Impeachment 3: The MF Has Been Impeached! The Trial Has Begun!

[AmericanRose]

10 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Have you asked her who won the popular vote in 2016? And which party won the elections in 2018 with the biggest turnout in decades?

 

Ohhh my mom is also a Q Anoner, so essentially up is down, right is left, etc. The popular vote was because of 'illegals' and everything else can be explained away by 'fake news'. She truly expects all Democrats in Congress to be arrested any day now.

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, SassyPants said:

Why didn’t Bolton call up Pelosi months ago, and tell her that he had this information and was willing to sit before the House committee? I think Bolton might just be game playing too.

You're right. Bolton is playing a game. He was subpoenaed by the House to testify, and refused...

[GreyhoundFan]

 

Here it is enlarged:

[GreyhoundFan]

From conservative columnist Max Boot: "The GOP doesn’t deserve to survive this debacle"

Spoiler

I was recently asked if I would ever rejoin the Republican Party after having registered as an independent the day after President Trump’s election in 2016. The answer is an emphatic no. Trump will leave office some day (I hope!), but he will leave behind a quasi-authoritarian party that is as corrupt as he is. The failure to call witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial revealed the GOP’s moral failure.

Last Sunday, the New York Times reported that, in his forthcoming book, former national security adviser John Bolton writes that Trump told him in August he wanted to freeze military aid to Ukraine “until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.” For one brief moment it appeared that this blockbuster revelation would shatter the Republican wall of complicity. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) even said on Tuesday that he didn’t have the votes to stop witnesses from testifying. By Friday, he had the votes; the motion to call witnesses failed, 51-49, with only two Republicans (Mitt Romney and Susan Collins) voting “aye.”

The most significant of the “nay” votes was Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), a 79-year-old political warhorse who is retiring this year. He admitted what the most purblind Trump partisans will not: that “it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent.” The reason he did not need to hear any witnesses, Alexander explained, was because “there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven.” So far, so good. But then he pivoted to argue that for some reason Trump’s misconduct doesn’t meet the “high bar for an impeachable offense.” He concluded that the verdict on Trump should be left to “the presidential election” — you know, the election Trump just tried to fix.

Alexander’s statement raises more questions than it answers: If Trump’s attempt to blackmail Ukraine into helping him politically does not rise to the level of impeachable conduct, what does? Does Alexander subscribe to Alan Dershowitz’s doctrine of presidential infallibility? And, even if he doesn’t want to keep Trump off the ballot, why doesn’t he advocate Trump’s censure or political defeat? But instead of advocating any punishment for Trump’s “inappropriate” conduct, Alexander wants him rewarded by being reelected.

Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) at least made clear that he rejects the argument — raised by the president’s lawyers but rejected by almost all scholars — "that ‘Abuse of Power’ can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.” He, too, seems to assume that Trump is guilty, although he doesn’t quite say so. But Rubio argued “against removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces.”

Of course, if Trump were removed, it would require the support of 20 Republican senators, so it would hardly be partisan. But lest anyone think that Rubio is refusing to call witnesses for purely partisan reasons, he patted himself on the back for rejecting “calls to pursue [the] impeachment of President Obama,” without specifying what Obama could have been impeached for. You can bet that if Obama had done what Trump did, Rubio would be in favor of impeachment.

But wait. It gets worse. The prize for the most illogical statement must go to Sen. Lisa Murkowksi (Alaska). She wrote: “Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate.” She then announced her opposition to calling witnesses — a move that could have made the trial a lot fairer. Huh?

Given the flimsiness of the Republicans’ rationales, it’s hard not to conclude that something else accounts for their decision-making. It’s obvious what’s going on in Rubio’s case — he thinks he has a future in politics and wants to stay on the good side of Trump supporters. His colleagues who are facing reelection this year, such as Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.), are no doubt terrified Trump will endorse a primary challenger. Some other Republicans are no doubt deluded enough to imagine that Trump’s call was “perfect.” But what about Alexander and other senators who know better and will never face the voters again?

