snafu

Alf, I like when you participate, but please stop with people who don't know ***** about what happened. This has been going on for months now. Every one of the House witnesses speculated about this. Now Kelly. Great. Thanks Alf.

See, here's where you prove my point. Thank you. And by the way, I never mentioned Trump. I really wasn't referring to Trump at all. You have a sick obsession about him.

"To the brink of war" is impeachable? What about the Presidents who actually got us into wars? "Lies every day" is impeachable? Clinton wasn't convicted, and he committed perjury. "flaunts laws set forth in the Constitution? I don't know what this is. Do you have any specific examples?

Wrong. I see both sides as self-serving power grabbers. You see one side as virtuous and the other side as perpetually wrong. That's a hell of a way for you to go through life.

But he's not honest enough -- and neither are you -- to admit that both sides are blowing smoke.

What more do you need to know? Would it confirm what you suspect, or change your mind?

Ask yourself why neither of the Articles of Impeachment charge the President with Extortion. Ask yourself whether the House -- if they could make a case for extortion -- consciously chose not to pass an Article of Impeachment charging extortion. Ask yourself why the House Managers, during their 21+ hours of opening statements, didn't argue that Ukraine's President was "extorted". Don't call it crap. It isn't crap. And stop telling people that they don't believe in "truth" when it is only your own "truth" that you seem to care about.

Or... Most successful, intelligent people want to remain unbothered by the spotlight of being in a Presidential Administration. These jobs don't attract everyone.

...

Filed under WGAF.

It's a double standard that's being revealed. Don't be disingenuous. Trump has a shaky record picking people.

Can you please point me to the lady's room?

Fast and Furious now. This guy is playing all the hits.

"Urgency" mashup. I wonder if they will do an "undisputed" mashup. Maybe follow up with an "overwhelming" montage.

Obama-Medvedev comparison now. I wonder if they bring up Ted Kennedy's letter to the Russians.

There aren't too many elocutionists on either side. I like listening without the visuals. It helps quite a bit.

I can't laugh hard enough at this!!

Ha, they just played it again. Also, they put up a Heinz kid email to the State Dept. from 2014. How the heck did they get their hands on that?

Perhaps, but he wasn't really who I was thinking of when I first made my post.

Look up one post

Uhhh, there are several "used to be Democrats" around here, too (I'm not one of them, but I'm sure I've read about a few). Are they also disingenuous?

Which may lead one to believe that this is a publisher's ploy more than a #resist hit job. Which makes it more important to find out who the "leaker" was.

Here is a quote from the NYT story: "He said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none." Bolton gives manuscript to WH on 12/30/19. Bolton announces he'd testify on 1/5/19. House transmits Articles to Senate on 1/15/19. House managers argue for more evidence and wrap up their opening arguments 1/21 -- 1/24/2020 Why did whomever leaked the story to the NYT wait until after all that happened? Was is leaked earlier and the NYT sat on the story? The timing is strange (aside from the Thomas/Kavanaugh parallels).

Made it in time! Let's put aside for a second the obligation for the House to have developed a full record before voting on Articles, etc. -- that whole argument. I've said it before and I will say it again, the people calling for more witnesses better be careful what they wish for. What looks like R obstruction now can very very easily turn into a D blunder.

There have been a LOT of false alarms and un-attributed allegations from "insiders" that haven't panned out during the past three years. If the Bolton story turns out to be untrue and exaggerated after this Impeachment trial is over and done, then the Senators who steamrollered over it won't suffer at all. This whole process is a political gamble for both parties. It isn't anything more than that. If, however, the Senate does vote to have more witnesses, then the source of the NYT leak should absolutely be known, because that individual would be a witness, too. Isn't the NYT report that Bolton's draft was submitted to the White House for confirmation/correction? The item submitted was a DRAFT of Bolton's book. Drafts get changed a lot I would imagine. This NYT news is pure speculation at this point.