Gromnir

gotta say, we were shocked by the bears v. vikings. the bears were w/o two starting interior dl and their best lb and eddie jackson were hobbled, but still started. held the vikings and cook, who has been the nfl's best rb through early season, to 59 total yards in the first half and no scores 'til a late 4th quarter drive when bears were up 16-0. with defensive coaching change we weren't sure what to expect, but the D has actual been getting better every week in spite o' injuries and other losses. 6 sacks? get hicks, r. smith and b. nichols back and bears will be the most boring playoff contender in the nfl, for no other reason than their defense will keep every game close enough that even their disappointing offense can at least compete. perhaps the bigger surprise is how jameis winston has been getting better every week and right now looks like a decent qb. ... anybody got a bible handy? this has gotta be a sign of the Last Days, no? seas turn to blood kinda stuff? HA! Good Fun! ps am knowing the win were against miami, but the chargers... don't know what to say 'bout the chargers. a 2-2 start is not meaning the chargers is doomed, but we honest thought the chargers were the most balanced team in the nfl coming into the season. looked strong on both sides o' the ball... could compete with anybody and should beat almost everybody. been waiting for them to get their act together and am not sure we can count a win 'gainst miami as a sea change.

am hesitant to answer. even when it is possible to criminalize a person for murder/manslaughter/negligent homicide, we rare see a da do so if is the result o' accident. a doctor, 'cause o' a bonehead mistake, screws up a prescription and shady dies. perhaps a construction worker messes up construction o' scaffolding and not only does coworker die in fall, but shady dies. etc. the doctor and construction worker don't get away with anything, and chances are the doctor loses everything even if she does have malpractice insurance. will be wrongful death civil case to make folks pay. even so, if is mistake, we typical don't see da going for prosecution, in part 'cause juries won't convict for mistake even if unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought could be applied... even if manslaughter or negligent homicide could be applied, da rare does so. if the doctor or construction worker were on drugs when they made their mistake? then yeah, da goes after such stuff rabid and juries is willing to convict such folks. but mistake? am suspecting "because she is a cop" is why da isn't going for, at most, negligent homicide. malcador kinda gets backwards. da is obviously pushing this hard and is willing to risk censure to show the public how the prosecution is doing everything possible to punish this cop. is unlikely the judge would throw out the conviction, but the da could face some kinda punishment. why is da risking? needs to reassure constituents that justice is being pursued. am knowing this feels gut-level wrong. an innocent person, sitting on a couch in their own home when a stranger busts in, gets shot and dies and nobody goes to prison? how could that be justice? the thing is, the cop being on trial for murder is actual what is odd in these circumstances. so it goes.

preside is not same as judge. am not sure what you think chief justice presiding means. again, is worth your time to read history o' the johnson trial. the senate, all o' the senators, is gonna judge the trial. the SCOTUS and the judicial branch has no say on what happens at a senate trial resulting from impeachment and chief justice is limited to largely ministerial functions. kinda repeating self. oh, and is much Congress can do to reign in power o' the President, but not with divided Congress. emergency power, for example, were given to the executive by Congress. the expansion o' bureaucracy were accomplished by Legislation and not by some kinda executive branch mitosis. etc. whatever powers Congress has ceded to the executive may be quashed. however, is not gonna happen. an amendment isn't necessary, but traditional methods is ineffectual as Congress is divided. four years ago, describe an imaginary future President who colludes with russians to get elected, but collusion is found just shy o' necessary coordination for a criminal conspiracy charge. tell us the imagined President, on multiple occasions, obstructed efforts by special counsel and fbi to investigate the russian collusion, but doj cannot pursue a criminal indictment 'gainst a sitting president, so evidence o' obstruction is simply memorialized. explain to us how the imagined President took money for military construction projects and disaster relief in an effort to circumvent Congressional explicit refusal to provide money for a unnamed task. tell us the President then attempted to bury ig findings regarding an urgent and credible whistleblower report which claims the President attempted to leverage a foreign power to investigate a political rival. etc. extend imagined Presidential nightmare scenario and tell us a divided Congress is incapable o' responding to Presidential excesses and only two viable options for responding to repeated executive excess: wait for the next election or initiate impeachment. welcome to september 2019. HA! Good Fun! ps if you wanna show how founders desire to insulate justice from political is not real, chief justice presiding at Presidential impeachment is a terrible rebuttal. however, the past couple hundred years o' Congressional legislation and executive branch rulemaking which both implicit and explicit relies 'pon judicial decisions to fill in gaps in laws and rules does make a mockery o' founder's goals.

