Impeachment Megathread Part 3

[2016]

Sekulow is killing it.

Just a darling performance.

We know that Trumpism breaks your moral spine.

CNN's Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin though makes a great Point though quote:"The President will be aquitted no matter what Bolton says if he has to testify".

That is my View as well. These endangered Senators in the Fall like McSally, Gardner, Ernst, Tillis and Collins can't afford to lose the Republican Base which is firmly behind the President.

So, this whole thing by Schiff & Schumer isn't about "Finding about the Truth" during the potential witness phase. This is all about so their respective Campaign Committees can run Ads saying "You aquitted the POTUS despite being guilty". That's what this is all about and that's not what it should be IMO.

If Republicans are not willing to do their jobs and remove a president who have clearly voted the oath of office, Democrats can take their case directly to voters.

That's not "what it should be", but Republicans clearly forced Democrats' hands.

Republicans are not going to remove a sitting President from Office with almost 70 % saying the Economy is good. Toobin is 100 % here! It's time I think to accept that.

And this is just coming in from CNN:

Senate GOP concedes Trump may have withheld aid for probes — but says it's not impeachable

A growing number of GOP senators are now acknowledging that President Trump may have leveraged US military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of investigations that could help him politically – but they contend that even that conduct does not warrant removal from office or hearing from additional witnesses.

What they are saying now: Republicans are now arguing that the latest reports — that former national security adviser John Bolton’s book manuscript reveals that Trump told him in August that he was withholding $391 million in aid until Ukraine announced a probe into the Bidens – are likely true but simply confirm what is already known.

And they are saying those new facts, first revealed by the New York Times, are consistent with the details laid out by House Democratic managers in their case that Trump used official acts to urge a foreign power to undercut a leading political rival in the 2020 presidential campaign.

But they say that nothing in there is impeachable — nor does it warrant the need to hear from new witnesses since it confirms what is already known, they say.

“I don’t think anything he says changes the facts,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the majority whip, told CNN. “I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is. ...There's already that evidence on the record.”  
Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, also weighed in saying, “I think he sounds like a lot of the other witnesses, frankly. I don't know that he's got a lot new to add to it.”

“No,” Sen. Tim Scott said bluntly when asked if he thinks what Bolton is reportedly detailing amounts to impeachable conduct. “I don’t think it would be.”

So, Senate Republicans are clearly it seems buying in what Havard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said yesterday that the conduct Trump did isn't impeachable.

They also basically saying nothing what Bolton would say would be new. Everything is already known.

Clearly, this is "Kavanaugh 2.0". Back then we had the same thing: Brett Kavanaugh was about to be confirmed. Then came Christine Blasey Ford with her frivolous accusations about sexual assault. The confirmations basically stopped for one week so every Senator could Review the FBI Investigations.

It didn't change the Outcome. Kavanaugh got confirmed and Democrats in Congress and around the Country played the crybaby card "How unfair everything is".

Do you know what was most enjoyable for me personally: Seeing all these Atlas Dems and Dems around the Country squirm. That was joyous.

Back then I said: Go win an Election and win the Senate.

The Irony in the Kavanaugh Saga was this though: Nine Months later Ford's own Attorneys admitted to the Media that Fords Testimony was just a HOAX and potitically motivated because she was afraid about Roe vs Wade.

And here we have even a more Pre-Determined Outcome and I say the same thing that I said back then.

GO, WIN AN ELECTION DEMOCRATS

[Meclazine for Israel]

What skills and experience does Hunter Biden possess which would be of benefit to a Ukrainian Gas Company owned by a crooked Oligarch?

Business skills and business experience. Boards of major corporations are often silly.

The only business skills Hunter Biden had were in the distribution and use of Cocaine.

How about we look more carefully at Hunter Biden's appointment.

Joe Biden was Vice President.

Hunter Biden in his own words spent decades struggling with alcohol and drug addiction:

"There's addiction in every family. I was in that darkness. I was in that tunnel—it's a never-ending tunnel. You don't get rid of it. You figure out how to deal with it." (2019)

In 2014, Hunter joins the U.S. Navy, but is only allowed limited positions because of previous narcotics issues. One month later, he test positive to Cocaine. Booted.

