Pelosi’s strategy pays off: Now bring in Bolton

  
Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  135 comments

Pelosi’s strategy pays off: Now bring in Bolton
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is in the driver’s seat because she wisely held up the articles of impeachment. She can now turn to the Senate and say: Agree upon rules for the trial that guarantee Bolton’s and other key witnesses’ appearance or we will hold on to the articles and subpoena Bolton ourselves.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Former national security adviser John Bolton said Monday that he is “prepared to testify” if called as a witness by the Senate.Bolton’s attorney previously said he would be guided by the courts on whether to testify in the impeachment proceedings. But Bolton said in a statement Monday that “a final judicial resolution” appears unlikely before a Senate trial.“Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study,” he said. “I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.”

Why Bolton would now decide to make himself available will be a matter of speculation. Perhaps he was prompted to give up his ludicrous excuse to avoid testifying by a federal judge’s dismissal on Dec. 30 of a lawsuit brought by Bolton’s former subordinate Charles Kupperman’s claiming “absolute immunity" from cooperating with a House subpoena. Kupperman’s case was handled by the same attorney who represents Bolton.

Maybe the revelation in news reports that Bolton was in an Oval Office gaggle trying to persuade President Trump to unlock aid to Ukraine gave him the impetus to confirm his objections to what he once called a “drug deal” cooked up by acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Trump bag man Rudolph W. Giuliani. (Remaining silent until his book is scheduled to come out next fall, thereby helping an unfit president who violated his oath to remain in office, might have, upon further reflection, have seemed like a career and legacy killer.)

Whatever the reason, Bolton’s announcement on Monday put Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), not to mention other persuadable Republican senators, in a box. Facts subsequent to the House impeachment have become known that directly pertain to Trump’s conduct and, to boot, a critical witness is now suddenly available. Do Senate Republicans try to sweep all that under the rug, risking that Bolton will later tell his story publicly and incriminate a president whose misdeeds the Senate helped cover up? That would seem intensely unwise.

“This means that only McConnell and his GOP caucus stand between what Bolton says he’s ready to testify under oath in a Senate trial and the American people,” tweeted constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. “Your move, Mitch.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is in the driver’s seat because she wisely held up the articles of impeachment. She can now turn to the Senate and say: Agree upon rules for the trial that guarantee Bolton’s and other key witnesses’ appearance or we will hold on to the articles and subpoena Bolton ourselves.

Former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller tells me, “There is no legal difference between a subpoena issued by the House and one issued by the Senate, and if Bolton is willing to comply with one, the same should be true for the other.” He adds, “As a political matter, however, it probably makes sense for the House to delay any subpoena to keep the pressure squarely where it belongs — on Senate Republicans.” Vowing to call Bolton in the House could actually make the pressure that much more intense.

Matters never should have gotten to this point. The bogus assertion of “absolute immunity," already knocked down in the case of former White House counsel Donald McGahn by a district court judge, does not give current or former administration figures the right to avoid showing up or the administration the right to withhold documents and instruct witnesses not to testify.

It is now time for all of them, including Bolton, Mulvaney, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey (who told the Pentagon to put a hold on Ukraine aid) and White House national security aide Robert Blair, who all have direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the effort to extort Ukraine, to do their civic duty and step forward. Moreover, it’s time for senators to do their duty and uphold their oaths as senators and as jurors.


Article is Locked by Moderator

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago
Former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller tells me, “There is no legal difference between a subpoena issued by the House and one issued by the Senate, and if Bolton is willing to comply with one, the same should be true for the other.” He adds, “As a political matter, however, it probably makes sense for the House to delay any subpoena to keep the pressure squarely where it belongs — on Senate Republicans.” Vowing to call Bolton in the House could actually make the pressure that much more intense.
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

about frckn time

nicely played by Nancy

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    3 weeks ago

She should say ( and hopefully will) to McConnell - "Either you subpoena Bolton, or I will, and we'll go back to the beginning".  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

Look at the article picture.

If you draw a white goatee on Bolton, he's Col. Sanders.

512

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.1  1stwarrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2    3 weeks ago

Oh please - c'mon - don't insult the Col like that.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

He looks more like Captain Kangaroo.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

Bolton remains the ultimate wild card. You have no idea what he might say. You missed the bigger picture here. His statement dosen't just bring pressure on Senate Republicans to hear witnesses, it also increases pressure on them to change the rules. Removing the courtesy of waiting for the House to submit the Articles would not only be a major defeat for Pelosi, but would also diminish the House.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

I have my doubts if Bolton will tell the truth that will bring down Trump (he may be more like G Gordon Liddy than John Dean) but its worth a shot when the alternative is McConnell's show trial. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

do you think McConnell cares if Bolton testifies before the house? Are they  going to impeach Trump again? Maybe they’ll have the trial in 2022?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 weeks ago
do you think McConnell cares if Bolton testifies before the house?

Moscow Mitch doesn't want Bolton to testify in the Senate.

Do you?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 weeks ago

Who cares what McConnell cares? 

We want the public to see what happened. If it's in the House, thats fine too. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    3 weeks ago

Do you think anyone outside of MSNBC thinks he matters? The vote will be the same no matter what he says. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

Thanks for admitting that the GOP Senate is in the bag. You must be proud. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

I have asked Sean three or four times if Trump is fit to be president of the United States. So far no answer. 

People lied to themselves once, in 2016, about this fool, I shudder to think they will do it again. If Trump gets re-elected America will be condemning itself to the harshest judgements history can offer. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.4  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
I have asked Sean three or four times

Many of us have asked you far more than 3 or 4 times to provide proof of ANY of your seeds or posts.

Still so far, no answer.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

Of course they are.

Imagine being so naive  as to think  Democrats aren't in the bag as well. . 

Anyone old enough to remember the Clinton impeachment and guys like Schumer literally campaigning to be elected to the Senate so he could vote no in an impeachment trial should be informed enough to understand this is a political process dominated by politics.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.6  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

That is also admitting that the Democrats are in the bag- in the House and the Senate.

Or do you think calling for Trump's impeachment for the past 3 years makes them unbiased?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
People lied to themselves once, in 2016, about this fool, I shudder to think they will do it again. If Trump gets re-elected America will be condemning itself to the harshest judgements history can offer. 

