How would you know? You didn’t watch the trial. They just presented loads of evidence yesterday.Originally Posted by DONW
|
|
|
|
|
How would you know? You didn’t watch the trial. They just presented loads of evidence yesterday.
The democrats say the same thing over and over and it's all lies. The only evidence is the transcript.
The “market” reflects the value of a specific kind of financial assets, which is only based in part on the growth of the actual economy (measured by gdp or earnings).
It would seem reasonable to expect a reversion to the mean for the market as long as there hasn’t been some secular shift that changes the dynamic, such as perpetual low interest rates, sustained above-trend productivity growth, or some other new factor effecting the supply and demand of stocks.
Personally, I don’t know that I believe that we have entered a new world of perpetual low interest rates. Maybe. Perhaps we have entered a liquidity trap.
Productivity growth is interesting - AI could offer the potential of making people much more productive, just like other automation technologies. We are still in the very early innings on that one (assuming that the first pitch has even been thrown yet).
If you would have watched the trial yesterday you would have learned about so much more evidence. Because you didn’t watch the trial yesterday, you are ignorant on the subject and your opinion is uninformed.
I'm not going to stare at my television and listen to 2 idiots spew the same crap over and over. You believe it because it fits your agenda, You hate the President more than anybody on this planet and you'll believe anything that any left wing lunatic says no matter how goofy it may be.
You chose ignorance. That is fine, it just makes your opinion uninformed. Yesterday wasn’t the “same crap”. It was the presentation of evidence. You missed it, so declaring that there is “no evidence” is just a wrong guess on your part.
You really are funny!!!
And easily led.You really are funny!!!
A real Koolaid drinker.
They keep harping on this Turley fellow. Saying he was a Republican witness. Was he really a republican witness or just someone that was already on the approved list Dems put together and the Republicans wanted questioned?
Then they talk about him stating that an impeachable offense doesn’t have to be a crime. However, they tend to cut out the part where he states that the Dems put wrote out articles which are worth less than if they delivered a cow pie in a cardboard box.
Yes, Turley was the Republican witness.
Turley argued FOR Clinton’s impeachment, stating was “no objective basis” to claim that the Framers intended a “restrictive definition of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’
He also previously argued:
“The [Constitutional Convention] debates reflect the view that the Senate would be the forum for the appearance of witnesses and a comprehensive treatment of the allegations of misconduct against a president. The Framers did not appear to anticipate the type of hearing with witnesses and subpoenas used during the Nixon inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee.
Instead, Turley argued, “articles of impeachment are a type of presidential indictment under Article I…. the Framers specifically mandated that a trial be held in the Senate under specific conditions while leaving the House to impeach in any fashion that it chooses.”
Thus, it is inconsistent that in the House impeachment hearings he was then commenting that the House somehow must have all the witnesses to indict/impeach, when he viewed that the Senate trial was actually where the witnesses were to be presented.
And obviously his argument about it being a “wafer thin” case was made BEFORE the trial - you know, the place where the case is actually made. As we saw yesterday, the case is anything but “wafer thin.”
The real tragedy is that the Ukrainian President showed the US how a non-corrupt President should act, and Zelensky stood up for what was right despite what was at stake for Ukraine. This is completely embarrassing for America and Republican defenders of this unethical president.
Breaking News: DOJ says Comey did NOT have probably cause to start Trump Investigation
https://trendingpolitics.com/breakin...medium=twitter
“Thanks in large part to the work of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, the Court has received notice of material misstatements and omissions in the applications filed by the government in the above-captioned dockets,” the letter from the Department of Justice said. “DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.'”
Reuters reporter Brad Heath said that this letter is a "big deal," tweeting, “This is a big deal. The Justice Department is conceding that two of the four FISA applications it used to conduct surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page were not lawful, and it’s not defending the legality of its other two applications.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote