All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Cunt]

There is nobody. The GOP has already hit the reset button, but that's a 4 year process while Biden runs his first and only term.

My lead guess is (now that she won, I think) A.O.C.

She's pissed at the Democrat 'massaging' of the process, and is more than a bit wild in nature.

[Tero]

Trump’s executive order requires all federal agencies that use social media ads to submit details on how much they’ve spent, and on which platform, by the end of June. It then directs the Department of Justice, headed by Attorney General William Barr, to use that information in deciding whether any restrictions the social networks place on viewpoints make them unacceptable for government messaging.

[Animavore]

[NineBerry]

[Brian Peacock]

Exonerate Trump on what?

Of using the power and offices of state to feather his re-electoral nest.

You worry about feathers?

All birds feather their nests. You'll have to convince me it is special somehow.

You will have a tough time though, since I haven't had any respect for much of what you write. Might be time better spent improving cardio.

I think your dodging of a straight-forward statement, and with it its implications, has little to do with your lack of respect for me and everything to do with feeling uncomfortable when your assumptions and intuitions are challenged. I don't post to garner your respect or to attempt to convince you of anything - I post to articulate my point of view, which you often find so troubling that you have to lamely claim not to have read or, as above, pretend not to understand and/or wilfully misrepresent.

[Joe]

As Svarty recently reminded me, you should always keep Hanlon's razor in mind in these cases Brian.

[Brian Peacock]

True. But then again, I don't think that L'Emmy's point is actually beyond the comprehension of anyone who's completed their 4th grade educational placement.

[Joe]

I seem to remember something about being a dropout.

[Cunt]

Exonerate Trump on what?

Of using the power and offices of state to feather his re-electoral nest.

You worry about feathers?

All birds feather their nests. You'll have to convince me it is special somehow.

You will have a tough time though, since I haven't had any respect for much of what you write. Might be time better spent improving cardio.

I think your dodging of a straight-forward statement, and with it its implications, has little to do with your lack of respect for me

Your right. It isn't nice.

Let me try again.

You want to know if I think it's ok for a President to use the power of state to feather his re-electoral nest.

I don't.

Why would you ask such a thing? Do you think you score a point?

I see you there, ignoring the awkward questions I ask back.

[Tero]

Many Republicans are just stalling now, smelling a loser

[Tero]

[Joe]

He should look behind him.

[Cunt]

Ya, that second photo's got 100lbs of Trump cropped out of the edge of the frame.

[Animavore]

[L'Emmerdeur]

They have all used the power of government to help in reelection. It isn't always cool.

You may have been indoctrinated to believe that, but you've yet to demonstrate the veracity of the claim. Trump clearly did it--Dershowitz's line of patent bullshit was crafted specifically in an attempt to exonerate Trump. And you, the staunch skeptic, uncritically slurped it up and proclaimed it good.

Exonerate Trump on what?

Are you still convinced that the pee-pee tape is coming? Still hoping desperately, that the Russian Collusion hoax, isn't a hoax?

I see that Brian Peacock somehow managed to provoke you to give an unequivocal answer. (Thank you, Brian Peacock! )

I've never expressed any belief in the existence of your 'pee-pee tape,' but thank you for your concern. My opinion on Trump's relationship with Russia and Putin, and the Trump campaign and administration's involvement with Russia and Russian puppets is well established in a significant number of posts on this site. In most of those posts I cited original sources and reputable secondary sources in support of my position, not that you have any use for such things. Your fatuous parroting of Trump's mantra is both tedious and predictable.

It seems to me there's a disconnect here, but that must be a failure on my part. Maybe you could help me.

Dershowitz sounded pretty reasonable to me. Of course, I listened to a long interview where he spoke, rather than a news program which told me what he said. Civil liberties guy though, so lots of authoritarian types hate him for that.

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment,” Dershowitz said in response to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on the first of two days during which the opposing legal teams answer written questions from the senators.

Cruz had asked, “As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo?”

[source]

This was in Dershowitz's testimony before the US Senate. Dershowitz is telling the Senate that if President Trump believes that his reelection is in the public interest, then using the power of the government in a quid pro quo arrangement with a foreign government to help himself get reelected is not impeachable. That is, it doesn't qualify as a 'high crime or misdemeanor.'

You want to know if I think it's ok for a President to use the power of state to feather his re-electoral nest.

I don't.

Why would you ask such a thing? Do you think you score a point?

I referred specifically to the statement from Dershowitz in this post. Your immediate response was to say that you thought Dershowitz 'sounded pretty reasonable.'