Might as well just give up now, JR.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.5    3 weeks ago
Imagine being so naive  as to think  Democrats aren't in the bag as well.

It's one thing to think it, it's another thing for a Senator to confirm it. Multiple GOP Senators have done just that. 

Secondly, McConnell, and thereby the GOP are insisting that only existing testimony and evidence can be presented by the House Managers. 

McConnell keeps bringing up the 100-0 vote on the Senate resolution for the Clinton impeachment yet he's desperate to have us ignore that Trent Lott and Tom Daschle NEGOTIATED that resolution in good faith, something that McConnell has already admitted that he has no intention of doing. 

Anyone old enough to remember the Clinton impeachment and guys like Schumer literally campaigning to be elected to the Senate so he could vote no in an impeachment trial should be informed enough to understand this is a political process dominated by politics.

Blah, blah, blah. The Senate vote in the Clinton impeachment trial wasn't even close so what's your fucking point? 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.6    3 weeks ago
That is also admitting that the Democrats are in the bag- in the House and the Senate.

Why address it to me, Sean said it...

Or do you think calling for Trump's impeachment for the past 3 years makes them unbiased?

There is a YUGE difference between being bias and stating the you will work in 'total coordination' with the WH. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.7    3 weeks ago

He's got Romney. Romney just came out in favor of calling Bolton. Too bad Romney couldn't muster such fortitude when he was running for president as a stuffed shirt.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.11  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.10    3 weeks ago

Are you afraid of what Bolton will say? Maybe "drug deal" was not that innocent of a phrase, eh? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.11    3 weeks ago
Are you afraid of what Bolton will say?

Not in the least. I happen to admire John Bolton, as I admire the Commander-in-Chief. How about you? Are you concerned that he might have something positive to add?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.13  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.12    3 weeks ago

I dont doubt he would lie under oath if he thought there was some gain in it for his war mongering beliefs.  It is a little bit of a question as to what he will say.  We still need to know what he meant by "drug deal" in relation to Giuliani and Trump's activities in Ukraine.  Who knows, maybe they were literally dealing drugs. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.13    3 weeks ago
I dont doubt he would lie under oath if he thought there was some gain in it for his war mongering beliefs. 

We know you hate Bolton too, but you think he is a useful tool. Be careful what you wish for John.

It is a little bit of a question as to what he will say. 

That it is.


 We still need to know what he meant by "drug deal" in relation to Giuliani and Trump's activities in Ukraine. 

Maybe, you'll find out. It is no longer up to partisan democrats though.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.8    3 weeks ago
 one thing to think it, it's another thing for a Senator to confirm it. Multiple GOP Senators have done just that

Are you joking? You don't think Democratic Senators haven't'  confirmed their bias? That's one for the ages.

Connell, and thereby the GOP are insisting that only existing testimony and evidence can be presented by the House Managers

McConnell and the GOP want the same rules for witnesses that every single Senator agreed to for the Clinton trial.  Can't be more fair than that. 

The Senate vote in the Clinton impeachment trial wasn't even close so what's your fucking poin

Like this is going to be? Ha!   There will be less votes to remove Trump then there were for Clinton.  Are you even paying attention to what you wrote? By your own standard, all the bias in the world doesn't matter, because the vote won't be close. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.15    3 weeks ago
Are you joking? You don't think Democratic Senators haven't'  confirmed their bias? 

I haven't heard of one Democratic Senator state unequivocally that they had no intention of being an impartial. Can you link to such a statement? 

That's one for the ages.

One what? 

McConnell and the GOP want the same rules for witnesses that every single Senator agreed to for the Clinton trial.  Can't be more fair than that. 

Oh so you're privy to a copy of McConnell's proposed rules? Care to share? 

By your own standard, all the bias in the world doesn't matter, because the vote won't be close. 

Nope, my posit is that if NY voted for Schumer based solely on his vote to acquit Clinton, they were ignorant to the fact that his one vote wasn't going to matter one way or another.

Trent Lott took his duty and his oath seriously and listened to his GOP conference, McConnell does not. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.17  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.16    3 weeks ago
I haven't heard of one Democratic Senator state unequivocally that they had no intention of being an impartial. Can you link to such a statement? 

Probably because CNN and MSDNC want you to believe what they tell you, and only that. You are showing it...

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who wants to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020 and who will be sitting in judgment of Trump, said : "In 2016, Trump welcomed foreign adversaries to meddle in our democracy for his own gain. Now he appears to be using the same playbook to remain in power. I applaud Speaker Pelosi's announcement of an impeachment inquiry—it's our one remaining path to ensuring justice is served." Doesn't sound like he's prepared to weigh the evidence with an open mind, does it?

What about these comments from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren? "I called for impeachment five months ago, the day after the Mueller report came out. Trump continues to commit crimes because he believes he's above the law." And : "The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States."

California Sen. Kamala Harris isn't running for president anymore but, while she was, she certainly made her views on the issue clear. Take this tweet : "Donald Trump has abused his power, obstructed justice, and violated his oath of office. He puts his political interests over our national interest. I agree with @SpeakerPelosi— no one is above the law. He must be impeached." She's still in the Senate so she too is on the jury,

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has called Trump "most corrupt president in the history of this country" and said that "in terms of the recent Ukrainian incident, the idea that we have a President of the United States who is prepared to hold back national security money to one of our allies in order to get dirt on a presidential candidate is beyond comprehension." Doesn't sound very open-minded to me.

Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar, another who'll serve on the jury judging Trump already pronounced him guilty when she said , "When he made that call to the head of Ukraine, he's digging up dirt on an opponent. That's illegal conduct. That's what he was doing

Yeah...no bias...s/

https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-biased-so-every-democrat-1479388

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.2.18  Snuffy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.16    3 weeks ago
I haven't heard of one Democratic Senator state unequivocally that they had no intention of being an impartial. Can you link to such a statement? 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/20/us/politics/senators-impeachment-reactions.html

Senator Mazie K. Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, went as far as saying that she was ready to vote to convict the president unless he had information that exonerated himself. Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado and a 2020 presidential candidate, took a similar position in an interview recorded before Wednesday’s proceedings.