Tim Alberta of Politico makes a convincing case that even retiring lawmakers fear breaking with the president would hurt their future “earning power” and subject them to unwelcome “harassment” from Trump cultists. These concerns are understandable but should not be dispositive. Senators who shirk their constitutional duties are cowards who disgrace their oaths of office and betray the Constitution. Our troops risk their lives for this country; these senators won’t even risk some unpleasantness.

I want nothing to do with a party led by the deluded and the dishonest. I fervently hope our democracy survives this debacle. I fervently hope the Republican Party does not.

 

[SassyPants]

7 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

From conservative columnist Max Boot: "The GOP doesn’t deserve to survive this debacle"

  Hide contents

I was recently asked if I would ever rejoin the Republican Party after having registered as an independent the day after President Trump’s election in 2016. The answer is an emphatic no. Trump will leave office some day (I hope!), but he will leave behind a quasi-authoritarian party that is as corrupt as he is. The failure to call witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial revealed the GOP’s moral failure.

Last Sunday, the New York Times reported that, in his forthcoming book, former national security adviser John Bolton writes that Trump told him in August he wanted to freeze military aid to Ukraine “until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.” For one brief moment it appeared that this blockbuster revelation would shatter the Republican wall of complicity. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) even said on Tuesday that he didn’t have the votes to stop witnesses from testifying. By Friday, he had the votes; the motion to call witnesses failed, 51-49, with only two Republicans (Mitt Romney and Susan Collins) voting “aye.”

The most significant of the “nay” votes was Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), a 79-year-old political warhorse who is retiring this year. He admitted what the most purblind Trump partisans will not: that “it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent.” The reason he did not need to hear any witnesses, Alexander explained, was because “there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven.” So far, so good. But then he pivoted to argue that for some reason Trump’s misconduct doesn’t meet the “high bar for an impeachable offense.” He concluded that the verdict on Trump should be left to “the presidential election” — you know, the election Trump just tried to fix.

Alexander’s statement raises more questions than it answers: If Trump’s attempt to blackmail Ukraine into helping him politically does not rise to the level of impeachable conduct, what does? Does Alexander subscribe to Alan Dershowitz’s doctrine of presidential infallibility? And, even if he doesn’t want to keep Trump off the ballot, why doesn’t he advocate Trump’s censure or political defeat? But instead of advocating any punishment for Trump’s “inappropriate” conduct, Alexander wants him rewarded by being reelected.

Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) at least made clear that he rejects the argument — raised by the president’s lawyers but rejected by almost all scholars — "that ‘Abuse of Power’ can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.” He, too, seems to assume that Trump is guilty, although he doesn’t quite say so. But Rubio argued “against removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces.”

Of course, if Trump were removed, it would require the support of 20 Republican senators, so it would hardly be partisan. But lest anyone think that Rubio is refusing to call witnesses for purely partisan reasons, he patted himself on the back for rejecting “calls to pursue [the] impeachment of President Obama,” without specifying what Obama could have been impeached for. You can bet that if Obama had done what Trump did, Rubio would be in favor of impeachment.

But wait. It gets worse. The prize for the most illogical statement must go to Sen. Lisa Murkowksi (Alaska). She wrote: “Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate.” She then announced her opposition to calling witnesses — a move that could have made the trial a lot fairer. Huh?

Given the flimsiness of the Republicans’ rationales, it’s hard not to conclude that something else accounts for their decision-making. It’s obvious what’s going on in Rubio’s case — he thinks he has a future in politics and wants to stay on the good side of Trump supporters. His colleagues who are facing reelection this year, such as Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.), are no doubt terrified Trump will endorse a primary challenger. Some other Republicans are no doubt deluded enough to imagine that Trump’s call was “perfect.” But what about Alexander and other senators who know better and will never face the voters again?

Tim Alberta of Politico makes a convincing case that even retiring lawmakers fear breaking with the president would hurt their future “earning power” and subject them to unwelcome “harassment” from Trump cultists. These concerns are understandable but should not be dispositive. Senators who shirk their constitutional duties are cowards who disgrace their oaths of office and betray the Constitution. Our troops risk their lives for this country; these senators won’t even risk some unpleasantness.

