What you said was:
Clearly by your own words you were equating the statements made by some Republican senators regarding how they would act should the house indictment reach the Senate — not "taking their actions seriously but instead summarily dismiss the process without performing their duties as intended under the US Constitution" — as treason. I simply pointed out that whatever you may think of they'd said they'd do, they certainly do not meet the definition of treason. Beyond that, I made no comment on whether what they said they'd do was improper or not. In part because I don't have the exact statements they made in front of me; I was going only by your characterization of them, which may or may not be accurate.
So you accuse me of intentionally misinterpreting what you said? That's low and dishonorable, jk. You have no basis for that accusation. You certainly cannot read my mind so you don't know what I was thinking when I responded. And really, my post was, I think, a fair assessment of what you said. You said that their statements about how they would handle the impeachment trial would be treason. It's not, and in your follow up at least you seem to tacitly acknowledge as much, for which I give you credit.
Trump is certainly a blowhard who tosses around accusations and insults on a pretty much daily basis. I think its disgraceful, so you won't get an argument from me on that score. But I don't think exaggeration helps to advance the case against him. And really, no exaggeration should be needed. Trump does a good job just as he is in showing himself to lack many of the qualities of a good president.

