The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Oh, jeez. Now I have to take Maddow's list and explain where it's biased and why it's biased. 

1. The President, who has the legal right, removed the US Ambassador to Ukraine. Speculation suggests it could be because (1) he wanted her out of the way so he could do bad things and he was afraid she would upset his premeditated plan schemed by Trump and Giuliani to get "dirt" on Biden; (2) he had received information (maybe true, maybe false) that she was not an ally and may stand in the way of his drawing out and exposing information regarding corruption and Ukraine ranked as the world's third most corrupt nation at the time; (3) the ambassador serves at the pleasure of the President and he, for whatever reason, was not pleased with her and wanted to replace with her with squeeky clean William Taylor (who, also would most likely stand in his way), and therefore, seems to nullify reason number (1) above. Note to Joanie: Maddow's must use the starkest, most cynical vantage point to insinuate evil, so this point as well as others are presented without offering other possibilities. That said, the president did not have to remove the Ambassador in the method he used to do it.  It was roughshod and completely unnessary but fully within his right and within the law.  (Perhaps legislation can be drawn up so as to put parameters on how presidents can 'can' those who serve him and do it more "tastefully"). 

2. Again the use of "Giuliani and "the three Amigos" is a phrase which bolsters the narrative that they (a mayor and three public servants, appointed and elected to serve in varying capacities), were all up-to-no-good and their presence in Ukraine was out to hurt America and its election of 2020. The point also presumes to know that whatever Bolton's "drug deal" meant, must have been unlawful and very bad, like a real drug deal.  Or maybe it means a REAL drug deal. Without testimony, we have no idea what Bolton meant and, unless she's hiding something, unfortunately, neither does Maddow.  

3. Presidents may and do freeze military assistance ALL the time for any number of reasons. To me, if a country has a history of corruption, a president should be very cautious with money and weapons and not necessarily in that order. Those assets are historically mishandled & therefore VERY desirable to our enemies as well as leaders known to be corrupt in countries like Ukraine, shortly before Zelensky took control. There has not been testimonial proof shown that Trump used either for quid or quo. Zelensky himself agrees. 

4. Meetings are scheduled "under conditions" ALL the time. That said, Sondland's testimony indicated he was under the impression that a meeting wouldn't take place until a public announcement assuring corruption was in check since "we (the country) has been through a lot." (See the aforementioned phrase in context.) Some take that to mean that he was referring to our country's meddling problem in 2016. The Zelensky announcement, though it may help Trump look good publicly. would also assure the public that there were public safeguards in place BEFORE he allotted that much money to the reputably corrupt nation. Zelensky understood the need for that public reassurance to the American people and therefore did not feel at all pressured to comply and added that there, indeed, was no quid-pro-quo.

5. Asking a corrupt country to investigate wrong doing...truthful wrong doing...not fiction...when there's public concern for that matter...should be within the president's right.  If that wrong-doing includes a person running for president, that substantiates more reason but should not substantiate ALL the reason. To me, it's like breaking the law going 5 miles over the speedlimit.  The only impropriety was the mere mention of Biden and apparently all hell broke loose with someone looking for something to pin on Trump.  Unfortunately, we aren't allowed to know who that person is or was. Trump should not have said the Biden name, apparently,  but he did. Many people were on that phone call who did NOT blow any whistle...some don't even recall the verbiage... and that indicates the insignificance and banality of that call for the many NOT looking for something to pin on Trump.  Trump SAYS lots of controversial things. What he has DONE for Ukraine, however. is provide them the means to fight and hopefully survive a savage war with Russia ( the country Trump supposedly loves so much?) and that should certainly resonate with us here at home as well as Ukraine and all of our allies.

6. Yes, public announcements are useful when good work has been done.  Politically, nationally and internationally. Why keep it quiet? Does it shed a poor light on Obama for failing to arm Ukraine? Of course. Should that, too, be against the rules?  Politics enter into all of life. The Framers knew that. While Maddow focuses on some evil minded escapade by Trump, whenever Trump can shine, so can we. Our image in the world is precious, isn't it? Is it wrong to want the world to see and hear about our good deeds and decisions?  

7. No evidence to prove the holding of money was conditional and a mere one assumption that a meeting was being held conditionally. 

8. The president's scheme of deceit is a false narrative without evidentiary intent, unless more evidence can expose the "king's evil scheme'.  