I want nothing to do with a party led by the deluded and the dishonest. I fervently hope our democracy survives this debacle. I fervently hope the Republican Party does not.

 

Alexander and Murkowski are both talking out of both sides of their mouths; attempting to have it both ways. Why not just say, yep, Trump is a dick and commits unconstitutional acts, but if we turn on him, it might jeopardize our positions....they should all have to wear big pink and purple badges that say “I AM A COWARD AND A LOSER”!

[fraurosena]

I don't think many people are watching this right now, because everyone knows how this is going to end: exactly as predicted even before it started. That said, Adam Schiff is still masterful. Why isn't he running for president again?

 

[Dandruff]

55 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

That said, Adam Schiff is still masterful. Why isn't he running for president again?

I really wish he would.

And I have better things to do than watch the charade.

[fraurosena]

As you know I’ve speculated about this for some time. Turns out the FBI has proof it’s actually true.

You can safely bet they didn’t stop with ‘older emails’.

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

Trump may be acquitted, but House Democrats proved their power to check him

Quote

The impeachment of President Trump is effectively finished. The president will soon be acquitted. Calls from the right, and perhaps even the left, will follow: Move on.

Democrats would be smart to reject those calls, for both constitutional and political reasons. Despite an all but certain result in the Senate, Trump remains a threat to the fair administration of government and the country’s ability to hold a free election. And if history is any guide, his acquittal will only leave him emboldened to abuse his authority again. He is a recidivist. But impeachment has also shown that Democrats hold a strong check through their oversight powers in the House of Representatives. Between now and the time Trump leaves office, they will need to exercise those powers aggressively if they have any hope of curbing the president’s abuses. And they have demonstrated that they can curb them.

No matter the ultimate vote in the Senate, the House’s Ukraine investigation was successful. It exposed rampant wrongdoing to the American public, and it stopped cold that particular scheme of the president’s. We now know that before the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), began his investigation in September, the president’s plan was on track. After months of pressure, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had scheduled an interview with CNN to announce an inquiry into the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter once sat. Schiff’s announcement that a whistleblower had filed a complaint and his subsequent aggressive investigation killed that interview, and prevented the president from achieving his goal of casting a shadow over the Biden presidential campaign.

The Ukraine investigation accomplished what House Democrats had failed at previously. Passivity and ineffectiveness characterized the eight months of House Democratic control before the Ukraine scandal broke. The House let multiple administration officials who defied subpoenas off the hook by refusing to hold them in contempt of Congress, and it delayed for months going to court to enforce subpoenas of others. Before the Ukraine scandal, House committees held only a single memorable investigative hearing, the one featuring presidential adviser Corey Lewandowski. Lewandowski turned it into a farce.

Schiff’s investigation broke that pattern and established a road map for other committees. Even with impeachment finished, the administration will most likely continue to stonewall the House in its attempts to obtain documents and high-level witnesses, but Schiff proved that mid-level officials take their oath to the Constitution seriously and are more likely to worry about the consequences of defying a subpoena. Cases in point: former National Security Council aide Fiona Hill; former ambassadors Marie Yovanovitch and William B. Taylor Jr.; Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, and multiple other sitting officials from across the government. All testified under subpoena.

In continuing its investigations, the House can now ratchet up — or reclaim — its oversight powers by making clear that this threat is real. It can hold in contempt any witness who defies a subpoena and refer them to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. Democratic presidential candidates could increase the House’s leverage over potential witnesses by stating that they will expect their attorney general to treat such referrals seriously and not allow witnesses to defy legitimate subpoenas. William P. Barr will not be attorney general forever. The House can also swiftly and aggressively litigate its subpoenas, asking courts to knock down the Trump administration’s unprecedented reliance on overly broad claims of privilege.

