Trump Impeachment Thread

a reply to: TheRedneck

this is the whole thing 1:07:00 its long

so uh now they vote???

originally posted by: shooterbrody
so uh now they vote???

Not yet... 2 days of Q&A, 8 hours each. They write their questions and give them to the Chief Justice to read to the respective side, and they have 5 minutes to answer. At the end of the 2 days, a decision will be made to vote on witnesses or dismiss and acquit. If it goes to witnesses this will drag on for potentially weeks or months. If they dismiss, it's over for now and he is acquitted on these charges.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

If they dismiss, it's over for now and he is acquitted on these charges.

Until they can make something else up and then the next act begins.

What a damned circus this has been by the Democrats.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: carewemust

exactly he could easily give an interview but he has not as of yet so it seems he just wants book sales

Definitely, Bolton could say yea or nay, yet hasn't. I really don't believe he has it worded the way NYT reported it. Morrison even stated that on their August visit to the Ukraine, nothing was relayed to Ukraine about specific investigations for aid by Bolton.

Timing of the leak too. Certainly, falls in line with past leaks. Always an agenda trying to force what they want to happen. Once again, it will come back to bite them I suspect.

I thought it was ingenious to end today with all of those clips of the house managers prophetically describing what is happening right now. That showed me why I was a democrat and now am not. I didn't change they just completely flipped 180 degrees in the past few decades.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I would guess Dershowitz will not be voting for Elizabeth Warren from his recent 3 post tweet in response to her blasting his testimony at the trial.
Twitter link

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: shooterbrody
so uh now they vote???

Not yet... 2 days of Q&A, 8 hours each. They write their questions and give them to the Chief Justice to read to the respective side, and they have 5 minutes to answer. At the end of the 2 days, a decision will be made to vote on witnesses or dismiss and acquit. If it goes to witnesses this will drag on for potentially weeks or months. If they dismiss, it's over for now and he is acquitted on these charges.

~Namaste

thanks

Looking forward to the stupid questions the Dems ask.

"did president Trump know that firing an ambassador would hurt her feelings"
"did president know that when he said, 'i want no quid pro' that means he really wanted quid pro?"

the possibilities of stupidity are endless and I bet Dems wont disappoint.

a reply to: toolgal462

I've been listening to several Senators being asked about what questions they would ask... all have stated that they will be meeting with others in their party to determine that. Only one, a Republican, mentioned a question in his mind that he wanted to ask the Managers (and I do paraphrase):

"Do you believe it is acceptable for a President to investigate matters pertaining to international corruption?"

Looks to me like we will be hearing a lot of questions designed to indict the prosecution and defense.

OK, they just aired Shiff and Nadler babbling... got to go watch Dershowitz to try and clean my inner ears out.... too much of those idiots can cause brain damage.

TheRedneck

I don't know why they don't put the Democrat and Republican lawyers together in a room at a big table with the television cameras running and have them prove and disprove what they're saying to each other.

Adam Schiff just held a press conference and called Everything the Republican lawyers said a lie.

originally posted by: carewemust
I don't know why they don't put the Democrat and Republican lawyers together in a room at a big table with the television cameras running and have them prove and disprove what they're saying to each other.

Adam Schiff just held a press conference and called Everything the Republican lawyers said a lie.

It's the prosecutions job to PROVE their allegations. Not other way around

a reply to: toolgal462


It sounds like Lindsey Graham has had a change of heart.

mobile.twitter.com...

Another reason for Joe Biden's testimony has surfaced.

A corrupt sister!

www.breitbart.com... er_impression=true

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: toolgal462


It sounds like Lindsey Graham has had a change of heart.

mobile.twitter.com...

Lindsey knows from Republicans inside the Senate that at least 4 want to hear from witnesses. What we do not know is if they want to hear from Democratic witnesses or their own, that remains to be seen. I don't think any witnesses, without some very direct and damning evidence, are going to change their mind about impeaching the President. I especially don't think 20 of them are going to get on board with the Democrats wanting to remove the President from office for the 2/3 vote. It would have to be some pretty damning evidence, and this time, both sides get to question them so there is not going to be some scripted testimony and no defense. The cross-examination from both sides will tell the rest of the story and my guess is most of the witnesses are going to take the 5th.

~Namaste

originally posted by: carewemust
Another reason for Joe Biden's testimony has surfaced.

A corrupt sister!

www.breitbart.com... er_impression=true

The whole damn family is corrupt!

Perhaps Trump knew there were Obama / Biden moles in the administration and he purposely designed all of this to allow the corruption to be spoken about in a public forum with a lot of visibility. Draining the swamp doesn't mean picking off these folks one by one, because that would take much longer than the President's terms even if he had two. To get them all in one sweep, you'd have to show how a "family" can leverage each other in different ways using one powerful members political influence. If you wanted to drain the whole swamp, you'd have to do it in a way that exposes the PATTERN that all of these bastards follow by redirecting money through shell accounts run by their family and friends. I have to wonder if this was planned...

~Namaste

Whatever is in that manuscript by Bolton, it's driving the Democrats mad. Lindsey Graham likes the idea of making it available to Senators in a restricted setting, but Schumer is going nuts calling that idea everything in the book. That makes me think it doesn't say what the House says it says.

If the Senate wants to see the manuscript, why shouldn't they? If it says what the Times says it says, then maybe they'll decide to call Bolton. I thought that was what the Democrats wanted?

Or is their plan to make the Republicans look biased backfiring? Are they the ones afraid of looking biased to the voters now?

I liked Dershowitz. He pretty much said what I have been saying since this started: this impeachment is nothing short of an attempt to deny the right to vote for millions of Americans, and places the Congress above the law. Adam Shiff, Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the usual suspects are simply traitors who want full control of the government. They are the ones wanting to be above the law.

TheRedneck

Rand Paul said as of today there are 50 votes for no witnesses.

So it could really go either way.

I read that if it is 50 50 the vote would fail - so if that is right the Republicans may successfully block more witnesses.

OK, guys... I have to be gone for the beginning of the Q&A session. I'm depending on y'all to keep this thread updated so I can check it when I get back.

Unlike certain actors in this melodrama, some of us have things to do.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

First question is to the WH counsel on how the Senate would address the President having more than one motive. The WH counsel responded that the basis of the mixed motives put forth by the House is based on there being absolutely no reason, and proving it, for the President to look into Burisma and the Bidens. They made the case that all foreign policy decisions have some type of political interest. They said if there was no public interest whatsoever in the Burisma and Biden investigations, nothing to be suspicious of, then the House case absolutely fails and they know it.

So far, more Schiff drama in the House answers. He ran out of time on the first question. The WH counsel was asked to respond and responded factually that the precedent set by forcing the Senate to bring witnesses will allow the House to keep the country in perpetual litigation.

Schiff was asked about Bolton and went on a long rant that had nothing to do with Bolton, just more pontificating to the Senate and talking about Trump's misconduct and setting the precedent for abuse by future Presidents and what the Founders intended.

So far, the WH counsel is speaking about facts and past precedents and the House is still repeating the same things... what is plainly obvious is Schiff trying to work on emotions and fear and the WH is speaking about the factual parts of the trial.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

So, same ol' same ol'

Defense answers with facts and cites laws and legal precedent

and Dems respond to questions with repeating the lie over and over and hoping enough idiots think the accusation makes someone guilty.

Dems know their constituents aren't very smart and easily get in line with whatever they say.