For those who might want to backtrack into Muellerland, let me again recommend a glimpse (unlike Maddow's) analyzed by the Democrat Alan Dershowitz' "The Case Against Impeaching Trump."  Hmm. He must be a Trump protector, too. Otherwise, how could he possibly write such fiction? Damn turncoat!

Just one more kiffle wouldn't hurt....

Jack Mallory

Why bother with Rachel Maddow's list at all? The opinions of 500+ lawyers seem likely to be more credible than hers, and just as credible as Turley's or Dershowitz's.

Again, it's happening, just as it should be. 

STILL no opinion on when impeachment for corrupting an election should occur?

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jay Shackford

Hey Nori and everyone else.  Let's get this straight.  What I posted as couple of days ago came from the table of contents of the official "Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report" prepared by the Housing Intelligence Committee and sent over to the House Judiciary Committee.  

Although I mentioned Rachael Maddow in my first paragraph, she had absolutely nothing to do in preparing the report. She just happened to mention in one of her shows last week that by reading the headings and subheadings of the official House Intelligence Committee report you could get a pretty good outline of Trump's impeachable actions and his attempts to obstruct Congressional investigations looking into Trump's misconduct.  Nori, the executive summary is 28 pages.  It's a very readable report that connects the dots and, as Songland noted in his sworn testimony,  provides convincing evidence that "everyone was in the loop" (Trump, Pence, Pompeo, Rudy and a few others) in a conspiracy to bribe the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on the Bidens in exchange for $391 million in military aid and a White House meeting with Old Bone Spurs.  

So, as I suggest earlier, read the report -- or at least the headings and subheadings.  It will help you follow tomorrow's televised hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. The hearings tomorrow should be dynamite.  

Jack, did the President really make those comments on "flushing the toilet 10 or 20 times"  and sending all that water into the ocean? He's really losing it.  Perhaps Nori can explain.  In my view, however, not only is Trump bat-shit crazy and totallly unqualified and unfit tempermentally and intellectually to serve as President but he's also being laughed off the world stage by our NATO allies, some of whom believe Trump is showing signs of the big "A" by talking nonsense and constantly repeating himself.  Watch the skit on the most recent Saturday Night Live. God I love that show, even when they poke fun my friends on the Democratic side.  

Nori, I would prefer, as you suggested, to wait for the 2020 election and let the people decide.  But we can't afford to wait and take that chance.  We must move forward now with the impeachment proceeedings because President Trump -- left to his own reckless impulses -- could blow up the whole freaking planet.  At the very least, Trump will continue to corrode, corrupt and sabotage our democratic institutions and way of life.  

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Jack, i need a little turn-around time here once in awhile.  It's not like we're on a phonecall or anything.  First, there may be no need for me to look at all 500 plus opinions because (1) I'm not into numbers like you and Trump seem to be. Afterall, I have been known to align to a person who only had 12 followers at one time and (2) I felt the two sources I cited were more relevent than your uncited 500 because (1) they are well known and (2) well revered Democrats and (3) they have been very successful with their past casework, publications, careers and experience.  Whether you agree with them or not, their testimonials point out the "contested" evidence. leaving one to assume that Pelosi erred in her statement that the gathered evidence is "uncontested".  Contrarily, that was one of her reasons to go further in the process. The responses to the Maddow list belong to me and I typed them up quickly because Jay compiled Maddow's short list, Joanie said she liked (I took that to mean she agreed with) Rachel Maddow and so I proceeded to show how I found her list biased and in need of more explanation. If you or anyone wants to put the 500 other opinions on the forum, feel free. 

I have little problem with the impeachment going forth at this time politically but here are some reasons why it may be counterproductive to all of us in the larger picture:  Arguably there do exist some good reasons not to proceed, however. (1) Under the circumstances there seems to be stark dissent from scholars on both sides about the "facts", (2) the drive to distort facts (on both sides and the media) with the goal of gaining popularity for an upcoming election colors this impeachment for future administrations (thereby setting an unfavorable precedent and heightening the chances for mistakes to be made) and (3) creates an atmosphere where such contention is nothing short of political weaponry (a situation that Turley taught us was of concern by the Framers).  Then there is the "uselessness" argument that Democratic Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence made when she declared there was no good reason to impeach when the American people could very well see the evidence and vote accordingly in just a few months. Though I may be putting words into her mouth, as a Dem she no doubt had (or should have had) political concerns, too, that (1) her party's drive to impeach would impair their own candidates' progressive campaigns, (2) deflect (time, effort, money) from doing the people's business (ie. USMCA,) in order to gain political points, (3) place serving Dems from states won by Trump in '16 into very uncomfortable positions with their constituents, (4) heighten domestic mayhem and thereby play into the hands of meddling Russia, and (5) hype media types to contort facts and figures to compete for ratings and readerships.  If none of that bothers anybody, so be it. I'm not too comfortable with it all, but hey, may the good of the people win out!