Democrats should also consider how Republicans have wielded their congressional oversight authority. During the Obama administration, Republicans used oversight as a torpedo designed to sink the Democratic nominee for the presidency. Their multiple Benghazi probes were not popular, but they were successful. It is not a stretch to say that Hillary Clinton would be president today were it not for aggressive House investigations. It was a Benghazi probe that unearthed her use of a private email server in the first place, and fear of Republican oversight that led the FBI to disclose its relaunched investigation into her emails in October 2016. Even now, Senate Republicans are launching their own investigation into Biden and his son.

But Democrats don’t need to be as shameless as Republicans to be successful. The Trump administration has served up a target-rich landscape to investigate; House Democrats need not fall prey to conspiracy theories or pursue politically motivated vendettas. Why was former national security adviser John Bolton concerned the president was granting personal favors to autocrats? Why has the president been handing out pardons and commutations to war criminals and conservative political allies while largely ignoring other applicants? What are the details of the president’s reported promises to pardon Department of Homeland Security officials if they would violate the law to build his election-year wall along the southern border? Even allies outside the administration are worthy targets: How about investigating reports that supporters of the president are handing out thousands of dollars in cash to voters.

Trump is a classic recidivist, and no amount of oversight will make him change his ways. As Schiff told senators in his closing argument in the impeachment trial on Monday: “He will not change and you know it.” But it is precisely because he is likely to continue abusing his powers that Democrats need to bombard his administration with subpoenas. Just as Schiff’s investigation stopped Trump from executing the Ukraine scheme, aggressive oversight can pressure people around the president not to carry out his lawless orders and encourage those with information to come forward and blow the whistle.

There will be a desire by some Democratic House members to abandon their focus on the president and return to legislating after the Senate trial — passing bills that go nowhere in a Senate ruled by Mitch McConnell and his Republican caucus, and have no impact on the public. But aggressively investigating the administration does not mean abandoning the legislative process. Proper oversight informs and strengthens Congress’s ability to legislate. After Congress uncovered the abuses of Watergate, for example, it passed multiple reforms to address corruption in government.

Throughout the impeachment debate, House Democrats argued that a failure to hold the president accountable would leave him free to abuse his authority to win reelection. They were right. But because Republicans in both chambers of Congress decided not to do their duty, Democrats will need to keep being aggressive in doing theirs. As they repeatedly proclaimed to the Senate, the price of inaction is too high.

 

[fraurosena]

The sarcasm is dripping off my screen.

George Conway: I believe the president, and in the president

Quote

I believe the president, and in the president.

I believe the Senate is right to acquit the president. I believe a fair trial is one with no witnesses, and that the trial was therefore fair. I believe the House was unfair because it found evidence against him. I believe that if the president does something that he believes will get himself reelected, that’s in the public interest and can’t be the kind of thing that results in impeachment.

I believe former national security adviser John Bolton has no relevant testimony because he didn’t leave the White House on good terms.

I believe the president’s call was perfect. I believe he is deeply concerned about corruption in Ukraine. I believe the president can find Ukraine on a map.

I believe Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election, and that the intelligence community’s suggestion otherwise is a Deep State lie. I believe the Democratic National Committee server is in Ukraine, where CrowdStrike hid it.

I believe President Barack Obama placed a “tapp” on the president’s phones in 2016, and that the Russia investigation was a plot to keep him from winning, even though the plotters didn’t think he could win.

I believe former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was conflicted because he quit one of the president’s golf clubs, and that he and his Angry Democrats conducted a Witch Hunt to destroy the president. But I believe Mueller’s report totally exonerated the president, because it found no collusion and no obstruction.

I believe it would be okay for the president to say he grabs women by their p-----s, because he is a star, and stars are allowed to do that. But I believe he didn’t say that, even though he apologized for it, because I believe the “Access Hollywood” tape was doctored, because he said it was.

I believe E. Jean Carroll lied when she accused the president of rape, because he said she’s not his type. I believe the dozens of other women who accused him of sexual misconduct are also lying, because he would never think of grabbing them by their p-----s or anything else.

I believe the president didn’t know Michael Cohen was paying off porn star Stormy Daniels, and that Cohen did it on his own, because the president had no reason to pay her off. I believe the president was reimbursing Cohen for his legal expertise.