we brought up johnson 'cause o' the trial. what happens when a deeply divided senate attempts to hold a trial? you are gonna have dozens o' judges who is simultaneous jurors voting on what evidence and testimony is admissible. gosh, with a partisan senate, how could that turn out bad, eh? am thinking most o' us would agree that jury and witness tampering is something one would wanna avoid if you hope for fair trial, but such were commonplace with the senate trial o' johnson. deals were struck and money changed hands and the line 'tween the good guys and bad guys were blurred beyond recognition. it were all very democratic and ugly... am suspecting we got a glimpse o' what trials looked like in athens when democracy were young. disquieting to say the least. is good reasons why the American experiment attempted to insulate the Courts from the other branches o' government, and the trial o' johnson were a morbid effective case study in what happens when there is no distinction 'tween political and judicial. oh, and let's not ignore how trump is gonna be tried by social media and 24 news as much as senate. how do you think that plays out? mueller attempted, with little luck, to explain the gravity o' a legal decision not to pursue criminalization o' trump's election interaction with russia. mueller tried to warn Congress and the public 'bout the extent o' russian attempts to interfere with elections. russian efforts were always less 'bout getting a particular candidate elected and more 'bout creating distrust and amplifying discord. you think the russia and and china and others is gonna sit meek and quiet outta respect for our American institutions and let the senate trial play out w/o any foreign interference? precedent is now set that politicians may knowing accept dirt from foreign powers as long as coordination and planning with such powers is limited. can't imagine how such could possible turn out bad. a senate trial o' trump has much potential for calamity. still in favor o' impeachment and trial knowing the likelihood o' nightmares inherent in pursuing justice? fine. as we say, am personal in favor o' impeachment 'cause am seeing no alternative-- there needs be a response to executive excess other than inherent limits o' a 4-year term. read history o' johnson trial and consider in context o' 2019 political and media realities. HA! Good Fun!

given our a la carte viewing o' star trek episodes, netflix makes sense. breaking out all the disks, for all the seasons, and all the series is tedious when am likely to only watch a couple episodes from an individual season. also, as you note, there ain't no remaster for ds9 available in any case. tomorrow am gonna need watch it's only a paper moon. probably will watch the visitor and in the pale moonlight as well. HA! Good Fun!

good episode. thank you aron eisenberg. "have not actually watched DS9 since it went off the air." w/o more than a moment to reflect 'pon specific episodes, in the pale moonlight and the visitor is getting relative frequent rewatches from us. am knowing ds9 were less in line with the roddenberry ideal than were previous series, but am thinking that were a strength as 'posed to a weakness. weren't fundamental superior for ds9 to be a bit more cynical 'bout the future, but am thinking the possibility for tonal difference made the franchise as a whole stronger. every star trek series, no matter how weak or strong, had at least a few fantastic episodes and Gromnir is more likely to pick individual gems than to try and marathon entire series. HA! Good Fun!

we were using pontius pilate in sense that he washed his hands, literal and figurative... is reason we have idiom o' washing hands as a way o' identifying one who has absolved self o' responsibility in a matter o' some import. HA! Good Fun!

