I know that the U.S. press doesn’t like Saudi Arabia, but I have to say this as someone who has lived there. I’m not a Muslim, but the crown prince and the king both sincerely believe that their sultanate was given to their ancestors by their god and it is written in the genealogy of the Quran as dictated to their prophet. There is no higher authority at all, and they sincerely believe that no one has the right to question that… as that reporter did. In the prince’s mind, all he did was protect his country… like every good leader should do. In any sovereignty, you can never question or disobey the sovereign… ever. That reporter did. Frankly, I think the reporter was super stupid to go to the embassy. The prince’s actions may have been (to our minds) unethical, amoral and inappropriate, but in his mind, it’s his responsibility and his right to stop insurgency. It’s been his right for roughly 1500 years. Who are we to question that?

DJT only has himself to blame for that. His other lawyers quit before
the trial started. They refused to use the defense that DJT demanded.

I think there will be more GOP senators vote to convict than we may think.
Time will tell. Today’s vote for witnesses was 55 yes & 45 no. Meaning five
GOP senators voted to have witnesses, unlike his FIRST impeachment trial.

With all respect, Trump’s lawyer has had a week to prepare, and this is the trial of his life. On the one hand, it’s a boon. It’s the trial of his life and his career, and it’s almost a guaranteed acquittal. This is a game changing, life changing, bragging rights forever trial for him. On the other hand, he’s couldn’t have had enough time to prepare, this is not his field, his client isn’t a good person, and his more experienced co-council is basically sitting this out due to his religious beliefs. I don’t think this guy needs to be judged for being ill-prepared b/c his win is guaranteed and due to circumstances beyond his control, there was no way he could have had time to prepare. The eleven minute idiocy of having everyone, including civilians, saying, “fight,” is almost understandable. It’s hypocrital (AKA lawyering), but it’s underderstandable.

The next time someone insults that woman, she can just say that, in poker, one of the most powerful cards is the Black B—ch!

I think the word you are looking for is “precedent”, so there really isn’t a pun involved. Seems you have no understanding of what the impeachment trial is about. It is not a criminal trial. It is a political one. There is no possibility of jail time. The repercussions, if convicted, is that he would be removed from office. Obviously that has already occurred, so the only purpose of the trial at this point is that, if convicted, a simple majority vote could prevent him from holding office again. So sorry, no criminals would be arguing your assumption, and no trial judge would accept it as a defense. The Supreme Court might get involved on the question of ‘constitutionality’, although I doubt it. But no, the Constitution make no allowance for the Supreme Court to “counteract” if the senators decide to acquit, which seems like a foregone conclusion at this point, since at least 17 republicans would have to join with all of the democrats to convict.

Has anyone ever considered the president (no pun intended) that the former president’s arguments are setting? Look at it like this, “After I embezzled the money, the company fired me, so you cannot give me any criminal consequences because I no longer work for the company.” You could even state, “After I killed the man, I no longer worked for his company, so I can’t have any legal repercussions because he was no longer my employer!” This is what criminals all over the world will be arguing, and there isn’t a judge in America who will be able to counteract it because the Senate trial of the former president is the highest court. Can the Supreme Court counteract if the senators decide to acquit?

Has anyone ever considered the precedent (no pun intended) that the former president’s arguments are setting? Look at it like this, “After I embezzled the money, the company fired me, so you cannot give me any criminal consequences because I no longer work for the company.” You could even state, “After I killed the man, I no longer worked for his company, so I can’t have any legal repercussions because he was no longer my employer!” This is what criminals all over the world will be arguing, and there isn’t a judge in America who will be able to counteract it because the Senate trial of the former president is the highest court. Can the Supreme Court counteract if the senators decide to acquit?

Did anyone else catch that he asked the president about policies but everything for the VP dealt with music?

Has anyone else noticed how every, single country in the world is laughing at us right now? Putin and Chairman Xi don’t have to do any campaigning to end their governments and crown themselves autocrats because the U.S. is so hated internationally that their people are begging for them to become kings. We need to get our heads out of our collective a—es and understand that the division in the U.S. just means that things need to CHANGE. Out of the thousands of cultures we have in this country, what is emerging is a brand new culture. It’s not based on one skin color or ideal or belief. What is coming out of us is totally different. It’s not bad. It’s actually beautiful, but every ideal, belief and whatever else will change to bring about this new one.

The pictures on the dome during the first night that started four years ago have one thing in common. They show the democratic nominees for president for this year. There’s no way that’s possible. I normally like the humor here, but this was crap, and it’s an insult to both your and our intelligence.

I think he’s planning to go to Mar-a-Lago and immediately from there he’s planning to flee the country. That way he won’t pay his lawyers, his debts, or anybody else. He’ll plan his next coup from there.

That was one excellent magicianne! Brava!

You know, in the 19th century, many people couldn’t read, but they could vote, so they would buy a newspaper just to look at the political cartoons and get information that way. Political satirists helped to end slavery that way, and they helped to influence elections. For that reason, they needed bodyguards, and that’s what Stephen Colbert reminds me of. He’s a political satirist who is so good, he needs a body guard. “Sammy Davis Jr, and Hitler”!? Genius!

I have a really crazy idea. If you’ve been stabbed and you want the wound to heal, the first step is to take out the knife. If the country is wounded, and we want the country to heal, take out the president who’s causing the wound! Go impeachment!

What gets to me on this is very simple. Republicans are refusing to go through a metal detector when they have armed criminals attacking their place of work. They are wanting to bring weapons when they have armed security who are supposed to protect them but fail. Now compare this to American schoolchildren who have to go through metal detectors and refuse even though they have armed criminals attacking their place of work. Children feel the need to bring weapons to class even though they have armed security to protect them. I want to tell them to stop the double standard. Get rid of the guns, metal detectors, and everything else completely or embrace all of it, but do not expect school children to be more mature than what you are!

Pardon me for saying this, but it’s a sad day when the death of thousands of Americans due to COVID doesn’t even make the top five news stories. Our government desperately needs an update. Is Trump threatening the senators’ families if they don’t comply?

Let me start off by saying, I’m completely against judging someone based on something as stupid as the shade of their melanin. That having been said, I get angry when people compare the BLM protests to the insurgents at the Capitol building. LOCATION MATTERS! If the tactics used at BLM protests were used at the Capitol, even more lives would have been lost, there would have been more bloodshed and violence in the Capitol would have been much worse. Is. that what BLM wants? I don’t think so! I don’t! This is the CAPITOL! This is the seat of governance. We don’t want more bloodshed there! Blame the a——le in the White House for not deescalating the situation. Blame whichever terrorist group you want, but do NOT compare the protest. Those officers risked everything to keep our government safe. They need to be commended, not reprimanded for their actions. We need to be thankful that the violence was not much worse. There’s no good outcome to the entire government if the police had used the same tactics that they had used at BLM protests at the Capitol. They protected our government, and they should be honored for not using that violence.

What?! You mean you can attempt to kill lawmakers and then expect them to support you? Whatever is wrong with the government, it is affecting both lawmakers and Trump. Here’s my message to Congress, “Lawmakers, do not support the man who tries to kill you and destroy your jobs!” My message to Trump is not fit for the average person to read it.

I am not happy with the winners this time. I know it’s a game, but they were jerks. I do not like the finales where the good guys finish last. That’s just IMHO.