I'm confident you will come back with "she said unless he had information that exonerates him".  Problem with that is she is going in with a guilty until proven innocent attitude. That's not impartial either.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.19  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    3 weeks ago

Once he does, if ever, the KoolAid intoxicant is nullified.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.16    3 weeks ago
heard of one Democratic Senator state unequivocally that they had no intention of being an impartial. Can you link to such a statement? 

Senator Warren pronounced him guilty and called for his removal before the house hearings even concluded . And for his impeachment and/or remove for diverse other reasons over the last few years.   Can't get more biased than that.

But I know, you want to pretend there's a substantive difference because Warren didn't use the exact words in the exact order some Republican did. 

        privy to a copy of McConnell's proposed rules

Well yes. He's been very open about willing to proceed under the rules used during the Clinton impeachment.  

  Trent Lott took his duty and his oath seriously

A shame Chuck Schumer doesn't.  McConnell simply wants to use the rules that everyone agreed were fair last time around. It's Schumer and the Democrats who are being fanatical partisans and refusing to use rules the rules they applied to Clinton.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.21  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.17    3 weeks ago

Perhaps you misunderstood my statement. 

I haven't heard of one Democratic Senator state unequivocally that they had no intention of being an impartial.

Nothing you posted qualifies. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.22  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.21    3 weeks ago

Of course you are going to say that. Everything these senators said reeked of "He's guilty" even before the first hearings started.

As stated by Snuffy above, democrats look at this as "he is guilty and he needs to prove he is not" mentality. Thankfully, we don't live in the communist society liberals wish we did, we live in a society that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Another reason why libs hate Trump.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @3.2.22    3 weeks ago

Trumps only innocence, is of being not guilty of innocence 

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.2.24  Snuffy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.21    3 weeks ago

had to laugh. Using your same words,  McConnell stating he wants to coordinate with the White House does not state unequivocally that he will not be impartial either.  all I can say here is pot / kettle.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.25  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.24    3 weeks ago
McConnell stating he wants to coordinate with the White House does not state unequivocally that he will not be impartial either.  all I can say here is pot / kettle.

Here you go pot/kettle:

“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday while fielding questions about the upcoming trial.

“I’m not impartial about this at all,” he said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/474946-mcconnell-on-impeachment-im-not-impartial-about-this-at-all
 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.26  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.25    3 weeks ago
I’m not an impartial juror.

He's not. He is a politician.

Same goes for the 47 democrat senators.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.27  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.23    3 weeks ago
Trumps only innocence, is of being not guilty of innocence 

What has he been found guilty of.....or is your feeeeeeeeelings overriding due process?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.28  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @3.2.27    3 weeks ago

hows the water,

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.21    3 weeks ago

As I predicted, you would pretend you have a point because Warren (and others) didn't use the exact formula of words McConnell did.

Please don't embarrass yourself any further and try to claim that Warren declaring  Trump guilty and supporting his removal from office in the middle of the impeachment hearings before all the evidence was even heard isn't proof that she's not impartial.

There's no substantive  difference between a Senator claiming 'I'm not impartial" and a Senator demonstrating she is clearly not impartial.  

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.30  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.28    3 weeks ago
hows the water,

Now, now, we have talked extensively in the past of you posting coherent posts.

This is not one of them.

Try again...

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.31  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.29    3 weeks ago
As I predicted, you would pretend you have a point because Warren (and others) didn't use the exact formula of words McConnell did.

All you needed to do was post a link what qualified. Now you're whining because you can't. 

Please don't embarrass yourself any further and try to claim that Warren declaring  Trump guilty and supporting his removal from office in the middle of the impeachment hearings before all the evidence was even heard isn't proof that she's not impartial.

Please don't embarrass yourself any further by pretending that you posted a link to a comment by Warren. Your representation doesn't cut it. 

There's no substantive  difference between a Senator claiming 'I'm not impartial" and a Senator demonstrating she is clearly not impartial. 

There's a YUGE difference between the unequivocal statement that I linked and your interpretation of what you think you remember Warren saying.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.32  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.27    3 weeks ago
What has he been found guilty of.....or is your feeeeeeeeelings overriding due process?

What government entity has tried to take Trump's life, liberty or property bugs? 

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.2.33  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.7    3 weeks ago

Might as well just give up now, JR.

That will never happen based on hatred for Trump.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.34  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.32    3 weeks ago
bugs? 

Uh oh....according to your liberal moderator buddies on here, addressing another poster by a variation of their screen name is a CoC violation and should be deleted. Let's see how long it will be before they delete your post.

It's already been 8 hours and it is still up.

Surprised?

Not me...

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.35  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.32    3 weeks ago
What government entity has tried to take Trump's life, liberty or property bugs?

Nothing yet, but dem/libs are trying their damnest to take away all three.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.36  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.34    3 weeks ago
Uh oh....according to your liberal moderator buddies on here, addressing another poster by a variation of their screen name is a CoC violation and should be deleted.

That's false. 

The moderator said that it is against the rules to mock avatars and screen names.

Did you feel mocked by my shortening your screen name to bugs?

If not, no harm no foul. 

If you did, per the CoC, you should flag the violation and REFRAIN from replying to my comment.

Since you replied to my comment, not once but TWICE, your comment just looks like META whining.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.37  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.35    3 weeks ago
Nothing yet, but dem/libs are trying their damnest to take away all three.

They are? How so? Be specific. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.38  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.36    3 weeks ago
That's false. 

Nope...it's true. I shortened Al Jizzeror's name the other day and he claimed it was a violation. No mocking of anything, just a shortening. Less than 30 minutes hour the post was deleted.

I certainly do not feel mocked, as I have been called far worse on here by the left.

I don't flag, so I can respond as I feel.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.39  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @3.2.38    3 weeks ago
Nope...it's true. I shortened Al Jizzeror's name the other day and he claimed it was a violation. No mocking of anything, just a shortening. Less than 30 minutes hour the post was deleted.

i have no problem being called Iggy, but Jizz, c'mon now, even you might be bugged   by that   know ?

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.40  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.39    3 weeks ago

I don't know, but I doubt it. I tend to be far more thick skinned than that. It was a simple shortening and not meant to demean. If he thought it was demeaning, he should have pm me and told me why.

