The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[B-Man]

 

From Daily Wire:

“Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land,” Politico reported. “It’s a decision that could have major ramifications for each senator’s legacy and political prospects — as well shape the broader political dynamic surrounding impeachment heading into the 2020 election.”

 

The move would give the president a bipartisan acquittal to the Democrats’ partisan charges, something that Trump is eagerly seeking.

“All three senators remain undecided after hearing arguments from the impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team. But they could end up with a creative solution,” Politico added. “One or more senators may end up splitting their votes, borrowing a move from Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who voted for the abuse of power charge but against the one on obstruction of Congress.”

 

 

Splitting is silly as a political option because then no one is happy with you. It only makes sense if you truly believed there was evidence for one and not the other. In this case, there isn’t evidence to support either one, but the obstruction charge is just ridiculous.

 

Manchin voted for Kavanaugh, Jones against and Sinema was not yet in office.

 

That would give Democrats another hit if the anti-removal was bipartisan, just like the anti-impeachment was in the House. They would not only lose, but lose with the help of their own.

 

Ultimately that would be the best because it could then help to make people take impeachment seriously again, to not be a political effort as this was, but return to being a bipartisan thing for serious “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

That would be real moral courage to protect the Constitution by Democrats.

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

you're an idiot. as you libs are so fond of saying, that has already been debunked.

You are cranky today. Trump presidency is swirling the bowl 

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

yeah... 30+ campaign promises kept level of sucks.

To Putin? 

[Deranged Rhino]

35 minutes ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

What are your top 5 accomplishments ..  Please tag me so I can find your reply  easier 

 

@SlimShady'sGhost : I'll take a whack (ignoring the economic success as you agree it's booming) -- 

 

1) Exposing the fraudulent establishment media for the liars, manipulators, and narrative engineers that they truly are (and were before the age of Trump). 

 

2) Being the first president NOT to bring us into a new war in the past 20+ years (while dismantling terror financing networks in multiple theaters and increasing the US Mil's power and abilities)

 

3) Exposing the hypocrisy of the left / establishment at every turn (from everything to due process, to their embrace of the neocon/neoliberal figureheads they scorned for the past decade). This has helped free millions from the grips of the fake news media complex and narrative engineering done to keep us deaf, dumb, and blind to the truth about our reality. 

 

4) Getting out of crippling deals designed to undercut our national sovereignty (TPP, Iran deal, NAFTA + more)

 

5) Combating human trafficking across the globe through various means. (This covers his immigration successes, and yes, the wall)

 

We can debate which one of these were intentional or a happy accident, but you can't debate that they're real and crucial victories for the people if we are to have any sense of equal justice and individual sovereignty. 

[Tiberius]

 

 

The Post reports:

The White House moved last week to block the publication of a book from [former national security adviser John] Bolton, saying that it contained “TOP SECRET” and classified material that would endanger national security.

The Jan. 23 letter to Charles Cooper, Bolton’s lawyer, said that Bolton’s book contained “significant amounts of classified information” and that Bolton would be breaking his nondisclosure agreement if he published the book.

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

@SlimShady'sGhost : I'll take a whack (ignoring the economic success as you agree it's booming) -- 

 

1) Exposing the fraudulent establishment media for the liars, manipulators, and narrative engineers that they truly are (and were before the age of Trump). 

 

2) Being the first president NOT to bring us into a new war in the past 20+ years (while dismantling terror financing networks in multiple theaters and increasing the US Mil's power and abilities)

 

3) Exposing the hypocrisy of the left / establishment at every turn (from everything to due process, to their embrace of the neocon/neoliberal figureheads they scorned for the past decade). This has helped free millions from the grips of the fake news media complex and narrative engineering done to keep us deaf, dumb, and blind to the truth about our reality. 

 

4) Getting out of crippling deals designed to undercut our national sovereignty (TPP, Iran deal, NAFTA + more)

 

5) Combating human trafficking across the globe through various means. (This covers his immigration successes, and yes, the wall)

 

We can debate which one of these were intentional or a happy accident, but you can't debate that they're real and crucial victories for the people if we are to have any sense of equal justice and individual sovereignty. 

That’s a dumb list of bull crap. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

And now there's this outrage to add to his crappy record, eh? 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-violated-senate-rules-211931036.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_02

You missed TRUE or FALSE? 

 

C'mon Cheese Whiz I answered your questions pointedly. 

[Deranged Rhino]

https://mobile.twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1222632463740080128

[snafu]

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

drain the swamp and Lock Her Up.

 

Failures on both counts. 

 

Give him 4 more years???

