love you so much,” was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

“It’s like being punched in the gut,” she said. “My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He’s demeaning me and my career. it’s sickening.”

Ms. Page’s comments appeared in a highly sympathetic interview with The Daily Beast. The interview ran exactly one week before an eagerly anticipated report detailing allegations of political bias at the FBI from Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz will be released.

A separate report released last year by Mr. Horowitz found that texts from Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page disparaging the president indicated “a biased state of mind” and implied “a wiliness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.”

Ms. Page also defended her actions, saying she did not break the law.

“But it’s also very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States,” she said. “And when the president accuses you of treason by name, despite the fact that I know there’s no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all, let alone treason, he’s still somebody in a position to actually do something about that. To try to further destroy my life. It never goes away or stops, even when he’s not publicly attacking me.”

She said the attacks by Mr. Trump have left her fearful.

“I’m someone who’s always in my head anyway — so now otherwise normal interactions take on a different meaning,” Ms. Page said. “Like, when somebody makes eye contact with me on the Metro, I kind of wince, wondering if it’s because they recognize me, or are they just scanning the train like people do? It’s immediately a question of friend or foe? Or if I’m walking down the street or shopping and there’s somebody wearing Trump gear or a MAGA hat, I’ll walk the other way or try to put some distance between us because I’m not looking for conflict. Really, what I wanted most in this world is my life back.

This sums up the shit show in Congress quite well.




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/uQJoar17jyo

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
Whaaat? SHE'S a victim now??

https://www.washingtontimes.co...ted-crime-calls-don/

She's trying desperately to get out ahead of the coming shitstorm next week when it all comes out what a traitorous piece of filth she really is. It's laughable!

OK Bald1 -that was pretty good and funny