Seems like some moderators simply have a dirty mind.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.41  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @3.2.40    3 weeks ago

since you have such thick skin, i'm guessing you won't mind if i address you as 'jizz' from now on, ok ?

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.42  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.41    3 weeks ago

Go ahead. I won't flag you. I'm not a liberal and don't take offense to everything.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.43  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.38    3 weeks ago
Nope...it's true.

As I stated, your characterization of what the moderator said is FALSE. 

 No mocking of anything, just a shortening. 

Then you should have made a cogent argument to the mod. 

I certainly do not feel mocked, as I have been called far worse on here by the left.

Since Al commented on it critically, it looks like he took it as mocking and therefore a CoC. 

I don't flag, so I can respond as I feel.

Whether YOU flag or not has not effect on how your responses are moderated. Though if you're NOT going to flag, you can hardly decry a lack of moderation on comments to you. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.2.44  al Jizzerror  replied to  bugsy @3.2.40    3 weeks ago
I tend to be far more thick skinned than that.

It was a juvenile attempt to insult me.

It didn't bother me and I didn't flag it.

I simply told you it was a CoC violation because I thought you might want to self delete to avoid getting a ticket.

Seems like some moderators simply have a dirty mind.

Good, play dumb and insult the Moderators.

I bet you're not "playing". 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.45  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @3.2.43    3 weeks ago
Trump's life, liberty or property bugs? 

When you said "property bugs" I thought you were referring to the bed bugs found on trmp's "luxury" properties.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.46  bugsy  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.2.44    3 weeks ago

Oh, look who showed up....

I want to make it perfectly clear that the shortening of your name was not meant to demean or mock. The moderator's take on it was subjective at best. I would appreciate it if I said something to you that offended you, you would be man/woman enough to let me know that.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.47  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.43    3 weeks ago
As I stated, your characterization of what the moderator said is FALSE. 

The moderator made no attempt to say WHY the post was a CoC violation, and they don't have to publicly. He could have simply pm me and told me why. In most cases, being a moderator is nothing more than being subjective.

The rest of your post is just blah, blah, blah...

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.48  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @3.2.47    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.49  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.48    3 weeks ago
Please stop whining about the COC and move the fuck along.  

Says the person who constantly complains about her posts getting deleted for various violations.

I'm done...waste of my time.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.50  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.47    3 weeks ago
The moderator made no attempt to say WHY the post was a CoC violation, and they don't have to publicly. He could have simply pm me and told me why. In most cases, being a moderator is nothing more than being subjective.

Again, FALSE. Here the link to the mods comment telling you why it was a CoC violation:

https://thenewstalkers.com/trout-giggles/group_discuss/7456/trumps-pathetic-video-from-2011#cm1230129

Your comment was viewed as mocking and therefore it is a CoC violation. That isn't a subjective opinion. 

The rest of your post is just blah, blah, blah...

Judging from Al's comment here, the rest of my post was right on. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.51  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.50    3 weeks ago
Again, FALSE. Here the link to the mods comment telling you why it was a CoC violation:

Look, I get it. You are reaching trying to defend your friends. It's OK, we all do it sometimes.

I saw that the mod said that I MOCKED to screen name. I did not. I simply shortened it. You can believe what you want. The mod was subjective in their decision.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.52  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @3.2.49    3 weeks ago

Then why are you still whining about it bugsy?

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.53  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.52    3 weeks ago

Impasse

Impasse

An impasse may be issued in a thread during a heated discussion.  Issuing an impasse ends all discussion between the issuing member and the target member within the thread.   (For example, issuing an impasse for comment ‘2.5.2’ applies to all comments starting with ‘2.5’ between the two members).   To issue an impasse, the issuing member clicks on the user’s avatar for the target member’s offending comment and selects Impasse.   Both the issuing and target members will now see IMPASSE in place of the REPLY function. Impasses that are written out will not be honored. 

Note:  you cannot issue an Impasse if you have had the last word.   You can only Impasse on a comment that follows your last comment in the thread.   Also, you cannot impasse in a thread unless you created the thread or have commented within the thread.

Abuse of impasse to not engage with specific individuals may result in a ticket.   [updated on 3/8/19 by ph]

SP
 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.54  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.51    3 weeks ago
Look, I get it.

Obviously not. 

You are reaching trying to defend your friends. It's OK, we all do it sometimes.

Nope, I am merely posting facts and calling you out on your false statements. 

I saw that the mod said that I MOCKED to screen name.  

They why did you state that the mod didn't tell you why it was a CoC?

I did not. I simply shortened it. You can believe what you want. 

As I said, make your case to the mod or ask the RA to review your ticket.

It may have gone a long way if when the violation was explained to you, you would have addressed it then and perhaps made an apology to Al that didn't include the further insult of telling him to man up .

The mod was subjective in their decision.

As I said, judging from Al's comment, he viewed it as mocking his screen name. IMHO, that isn't a 'subjective' call for the mod. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.55  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.2.54    3 weeks ago
he viewed it as mocking his screen name

Well, not really. Al said he did not flag the comment, so it was pure moderator. THAT is why I said the moderator's decision was subjective.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.2.56  al Jizzerror  replied to  bugsy @3.2.47    3 weeks ago
The moderator made no attempt to say WHY the post was a CoC violation

Really?

You dragged this fine whine over here from my thread.

The Mod provided a detailed explanation about why the post constitutes a CoC violation.

So here's a copy&pastie from my thread that proves you're lying about a Mod:

3.1.9 bugsy replied to  al Jizzerror @ 3.1.8   3 days ago

How exactly is that a CoC? A shortening of your screen name? Really?

Yes. Really.

Since 2005 when NV was created, it was against the rules to mock avatars and screen names.

That tradition & rule has been and will be continued here on NT as a CoC violation. SP

You shouldn't fuck with Mother Nature or NewsTalker Mods.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.57  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @3.2.55    3 weeks ago

Still whining about this I see

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.58  bugsy  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.2.56    3 weeks ago

You need to pay attention to the thread. Dulay and I already discussed that.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.59  bugsy  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.2.56    3 weeks ago

Impasse

Impasse An impasse may be issued in a thread during a heated discussion.  Issuing an impasse ends all discussion between the issuing member and the target member within the thread.   (For example, issuing an impasse for comment ‘2.5.2’ applies to all comments starting with ‘2.5’ between the two members).   To issue an impasse, the issuing member clicks on the user’s avatar for the target member’s offending comment and selects Impasse.   Both the issuing and target members will now see IMPASSE in place of the REPLY function. Impasses that are written out will not be honored. 