Immediately, he joins Burisma Holdings on a $50K per month salary.

Your argument falls apart in the fact that rarely do cocaine addicts get jobs on boards in the USA. So he looks overseas with the help of his Dad.

A more likely assertion is that in 2014, Joe Biden who recently cozied up to a wealthy Natural Gas Oligarch in the Ukraine get's his son a cushy job on $50,000 per month to get him out of the spotlight.

This is exactly what the Democrats are accusing Trump of doing. Using his power to gain influence in the Ukraine.

Turns out Democratic justice is different as to whether you have a Democrat or Republican in the spotlight.

One version of the rules for one, and clearly, one version of the rules for the other.

[Crumpets]

I have to say, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside to know that, while Trump apologists spend hours writing effort posts and diatribes against impeachment on an internet message board, I get to go to work every day to actually try to make a real impact on policy.

[pppolitics]

Sekulow is killing it.

Just a darling performance.

We know that Trumpism breaks your moral spine.

CNN's Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin though makes a great Point though quote:"The President will be aquitted no matter what Bolton says if he has to testify".

That is my View as well. These endangered Senators in the Fall like McSally, Gardner, Ernst, Tillis and Collins can't afford to lose the Republican Base which is firmly behind the President.

So, this whole thing by Schiff & Schumer isn't about "Finding about the Truth" during the potential witness phase. This is all about so their respective Campaign Committees can run Ads saying "You aquitted the POTUS despite being guilty". That's what this is all about and that's not what it should be IMO.

If Republicans are not willing to do their jobs and remove a president who have clearly voted the oath of office, Democrats can take their case directly to voters.

That's not "what it should be", but Republicans clearly forced Democrats' hands.

Republicans are not going to remove a sitting President from Office with almost 70 % saying the Economy is good. Toobin is 100 % here! It's time I think to accept that.

And this is just coming in from CNN:

Senate GOP concedes Trump may have withheld aid for probes — but says it's not impeachable

A growing number of GOP senators are now acknowledging that President Trump may have leveraged US military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of investigations that could help him politically – but they contend that even that conduct does not warrant removal from office or hearing from additional witnesses.

What they are saying now: Republicans are now arguing that the latest reports — that former national security adviser John Bolton’s book manuscript reveals that Trump told him in August that he was withholding $391 million in aid until Ukraine announced a probe into the Bidens – are likely true but simply confirm what is already known.

And they are saying those new facts, first revealed by the New York Times, are consistent with the details laid out by House Democratic managers in their case that Trump used official acts to urge a foreign power to undercut a leading political rival in the 2020 presidential campaign.

But they say that nothing in there is impeachable — nor does it warrant the need to hear from new witnesses since it confirms what is already known, they say.

“I don’t think anything he says changes the facts,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the majority whip, told CNN. “I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is. ...There's already that evidence on the record.”  
Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, also weighed in saying, “I think he sounds like a lot of the other witnesses, frankly. I don't know that he's got a lot new to add to it.”

“No,” Sen. Tim Scott said bluntly when asked if he thinks what Bolton is reportedly detailing amounts to impeachable conduct. “I don’t think it would be.”

So, Senate Republicans are clearly it seems buying in what Havard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said yesterday that the conduct Trump did isn't impeachable.

They also basically saying nothing what Bolton would say would be new. Everything is already known.

Clearly, this is "Kavanaugh 2.0". Back then we had the same thing: Brett Kavanaugh was about to be confirmed. Then came Christine Blasey Ford with her frivolous accusations about sexual assault. The confirmations basically stopped for one week so every Senator could Review the FBI Investigations.

It didn't change the Outcome. Kavanaugh got confirmed and Democrats in Congress and around the Country played the crybaby card "How unfair everything is".

Do you know what was most enjoyable for me personally: Seeing all these Atlas Dems and Dems around the Country squirm. That was joyous.