the chief justice acts as the presiding officer during the senate trial. is not SCOTUS involvement. just the chief justice. furthermore, the presiding officer role is largely ministerial, which is one reason why the trial o' andrew johnson were such a complete and utter charlie fox. for those who is advocating impeachment and removal, is worth reading 'bout the andrew johnson trial as a cautionary tale. am personal current favoring impeachment with recognition o' a possible trial to follow, but that don't mean we is convinced a trial of trump would be less disastrous than were johnson. gonna need pry trump's hands off the resolute desk to get him outta office, and we do not see him placing the good o' the nation before his personal interests. if trump were to be tried, am convinced he would burn as many people and institutions as possible along the way. would be beyond catastrophic. from larry tribe's book 'bout impeachment: "Many Americans who voted for Trump view themselves as belonging to a victimized, disenfranchised class that has finally discovered its champion. For some of them, Trump’s appeal is less what he will accomplish programmatically than whom he will attack personally. Were Trump removed from office by political elites in Washington, DC—even based on clear evidence that he had grossly abused power—some of his supporters would surely view the decision as an illegitimate coup. Indeed, some right-wing leaders have already denounced the campaign to remove Trump as a prelude to civil war. This rhetoric, too, escapes reality and indulges pernicious tendencies toward apocalyptic thinking about the impeachment power." the book consistent and repeated warns o' the dangers o' impeachment. 'course since mid 2017, tribe has become one o' the most vocal supporters o' impeaching trump. but perhaps change is needed. the 2019 presidency is so different than what were envisioned by the founders in 1787. separation o' powers and checks and balances current only works if you got a person in the oval office who believes in the Constitution or who is concerned 'bout legacy and has at least some notion o' a greater good. maybe we needed trump to show us all just how broken the executive can be? am just not seeing an alternative to impeach. if trump is once again allowed to violate Constitutional limits, then what precedent is set? HA! Good Fun!

well, impeachment alone is kinda meaningless. the impeachment inquiry is gonna be significant 'cause it will either bring facts which is in question to light, or, and sadly this is more likely in our estimation, it will result in the Contempt of Congress behaviour which were spelling the end for nixon but will be a non-issue for trump. no matter what is the results o' the inquiry, the various committee investigations will be worth following. nixon, btw, were subject o' five separate inquiries and two o' those inquiries failed to result in articles o' impeachment being voted 'pon by Congress. in case you are interested, is tax avoidance and bombing cambodia which didn't get committee approval while obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt o' Congress which did. impeach and removal is not like criminal procedure... save for when Congress decides it is. *shrug* is easiest to think o' impeachment as functioning as does a criminal indictment, or in other words, a formal accusation. impeach is an emotional charged word and tickles the imagination, but impeachment is no more and no less than a formal accusation which is a necessary prerequisite for a senate trial. senate trial and 2/3 members voting for removal would be needed to actual bring 'bout a change in occupants o' the wh and oval office. aside: nixon v. united states maybe gets mentioned by a few legal experts on tv or in papers. president nixon didn't go to court regarding impeachment. the nixon in the case we mention were a federal judge who, along with another judge, appealed his impeach and removal to The Court. unanimous decision. is determined that validity o' impeachment and senate trial is a nonjusticiable political question and even issues o' process is beyond the scope o' The Court's authority. once impeachment proceedings begin in earnest, SCOTUS plays role of pontius pilate. HA! Good Fun! ps there were a united states v. nixon which were involving the inquiry o' nixon. is why the recent nonsense where trump had doj claim he is not subject to criminal process while in office is so wacky. again, is a unanimous Court which decides nixon must hand over tapes as result o' criminal subpoena. made very clear executive privilege is no bar to criminal process. unambiguous. however, not technical an impeachment case.

no. impeach is simple majority o' those present in house voting in favor of articles of impeachment. conviction in senate trial requires 2/3. nixon example: glass half full or empty? when impeachment process started 'gainst nixon, there were similar little chance o' conviction. impeachment investigation changed opinions o' previous dismissive and/or ambivalent republicans such that nixon eventual quit rather than face inevitability. for better or worse, is not 1974. HA! Good Fun!