Note:  you cannot issue an Impasse if you have had the last word.   You can only Impasse on a comment that follows your last comment in the thread.   Also, you cannot impasse in a thread unless you created the thread or have commented within the thread.

Abuse of impasse to not engage with specific individuals may result in a ticket.   [updated on 3/8/19 by ph]
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.2.60  al Jizzerror  replied to  bugsy @3.2.58    3 weeks ago
Dulay and I already discussed that.

I see.

You're continuing to swim in denial.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.61  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  bugsy @3.2.55    3 weeks ago
Al said he did not flag the comment, so it was pure moderator.

It was flagged, but not by Al.

Go ahead. I won't flag you.

Flag violations.

EVERYONE--> No more Meta, get back on topic, follow the CoC,.

Have a Nice Day.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.62  Tessylo  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2.61    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.2.63  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.62    3 weeks ago
Don't you have more of my comments to delete for no reason whatsoever?

Please don't poke the Mods.

Remember what I said in that "Private Note".

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.65  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.55    3 weeks ago

[Dulay, al, bugsy, and tessy,]

[There has already been one warning about meta on this thread.  Further meta will result in the article being locked.]

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.2.66  Split Personality  replied to  bugsy @3.2.59    3 weeks ago

You have three options

Use the IMPASSE option (correctly) which only has an effect in the present thread.

Use the Ignore function so you can't see any of the other members comments

Ask a Mod to consider blocking both members from replies, articles, flagging etc.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 weeks ago
do you think McConnell cares if Bolton testifies before the house?

Politicians of all stripes are only to eager to run off their mouths...and treat us to their wise opinions. But its another thing entirely when they have to do it under oath.

And that's what Trump..and McConnell...and their merrie band of theives and con-artists fear the most.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Krishna @3.3    3 weeks ago

What are you talking about?

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.3.2  dennis smith  replied to  Krishna @3.3    3 weeks ago

Politicians of all stripes are only to eager to run off their mouths...and treat us to their wise opinions. But its another thing entirely when they have to do it under oath.

Clinton had no problem lying under oath either

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4  al Jizzerror    3 weeks ago
it’s time for senators to do their duty and uphold their oaths as senators and as jurors.

That's true.  That's their constitutional duty.

Unfortunately, Republican Senators think their duty is to protect Trump.

Romney is the only Republican Senator who has said he wants to hear Bolton's testimony.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @4    3 weeks ago
Romney is the only Republican Senator who has said he wants to hear Bolton's testimony.

Maybe Murkowski did as well (I don't remember)

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @4.1    3 weeks ago
Maybe Murkowski did as well

Nope.

This is what she said 3 hours ago:

Murkowski: Decision on impeachment witnesses should wait until after start of trial

BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 01/06/20 06:59 PM EST
Sen. Lisa   Murkowski  (R-Alaska) said on Monday that she supports delaying a decision on which, if any, witnesses should testify until after the start of   President Trump 's impeachment trial.
 
 
 
Snuffy
4.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Can you explain what's wrong with the approach of McConnell to follow the process that was used for Clinton?  ie,  have the House present it's findings to the Senate, and once that is done to hold a vote on witnesses to subpeona?  Why do they have to re-invent the wheel this time? These rules were successfully agreed to and used in the Clinton trial, why won't they work here?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

I also don't recall the House sitting on the articles after voting for them, either. AT least not THIS long!

But hey, it's Pelosi, so what can you honestly expect from her?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

apparently, Trump isn't entitled to the process Clinton received. It's amazing to watch Democrats hyperventilate and scream about rules all 100 Senators favored for the Clinton trial.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.5  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

I don't recall sitting on SCOTUS hearings for a year prior to Moscow Mitch either.  Guess this is what Trumpers want, so suck it up.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @4.1.5    3 weeks ago
I don't recall sitting on SCOTUS hearings for a year prior to Moscow Mitch either. 

I think you meant do. However, I'm glad it was done. You keep your constitution. We want the one the founders wrote.


Guess this is what Trumpers want, so suck it up.

LMAO.  Sounds like the music from the band playing as the Titanic went down. Whatever makes you feel good.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
Can you explain what's wrong with the approach of McConnell to follow the process that was used for Clinton?

Yes. EVERY person subpoenaed or asked to testify in the Clinton investigation did so. EVERY subpoena for documents was complied with. In short, ALL of the evidence was collected before the Impeachment Inquiry even started. 

 ie,  have the House present it's findings to the Senate, and once that is done to hold a vote on witnesses to subpeona?  

In the Clinton trial, ALL of the Grand Jury transcripts of witness testimony were in evidence. That includes the transcripts of the three witnesses that the Senate DID call for testimony, Lewinsky, Blumenthal and Jordan. In fact the Senate questioned all three of those witnesses using their Grand Jury testimony. 

Why do they have to re-invent the wheel this time? These rules were successfully agreed to and used in the Clinton trial, why won't they work here?

Again, in the Clinton trial, there were NO outstanding [withheld] witnesses or documents. 

Neither you or McConnell should continue making a false equivalency between the Clinton and Trump impeachment. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.7    3 weeks ago

But you are not answering the question. In the Clinton impeachment, all the evidence was collected by Ken Starr, Independent Counsel. His process ran for three years where he also went to court to enforce subpoena's as well as negotiating with the Clinton lawyers. This was all done under by Starr who presented his reports to the House Judiciary Committee.  When this was completed the House had the vote on impeachment and when they impeached President Clinton the articles of Impeachment were sent to the Senate. The Senate agreed to rules that the House would start the trial by presenting their facts and information, once that was done the Senate would hold a vote to determine which if any witnesses they would bring in.

In the Trump impeachment, the investigation was done by the House Intel Committee. So to follow the same process the House should send over the articles of impeachment and then present their case to the Senate. Once that is done the Senate can determine what additional witnesses they want to hear from.  Same process as was followed in the Clinton impeachment. Why is this process not ok for this run?  This is not a false equivalency, this is following the same process as before. If the House needed to have their testimony included in the articles of impeachment then they should have taken the time to do their job. A subpoena from the Senate holds no more weight than a subpoena from the House, both would probably go to court to deal with the issue of Executive Privilege.