Back then I said: Go win an Election and win the Senate.

The Irony in the Kavanaugh Saga was this though: Nine Months later Ford's own Attorneys admitted to the Media that Fords Testimony was just a HOAX and potitically motivated because she was afraid about Roe vs Wade.

And here we have even a more Pre-Determined Outcome and I say the same thing that I said back then.

GO, WIN AN ELECTION DEMOCRATS

...after deny deny deny, Republicans have now gotten to the "well, he did it, but so what?" stage

[Meclazine for Israel]

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton

Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his lawyers end their impeachment defense arguments

Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him despite serious concerns about his character.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

[pppolitics]

Senate GOP concedes Trump may have withheld aid for probes — but says it's not impeachable

A growing number of GOP senators are now acknowledging that President Trump may have leveraged US military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of investigations that could help him politically – but they contend that even that conduct does not warrant removal from office or hearing from additional witnesses.

What they are saying now: Republicans are now arguing that the latest reports — that former national security adviser John Bolton’s book manuscript reveals that Trump told him in August that he was withholding $391 million in aid until Ukraine announced a probe into the Bidens – are likely true but simply confirm what is already known.



And they are saying those new facts, first revealed by the New York Times, are consistent with the details laid out by House Democratic managers in their case that Trump used official acts to urge a foreign power to undercut a leading political rival in the 2020 presidential campaign.

But they say that nothing in there is impeachable — nor does it warrant the need to hear from new witnesses since it confirms what is already known, they say.

“I don’t think anything he says changes the facts,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the majority whip, told CNN. “I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is. ...There's already that evidence on the record.”  

Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, also weighed in saying, “I think he sounds like a lot of the other witnesses, frankly. I don't know that he's got a lot new to add to it.”

“No,” Sen. Tim Scott said bluntly when asked if he thinks what Bolton is reportedly detailing amounts to impeachable conduct. “I don’t think it would be.”

[OBD]

...damn

Was really hoping that they would call witnesses, but it looks like Moscow Mitch has whipped his lackeys into line on this. Acquittal is a foregone conclusion, but I really wanted people like Bolton to testify - we should at least have all the information about it, especially since the voters will be rendering a verdict of their own in November. Hell, I would have taken a Hunter Biden testimony, even though it would have been a waste of time.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

MSNBC reporting that the White House expects a 50/50 split on witnesses/documents, leaving the tiebreaker to Chief Justice John Roberts.  I presume that he would vote NO, as motions should be passed with a majority -- at least that's how ties work in British Parliament.  

But who knows at this point?

[pppolitics]

Republicans new talking point:

He did it, but so what?

[2016]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton

Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his lawyers end their impeachment defense arguments

Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him despite serious concerns about his character.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

WOW, that is surprising indeed. Schumer might have a problem on his hands here.
Would Feinstein be bold enough to go with Republicans and not vote for witnesses. But she's right though: The People should judge.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton

Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his lawyers end their impeachment defense arguments

Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him despite serious concerns about his character.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

WOW, that is surprising indeed. Schumer might have a problem on his hands here.
Would Feinstein be bold enough to go with Republicans and not vote for witnesses. But she's right though: The People should judge.

https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/1222286544733704193

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment argument

(Scroll up, MRH)

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1222267909071867904

Speaking on CNN, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) stated that, in his view, the GOP has likely reached a consensus on voting down a motion for additional witnesses (though the vote will be close).

They’re just going to make the release of Bolton’s book even more embarrassing for them.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton

Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his lawyers end their impeachment defense arguments

Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him despite serious concerns about his character.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

It sure doesn’t seem she’s leaning towards acquittal...

https://twitter.com/senfeinstein/status/1222275537470660609?s=21

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton

Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his lawyers end their impeachment defense arguments

Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him despite serious concerns about his character.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

It sure doesn’t seem she’s leaning towards acquittal...

https://twitter.com/senfeinstein/status/1222275537470660609?s=21

I don't think it's even worth discussing anymore.  The LA Times clearly misread her statement, but people are going to pick up the fumble and run with it anyway. 

