The Truth about Corona Virus Situation and what every person

[mpm]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:07:23 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:35:51 AM UTC-7, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:46:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Their unwillingess to listen to any witnesses could be seem as irresponsible.
First, it is not the Senate's job to call new witnesses, nor is it their job to make the case - that job belongs to the House of Representatives. The Senate did consider the testimony of the witnesses the House included in their impeachment articles, and made their decision. The reason the House didn't call all of the witnesses they wanted is that they (reasonably) knew the President would invoke executive privilege, as is his right.

The first point is not well made; the Senate has the same right of subpoena as does the House.
It can be invoked for any reason.
The House DID call witnesses, who did not honor subpoenas, who might have eventually
been brought before a competent authority (probably the Supreme Court) to determine if
an 'executive privilege' were effective against an impeachment investigation.

But, no such privilege has been upheld in the past, and we have no reason to think the
privilege has any validity. Fighting the CLAIM of privilege might have occupied time, so
was deemed unproductive.

I don't disagree with the timeline.
However, your premise is flawed.

The Senate does have the right to call witnesses, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION.
That duty falls to the House, to make their case however they like, as best they can.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:44:29 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:07:23 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:35:51 AM UTC-7, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:46:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Their unwillingess to listen to any witnesses could be seem as irresponsible.
First, it is not the Senate's job to call new witnesses, nor is it their job to make the case - that job belongs to the House of Representatives.. The Senate did consider the testimony of the witnesses the House included in their impeachment articles, and made their decision. The reason the House didn't call all of the witnesses they wanted is that they (reasonably) knew the President would invoke executive privilege, as is his right.

The first point is not well made; the Senate has the same right of subpoena as does the House.
It can be invoked for any reason.
The House DID call witnesses, who did not honor subpoenas, who might have eventually
been brought before a competent authority (probably the Supreme Court) to determine if
an 'executive privilege' were effective against an impeachment investigation.

But, no such privilege has been upheld in the past, and we have no reason to think the
privilege has any validity. Fighting the CLAIM of privilege might have occupied time, so
was deemed unproductive.

I don't disagree with the timeline.
However, your premise is flawed.

The Senate does have the right to call witnesses, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION.
That duty falls to the House, to make their case however they like, as best they can.

The whole process is not supposed to be the House vs. the Senate. It is supposed to be about the House AND Senate seeking the truth. There are no rules as you lay them out. The obligation is on each and every representative to learn the truth and act accordingly.

But I can see how you would think it is a them vs. us issue. That's the way everything is to you. That's why you need guns, to protect you from THEM..

--

Rick C.

----+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in
news:d8d88b52-62e2-48d4-a567-fb7432e54124@googlegroups.com:

The Senate does have the right to call witnesses, BUT NOT THE
OBLIGATION.

Nice try, you retarded, face and head up Mitch's ass dumbfuck.

> That duty falls to the House,

Nice try. They did want witnesses. The accused blocked them. Do
you lack a memory?

to make their case
however they like, as best they can.

Obviously it is not nor was not "however they like", and the "as
best they can" coming from a dumbfuck like you must mean "aside from
what the accused illegally blocks". Wake the fuck up, boy. The act
was criminal and so was the cover up behaviors... ALL OF THEM.

The UNDUE part was their blockade of said evidence, you dopey,
deliberatey self horse blindered deliberate dipshit.

Looking the other way, then declaring nothing happened is, in this
instance, criminal in my opinion. Even dumbasses like you belong on
that hayride. Sadly this one time utter stupidity cannot be tied to
criminal complicity for most of you.

Put me in office and I would succinctly imprison the conduct
unbecoming motherfuckers. Had they done their job, we would be
looking at news of imprisonment of the one motherfucker whom most
needs it. Donald John Trump, the felony criminal.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 22/03/2020 17:53, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 8:21:57 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

A balance is always going to be necessary. You risk your life
every time you drive to work. But the balance has to be sensible -
some politicians seem to want do all they can to preserve the
economy, forgetting that dead or hospitalised people can't work.

Sure, balance is not something we are very good at though. Rather
than evaluate risk, we tend to operate emotionally. Auto accidents
are old hat and we are comfortable with the 1:10,000 annual risk (in
the US anyway). Bring in a new player and all bets are off.