IMO all this really shows is that Pelosi understands that the articles of impeachment are weak and will not stand up on their own. So she is reduced to playing politics with what at it's heart is a political exercise.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.8    3 weeks ago
But you are not answering the question.

Actually, I did. 

I hope even you can recognize that there are a couple of big differences in the two examples you posted: 

In the Clinton impeachment, all the evidence was collected by Ken Starr, Independent Counsel. His process ran for three years where he also went to court to enforce subpoena's as well as negotiating with the Clinton lawyers. 

Yes ALL of the evidence was collected by Ken Starr. 

As for 'going to court', that's misleading since Starr convened a Grand Jury and as an Independent Counsel, he was an officer of the court. Starr's subpoenas were COURT subpoenas.  

Oh and yes, Starr did negotiate with Clinton's lawyers. Trump's lawyers shut off any negotiation with Congress. Go read WH Counsel's letters to Congress, you won't find one word about negotiating a damn thing. It's a NO cooperation or compliance with subpoenas. PERIOD, full stop. 

Same process as was followed in the Clinton impeachment.

You just listed things that were different, now you want to pretend they're the same. 

Why is this process not ok for this run?  

I already posted why. 

This is not a false equivalency, this is following the same process as before.

No it isn't. I repeat, the Clinton House Managers had ALL of the evidence available to them. 

If the House needed to have their testimony included in the articles of impeachment then they should have taken the time to do their job.

NEW evidence has been uncovered since the House vote. That NEW evidence came from emails that Trump should have released through subpoena. Trump is STILL withholding 20 emails from that event alone. 

A subpoena from the Senate holds no more weight than a subpoena from the House, both would probably go to court to deal with the issue of Executive Privilege.

Well Bolton seems to disagree with you. Bolton stated that he WILL testify if subpoenaed by the Senate. Bolton threatened to sue the House if he was subpoenaed. BIG difference.

As for Executive Privilege, Trump's lawyers can object to testimony, question by question, during a closed door deposition of Bolton et al. THAT'S how Executive Privilege actually works...

IMO all this really shows is that Pelosi understands that the articles of impeachment are weak and will not stand up on their own.

Opinions, everyone's got one. 

So she is reduced to playing politics with what at it's heart is a political exercise.

Impeachment is SUPPOSED to be a political exercise. Hamilton states as much in Federalist 65. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.1.10  Snuffy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.9    3 weeks ago

no,  not really but that's ok.   And yes there are some specific differences.  In the Clinton impeachment there was an Independent counsel who ran the investigation and gathered everything. In the Trump impeachment the House ran it's own show and would not take the time to work thru the process.  There are several differences between how the two impeachment investigations were run and the end result is that the House did not do it's due diligence with Trump. Now, for political reasons, they want to double down on the investigation by having the Senate do the work for them.

Too bad. Had the house done it's job they wouldn't be in this situation. But they didn't do their job and they have not provided a compelling case for impeachment much less removal from office IMO.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.10    3 weeks ago
In the Clinton impeachment there was an Independent counsel who ran the investigation and gathered everything.

You forgot the power of an officer to the court to enforce a subpoena. That is a VERY important difference. 

In the Trump impeachment the House ran it's own show and would not take the time to work thru the process. 

But YOU are advocating for the Senate to do what you decry the House for. WHY? 

There are several differences between how the two impeachment investigations were run and the end result is that the House did not do it's due diligence with Trump. 

There wasn't much of a House impeachment investigation for the Clinton impeachment. Starr presented his report. The House did expand the investigation to include campaign financing and they did subpoena witnesses for that part. Clinton didn't try to block anyone from testifying and the House didn't include any of it in the articles. 

Now, for political reasons, they want to double down on the investigation by having the Senate do the work for them. 

Again, impeachment is SUPPOSED to be political. 

The House aren't the ones that are revealing the NEW evidence, watchdog groups are doing that. Now that the NEW evidence has been revealed, those behind it should at minimum be deposed by the Senate. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dulay @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

nicely stated

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.11    3 weeks ago
You forgot the power of an officer to the court to enforce a subpoena. That is a VERY important difference. 

And the House wouldn't go thru the court to enforce a subpoena. why not?

But YOU are advocating for the Senate to do what you decry the House for. WHY? 

Actually no. I'm wondering why the House didn't do it's due diligence and complete the investigation. The senate tries the evidence as presented by the House, in an Impeachment the House does the impeachment and the Senate tries the case.

There wasn't much of a House impeachment investigation for the Clinton impeachment. Starr presented his report. The House did expand the investigation to include campaign financing and they did subpoena witnesses for that part. Clinton didn't try to block anyone from testifying and the House didn't include any of it in the articles. 

In Trumps impeachment the House decided to run their own investigation when the Mueller report (independent counsel) didn't come up with anything that was impeachable. The report had 10 instances of "possible" obstruction of justice but the House did not follow up on that so therefor they must have believed that the evidence was not sufficient to prove obstruction of justice. Why did the House do such a terrible job of investigation when the entire act of impeachment is their job?

The House aren't the ones that are revealing the NEW evidence, watchdog groups are doing that. Now that the NEW evidence has been revealed, those behind it should at minimum be deposed by the Senate. 

yeah, all that talk about new evidence isn't showing much.  What did it tell us beyond that Trump held up the money for Ukraine?

But I agree with one statement,  impeachment is all political. IMO the optics of this political act look very bad for the Democrats as well.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.13    3 weeks ago
And the House wouldn't go thru the court to enforce a subpoena. why not?

Actually, the House is in court right now trying to enforce the McGahn subpoena which was issued in April of 2019. Do try to keep up. 

Actually no. I'm wondering why the House didn't do it's due diligence and complete the investigation. The senate tries the evidence as presented by the House, in an Impeachment the House does the impeachment and the Senate tries the case.

Yet you keep talking about the Clinton impeachment and the Senate decided to hear from witnesses that had ALREADY been deposed by a Grand Jury. So that proves that the Senate CAN and WILL seek evidence not in the House record. Your 'point' is moot. 

