The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

 

 

 

Mark Levin’s fact-filled thread taking Bolton’s story APART (and mocking Democrats) is a must read

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

Bolton writes in an unpublished manuscript of his new book that Trump personally told him he was withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until officials there carried out the political dirty deeds he was demanding, the New York Times reports.

 

 

According to Bolton, he and Trump discussed the matter in August 2019, when Bolton and others were urging Trump to release the aid. Trump said he preferred not to until Ukrainian officials turned over materials related to two false theories — one involving invented Joe Biden corruption in Ukraine, the other concerning fabricated Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/four-big-takeaways-explosive-john-bolton-bombshell/

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Not like there isn't a bunch of witnesses with first hand accounts. Trump is an abuser of his power and its obvious. You guys want to destroy the republic to keep this corrupt clown in power. 

  If you do not start on the Sanders pandering immediately then I will have no choice but to email back your performance rating as unsatisfactory to your employer.

[Foxx]

10 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Well, good for you.  Your clever comeback is very clever indeed.  I mean, you even got 2 morons to like it.   Perhaps that was your goal, rather than a discussion?  Though to be fair, DR likes every comment or joke.  It's a way to garner supporters I guess.

 

Just to review though, you respond to my post with a question, I answer, you make a vague statement, I ask for clarity, you refuse to clarify your point, you give up,  and you make your clever comeback with attempted insult.   Good job!

you're an idiot.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

full of crap-o

i'm thinking that every single one of the 1-800-psychics are liberals.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Foxx

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

I have been watching Fox this morning to see how the Bolton book has been covered.  They are hammering the point that the timing is aligned with the book release. Step 1 - attack credibility.  Step 2 - focus on the evil leaker to the NYT rather than issue.  In addition, they say the President is denying it.  If Trump denies something, I think it was Ainsley claimed we have to believe him.  After all with his record of honesty above all else, no one could question his side of the story, right?

 

I don't think this Bolton news moves the needle for the Republican Senators.  They just need to find a defensible position.  If they keep their eyes and ears closed, there are still a lot of those.

 

I am coming around to the idea though that this Senate Hearing may end up hurting Republican Senators in the longer run.  It seems to me that over time more evidence of these misdeeds surfaces.  It looks worse and worse for those that claim that they don't want to hear any more possible evidence.  Seems political opponents of the Repub Senators will point out the dishonesty of this willful blindness during future campaigns. 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, snafu said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Yup. 

 

And note there has yet to be one quote of the book itself. Just speculation and re-reporting of the NYT article itself. And the speculations about what the book says actually helps Trump's overall case rather than damages it. 

 

But some people are too busy with their heads in the sand to have any idea of what's actually happening. 

[Nanker]

2 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

 

He said he wore underwear during his massage at Epstein's mansion - a true hero

 

We're all in favor of even you wearing underwear.

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

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.

 

 

Certainly nothing proven at this point.  You are right too that past 'bombshells' have failed to impress very many.

 

I think today the Repub Senators are in a worse position.  If they choose to hear from witnesses I think they will hear more evidence that Trump abused his power and tried to obstruct the investigation.  If that were to happen, it would be tougher to simply vote to acquit. 

 

If they vote to ignore possible evidence, they look like they are protecting the President regardless of facts.  Neither option is very good for them though I still assume they will vote to ignore witnesses.

[snafu]

On 1/21/2020 at 11:47 AM, snafu said:

Cue Ethel Merman:

 

There's no business like show business and I tell you it's so
Traveling through the country is so thrilling, standing out in front on opening nights
Smiling as you watch the theater filling, and there's your billing out there in lights

There's no people like show people, they smile when they are low
Angels come from everywhere with lots of jack, and when you lose it, there's no attack
Where could you get money that you don't give back? Let's go on with the show

 

Made it in time!

 

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Certainly nothing proven at this point.  You are right too that past 'bombshells' have failed to impress very many.

 

I think today the Repub Senators are in a worse position.  If they choose to hear from witnesses I think they will hear more evidence that Trump abused his power and tried to obstruct the investigation.  If that were to happen, it would be tougher to simply vote to acquit. 

 

If they vote to ignore possible evidence, they look like they are protecting the President regardless of facts.  Neither option is very good for them though I still assume they will vote to ignore witnesses.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

The transcript of Trump's July 25th phone call have Trump asking Zelensky to "do us a favor". He then went on to talk about the 2016 election and "Crowdstrike" and alleged interference in that election. Five hundred words later Zelensky brings up Rudy Guliani and Trump compliments Rudy and asks Zelenskiy if he would cooperate with him and the AG. The media has turned this into Trump asking for the favor of Ukraine digging up dirt on the Bidens. This is what it has come down to. Unadulterated connived horseshit by everyone on the Left and the media. 

[Bob in Mich]

19 minutes ago, Foxx said:

you're an idiot.

 

 

Gosh, do I feel silly.  Here I thought you were being a simple jerk but I see now that you were just trying to fill in for Tom.  Well done, sir!  The role of pompous prick is all yours.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Gosh, do I feel silly.  Here I thought you were being a simple jerk but I see now that you were just trying to fill in for Tom.  Well done, sir!  The role of pompous prick is all yours.

The question is: why are you filling in for Tiberius when he's still here? 

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Gosh, do I feel silly.  Here I thought you were being a simple jerk but I see now that you were just trying to fill in for Tom.  Well done, sir!  The role of pompous prick is all yours.

no. you're an idiot because the obvious escapes you.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Foxx

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

no. you're an idiot because the obvious excapes you.

 

Thinking for himself is not something Bob is capable of. He's got terminal TDS. 

 

And it's hilarious to watch him flail. 

 

 

[snafu]

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).

 

[Tiberius]

46 minutes ago, dubs said:

So, this book leak is now more evidence that trump did something completely within his authority as part of the anti-corruption treaty with Ukraine?

 

i still don’t know exactly what the Dems are asserting: That democrats running for office are immune from scrutiny regarding corruption and possible election interference so the president is forbidden from investigating and just is obliged to mail the check of US taxpayer funds to countries who have potentially conspired to interfere in the election with said Dems?  Do I have that right?

 

 

 

You think Trump wanted to fight corruption? Lol, you can't be that dumb 

[Bob in Mich]

8 minutes ago, Foxx said:

no. you're an idiot because the obvious escapes you.

 

I asked for you to state your point because 'go back and study the Kavanaugh hearing' was too vague.  One could probably draw many conclusions from that review.  How many should I guess at and attempt to reply to?

 

Only an pompous prick would persist that it is beneath them to clarify their point because....well, just because you should be able to guess it.   Get bent, fool!

[Deranged Rhino]

12 minutes ago, snafu said:

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).

 

 

Another thing to add to your timetable -- they timed it perfectly in terms of Amazon putting up the page for the book's pre-sales. Almost to the hour. 

10 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I asked for you to state your point because 'go back and study the Kavanaugh hearing' was too vague.  One could probably draw many conclusions from that review.  How many should I guess at and attempt to reply to?

 

Only an pompous prick would persist that it is beneath them to clarify their point because....well, just because you should be able to guess it.   Get bent, fool!

 

"I asked you to spoon feed me the information because thinking for myself was too hard."

 

Only a stoned person would take someone's advice to think for yourself as being the advice of a pompous prick. 

[Bob in Mich]

Gawd this impeachment hearing is the most boring thing I think I have ever heard.  Can't they entertain me better?   Sheeesh! 

[Hedge]