The way I see it, she's just commenting as a juror would. 

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

BREAKING




https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1222288793098686465

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

McConnell is now saying that he doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses.

https://twitter.com/wsj/status/1222288793098686465?s=21

[7,052,770]

So I'm assuming this means McConnell will just allow witnesses now without a vote, to save face? Good I guess?

[The Dowager Mod]

Knock it off with the wall of obnoxiously large text, one and only warning.

[Florida Man for Crime]

So I'm assuming this means McConnell will just allow witnesses now without a vote, to save face? Good I guess?

Can he do that without a vote? I thought the rules required a vote on witnesses/docs in general first.

If he doesn't have the votes though, he may just have the whole GOP vote for witnesses/documents. That way the more vulnerable Republicans from competitive states can't be singled out for attack for their votes.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Just to draw everybody back in for a moment.

https://mobile.twitter.com/burgessev/status/1222296901451755520?s=19

So this MAY mean that the sixteen-hour question stage will be crucial.  Still, this is encouraging if you want witnesses. 

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Just to draw everybody back in for a moment.

https://mobile.twitter.com/burgessev/status/1222296901451755520?s=19

So this MAY mean that the sixteen-hour question stage will be crucial.  Still, this is encouraging if you want witnesses.  

They’re probably going to hold Ann Romney hostage or something.

[pbrower2a]

Here I was thinking that Donald Trump was interested in getting dirt on Joe Biden.

Ironically, the Democrats have dug it up all by themselves thanks to having this evidenced splashed all over an Impeachment Trial.

Biden was getting cozy jobs for his uneducated son in the Ukraine when Jr knew nothing about Natural Gas or it's economic discovery, development or delivery.

Turns out Obama and Biden were slipperier than Trump this whole time.

Boards of Directors usually have at least some members from outside the industry in order to prevent groupthink. Very ignorant argument.

OK. I will grant you leave to present your argument instead.

What skills and experience does Hunter Biden possess which would be of benefit to a Ukrainian Gas Company owned by a crooked Oligarch?

Business skills and business experience. Boards of major corporations are often silly. Or do you think Condoleeza Rice is on the board of directors of Dropbox because of her tech savvy?

Btw, absolutely no one is arguing that Hunter Biden hasn’t lived a very privileged life in part because of his last name. Has he probably gotten business opportunities that other people wouldn’t have gotten because people know who his dad is? Probably! Is that evidence that Joe Biden himself has intervened to get his son cushy jobs? Of course not! Why would he need to?

Better question: if Trump was really sincerely concerned about finding out if there was anything shady going on with Biden’s business dealings, then why was Trump so focused on getting the announcement of the investigation up front? If you actually want to conduct a meaningful investigation of a corrupt businessman, shouldn’t you do the investigation first rather than holding a press conference so that your target knows to go ahead and start shredding documents? Hmmm... it’s almost as if the announcement of an investigation was more immediately valuable to Trump than anything that would have resulted from the investigation.

Precisely. The idea was to cripple the campaign of the strongest rival at the time. The best investigations of corrupt behavior are secretive.  There is no need to announce an investigation unless to spook a corrupt suspect into doing something to implicate himself. This is a dirty trick at its worst. If there really were corruption such an investigation might take too long to lead to an indictment, arrest, and prosecution.

An announcement without foundation is itself corrupt and inexcusable. Trump is the corrupt character, which explains why he has been impeached.

[pbrower2a]

Just to draw everybody back in for a moment.

https://mobile.twitter.com/burgessev/status/1222296901451755520?s=19

So this MAY mean that the sixteen-hour question stage will be crucial.  Still, this is encouraging if you want witnesses.  

They’re probably going to hold Ann Romney hostage or something.

In effect the whitewash will be less effective in convincing Americans that Trump is innocent.

Political culture can change dramatically in four years, and one way in which it can change is the tolerance that people show for roguish behavior or self-righteousness.