In Trumps impeachment the House decided to run their own investigation when the Mueller report (independent counsel) didn't come up with anything that was impeachable. The report had 10 instances of "possible" obstruction of justice but the House did not follow up on that so therefor they must have believed that the evidence was not sufficient to prove obstruction of justice. Why did the House do such a terrible job of investigation when the entire act of impeachment is their job?

WTF are you blathering about? The House doesn't have the evidence from the Mueller report. They are still in litigation for the Grand Judy transcripts and McGahn testimony. Sheesh, keep up!

yeah, all that talk about new evidence isn't showing much.  What did it tell us beyond that Trump held up the money for Ukraine?

Quite a bit but I doubt you give a shit.  

But I agree with one statement,  impeachment is all political. IMO the optics of this political act look very bad for the Democrats as well.

Yet despite this:

“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday while fielding questions about the upcoming trial.

I'm pretty sure that you think that it the optics are good when it's the GOP. IOKIYAR right? 

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.15  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

Actually, the House is in court right now trying to enforce the McGahn subpoena which was issued in April of 2019. Do try to keep up. 

Proving that the House did NOT complete their due diligence before voting to impeach and are now trying to tell the Senate to do their job.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.16  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @4.1.15    3 weeks ago
Proving that the House did NOT complete their due diligence before voting to impeach and are now trying to tell the Senate to do their job.

Actually dennis, your comment proves that you're conflating two separate issues. McGahn's testimony is about the Russia investigation, NOT the Impeachment investigation. Do try to keep up. 

Could and should Trump be impeached if the House finds that he committed obstruction of Justice. Yep. 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.17  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.16    3 weeks ago

He may be impeached, but surely not removed for obstruction, the democrats demonstrated the obstruction wasn't an offense that warranted removal of a President in the Clinton trial, So unless you are a Partisan hypocrite, it doesn't rise to that level now.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.18  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.17    3 weeks ago
He may be impeached, but surely not removed for obstruction, the democrats demonstrated the obstruction wasn't an offense that warranted removal of a President in the Clinton trial, So unless you are a Partisan hypocrite, it doesn't rise to that level now.

That's a load of BS. 

Obstruction of justice is a crime, it was before the Clinton impeachment and it remains so after his acquittal. Trump will be judged by the evidence of his own actions, NOT those of Clinton.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.18    3 weeks ago

His POINT was that even though Clinton was found guilty, he was not removed from office.

Same might happen to Trump.

Deal with it better than ya'll have dealt with Trump being your President.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

"Deflector shields engaged, Captain".

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.21  loki12  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.19    3 weeks ago

It's pointless to argue with this one, i was simple pointing out that the historical precedence would prove that Obstruction of Justice wasn't a crime that democrats would vote for to remove a President, at least not if they are not complete fucking hypocrites.   It seems that Mitch will be able to change the rules of impeachment with 51 votes. not just the trial, but he will hold a vote before the trial ever begins, Hell some think they will be able to pass a vote to start the process before the articles even arrive.   67 votes my ass.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.19    3 weeks ago
His POINT was that even though Clinton was found guilty, he was not removed from office.

Then he made it poorly and he's doubly wrong. Clinton was NOT found guilty, he was acquitted. 

Same might happen to Trump.

Trump isn't charged with obstruction of justice, yet. 

Deal with it better than ya'll have dealt with Trump being your President.

Nope, YOU deal with your own blather. Not my circus, not my monkey. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.23  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.21    3 weeks ago
It's pointless to argue with this one,

You aren't challenged to argue with me, you're challenged to make a cogent argument. You failed. 

i was simple pointing out that the historical precedence would prove that Obstruction of Justice wasn't a crime that democrats would vote for to remove a President, at least not if they are not complete fucking hypocrites.

The results of one impeachment trial does NOT create a precedent for future impeachment trials. 

  It seems that Mitch will be able to change the rules of impeachment with 51 votes. not just the trial, but he will hold a vote before the trial ever begins, Hell some think they will be able to pass a vote to start the process before the articles even arrive.   67 votes my ass.

You still have no idea what you are talking about.

RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, which indeed requires 67 votes to change, are NOT the same as the resolution that McConnell is writing for the procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against Trump. That resolution is basicly a calendar of events.

Perhaps getting educated about the topic would improve your ability to make a cogent argument. Or not...

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.24  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.23    3 weeks ago

Yawn........You are still wrong

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.25  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.24    3 weeks ago

Then prove it loki. Or do you expect me to accept your unsubstantiated proclamation? 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.26  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.25    3 weeks ago

I've provided multiple links and you once again bring nothing, But the wrong opinion. 

Here is another link for you to ignore, the complete rules on impeachment, please highlight the area that says it requires 67 votes, not some idiots bullshit opinion but the actual rule that says it requires 67 votes to change. It has been proven to you that the senate needs only 51 votes to change any of it's rules. Filibustering nominees ring a bell?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

And here you go on how it can be done,  Next time you tell someone to educate themselves, try knowing what the fuck you are talking about first.

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, such as the 60-vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that contravenes a standing rule, such as that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.

This procedure uses Rule XX to allow the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

By invoking this rule Mitch can change any rule in the Senate with a simple majority, Just like Harry Reid did for Judicial nominees.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.27  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.26    3 weeks ago
Here is another link for you to ignore, the complete rules on impeachment, please highlight the area that says it requires 67 votes, not some idiots bullshit opinion but the actual rule that says it requires 67 votes to change. 

Here is some idiots bullshit opinion that it requires 67 votes to change. Watch 3:50-4:43 of the video...

And here you go on how it can be done,  Next time you tell someone to educate themselves, try knowing what the fuck you are talking about first.

I've tried to encourage you to do so but to no avail. The Standing Rules of the Senate are NOT the same as the RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. 

Maybe it would help if you understood the difference between a parliamentary rule and a Senate resolution but I have my doubts. One would think that you would have recognized that fact for yourself since you linked both in your comment. It would however require you to understand your own links. 

By invoking this rule Mitch can change any rule in the Senate with a simple majority, Just like Harry Reid did for Judicial nominees.