In the general population which is irrational and incredibly risk averse
whilst doing stupid things perhaps but planners have to do the sums and
make what are very difficult decisions given the finite resources.

The civilian population are not making things easy either. Yesterday was
a beautiful spring day here so everybody went a hundred miles to the
seaside or some other beauty spot sitting in huge traffic jams and then
crowding in the handful of takeaway places still open. It pretty much
guarantees transmission. Supermarket scrums at opening time likewise.

The rich have now fled London (and other big cities) for their holiday
second homes in the countryside bringing the damn virus with them

We will see this day of crazy irresponsible behaviour reflected in the
infection statistics one incubation period later.

If it were just about the number of deaths, I'd say a balance could
be found. My biggest fear is hospitals being overrun so that all
medical care deteriorates. In China there were people who were
quarantined in centers receiving no medical care. Zero! Zilch!
Nada! If we can't avoid that there won't be an acceptable level of
infection vs. the economy.

I now have some real anecdata from one of my university friends who is
presently recovering from (suspected) coronavirus. He describes in as
pretty much like being drunk (in the H2G2 sense). Worst hangover ever
combined with a really unpleasant high fever but he is getting over it
now. UK isn't testing anyone who doesn't need to be hospitalised so he
doesn't know for sure that he has had it but the symptoms match and it
was worse than seasonal flu in his case.

His household are now in quarantine for 14 days. Snag is there are no
online order delivery slots available from supermarkets for 3 weeks! He
is just back from a cactus expedition in Peru escaping a week prior to
lock down. It is almost certain he caught the virus crossing London
(although it is just about possible he caught it in Peru).

I'm sorry I ever watched Torchwood. I keep getting flashbacks.

You must be a very sensitive soul. Dr Who and Torchwood are children's
programs. The one with the "I want my mummy" meme was particularly good.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 19:53:56 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/03/2020 17:53, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 8:21:57 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

A balance is always going to be necessary. You risk your life
every time you drive to work. But the balance has to be sensible -
some politicians seem to want do all they can to preserve the
economy, forgetting that dead or hospitalised people can't work.

Sure, balance is not something we are very good at though. Rather
than evaluate risk, we tend to operate emotionally. Auto accidents
are old hat and we are comfortable with the 1:10,000 annual risk (in
the US anyway). Bring in a new player and all bets are off.

In the general population which is irrational and incredibly risk averse
whilst doing stupid things perhaps but planners have to do the sums and
make what are very difficult decisions given the finite resources.

The civilian population are not making things easy either. Yesterday was
a beautiful spring day here so everybody went a hundred miles to the
seaside or some other beauty spot sitting in huge traffic jams and then
crowding in the handful of takeaway places still open. It pretty much
guarantees transmission. Supermarket scrums at opening time likewise.

The rich have now fled London (and other big cities) for their holiday
second homes in the countryside bringing the damn virus with them

We will see this day of crazy irresponsible behaviour reflected in the
infection statistics one incubation period later.

If it were just about the number of deaths, I'd say a balance could
be found. My biggest fear is hospitals being overrun so that all
medical care deteriorates. In China there were people who were
quarantined in centers receiving no medical care. Zero! Zilch!
Nada! If we can't avoid that there won't be an acceptable level of
infection vs. the economy.

I now have some real anecdata from one of my university friends who is
presently recovering from (suspected) coronavirus. He describes in as
pretty much like being drunk (in the H2G2 sense). Worst hangover ever
combined with a really unpleasant high fever but he is getting over it
now. UK isn't testing anyone who doesn't need to be hospitalised so he
doesn't know for sure that he has had it but the symptoms match and it
was worse than seasonal flu in his case.

The regular flu to C19 death ratio in the USA is about 60:1. He
probably had something else.

His household are now in quarantine for 14 days. Snag is there are no
online order delivery slots available from supermarkets for 3 weeks! He
is just back from a cactus expedition in Peru escaping a week prior to
lock down. It is almost certain he caught the virus crossing London
(although it is just about possible he caught it in Peru).

I'm sorry I ever watched Torchwood. I keep getting flashbacks.

You must be a very sensitive soul. Dr Who and Torchwood are children's
programs. The one with the "I want my mummy" meme was particularly good.

This is worth reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decameron

Tales told under the spectre of death.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[mpm]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:58:55 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> The whole process is not supposed to be the House vs. the Senate. It is supposed to be about the House AND Senate seeking the truth.

