Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "MeidasTouch" channel.

@JC : You are clueless, “in all of,” grammar. You even write with a Russian Accent, Putin 😆
10
I reckon Harris should stick around as party leader? She will have both Congress and the Senate back by the midterms. That is, if America still has its democratic institutions by then? And if you’re still allowed to vote?
9
I will certainly consider listening to the podcast, but I’m concerned about how deeply depressing all of this is? It’s not good for my mental health.
6
I believe there will be a fundamental shift in attitude toward the trump’s when witnesses start testifying at the impeachment. The loudest voices, propagating the lie of, “the steal,” were Senators, after all. And an Impeachment Trial can compel testimony from anyone, and there’s no 5th Amendment to fall back on. That will leave the likes of Cruz, Hawley and even Lindsay Graham, on the stand, under oath, on live TV, in front of a riveted planet Earth, having to confess that they knew it was a seditious lie, or lay out their, “evidence,” for believing in it, and to get ripped to shreds on the stand. The fans of trump, world wide, will hear from the mouths of the perpetrators, that they were lied to; as they take the Nuremberg Defence, claiming they were, “only following orders.” In the end, the, “verdict,” will hardly matter. The fracture in the GOP will be forced, and the country will see them for the pathetic whipping boys, conspirators and mealy mouthed traitors that they are . . . Then trump will truly be vulnerable
4
Indeed, simple logic. But I found this guy’s reasoning a little convoluted. It’s actually the second part of trump’s sentence that convicts him, so to speak. “. . . Perhaps even more partisan than he [the judge] is.” Choosing whom trump is referring to out of the two people, we have either Michael Cohen or the Clerk Of The Court. It is not even a question that Cohen is, “partisan.” Cohen would happily admit to being partisan, as would any casual observer. The whole point of him being at this trial and testifying is that he is partisan and has rebuilt his identity and career as a direct partisan opponent of trump’s. It is the fact that trump raises the possibility that the person sitting next to the judge is (in his view), “perhaps more biased,” than the judge that conclusively demonstrates to whom he is referring. If it’s not the person who is a self-declared partisan, that leaves only the clerk. Again, simple logic. I’m surprised that didn’t come up in this analysis.
2
This is Donald Trump without the money and the cult protecting him. This what should have happened to trump before he became POTUS.
2
Will do 👍
2
They need to get ALL the insurrectionists on the stand, under oath, at the impeachment! Force them to give their, “evidence,” for backing the, “Steal,” LIE, or force them to confess it was a LIE, FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE! Especially Cruz! The truth is necessary and the exposure of the lie is vital! Plus, the witnesses cannot be jurors! Subpoena them! I think a lot of ground could shift, and the impeachment may yet succeed?! But, even if it doesn’t, witness testimonies could still lead to the expulsions of Hawley, Graham and Cruz! ✌️👍
2
Lock Him Up! And his kids! ✌️👍
1
“This is the only place where I can win. ‘Hashtag Runnaway,’ everyone.” 😂
1
The utter cravenness of the GOP, for protecting and clinging on so desperately to this trolling (probably mentally ill) conman is something they should NEVER be allowed to forget. Despite their full knowledge of his obvious guilt, they wanted his votes, so they kept him in Congress at all costs. They should have to pay for that. And I just realised that these words apply equally to trump as they do to Santos.
1
Lock them all up!
1
Never seen this speaker before, but I’m sure paying attention to him now. These are smart, insightful, well thought out comments that we would all do well to ponder. But don’t just leave it at thoughts. You can all contact your representatives if you’re in the free world. Get in touch with them, even if it’s just to send a link to this video, and let’s keep it a free world.
1
@troybailey9666 : Never thought of it that way . . . They could just take it as a cold case, right? . . . He could be under indictment within days, in theory? . . .
1
@troybailey9666 : Hmmm . . . Guess she wouldn’t tip her hand, if she had, right?
1
It’s actually the second part of trump’s sentence that convicts him. “. . . Perhaps even more partisan than he [the judge] is.” Choosing whom trump is referring to out of the two people, we have either Michael Cohen or the Clerk Of The Court. It is not even a question that Cohen is, “partisan.” Cohen would happily admit to being partisan, as would any casual observer. The whole point of him being at this trial and testifying is that he is partisan and has rebuilt his identity and career as a direct partisan opponent of trump’s. It is the fact that trump raises the possibility that the person sitting next to the judge is (in his view), “perhaps more biased,” than the judge that conclusively demonstrates to whom he is referring. Simple logic. I’m surprised that didn’t come up in this analysis.
1
Lock him up!
1