Really, Jay? Did it include the phrase, 'the three amigos' in the orginal list? That's fascinating... 

Just one more cookie can't hurt.... 

Joan Ruggles (Young)

Let's be accurate here Nori. What you call "Maddow's list", is a list copied and pasted directly from the report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  You can read the whole report (including "Maddow's ilst)" here if you like. 

 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/03/us/politics/house-impeachment-report.html#g-page-34

BTW Jay, I tried to find the condensed Summary and Key Findings and couldn't, so I accidentaly started reading the whole thing. As you say, it reads like a novel. I listened to all the hearings but this report fills in a lot of timeline details I was unaware of. Had to stop myself after about 50 pages. 

As you've all heard, the Repubs. continue to find reasons to call the impeachment hearing "unfair".

1. First it was the beginning of investigations without having held a vote. So a vote was held.

2. Then it was unfair because testements were being taken behind closed doors.  This is legitimate, routine and Rebuplican committee members were allowed to be present. So the hearings became public.

3. Then it was unfair because the Republicans were not allowed equal time to question witnesses. I watched the hearings. Both sides had equal time for questions.

4. Then it was unfair because the President was not allowed to have legal representation. The Judiciary Committee invited the President to send legal representation. He refused.

5. This week Newt Gingrich was floating a new complaint. The hearings are "dishonest " due to them being held during the Christmas season. Sorry Newt, that won't fly since you as Speaker held the vote to impeach Clinton on Dec 19, 1998. 

I tried to find the Fox News clip of him saying this but it won't play for me. Maybe you'll have better luck.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6113668833001#sp=show-clips

Jack Mallory

In order to understand the posts to the Forum, Nora, there is a need to read them. Re: my post 10070 concerning the 500+ lawyers, which I both summarized and cited to its source so you could read  the original. There are NOT 500 opinions to read. They are all signatories to a SINGLE letter, expressing their agreed upon opinion concerning impeachment. I will not spoon feed it to you again--post #10070.

********

Jay, yes, quoting verbatim. Sorry, forgot to source: here's a source that most of us might find credible. Or, maybe, not.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-roundtable-small-business-red-tape-reduction-accomplishments/

Jay Shackford

Nori -- Suggest you read my 12:45 pm post more carefully, which points out that I was posting the chapter headings in the official House Intelligence Committee report-- not something made up by Rachael Maddow who is a "deep state" bogeywoman loved and used by the radical right to mindlessly attack just what happens to be the facts and the truth.   Nori, you are playing to your base.  Sad, very sad.  

Glenn and Nori-- Looks like another blowout.  Switching to the Ravens game. 

Jack Mallory

Reading today's posts suggests that a lot of time and verbiage could be saved if folks would just read posts a bit more carefully. No need for constant repetition/clarification/correction. More time for baking bread or cookies. 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Yup. There are certain priorities in any given day & multi-tasking has it's drawbacks. 
Aww, thanks Glen. Jackson is a happy baking partner  & holds the family record for eating more choc chips straight from the bag in 30 seconds than anyone else in the family. Ensuing belly-ache notwithstanding, he claims it all was well worth the effort. He was awarded with extra cookies today for being made to watch & discuss the Pearl Harbor documentary on the History Channel yesterday. 

Jay, I wasn't aware I HAD a base but whatever you say. My expoundings upon the headline lists were my interpretations from experiencing live testimonies & not lifted as some party's talking points. If what I believe to be unproven "facts" are just my opinion, then I suppose you are suggesting that Durshowitz & Turley are playing to the same base? And why would that be sad? Because we disagree with many of the assumptions & supposed validity of what is being put forth by the House Intelligence Committee? 

Gotta smile at this one: 

Or the rich old white guy from Delaware? 