as much as am now favoring impeachment as a matter o' principle, am thinking this doesn't turn out well for democrats. all one need do is read fox news and breitbart sites to see how some folks is being exposed to this latest insanity. the whistleblower is a snitch and biden is the real bad guy and the fake news media is complicit in a cover-up o' the badness done by democrats. nixon had a long laundry list o' misdeeds which were exposed by impeachment, but the country were not actual in favor o' impeachment 'til nixon repeated stonewalled Congressional efforts to get at truth. even then, national support for impeachment and removal never exceeded 60% and 'mongst republicans, support eventually reached a paltry 31%. it were republican Congressmen who in spite o' middling public support for removal, actual turned tide on removal. trump situation is different. trump has been consistent obstructing Congress for a long time and few folks appear to care. so if trump digs in and denies ig testimony and prevents corroborating witness testimony on basis o' privilege and denies access to records o' where actual ukraine conversations were stored, then what? we have also seen just how much the gop Congressmen has rallied behind trump and there don't appear to be much chance they shift 'cause o' principle. polarization is far worse today than were the case in 74. even if everything the whistleblower claims gets corroboration, am not seeing public opinion or gop Congress change. all we see in the future is the public more entrenched and their disgust with Congress more pronounced. the thing is, we also don't see much o' a choice for Congress. to ignore trump's perversion and diminution o' the Constitution is unacceptable and antithetical to the principles 'pon which the republic were founded. this must needs be the point from which further retreat is unthinkable, unconscionable. failure is the anticipated cost o' resistance but surrender the battle without a fight would be to risk losing our nation's soul. history will condemn us if we passive accept and ignore for fear o' division and disquiet. as for zor, am gonna give up trying to set you straight on interpretation o' law. bring up manafort failure to disclose to bolster your misinterpretation o' bribery statute and lack o' clarity 'bout lobbyists? sure. sure. crossing i's and dotting t's? HA! nevertheless, have been down this road before and am knowing how utterly pointless it is. regardless, while we will agree the nyt article description o' conversations 'tween the nra and trump is too vague to establish anything more than tennous prima facie bribery as a practical matter under the statute (were kinda the point o' our reply,) nevertheless, is also true that your responses is bassackwards and clear exhibiting misinterpretation. "You'd think the jails would be full of lobbyists if the law practically functioned as that summary implies, since their job is inducing public officials to do what their paymasters want." no. is not what one would think. the summary selective quotes relevant portions o' the stature, but accurate communicates the specific behaviour which is always off-limits for a lobbyist: paying a politician to vote a particular way. argue the nyt article description o' conversation and trump is too vague to establish bribery under the statute? ok. fine. 'course such is just repeating what Gromnir already observed. HA! Good Fun!

again, reddit conspiracy theories aside, is major misconceptions 'bout how lobbyists work. is illegal to offer money for a vote, regardless if is legal defense fund. the reason why prisons ain't filled with lobbyists is 'cause lobbyists don't direct offer money for vote. what does happen is there is a fundraiser for general party or specific candidate which raises $100k and is sponsored and organized by a lobbyist on behalf of _______. lobbyist makes sure the candidate knows how grateful is ________ that the candidate is doing such good work. candidate's previous vote or proposed legislation or whatever were brilliant and good for all americans. 'course everybody knows that lobbyist is doing fundraiser on behalf o' ________ and everybody knows how important the upcoming vote is to _______. doesn't take much for the lobbyist to suggest more fundraisers is coming the candidate's way if they continue to do good work. overt offers o' money for votes or actions is clear illegal. am not saying such overt offers don't happen, but they is illegal and given how easy it is to do the lobbyist thing w/o it being illegal, is best not to pay too much attention to house of cards and movie depictions o' lobbyists. lobbying is done right out in the open, plain view, in part to prevent any chance o' accusations o' bribery. regardless, offer money for votes/not vote is clear and ez illegal. however, as with so many violations o' law, just 'cause a bad guy did something wrong, it don't necessarily mean he is going to prison. prove bribery is not easy w/o show o' actual money being exchanged, money specific tied to the promised action or inaction. we wouldn't be shocked if nra made an offer to trump to fund his defense in exchange for trump avoiding gun legislation. however, chances are the words used by lapierre were far less direct. sure, everybody in the room no doubt understood what were meant, but is not difficult to create reasonable doubt, particular if witnesses remember different... and even when witnesses is being genuine honest, having everybody remember same event exact same way is prohibitive unlikely. in fact, if every witnesses somehow had exact same recollection o' what were said by lapierre, then we would assume people were lying. furthermore, given how much money the nra has given to republicans and the trump campaign, am expecting is more than a little difficult to try and prove a most recent payment were specific tied to promise. is not as if lapierrre, in memo portion o' the nra check, is gonna write: "as consideration for Presidential inaction on gun legislation." money need not exchange hands for there to be a finding o' bribery, but w/o it, there is proof problems. the nyt article is a good start for a prosecutor, but is still an uphill battle if were no money. even so, as we noted earlier, insofar as lobbyists general is concerned, legit lobby is so easy to do open and achieve same ends as illegal that there isn't much motivation for folks to go the nefarious route. is more enoch's area. HA! Good fun!