I believe the president is a good Christian, because TV pastors say so, and that it’s okay he doesn’t ask for God’s forgiveness, because he doesn’t need to, since he’s the Chosen One. I believe the president knows the Bible, and that two Corinthians are better than one.

I believe the president wants to release his taxes but has not because he’s under audit, which is why he has fought all the way to the Supreme Court not to disclose them. I believe he will disclose them when the audit is over, and that they will show him to be as rich and honest as he says he is.

I believe the president is a very stable genius, and that he repeatedly tells us so because it’s true.

I believe the president can spell. I believe any spelling mistakes he makes are because he’s a very busy man who doesn’t watch much TV, or because he’s intentionally triggering the libs.

I believe Hurricane Dorian was headed straight for Alabama. I believe the president’s map wasn’t altered with a Sharpie, and that if it was, he didn’t do it, since he didn’t need to because he was right.

I believe the president didn’t call Apple’s CEO “Tim Apple,” and that he said “Tim Cook of Apple” really, really fast, but that if he did say “Tim Apple,” it was to save words, which he always tries to do.

I believe windmills are bad and cause cancer. I believe there was a mass shooting in Toledo and that there were airports during the Revolution, because the president said so.

I believe the president is defeating socialism, despite the subsidies he’s paying to save farmers from his protectionism and the $3.2 trillion he’s added to the national debt during his term.

I believe the president has made tremendous progress building the wall, that Mexico paid for it in the trade deal, that the wall will soon run from San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico, that it will stop those caravans cold, and that it won’t fall down.

I believe the president has a 95 percent approval rating among Republicans, and that there’s no need to cite polls for that.

I believe the president had the largest inaugural crowd ever, regardless of what any photos from liberal bureaucrats might show.

I believe there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.

I believe China pays all tariffs levied on imported Chinese goods.

I believe the president is truthful. I believe the Fake News media lied each of the 16,241 times they have said he has made a false or misleading claim.

I believe the president is selfless, and always puts the nation’s interests first. I believe he isn’t a narcissist, but he’d be entitled to be one if he were one. I believe the president would never exercise his presidential powers to advance his personal interests, but if he did, that would be okay, because whatever is in his personal interests is necessarily in the nation’s interests as well.

I believe Article II of the Constitution gives the president the right to do whatever he wants.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Wow: "Sen. Romney to vote to convict Trump on charge of abuse of power, becoming the first Republican to break ranks"

Quote

The decision by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), the party’s presidential nominee in 2012, undercuts the united GOP defense of President Trump. Several Republicans have said the president’s interactions with Ukraine were inappropriate but not impeachable.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

 

[RosyDaisy]

Doug Jones (D-AL) has publicly stated that he will vote for conviction.

https://www.waff.com/2020/02/05/alabama-sen-doug-jones-will-vote-favor-removing-president-trump

Spoiler

“On the day I was sworn in as a United States Senator, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. At the beginning of the impeachment trial, I took a second oath to do ‘impartial justice’ according to the same Constitution I swore to protect.

“These solemn oaths have been my guides during what has been a difficult time for our country, for my state, and for me personally. I did not run for Senate hoping to participate in the impeachment trial of a duly-elected President, but I cannot and will not shrink from my duty to defend the Constitution and to do impartial justice.

“In keeping with my oaths, I resolved that throughout this process I would keep an open mind and hear all of the evidence before making a final decision on the charges against the President. For months, I have been studying the facts of this case exhaustively. I have read thousands of pages of transcripts, watched videos of testimony, taken copious notes, reviewed history and precedents and discussed this case with colleagues, staff, and constituents, in addition to having participated in the Senate trial over the past two weeks. After many sleepless nights, I have reluctantly concluded that the evidence is sufficient to convict the President for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“With the eyes of history upon us, I am acutely aware of the precedents this impeachment trial will set for future presidencies and Congresses. Unfortunately, I do not believe those precedents are good ones. I am particularly concerned that we have now set a precedent that a fair trial in the Senate does not include witnesses and documentary evidence, even when those witnesses have first-hand information and the evidence would provide the Senate and the American people with a more complete picture of the truth.