Glen Hirose

Jay, Nori,

I always try to stay positive, but my hopes for the last 3 games are about 0.  It's very hard for me to root for Baltimore although I'll admit Jackson is the best QB in the AFC and maybe in the NFL.  So with that being said how about those 22-4 Caps! It doesn't matter how far down the bench you look they all can play with the Big Kids.

Jack,

I certainly don’t want to spend $695 on a 3-D metal printer, but I’m fascinated with its potential. I’m thinking of going to the Montgomery County library to see if they have one I can fiddle-around-with; the software is free on line and supply costs are negligible. A 60 mm commando mortar would be a simple first project, what do you think?

   The 60 mm is just the answer for those"Tweener" occasions.

Joan Ruggles (Young)

Jay, I too was baffeled about the toilet faucet talk from DT. Before assuming that he's just lost it, I found a CNN story about the whole thing. He's apparently railing about water saving technologies and energy saving bulbs, which he claims make him look orange. I think the folks over at Bronx Colors concealer would disagree.

makeup debate: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-orange-makeup-website-crashes-bronx-colors-1475928

toilet obsession: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html

Jack Mallory

I'm sure some of those 4 deuce mortar owners out there are very fine people, Glen. 

*******
You do have plenty of time to fill Congresswoman Lawrence's mouth chock full of words she never said, Nora. Having had my mouth filled with words you've imagined several times, I sympathize with the Congresswoman. 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Don't need a degree in rocket science to know that EVERY Dem in Congress is well aware of how this impeachment affects his or her jobs & their party politically. Lawrence may be the exception, but I would be very surprised. 

Jack Mallory

Joan, Jay, anyone else--does Trump's rant suggest that he's spending much too much time hanging around in the White House bathrooms, counting how often people flush? I remember, years ago, a guy getting arrested for hiding, "observing" beneath outhouses down at Big Sur. This must cut into Trump's golf time. But then, it's winter . . .

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

that is funny how you talk about the Democrats Nori. I know you just don't feel they could be motivated by real alarm at Trump's unlawfulness. Did you think Elijah Cummings was just trying to do things regarding politics or trying to do the right thing when he said "what will it be said when we are dancing with the angels that we didn't do anything." or something to that effect. . There are many Democrats who feel there is something terribly wrong going on with Trump running the Presidency. You turn a blind eye to the Republican party that except for a very few has totally done a 180 to become the party of Trump. If they oppose Trump, they get chastized and risk losing an election. what happened to the Republicans who used to care about protecting us from the Russians, our adversary, who has been meddling in our elections.. Lindsay Graham used to say Trump was a narcissist and talked against him and said he was unfit to be President and now Lindsey is investigating the Bidens after saying just a couple of years ago that Joe Biden is one of the best human beings he has met. Well, its no use as you are also in the party of Trump as you only will listen to Turley and Dershowitz and not the other Constitutional Scholars, the 500 plus and the witnesses who explain how Trump has violated his oath of office...I have listened to Turley and Dershowitz and concluded that the case they make is not strong and not right about impeachment. It would be nice if you would at least open your mind to another point of view and check out some of the findings that Jay and Jack have listed. . Do you consider it possible that Trump wanted the Biden investigation announced on CNN.to hurt his rival. He didn't ask that corruption in general be announced. Wouldn't that raise a red flag to you. If the Ukainians are so corrupt now with Zelenzky in and Trump is so concerned why didn't he talk about corruption in general to them. Love, Joanie

Jay Shackford

Thanks Nori for conceding that it wasn’t Rachael Maddow’s list that I was quoting. That’s a good start, but not good enough.  Now you claim that I am “lifting from some parties talking points.”  In fact, the “chapter headings” that I presented in my original post several days ago came directly from the House Intelligence Committee’s report on the impeachment inquiry. (See the link posted by Joan.)   And that report is based on “live testimony” and statements from witnesses sworn to tell the truth, many of whom are Republicans and had the courage to risk their careers in the foreign service, the National Security Council, OMB and elsewhere because the President’s behavior was so corrupt and outrageous. 

I would hardly call that “unproven talking points.” One more thing.  During the hearings last week, your good buddy Jonathan Turley had two main objections – that the impeachment process was moving too quickly and that it was too narrowly focused on the Ukrainian situation.  Let’s look at that. 