Kurt Volker resigned from his position as the U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine Friday, following reports he collaborated with Ukraine and President Donald Trump. ... was gonna add a rats + sinking ship image, but would be gauche. HA! Good Fun!

@Guard Dog there is no "standard" for impeachment. is complete up to Congress to decide rules for impeachment and for trial. scholars debate what extreme circumstances would result in Court interference and short o' complete random such as a blindfolded pelosi throwing at a dartboard labeled impeach everywhere but bullseye, consensus is there is no rules for impeachment. secondhand is a possible issue but less so now that trump released recollections of call. given accuracy o' complaint 'bout call, it is gonna be tougher to dismiss complainant 'cause is secondhand. the "transcript," as dubious as we would be 'bout such, substantial corroborates the whistleblower complaint including even a few minutiae details. so he/she were right 'bout call, but wrong 'bout all else? as such am shocked the transcript were released. were hardly exculpatory. there will be records o' where real call transcript were stored. if it were stored in classified as whistleblower suggests, that would also be damning as again, the "transcript" doesn't make any indication that at any time sensitive info were discussed. simple reality o' how conversation were stored would be further corroboration and won't require any source to come forward. also recall the line we quoted from the ig report as well. has been reported the ig did legwork and interviewed a few o' the complainant's sources before determining "credible." ig kinda went an extra step, but perhaps given the magnitude o' claim, he felt need to do so? even if the primary sources refuse to cooperate, fact ig already spoke with at least a few sources and ig came away convinced enough to go direct to Congress when dni failed to communicate is significant. sure, if sources voluntarily come forward and change their stories compared to what were said to ig it may create doubt, but will also cause suspicion. so, conversation 'tween zelenskiy and trump lines up well. furthermore, the manner in which the conversation were handled will not need witness corroboration in any meaningful sense. final, the ig already spoke with at least a few sources and were convinced enough to conclude credible. even in criminal trials, which impeachment and impeachment trial is not, secondhand, or hearsay, isn't actual the complete bar one might s'pose from watching tv. is all kinda exceptions. is doubtful dying declaration exceptions will apply, but government documents exceptions will and so too will be admissions and statements against interest. yes, we are gonna get conservative radio and tv talk 'bout biden and quid pro quo and secondhand, but most such is deflection at this stage. also, please note the committees which is s'posed involved in the impeachment is including ways and means. why? as we stated earlier in the thread, there is a second whistleblower complaint which were handled proper 'cause the whistleblower went straight to Congress. story has been way under the radar. all we know is it involves accusations that the irs has been mishandling review o' trump taxes. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/20/tax-democrats-trump-1673427 impeachment, as gd knows, is not ouster o' the President. trial comes later. oh, and once again, the wh already done wrong regardless o' what you think o' the whistleblower complaint's veracity. the wh attempted to bury a whistleblower complaint even after the ig finding o' credible and urgent. only reason we know 'bout complaint is 'cause ig went direct to Congress. how is this getting sidelined? am serious starting to consider shady's superpower suggestion 'cause fact almost nobody is talking 'bout wh attempts to obstruct the ig findings and the whistleblower complaint is baffling. HA! Good Fun!

