4810
4811

Popehat responded to this with a “no comment” and a picture of a backpack.
That said… his backpack looked a lot more professional than a grocery bag and he doesn’t present in front of Congress and the whole country with it.

4812

At least it was a reusable one and not a plastic one.

4813

IG is testifying (testified?) to the Senate this morning. Lindsay Graham sounds very upset that no one told poor Trump that Russia was trying to help his campaign so he could stop it. Grrrrrrrrrr!!! Shake that fist, Lindsay!

4814

Yeah. Really, Trump is the victim here.

4815

Most misunderstood and abused president ever!

4816

And now Sen. Lee apparently realizes that asking Horowitz a question could lead to bad results (from his point of view), so he’s just speechifying a la Barr, until finally finishing with a “question” that was totally incomprehensible.

4817

Joe Manchin likes him some waffles.

4818

Well he did end by asking if the lack of evidence of bias was in fact evidence of bias.

4819

I have a fairly radical/extreme idea. What if Senators looked at the presented evidence and made a judgement call based on what the facts are? So like if the evidence shows Trump is guilty, they could vote to convict.

I dunno, I think taking that sort of approach might help senators like Manchin with the conundrum they find themselves in.

4820

Well sure, they could do that. But on the other hand, we have a divided country. And we have those FBI lovers, out to end the Trump dynasty. And don’t forget Hillary’s emails.

4821

Ok, but then why would you expect Manchin to convict Trump before the trial even starts?

4822

On what planet did anything in @KevinC’s post lead you to jump to that conclusion?

4823

I have to be completely honest here, I have no recollection of making such a statement and you’ve left me a little confused!

4824

KevinC suggested that Senators looked at the evidence. But since the trial hasn’t started, no evidence has been presented to Senators yet. Therefore one (not necessarily you, KevinC) shouldn’t admonish Manchin for being undecided or still unwilling to convict.

EDIT: I guess my “you” was confusing, I meant the regal you!

4825

The subjunctive is confusing in English. Constructions like “What if so and so did this?” are conjectural not indications that someone actually did something.

4826

Oh, sorry. No, I mean during the trial. Instead of fretting about a divided country and how they should vote, how about they examine the evidence and make a decision based on those merits instead of what is politically expedient.

4827

Sounds reasonable. I don’t think it will work!

4828

It’s almost like the rest of Joe Manchin’s comments don’t exist. He’s not saying I haven’t seen the evidence yet. He’s saying gosh, it looks bad, but the country is divided, so what should I do?

4829

Seriously, it is beyond pathetic. “Gosh, I don’t know what to do here. I mean, the country is divided and all and this might hurt my chance at re-election if I do the right thing. What’s a politician to do???”

In my lifetime, the country has always been divided. If the ability of Congress to provide a check and balance on the Executive is predicated on the country not being divided, we might as well name Trump Dictator for Life.

I know these people are representatives of the people but they’re also supposed to be leaders. Show some fucking leadership instead of waiting for the polls to tell you whether the evidence says to convict or not.