The House impeachment inquiry and hearings on Andrew Johnson began on Feb. 24, 1868 and five days later, March 3, 1868, he was impeached by the House.  His trial in the Senate ran from March to May where he narrowly escaped conviction. The Trump impeachment inquiry has been going on for a lot longer than that – more than 70 days by my count or about as long as the impeachment inquiry on Bill Clinton. 

For someone who considers himself a constitutional scholar, I wonder how Turley was unaware that Johnson’s impeachment – from start to finish in the House – lasted only 5 days or 3 working days if you exclude the weekend. Turley was asked specifically on how long the Johnson impeachment inquiry in the House lasted, and he responded with a smug smile on his face, “I don’t remember.”  

Now let’s look at the issue as to whether the impeachment inquiry is too narrowly focused.  Well, the impeachment proceedings would be a lot broader and more robust if the President had released subpoenaed documents sought by Congress and allowed his cronies (Pence, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and other Administration insiders) to testify under oath before the House Intelligence Committee. But Old Bone Spurs opted to stonewall Congress and run out the clock.  

If I were you, I would look elsewhere for legal advice and counsel.  BTW, Durshowitz (sp?) is an aging media hound and not respected even in Republican legal circles.    

On a more personal side, Nori you have a very good-looking grandson. I’m sure you are very proud. So don't take my posts personally -- everything is fair in "love, war and impeachment politics."

Glen, Nori and other sports fans:  did you guys watch the ending of the 49ers/Saint’s game?  Great game!!! And Glen, you are spot on – the Caps are having a great start to the season.  Go Caps!!!  And Go Nancy!!! She’s having a great season, too.  

Nora Skinker (Morton)

i beg to differ, Joanie.  I definitely think the Dems are motivated and that some of them really are alarmed.  Many are more alarmed by the thought of losing the WH in 2020, however. Many are both. But, so what? They are free to do exactly what they are doing and the opposition is certainly free to do what they are doing.  There's truly nothing new here. As we have often agreed, we all come to our opinions through different lenses and different experiences. It's fascinating to share notes.  I appreciate everyone's involvement and feel blessed to know your viewpoints and am the better for being informed of the "other side" of this impeachment issue.  I would much rather glean your information than glean it from CNN or most other sources. You may be surprised but I do think there are many issues on which we agree but it's just not interesting if everybody merely echoes one another all the time.

Matter of fact, this is not new at all. Read below an article sent to me by a fellow classmate today.  More food for thought and stimulating conversation!

This (below) was published in April of this year from a blog, The Rugged Individualist by Roy Filly.  In my lifetime of following politics, I knew much of what he writes in this article but never realized what a clear pattern of political determination it has become. 

"The Democrat Party likes one of the arrows in its quiver.  It likes to impeach Republican presidents, or, at the very least, try.  Since World War II ended there have been 7 Republican presidents.  (In essence there were 6 since Gerald Ford, as Vice President, only served out the remainder of Richard Nixon's term after Nixon resigned.  Ford was never "elected" president.)  How many of these six Republican presidents have Democrats tried to impeach? Every one except Dwight David Eisenhower -- and let's face it, if Eisenhower hadn't been the most lauded American hero of his era, they would have tried to impeach him, as well.  RICHARD NIXON:  On May 9, 1972, Congressman William Fitts Ryan submitted a resolution to impeach President Nixon.  The next day, John Conyers introduced a similar resolution and both were referred to the Judiciary Committee.  Pesonally, I think Nixon tried to cover up the Watergate burglary.  However, it should be remembered that he won his reelection in a landslide, taking 60.7% of the popular vote and carrying 49 states.  McGovern couldn't even win his home state. RONALD REAGAN: On March 6, 1987 Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez introduced the articles of impeachment against President Reagan regarding the Iran Contra affair.  Joint hearings of Congress dominated the summer of 1987.  A special prosecutor was appointed. GEORGE H.W. BUSH: On January 16, 1991, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez (he was a busy little Democrat) introduced articles of impeachment against President George H.W. Bush for starting the Gulf War.  Seriously? The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it died.  Not to be deterred, Gonzalez tried again in February 1992.  He then referred both bills to the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Affairs.  Again, both resolutions died.  Importantly, in 1991, Democrats controlled the Senate (57 to 41) and the House (258 to176) yet could not get an impeachment vote that only required a majority in the House.  The Democrat Party is a very different animal today.  GEORGE W. BUSH: Due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, President George W. Bush, as well as other officials in his administration, were targeted for impeachment by the Democrats.  These efforts died during hearings in Committee.  However, the Democrats tried their best.  DONALD J. TRUMP:  It only took a couple of weeks after President Trump's inaugural before Democrats began beating the impeachment drum.  On May 7, 2017, Representaive Al Green called for impeachment of President Trump on the House floor.  A few months subsequently (and less than a half-year into his presidency) Representative Green was joined by Representative Brad Sherman to introduce a resolution that contained an article of impeachment.  Shortly afterward, Representative Steve Cohen was joined by five other Democrats to introduce five articles of impeachment that included "obstruction of justice," violation of the foreign emoluments clause," "violation of the domestic emoluments clause," "undermining the independence of the federal judiciary," and "undermining the freedom of the press."  (The press remains "free" and totally in the pocket of the Democrat Party.)  This attempt didn't get very far.  A very large majority tabled the resolution in Committee.  We now have multiple House committees promising "hearings on impeachment-related issues" and the first of several resolutions presenting articles of impeachment were introduced as soon as the 116th Congress was convened.  The Democrats were waiting for the Mueller report.  When the Mueller report didn't indict the President, it didn't slow them down a wit.  What people do not understand about the Mueller report is that it is only the prosecution case.  If the Democrats try to impeach there will be a defense case.  If the "prosecution' thought they could win a case for "obstruction of justice" they would have recommended an indictment.  If they didn't think they could win BEFORE the defense case, they certainly have no change after the defense case.  There is no defense lawyer at a Grand Jury hearing, which is why that information cannot be promulgated.  If they try to impeach, their witnesses will be cross-examined (witnesses like Michael Cohen, the inveterate liar) and defense witnesses and experts will be brought forward.  My friends, I would ask you to go back and reread the first two sentence of this post and see if I exaggerated."