No it's not. The Constitution says nothing of the sort.

What is being sought is a conviction on the House Articles of Impeachment, and a subsequent decision to remove the President from office, if convicted.

History will show that Trump was impeached, but not convicted, and not removed from office.

THAT is the truth.
You may not like it. I get it.

Before you pen your rebuttal, I want you to consider the hypothetical possibility of the Articles of Impeachment being totally false. The Senate convicts, and the President is removed from office. Now what?

NOTHING. IT IS DONE!!!
That's what "SOLE POWER" is all about.
Go back and read Article 1 of the Constitution.

The only "check-&-balance" on this sole power is the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for a conviction.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 2:06:11 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:58:55 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
The whole process is not supposed to be the House vs. the Senate. It is supposed to be about the House AND Senate seeking the truth.

No it's not. The Constitution says nothing of the sort.

What is being sought is a conviction on the House Articles of Impeachment, and a subsequent decision to remove the President from office, if convicted.

History will show that Trump was impeached, but not convicted, and not removed from office.

THAT is the truth.

Not the whole truth, which will include the fact that he should have been.

> You may not like it. I get it.

Nowhere near as comprehensively as you should.

> Before you pen your rebuttal, I want you to consider the hypothetical possibility of the Articles of Impeachment being totally false.

Why? They clearly weren't.

The Senate convicts, and the President is removed from office. Now what?

NOTHING. IT IS DONE!!!
That's what "SOLE POWER" is all about.
Go back and read Article 1 of the Constitution.

The only "check-&-balance" on this sole power is the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for a conviction.

So if only one third of them are morally defective, he gets off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:23:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

The only "check-&-balance" on this sole power is the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for a conviction.

So if only one third of them are morally defective, he gets off.

BINGO. Looks like you understand the situation.
There is hope for you yet.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:23:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
The only "check-&-balance" on this sole power is the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for a conviction.

So if only one third of them are morally defective, he gets off.

BINGO. Looks like you understand the situation.
There is hope for you yet.

Rather less for the USA.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:23:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not the whole truth, which will include the fact that he should have been.

Not a fact. That is an opinion.

Dan

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

> Chloroquine

HAHA.

This was just on TV.

Apperently there are two variations of this.

One for medical purposes.

One to clean aquariums/fish containers with.

One guy in USA apperently took the later one and died from it !

CAREFULL !

Apperently the dutch are investigating this for medical purposes.

Currently dutch advise 1.5 meters distance. In supermarkets too, in food markets too.

Fines are 400 euros for individual people if they don't listen, might be implemented in 1 to 3 days, for now just warnings, but this is going to happen most likely.

And 4000 euro fines for shops that don't maintain 1.5m inside or something like that.

Most people in Netherlands do listen to these measures.

In 1 to 2 weeks we will know if this is effective or not.

Meanwhile I found this interesting youtube video:

https://youtu.be/I5-dI74zxPg

"Glow Germ"

Maybe we/you need to shoot this virus with soap guns that's my idea.

Also another idea of mine is to inject soap directly into the lungs lol. That's what I would do if I were disperate no idea if it would work

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 12:48:42 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:23:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Not the whole truth, which will include the fact that he should have been.



Not a fact. That is an opinion.

One likely to shared by people with more sense than Dan and Mpm.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:42:41 AM UTC-7, skybu...@hotmail.com wrote:

Chloroquine

HAHA.

This was just on TV.

Apperently there are two variations of this.

One for medical purposes.

One to clean aquariums/fish containers with.

One guy in USA apperently took the later one and died from it !

CAREFULL !

Apperently the dutch are investigating this for medical purposes.

Currently dutch advise 1.5 meters distance. In supermarkets too, in food markets too.

Fines are 400 euros for individual people if they don't listen, might be implemented in 1 to 3 days, for now just warnings, but this is going to happen most likely.

And 4000 euro fines for shops that don't maintain 1.5m inside or something like that.

Most people in Netherlands do listen to these measures.

In 1 to 2 weeks we will know if this is effective or not.

Meanwhile I found this interesting youtube video:

https://youtu.be/I5-dI74zxPg

"Glow Germ"

Maybe we/you need to shoot this virus with soap guns that's my idea.

Also another idea of mine is to inject soap directly into the lungs lol. That's what I would do if I were disperate no idea if it would work

Bye,
Skybuck.