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

This is why @Bob in Mich and GarBoTibs (plus others who have run under rocks since 2018) fail to understand because they've never stopped to understand the full context. That's one reason, of many, why they're so lost. They still do not understand that Trump/Russia was a lie weaponized by the White House and the DNC in order to interfere in the 2016 election (and then, after they lost, to launch a palace coup). They still think that's "conspiracy theory" while they cling to a now proven debunked "conspiracy theory" that Trump was a Russian asset who helped them steal the election. 

 

And rather than do the work themselves, reading the multiple IG reports, Mueller report, two House reports, and Senate report that prove this to be truth beyond all shadow of a doubt -- they scoff at it and revel in their own ignorance like a pig in *****. 

 

I'd feel bad for them if they didn't scorn every attempt to show them the light over the past 4 years. Now, it's just fun to point out their ignorance and watch them run from it like a Vampire running from a cross. 

 

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

53 minutes ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

 

I don't see him as having any other than managing to not F up the economy more than he has. 

 

Ergo my list of failures. 

 

What are your top 5 accomplishments ..  Please tag me so I can find your reply  easier 

 

 

If you only knew how these places operated.  I've been there. Have you?    By law I can not go into details. 

 

Yes, Americans died.  Was it the System or just Hillary all by here lonesome?  

I've said before, I am not an Obama fan, I thought he sucked donkey $$$$ as a pres, but these things happen in dangerous places. I render no opinion on that part of it, because what do I know. 

 

I'll take you at your word you've been there, truly, but that does not explain the manufactured story. And no, I have not been there, and never claimed to have been. It's seems a particularly vicious part of the world.   

 

Was there a "system" in place that required they misrepresent what happened?  

 

And again, the libs are freaking out over an aid package that was delivered, its lead to a full on imoeachmrlent frenzy. Every administration ever would be subject to inv for a debacle that leaves an ambassador and his protectors dead, would not you agree? Yet...no impeachment. Huh.

[B-Man]

Momentum: Gardner Declares Himself A No On Further Witnesses

 

Cory Gardner, one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents in Senate race this year, told Colorado Politics that he will vote down any attempt to subpoena John Bolton or anyone else. Seventeen is enough, Gardner declared for the record:

 

“I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness,” the Colorado Republican told Colorado Politics in a statement. “I have approached every aspect of this grave constitutional duty with the respect and attention required by law, and have reached this decision after carefully weighing the House managers and defense arguments and closely reviewing the evidence from the House, which included well over 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses.”

Gardner had previously been noncommittal about Democrats’ demands to call more witnesses, including Bolton, who writes in a forthcoming book that Trump told him he withheld military aid from Ukraine to pressure the country to investigate Democratic political rival Joe Biden.

It will take 51 votes to call witnesses or subpoena documents, meaning four Republicans will have to join the 47 Senate Democrats and independents who have said senators should consider more evidence before deciding whether to remove Trump from offices on charges he abused his power and obstructed an ensuing congressional investigation.

 

Gardner might not have been one of the front-line vulnerable incumbents this year to be on the fence, but he certainly was a target for House Democrats. They added Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) to the impeachment managers for a reason; they wanted to pressure Gardner into voting to expand the investigation.

Gardner’s decision still leaves four Senate Republicans in the mix, just enough for Chuck Schumer to succeed, but it also puts pressure on safe-seat Republicans like Mitt Romney not to leave Gardner twisting in the wind.

 

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/01/29/toomey-either-hunter-bolton-lets-end-thing/

 

.

 

 

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

5 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You missed TRUE or FALSE? 

 

C'mon Cheese Whiz I answered your questions pointedly. 

 

Louie Louie, I have probably written responses to about 40 posts today.  Sorry but I have to tell you that your posts are exhausting.  You throw everything in the world into them  ...Kavanaugh and Clinton and Obama and  Iran and Mitch and Ukraine and Biden and etc, etc, and then the jokes.  It is not possible to answer all the points you raise though I disagree with your take on nearly every one.  I mentioned in a post earlier that some may not realize that you all can overrun a poster with replies.  There are about 10 posters that want replies and god help you if you make a spelling or grammatical error. 

 

You did not answer my OJ question by the way.  You slid on by with a joke.   Shame

 

were these the ones?

 

Adam Schiff and the house Democrats are attempting to have Trump removed from office.  (yes)

 

Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the rest of those in control of the house used political majority in the house to frame a story in the manner they wanted it presented.  (yes)

 

There was no call for harmony, they did not consider the feelings of the Rs, defer to their requests for a "fair hearing", nor attempt to meet somewhere in the middle so we could all get to the truth. (false.  The process has different phases.  In the final house phase the president declined to have his counsel present.)