Nope. Mitch McConnell's opinion of the Senate rules trump yours. 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.28  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.27    3 weeks ago

So no, in spite of the fact that I have provided the rules for impeachment, I have provided the Senate rule XX that allows Mitch to change any Senate rule and I have provided multiple examples you are still stuck on the stupid premise that it requires 67 votes. Good for you.

did you ever figure out how wrong you were on left calling David Patreaus (betrayus) or are you stuck on that one too?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.29  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.28    3 weeks ago
So no, in spite of the fact that I have provided the rules for impeachment,

Yet you STILL fail to understand that those rules are contained within a Senate RESOLUTION, with is legislation passed in the Senate.

I have provided the Senate rule XX that allows Mitch to change any Senate rule 

NOT any legislation passed through a Senate RESOLUTION. 

I have provided multiple examples you are still stuck on the stupid premise that it requires 67 votes.

Again, I'll take McConnell's informed statement over your unsubstantiated proclamation. 

I can always tell when you feel like you're loosing an argument when you bring up irrelevant off topic arguments from prior seeds. 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.30  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.29    3 weeks ago

And yet other than Mitch’s statement you have provided nothing, which is par for the course for you, you are wrong, live with it!

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.31  dennis smith  replied to  loki12 @4.1.28    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
5  Sparty On    3 weeks ago

This will be much to do about nothing IMO if he does testify.

If his testimony doesn't help the Dems case they will say he is not being honest and forthcoming.

If his testimony doesn't help Trumps case Reps will say he is not being truthful.

This whole thing is nothing but a goat rodeo.   A real train-wreck from day one and an absolute waste of our tax dollars.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @5    3 weeks ago

This whole thing is nothing but a goat rodeo.   A real train-wreck from day one and an absolute waste of our tax dollars.

Yea, Y would a jury want to hear ALL the facts in a trial,
as that would just be plain silly...

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1    3 weeks ago

Facts?   You want real facts now?

The left has been trying to create their own "facts" on Trump for three years now and he is still standing.

Most of those fruit-loops in congress couldn't recognize a real "fact" if it hit em in the face.    They prefer their "facts" spoon fed to them by their mother-ship.

That said, let me know what part of my post above you're having trouble understanding and i'll be happy to do more splainin for you.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.1    3 weeks ago
Facts?   You want real facts now?

yes

yes i do

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

No problem, give your hive a buzz, it will be happy to imprint more on you .... 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

my hive, is not the Federal Reserve, besides, i'm too busy to B bothered there honey,

as if i print it, it's write

on the money 

well spent on

educating 

those

worthless

than more so

than some other

,like a sister whose 

transmitting oh brother

,what she wouldn't do for

a chance to be the Richard, 

as she'd rather be her brothers

brother, than the daughter of  her

mother...,  but the jury is still out, on 

a limb about her deliberate nation, asz

Dick, is the jury of what appears to B hung

, out to dry more than watt can't B washed threw 

a simple mind,so i figured you did not receive the last 

message from the mother ship that did slip one by the 2"

X 4 the last nockturnal transmission from the Bi product sum

must strap on to prevent falling into the whole big mess i guess

,right ?

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

Well, I see your usual mutual admiration society is impressed, as are you I’m sure but me ..... yawn .... whadya say again?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.5    3 weeks ago
whadya

say again ...?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

John Bolton is trying to sell a book.  Bolton wants publicity; that's the 'whatever reason' for his change in attitude.  No doubt Bolton's testimony would be a salacious and entertaining tell-all expose.  According to FBI standards of credibility, if it's in the book it must be true.

There is more at stake than witnesses for a political publicity show.  The House is attempting to exert authority over the Senate that isn't Constitutionally supported.  Pelosi is engaged in a naked power play because it's unlikely that Democrats will regain sufficient control over redistricting for the 2022 election.  The Democrat's blue wall is slated to lose seven, possibly eight, congressional districts and electoral votes.  The Democratic Party is trying to scrum its way into exerting more control over redistricting at the sate level.  The idea is to elect more Democrats in state legislatures to support what Democrats in the House are doing.  But that strategy appears to be backfiring.  While Democrats can easily redistrict Republicans out of existence in blue wall states, that won't overcome the loss of seats resulting from the Census.

Democrats are facing a looming existential crisis.  Democrats groping about with an air of panic shouldn't be surprising.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7  Sparty On    3 weeks ago

Have a friend who went to Yale with him.   His words:

The guy is a dick!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
7.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @7    3 weeks ago

The guy is a dick!

my impression as well, so why shouldn't Dicks testify again...?

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.1    3 weeks ago

May you get a jury full of “dicks” if/when accused in a jury trial.    You’d figure out why then.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
7.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

May you get a jury full of “dicks” if/when accused in a jury trial.    You’d figure out why then.

maybe, as i don't like to judge( I prefer to be jury and executioner), you might figure out that a witness is not usually part of the jury pool,

unless again, you are swimming without floaties, in denial, river of deceit where you stand on the bank, located in the Subway, with Jared and dark meat footlongs, not chicken though, as sometimes this ship should be more, than even you or Jared, can swallow...

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

Lol not even a nice try .... report back to the hive now ya hear?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.3    3 weeks ago

The hive . . . the hive . . . the hive . . . 

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.3    3 weeks ago

A hive is much superior to the Augean stable occupied by Trump and his sycophants. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @7.1.5    3 weeks ago

One thing is for sure.    The TDS hive needs a good smoking to calm down the drones.     The honey is only getting more and more bitter.

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.7  loki12  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.6    3 weeks ago
The TDS hive needs a good smoking to calm down the drones.  

It appears they may be getting it,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/07/illinois-runs-out-recreational-marijuana-first-week-legalized/

Of course what is more likely is you would have to be high to continue to live in that Shit hole.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

What a f*cking circus.

Circus-Wallpapers-HD.jpg

 
 
 
It Is ME
9  It Is ME    3 weeks ago
 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @9    3 weeks ago

My guess for that is because they finally gleaned he wouldn’t give them what they wanted. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @9.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

They only wanted "Feeling Yes Folks" in their "Enquiries" !

 
 
 
Split Personality
10  Split Personality    3 weeks ago

Locked  Seeder is absent for 48 hours

and most of the slap fighting is overly personal and off topic

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Sparty On
Tacos!
CB
Sunshine
Ronin2
Tessylo
Wishful_thinkin
jungkonservativ111
Save Me Jebus
Dulay





22 visitors