Interesting. Particularly realizing those words were written back in April. Yes, Joanie, I think they are VERY VERY motivated. Seems Dems have found "something terribly wrong" with LOTS of Republican presidents.

Jack Mallory

Johnson, Nixon, both Bushes, Obama, Trump . . . What if we had started in the 60s, impeaching Presidents who took us to or continued wars without a Congressional declaration. How many hundreds of thousands, millions, of lives might have been saved if we had rigorously adhered to the Constitution and made it clear to every President that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 was the standard?

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

I forgot to thank Joan and Robert and others for their posts that show how Trump abused power, etc.

Nori, your grandson is very cute and seems so happy to be surrounded by cookies. Love, Joanie  We certainly can agree on things like beautiful children.

Jack Mallory

A shameful moment for Trump, Republicans and other supporters, and the United States--our President campaigning with war criminals. Who's next on stage, Rusty Calley?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/us/politics/trump-war-crimes-pardons.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Glen Hirose

Jay, Nori, and any other closet football fans,

The 49ers / Saints game was a Hoot! That football spent more time in the air than most birds.  Can’t help but feel sorry for the bookies that had to pay out the “Overs” bets… I also watched the Ravens / Buffalo game, and it could have easily ended very differently.  It’s nice to have a 22 year old QB who’s on pace for 1,200 yards rushing and 3,000+ yards in the air. He’s a genuine 2 in one franchise player.

Backstrom is back at 7pm tonight, and then on Wednesday, BOSTON!!! I’ll have to take an extra dose of BP meds…

Jack Mallory

If anyone sees any reporting on the Constitutionality of Presidential pardons for war criminals (or "killing machines" as he calls our troops) to attract votes, please post it. There's a policy that ought to be impeachable. And/or unelectable. 

********

Another thought: I don't believe we train our military to be "killing machines" who consequently become war criminals, as Trump asserts. But the Commander in Chief doesn't seem to understand that if true, as CIC HE is the most responsible person in the perpetuation of that criminality.

We hanged Gen. Yamashita after WWII for his command responsibilities for war crimes, even though committed without his participation or even knowledge.  Perhaps this wasn't in the curriculum at the little boys' military school Trump limped his way through. 
 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Here is an article by Eugene Robinson that shows the tragic policies of Trump on immigration where the vulnerable are left behind....Six have died under custody and none under the Obama administration....this is so sad and it could have been prevented if this youth got immediate medical attention for a fever of 103 he came in with. Love, Joanie

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administration-is-to-blame-for-a-teen-migrants-death/2019/12/09/569ae0e8-1ac6-11ea-8d58-5ac3600967a1_story.html