Pelosi’s strategy pays off: Now bring in Bolton
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_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
47 visitors
about frckn time
nicely played by Nancy
She should say ( and hopefully will) to McConnell - "Either you subpoena Bolton, or I will, and we'll go back to the beginning".
Look at the article picture.
If you draw a white goatee on Bolton, he's Col. Sanders.
Oh please - c'mon - don't insult the Col like that.
He looks more like Captain Kangaroo.
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.
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.
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?
Moscow Mitch doesn't want Bolton to testify in the Senate.
Do you?
Who cares what McConnell cares?
We want the public to see what happened. If it's in the House, thats fine too.
Do you think anyone outside of MSNBC thinks he matters? The vote will be the same no matter what he says.
Thanks for admitting that the GOP Senate is in the bag. You must be proud.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Might as well just give up now, JR.
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.
Blah, blah, blah. The Senate vote in the Clinton impeachment trial wasn't even close so what's your fucking point?
Why address it to me, Sean said it...
There is a YUGE difference between being bias and stating the you will work in 'total coordination' with the WH.
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.
Are you afraid of what Bolton will say? Maybe "drug deal" was not that innocent of a phrase, eh?
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?
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.
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.
Are you joking? You don't think Democratic Senators haven't' confirmed their bias? That's one for the ages.
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.
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.
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?
One what?
Oh so you're privy to a copy of McConnell's proposed rules? Care to share?
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.
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/
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.
Once he does, if ever, the KoolAid intoxicant is nullified.
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.
Perhaps you misunderstood my statement.
Nothing you posted qualifies.
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.
Trumps only innocence, is of being not guilty of innocence
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.
Here you go pot/kettle:
He's not. He is a politician.
Same goes for the 47 democrat senators.
What has he been found guilty of.....or is your feeeeeeeeelings overriding due process?
hows the water,
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.
Now, now, we have talked extensively in the past of you posting coherent posts.
This is not one of them.
Try again...
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 by pretending that you posted a link to a comment by Warren. Your representation doesn't cut it.
There's a YUGE difference between the unequivocal statement that I linked and your interpretation of what you think you remember Warren saying.
What government entity has tried to take Trump's life, liberty or property 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...
Nothing yet, but dem/libs are trying their damnest to take away all three.
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.
They are? How so? Be specific.
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.
i have no problem being called Iggy, but Jizz, c'mon now, even you might be bugged by that know ?
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.
since you have such thick skin, i'm guessing you won't mind if i address you as 'jizz' from now on, ok ?
Go ahead. I won't flag you. I'm not a liberal and don't take offense to everything.
As I stated, your characterization of what the moderator said is FALSE.
Then you should have made a cogent argument to the mod.
Since Al commented on it critically, it looks like he took it as mocking and therefore a CoC.
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.
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.
Good, play dumb and insult the Moderators.
I bet you're not "playing".
When you said "property bugs" I thought you were referring to the bed bugs found on trmp's "luxury" properties.
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.
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...
[Deleted]
Says the person who constantly complains about her posts getting deleted for various violations.
I'm done...waste of my time.
Again, FALSE. Here the link to the mods comment telling you why it was a CoC violation:
Your comment was viewed as mocking and therefore it is a CoC violation. That isn't a subjective opinion.
Judging from Al's comment here, the rest of my post was right on.
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.
Then why are you still whining about it bugsy?
Impasse
Obviously not.
Nope, I am merely posting facts and calling you out on your false statements.
They why did you state that the mod didn't tell you why it was a CoC?
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 .
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.
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.
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:
You shouldn't fuck with Mother Nature or NewsTalker Mods.
Still whining about this I see
You need to pay attention to the thread. Dulay and I already discussed that.
Impasse
I see.
You're continuing to swim in denial.
It was flagged, but not by Al.
Flag violations.
EVERYONE--> No more Meta, get back on topic, follow the CoC,.
Have a Nice Day.
[deleted]
Please don't poke the Mods.
Remember what I said in that "Private Note".
[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.]
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.
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.
What are you talking about?
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.
Maybe Murkowski did as well (I don't remember)
Nope.
This is what she said 3 hours 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, I did.
I hope even you can recognize that there are a couple of big differences in the two examples you posted:
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.
You just listed things that were different, now you want to pretend they're the same.
I already posted why.
No it isn't. I repeat, the Clinton House Managers had ALL of the evidence available to them.
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.
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...
Opinions, everyone's got one.
Impeachment is SUPPOSED to be a political exercise. Hamilton states as much in Federalist 65.
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.
You forgot the power of an officer to the court to enforce a subpoena. That is a VERY important difference.
But YOU are advocating for the Senate to do what you decry the House for. WHY?
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.
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.
nicely stated
And the House wouldn't go thru the court to enforce a subpoena. why not?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
Quite a bit but I doubt you give a shit.
Yet despite this:
I'm pretty sure that you think that it the optics are good when it's the GOP. IOKIYAR right?
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.
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.
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.
"Deflector shields engaged, Captain".
Then he made it poorly and he's doubly wrong. Clinton was NOT found guilty, he was acquitted.
Trump isn't charged with obstruction of justice, yet.
Nope, YOU deal with your own blather. Not my circus, not my monkey.
You aren't challenged to argue with me, you're challenged to make a cogent argument. You failed.
The results of one impeachment trial does NOT create a precedent for future impeachment trials.
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...
Then prove it loki. Or do you expect me to accept your unsubstantiated proclamation?
Here is some idiots bullshit opinion that it requires 67 votes to change. Watch 3:50-4:43 of the video...
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.
Nope. Mitch McConnell's opinion of the Senate rules trump yours.
Yet you STILL fail to understand that those rules are contained within a Senate RESOLUTION, with is legislation passed in the Senate.
NOT any legislation passed through a Senate RESOLUTION.
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.
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.
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.
yes
yes i do
No problem, give your hive a buzz, it will be happy to imprint more on you ....
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 ?
Well, I see your usual mutual admiration society is impressed, as are you I’m sure but me ..... yawn .... whadya say again?
say again ...?
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.
Have a friend who went to Yale with him. His words:
The guy is a dick!
my impression as well, so why shouldn't Dicks testify again...?
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...
Lol not even a nice try .... report back to the hive now ya hear?
The hive . . . the hive . . . the hive . . .
YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!
A hive is much superior to the Augean stable occupied by Trump and his sycophants.
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.
What a f*cking circus.
House Democrats dropped the need for Bolton to testify before them . He's not needed now either !
My guess for that is because they finally gleaned he wouldn’t give them what they wanted.
They only wanted "Feeling Yes Folks" in their "Enquiries" !
Locked Seeder is absent for 48 hours
and most of the slap fighting is overly personal and off topic