READ: Inspector General letter on whistleblower complaint recognizing how the whistleblower did not personal observe and listen to the call 'tween trump and the ukraine prez, the ig nevertheless states,"other information obtained during the ICIG's preliminary review, however, supports the Complainant's allegation..." am suspecting this line gets much attention in next days. as for gifted, am taking blame 'cause am not surprised by your read and math fails, or the deflection or the absurdity. we know where is going from start. sure, you being perplexed by fact there is more than one person in the executive branch in spite o' all authority being vested in one office or not knowing how costs o' property raises overall cost o' living and average income totals in nyc is individual baffling and surprising, but your consistency is guaranteed. as for zor, we already mentioned money as the real problem. campaign finance legislation were passed and declared unconstitutional and other efforts at curbing money influence has similar failed. again, already mentioned. 'course term limits, w/o money limits, actual embolden lobbyists as junior legislators w/o diehard constituency is more reliant on pac money and not less. so preach to the choir? 'course if one were to dismiss entire representative democracy experiment it would be equal silly. huge amount o' legislation gets passed each term and imply money motivates all or even most legislator efforts is appealing to the reddit conspiracy crowd, but doesn't have much factual support. yeah, am sure gited's imagined laundry pods ban would have proctor and gamble money influencing votes, but so too would there be the testimony o' teary-eyed idiots who would appeal direct to Congressman 'cause their "baby" (a 20-something attending _____ community college next fall) had to die unnecessarily 'cause o' tide pods and social media pressure. democracy is ugly, but is better than alternatives, or so the saying goes. even so, out-of-control washington money is a big problem which term limits would only partial and indirect address. HA! Good Fun!

that's a problem though. let's assume, for the moment, there is no advantage to being in office for three or more decades. is absence o' a positive enough reason to write a law, an Amendment, which would prohibit such? voting is a fundamental right, which may not mean much to some folks, but is kinda foundational. is not that many fundamental rights. twenty second amendment couldn't be simple legislation and neither could term limits. kinda a questionable precedent to impose limits on a fundamental right w/o any genuine recognition o' the need for such. btw, ted cruz recent sponsored a constitutional amendment in support o' senate term limits: two terms. kinda amusing as would not work retroactive or current so as written, ted, who had already been elected to two terms 'coulda gotten two more. were ted cruz theatre. were no way an amendment would get passed, particularly in current political devise environment, but the public is overwhelming in favor o' term limits. however, even if is passed, ted would get opportunity for two more terms? HA! can stand up and champion something voters want w/o any fear o' needing be personal responsible. again, am actual kinda sorta favoring/ambivalent 'bout term limits, but for us is 'cause attempts to limit money has failed repeated. HA! Good Fun!

am knowing a response to gifted will result in absurdity, insult and at least one mind boggling read comprehension and/or math fail. we can't claim victory when am encouraging the inevitable fails. 'OK' is now a hate symbol, the ADL says our feeble attempt to keep thread on-topic, given how gifted don't wanna add anything to the term limit issue he raised. ironic? go figure. HA! Good Fun!

first absurdist and now this? nevertheless, you still haven't made an argument in favor o' term limits. no shock. predictable. HA! Good Fun!

there isn't a ban on laundry pods, 'cause there hasn't been legislation. can't show 'cause doesn't exist. duh. your absurdist notions, as usual, fly in face o' reality. it's the people who decide to ban the stuff, through their elected representatives. rando folks complaining 'bout laundry pod dangers is... absurdist. we said the President has a limit. the executive branch is far larger than the President, which is why we spoke o' bureaucrats and career politicians... folks not elected btw. "but now you say they don't." do you even read posts? not that it matters as this is high school level civics/government level kinda stuff. but again, not making an argument in favor o' term limits. fact some folks wanna ban laundry pods is relevant to term limits because...? HA! Good Fun!

the people are the ones who decide, through their elected representatives, the stuff you claim they can't be trusted with. regardless, you aren't actual making an argument in favor o' term limits. oh, and checks and balances is one o' those argument used often in the Con column when discussing term limits. after all, the executive branch is populated with career politicians. often the legislature works with those bureaucrats, but often they work adversarial. term limits is necessarily making Legislature less experienced, which functional strengthens the executive. HA! Good Fun!

well, if true, this is gonna make harder to marginalize the whistleblower impressions... gonna be difficult to claim whistleblower didn't understand or had too narrow a view o' events. converse, am hopeful this does not discourage the whistleblower from testifying. HA! Good Fun!