Self-medicating with an aquarium cleaner is a leading candidate for the Darwin Award.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 9:31:07 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 12:48:42 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:23:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Not the whole truth, which will include the fact that he should have been.



Not a fact. That is an opinion.

One likely to shared by people with more sense than Dan and Mpm.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I was just pointing out that you seem to believe that your opinions are facts.

_I was not commenting on what the House should have done or what the Senate should have done. I have opinions on that ,but do not think my opinions are facts.

Dan

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:06:11 PM UTC-7, mpm wrote:

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:58:55 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
The whole process is not supposed to be the House vs. the Senate. It is supposed to be about the House AND Senate seeking the truth.

No it's not. The Constitution says nothing of the sort.

What is being sought is a conviction on the House Articles of Impeachment, and a subsequent decision to remove the President from office, if convicted.

History will show that Trump was impeached, but not convicted, and not removed from office.

THAT is the truth.
You may not like it. I get it.

Before you pen your rebuttal, I want you to consider the hypothetical possibility of the Articles of Impeachment being totally false. The Senate convicts, and the President is removed from office. Now what?

NOTHING. IT IS DONE!!!
That's what "SOLE POWER" is all about.
Go back and read Article 1 of the Constitution.

The only "check-&-balance" on this sole power is the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for a conviction.

History will also show that Pres Trump was EXONERATED from a politically-motivated witch hunt.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 12:48:01 PM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 9:31:07 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 12:48:42 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:23:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not the whole truth, which will include the fact that he should have been.

Not a fact. That is an opinion.

One likely to shared by people with more sense than Dan and Mpm.

I was just pointing out that you seem to believe that your opinions are facts.

That one is rather more soundly based than you seem to be willing to accept.

It's obvious that I don't see my opinions as facts - any more than I see yours as facts (including your opinion that you had a better education than I did).

When I think I've got factual information I post a link to evidence that I think supports that point of view (which is in itself an opinion).

> _I was not commenting on what the House should have done or what the Senate should have done. I have opinions on that, but do not think my opinions are facts.

Which doesn't stop you posting claims based on entirely on you own opinion about facts to which you have no access at all.

The facts about what Trump did to inspire the attempt to impeach him are well known, and the Senate has chosen to ignore them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:42:50 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:06:11 PM UTC-7, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:58:55 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
The whole process is not supposed to be the House vs. the Senate. It is supposed to be about the House AND Senate seeking the truth.

No it's not. The Constitution says nothing of the sort.

What is being sought is a conviction on the House Articles of Impeachment, and a subsequent decision to remove the President from office, if convicted.

History will show that Trump was impeached, but not convicted, and not removed from office.

THAT is the truth.
You may not like it. I get it.

Before you pen your rebuttal, I want you to consider the hypothetical possibility of the Articles of Impeachment being totally false. The Senate convicts, and the President is removed from office. Now what?

NOTHING. IT IS DONE!!!
That's what "SOLE POWER" is all about.
Go back and read Article 1 of the Constitution.

The only "check-&-balance" on this sole power is the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for a conviction.

History will also show that Pres Trump was EXONERATED from a politically-motivated witch hunt.

I would not say he was exonerated. A number of Senators acknowledged that they thought Trump was guilty of the charges. They didn't think he should be removed from office just because he was guilty. That is a verifiable fact. I can't recall if the main Senator who talked about that was from Tenn (I believe) or Ky. But more than one talked about that aspect.

--

Rick C.

---+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 1:42:50 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:06:11 PM UTC-7, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:58:55 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
The whole process is not supposed to be the House vs. the Senate. It is supposed to be about the House AND Senate seeking the truth.

No it's not. The Constitution says nothing of the sort.

What is being sought is a conviction on the House Articles of Impeachment, and a subsequent decision to remove the President from office, if convicted.

History will show that Trump was impeached, but not convicted, and not removed from office.

THAT is the truth.
You may not like it. I get it.

Before you pen your rebuttal, I want you to consider the hypothetical possibility of the Articles of Impeachment being totally false. The Senate convicts, and the President is removed from office. Now what?

NOTHING. IT IS DONE!!!
That's what "SOLE POWER" is all about.
Go back and read Article 1 of the Constitution.

The only "check-&-balance" on this sole power is the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for a conviction.