“I am also deeply troubled by the partisan nature of these proceedings from start to finish. Very early on I implored my colleagues in both houses of Congress to stay out of their partisan corners. Many did, but so many did not. The country deserves better. We must find a way to rise above the things that divide us and find the common good.

“Having done my best to see through the fog of partisanship, I am deeply troubled by the arguments put forth by the President’s lawyers in favor of virtually unchecked presidential power. In this case, the evidence clearly proves the President used the weight of his office and that of the United States government to seek to coerce a foreign government to interfere in our election for his personal political benefit. The President’s actions placed his personal interests well above the national interests and threatened the security of the United States, our allies in Europe, and our ally Ukraine. His actions were more than simply inappropriate. They were an abuse of power. With impeachment as the only check on such presidential wrongdoing, I felt I must vote to convict on the first charge of abuse of power.

“The second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, gave me even more pause. I have struggled to understand the House’s strategy in their pursuit of documents and witnesses and wished they had done more. However, after careful consideration of the evidence developed in the hearings, the public disclosures, the legal precedents, and the trial, I believe the President deliberately and unconstitutionally obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate with the investigation in any way. While I am sensitive to protecting the privileges and immunities afforded to the President and his advisors, I believe it is critical to our constitutional structure that we protect Congress’ authorities also. In this matter it was clear from the outset that the President had no intention whatsoever of any accommodation with Congress when he blocked both witnesses and documents from being produced. In addition, he engaged in a course of conduct to threaten potential witnesses and smear the reputations of the civil servants who did come forward and provide testimony. The President’s actions demonstrate a belief that he is above the law, that Congress has no power whatsoever in questioning or examining his actions, and that all who do so, do so at their peril. That belief, unprecedented in the history of this country, simply must not be permitted to stand. To do otherwise risks guaranteeing that no future whistleblower or witness will ever come forward and no future President — Democrat or Republican — will be subject to Congressional oversight as mandated by the Constitution.

“Senators are elected to make tough choices. We are required to study the facts of each issue before us and exercise our independent judgment in keeping with the oaths we take. The gravity of this moment, the seriousness of the charges, and the implications for future presidencies and Congresses all contributed to the difficulty with which I have arrived at my decision.

“This has been a divisive time for our country, but I think it has nonetheless been an important constitutional process for us to follow. As this chapter of history draws to a close, one thing is clear: our country deserves better than this. We must find a way to come together, to set aside partisan differences, and to focus on what we have in common as Americans. We are facing great challenges both domestically and internationally, but it remains my firm belief that united, we can conquer them and remain the greatest hope for people around the world.”

Thank you, Senator Jones.  You're doing the right thing.  You have my respect and my vote.

[front hugs > duggs]

I'm glad at the very least, that because of Romney, they can't claim it was purely partisan. 

[fraurosena]

Triggered.

 

[fraurosena]

 

[scoutsadie]

I fucking hate the GOP.

[Dandruff]

Wonder how Romney's intended vote might affect LDS votes in November.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

CocaineMitch? Cocaine?

Freudian slip?

Somebody needs to do some digging...

 

[scoutsadie]

4 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

Wonder how Romney's intended vote might affect LDS votes in November.

My understanding is that fewer LDS folks than you might think are fans of Trump, in contrast to the many evangelicals who manage to ignore his immorality (persecuting poor people, marginalized people, and others who their Jesus called "the least of these"), immodesty (looking at you, JRod), adultery, vulgarity, etc. etc.

[GreyhoundFan]

Junior is full-on snowflake, adding to his earlier hissy:

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

CocaineMitch? Cocaine?

Freudian slip?

Somebody needs to do some digging...

 

Origin of Cocaine Mitch

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cocaine-mitch

 

[fraurosena]

So very true. His oath clearly means something.

 

[JMarie]

I have new respect for Mitt Romney