am curious. what is it 'bout serving extended time which makes a Congressman bad, or at least worse? if is not related to money, then am having even less reason to agree with term limit concerns. voters democratic choose person they want and maybe even believe is best representative. as such, term limits necessarily limits viable candidates from being able to hold office. so gotta have good reasons for term limits. the President, as we are current seeing, is a different animal compared to legislators. the reason the doj and wh attorneys keep finding the President cannot be investigated for _______ and that he has limitless privilege is 'cause the entire authority o' the executive branch exists in one office: the President of the United States of America. taken to ridiculous extreme, an extreme held by a few scholars and william barr, the fbi has no authority to investigate the President unless the President allows, 'cause regardless o' what Congress says, fbi authority comes from the President. given the extremes to which Presidential power could theoretic be abused, am understanding why an Amendment were added to limit Presidential terms. after all, what were theoretic abusess in 1947 is very real in 2019. but legislators? ignore conspiracy theory stuff and make argument for term limits which don't contravene voter choice. perhaps think turnover is good 'cause promotes new blood and new ideas. then again, maybe the folks voting don't want new ideas and who says new ideas is necessarily good? new is not same as positive progress. perhaps corruption is the concern. long serving legislator is more or less subject to corruption? gonna have a hard time making a good argument that time in office makes more vulnerable and doing so is gonna necessarily rely on gut rather than factual basis regardless. younger and more idealistic makes less subject to corruption? hardly. junior legislators, particular house of representatives, need concern selves with getting reelected even before they get elected. the inherent vulnerability o' being junior arguable makes more subject to corruption. woulda' been harder to muscle sam nunn in the 90s or ms. nobody from nowheresville? take money complete out o' the argument and am left with kinda gut level notions that long-term service leads to complacency, indolence and corruption. the thing is, the complacent and indolence stuff is just reverse side o' the coin o' consistent, which may very well be what voters want. meanwhile, the corruption argument has never been particular strong... save insofar as money is the issue. term limits resonate. is one o' those seeming easy to communicate and easy to understand fixes which has broad appeal. heck, am personal not against term limits 'cause efforts to curb money has been an abject failure. makes sense if you can't get the money problem fixed, then at least mitigate damage by limiting terms. even so, am recognizing how term limits is inherent undemocratic and as such am needing a strong reason to support. money is such a reason, but the indolence, complacency and corruption arguments is kinda thin. other reasons? HA! Good Fun!

personal pov is term limits is kinda a backwards effort to address the money problem. campaign finance, in particular, is out of control and undermines the notion that election to Congress is public service. getting elected should not make the ghost o' robin leach shudder at the excess. HA! Good Fun!

is one reason our focus, from start, has been the whistleblower complaint itself, and white house efforts to impede communication o' the findings. should not be forgotten how the only reason why we have this story gracing front pages o' newspapers and getting so much airtime on tv news broadcasts is the ig, a trump appointee, informed Congress o' the existence o' an urgent and credible complaint after the acting dni failed to communicate findings. the trump administration tried hard to make the whistleblower complaint disappear with doj and wh counsel enlisted to help in such efforts. now that trump has released after-the-fact transcripts and the whistleblower complaint has managed to reach Congress, the wh efforts to impede and obstruct is already becoming yesterday's news? once again we get deflection, false equivalency, fake news & deeps state conspiracies while a fundamental attack on rule of law becomes a side issue. makes our brain itch. HA! Good Fun!

the scandal would be better or worse if were the President leveraged the fbi to investigate a political rival? recall how trump were screeching his conspiracy theories 'bout how obama had trump tower bugged? if were any truth to that, woulda' been a p00pstorm o' epic proportions. is also kinda difficult for the fbi to investigate overseas, if only from a practical perspective. is not the kinda thing the nsa investigates. cia? is a gap 'cause trump wants investigation o', 'mongst others, a US citizen's activities while on foreign soil. could cia be directed to investigate? reddit conspiracy mongers no doubt believe the cia is current already investigating biden... and that little swedish girl, but intelligence gained by cia would be less useful in a future election fight 'cause sources would need remain secret. given how trump has helped fabricate and embolden a fake news culture, such sources is easily dismissed. wouldn't doubt trump asked same questions as you and then pompeo and others (maybe bolton) explained why what trump were asking were either illegal or impractical... which is precise why it were trump and his personal attorney (really?) who were negotiating with a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political rival. regardless, the whistleblower complaint has now been seen by Congress and they will, in short order, get actual hard copies o' the complaint. along with the other whistleblower complaint nobody is talking 'bout, the one which accuses irs o' mishandling the President's taxes, things is gonna get lively in washington. HA! Good Fun!