 

Schiff in particular made statements to the public that were false and misleading along the way, and in that regard, did so for maximum political effect. If you are saying his statements have a political slant, then I agree.  If you are trying to make an issue of his ill advised parody, then (False)

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

54 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So now Trump is so scared of Bolton he is trying to suppress the publication of his book. Claiming national security issues, totally bogus. I guess the news of Trump buddying up to autocrats would look as bad as it is. 

Why would anyone think that the former National Security Adviser might actually have knowledge of issues that need to be classified?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Shocking... Roberts is compromised, has been for awhile. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Schiff just tripled down on perjuring himself on the Senate floor. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Schiff just tripled down on perjuring himself on the Senate floor. 

 

 

...how so?......Honest Adam swears that he doesn't even know who the whistle blower is.....he seems very genuine, right??...........

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Schiff just tripled down on perjuring himself on the Senate floor. 

The problem is that as long as he isn't under oath he can say what he wants to on either floor and get away with it. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Louie Louie, I have probably written responses to about 40 posts today.  Sorry but I have to tell you that your posts are exhausting.  You throw everything in the world into them  ...Kavanaugh and Clinton and Obama and  Iran and Mitch and Ukraine and Biden and etc, etc, and then the jokes.  It is not possible to answer all the points you raise though I disagree with your take on nearly every one.  I mentioned in a post earlier that some may not realize that you all can overrun a poster with replies.  There are about 10 posters that want replies and god help you if you make a spelling or grammatical error. 

 

You did not answer my OJ question by the way.  You slid on by with a joke.   Shame

 

were these the ones?

 

Adam Schiff and the house Democrats are attempting to have Trump removed from office.  (yes)

 

Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the rest of those in control of the house used political majority in the house to frame a story in the manner they wanted it presented.  (yes)

 

There was no call for harmony, they did not consider the feelings of the Rs, defer to their requests for a "fair hearing", nor attempt to meet somewhere in the middle so we could all get to the truth. (false.  The process has different phases.  In the final house phase the president declined to have his counsel present.)

 

Schiff in particular made statements to the public that were false and misleading along the way, and in that regard, did so for maximum political effect. If you are saying his statements have a political slant, then I agree.  If you are trying to make an issue of his ill advised paroday, then (False)

 

Fair enough on the 40 replies, fair enough on the lengthy posts I send in return.  I simply see these issues as all intertwined, I see a pattern, and if I did not, I might well agree with you on some of these issues.  Feel free to screw up the grammar, even if I talk behind your back no one would know. 

 

OJ question--I thought the analogy was lacking and had nothing to do with the situation.  That said, if OJ was charged with another crime, he should be investigated and charged as the facts played out.  His acquittal in the Nicole/Goldman case should have no bearing on the investigation of a crime if they find his bloody gloves and Bruno Maglia (sp?) shoe prints at the scene of a crime in 2020. 

 

We reach an impasse on the House hearing v. the Senate.  In one of your emails, you seemed to suggest the Senate should disregard precedent and all parties should seek the truth.  The Rs are on record as to complaining about the House process, the heavy-handed approach to their request for consideration and their perception that that portion of the process was demonstrably unfair.  Still, if you feel the Dems were fair, and followed the rules to the letter and did not selectively leak and mislead the public on key issues, that's fine.  Regardless, I simply state let's do the same in the Senate.  If the majority can close out without witnesses, without breaking the law they should do so.  That's the beauty of the majority. 

 

And while we're at it, what happened to Brett Kavanaugh was a disgrace and you should stand with me on that issue.  If not, you're supporting oppression and tyranny, and your grammar sucks. ?

 

 

 

[snafu]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

There’s a difference in not keeping a promise and not TRYING to keep a promise. I believe Trump has at least tried to keep the vast majority of his pre election promises. I cannot think of one where he’s done a complete policy reversal....can you?

 

And I would add that there's a difference in trying and succeeding (in the instances he succeeded) in the face of an openly hostile opposition party, a half-hostile "supporting" party.  Those two elements tried their hardest to refuse to legitimize him.  Add to that at least half of the electorate that hates him.  Pile on the fact that there were active collusion investigations for the first three years, and a national press that pisses on him every chance they get.  I don't even like the guy, but that's pretty impressive.

 

I can think of one policy reversal (though I don't remember him making it a huge part of his platform): spending.  He spends too much and (to me) it is a problem.

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

The problem is that as long as he isn't under oath he can say what he wants to on either floor and get away with it. 

 

 

...as if an oath proceeding would make a damn bit of difference to him....seriously?........hand slap ramifications?.....