History will also show that Pres Trump was EXONERATED from a politically-motivated witch hunt.

I'm sure that there will be "histories" written that will make that claim.

US publishers know what sells to well-heeled right-wing nitwits, and John Larkin recommends examples of that kind of product from time to time. They'll probably ship you a reprint of "The Protocols of the Order of Zion" as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 8:49:06 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:42:50 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:06:11 PM UTC-7, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:58:55 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
The whole process is not supposed to be the House vs. the Senate. It is supposed to be about the House AND Senate seeking the truth.

No it's not. The Constitution says nothing of the sort.

What is being sought is a conviction on the House Articles of Impeachment, and a subsequent decision to remove the President from office, if convicted.

History will show that Trump was impeached, but not convicted, and not removed from office.

THAT is the truth.
You may not like it. I get it.

Before you pen your rebuttal, I want you to consider the hypothetical possibility of the Articles of Impeachment being totally false. The Senate convicts, and the President is removed from office. Now what?

NOTHING. IT IS DONE!!!
That's what "SOLE POWER" is all about.
Go back and read Article 1 of the Constitution.

The only "check-&-balance" on this sole power is the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for a conviction.

History will also show that Pres Trump was EXONERATED from a politically-motivated witch hunt.

I would not say he was exonerated. A number of Senators acknowledged that they thought Trump was guilty of the charges. They didn't think he should be removed from office just because he was guilty. That is a verifiable fact. I can't recall if the main Senator who talked about that was from Tenn (I believe) or Ky. But more than one talked about that aspect.

--

Rick C.

---+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

I didn't say YOU, I said HISTORY. This mess was strictly politically motivated; they have tried since DAY ONE to pin something on Trump. This included the phony Russian Collusion (which actually did occur, but it involved Shrillary). Even Pelosi didn't want to go down this path, but her hand was forced by the shrill voices of Extreme Left, which has now taken over the Dimocrat Party.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:18:02 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 8:49:06 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:42:50 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:06:11 PM UTC-7, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:58:55 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
The whole process is not supposed to be the House vs. the Senate. It is supposed to be about the House AND Senate seeking the truth.

No it's not. The Constitution says nothing of the sort.

What is being sought is a conviction on the House Articles of Impeachment, and a subsequent decision to remove the President from office, if convicted.

History will show that Trump was impeached, but not convicted, and not removed from office.

THAT is the truth.
You may not like it. I get it.

Before you pen your rebuttal, I want you to consider the hypothetical possibility of the Articles of Impeachment being totally false. The Senate convicts, and the President is removed from office. Now what?

NOTHING. IT IS DONE!!!
That's what "SOLE POWER" is all about.
Go back and read Article 1 of the Constitution.

The only "check-&-balance" on this sole power is the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for a conviction.

History will also show that Pres Trump was EXONERATED from a politically-motivated witch hunt.

I would not say he was exonerated. A number of Senators acknowledged that they thought Trump was guilty of the charges. They didn't think he should be removed from office just because he was guilty. That is a verifiable fact. I can't recall if the main Senator who talked about that was from Tenn (I believe) or Ky. But more than one talked about that aspect.

I didn't say YOU, I said HISTORY.

And since the relevant histories haven't been written yet, it is a fatuous claim.

> This mess was strictly politically motivated; they have tried since DAY ONE to pin something on Trump. This included the phony Russian Collusion (which actually did occur, but it involved Shrillary).

Nobody with any sense thinks that the Russians would have been silly enough to collaborate with Trump, who is incapable of collaborating with anybody.

The claim is that the Russians put quite a bit of effort behind getting Trump elected, on the basis that he would be a hopelessly incompetent president and leave them to get on with their criminal activities without interference, as has indeed happened.

> Even Pelosi didn't want to go down this path, but her hand was forced by the shrill voices of Extreme Left, which has now taken over the Dimocrat Party.

Actually it was forced by the patriotic whistle-blower in the White House who heard Trump trying to pressure the Ukranian president into slinging mud at Joe Biden - it's clear to anybody with any sense that Trump was trying to engage in extortion, and the Republican position is essentially "so what?".

It was politically motivated - Trump wanted to get mud he could sling at Joe Biden during this year's presidential campaign - but calling him out for it was more based on the idea that ignoring it would be condoning the behaviour and make the Democrats look supine.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney