Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ultimate Warrior

Impeachment inquiry

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Try to keep up. News story about this was posted yesterday in this thread.

Sorry that I'm not the OCD reader of the GID OOB forum that you are.

 

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Sorry that I'm not the OCD reader of the GID OOB forum that you are.

 

Correct. You're the ADD reader of the GID OOB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

Correct. You're the ADD reader of the GID OOB.

Interesting accusation coming from somebody addicted to posting "Look! squirrel!" drivel from facebook.

 

 

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discrediting Bolton Won’t Be Easy for Team Trump: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-trial-john-bolton-not-easy-to-discredit/

Quote

I’m with the Bush–Cheney team, and I’m here to stop the count.”

Those words were bellowed by John Bolton in a Tallahassee library in December 2000, when he was part of a team of Republican lawyers trying to stop the Florida recount of votes cast in the presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Until now, it was the most famous utterance President Trump’s former national-security adviser had ever made. That’s about to change with the looming publication of his book, due out in March, about serving in the Trump administration. It’s even vaguely possible Bolton could make an appearance in Trump’s impeachment trial this week.

Still, it’s worth considering the irony of Bolton’s earlier words. The Bush–Gore Florida recount wasn’t the beginning of our divided times, but it was a major inflection point. It pushed the internal combustion engine of partisanship into a higher gear, and we’ve never really revved back down. Now, Bolton is in the strange position of not fitting comfortably on either side of the partisan divide.

The gist of Bolton’s story is that the president’s story is not true. According to an account of the book’s contents reported in the New York Times, Bolton heard Trump say he was withholding aid to the Ukrainians pending an investigation into Biden and other Democrats. (One wonders who these other Democrats were.)

The Times story says the book also contradicts statements about who knew what and when inside the administration, no doubt causing heartburn for acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Attorney General William Barr, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, off-book fixer Rudy Giuliani, and, of course, all of the GOP senators determined to avoid hearing from witnesses in the impeachment trial.

The response from Trump World is predictable. Bolton is a disgruntled liar, bitter over being fired and desperate to sell books. I have no doubt Bolton, a former colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute, is disgruntled. I’m also sure he very much wants to sell books. But I don’t buy the lying part.

Bolton may be many of the things his detractors claim, but he’s also an incredibly adept lawyer and bureaucratic infighter. On different occasions when National Security Council staffers Fiona Hill and Tim Morrison were dismayed by what the president was up to with Ukraine, Bolton’s advice was to “tell the lawyers” (in Morrison’s words). When Hill told Bolton that she’d heard Gordon Sondland — Trump’s EU ambassador and administration point person on the Ukrainian scheme — tell the Ukrainians that he and Mulvaney would arrange a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation of Biden, Bolton replied, “You go and tell [NSC counsel John Eisenberg] that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go and tell him what you’ve heard and what I’ve said.”

The notion that Bolton, a legendary note-taker, would volunteer to testify (if subpoenaed) only to perjure himself is absurd. That he would make false allegations in a book without contemporaneous corroboration seems far-fetched as well. There’s only one way to know, though: Have Bolton tell his version under oath.

As of this writing, the ink on the official “Destroy Bolton” narrative hasn’t dried yet, but an early contender is the charge that this is all just a replay of the tactics Democrats used to try to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Promoting his new podcast, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted, “Last week we had Lev Parnas on Maddow & ‘secret tapes’; this week, the ‘Bolton revelations.’ It’s the same approach Dems & media followed during the Kavanaugh hearing.”

Except it’s not at all. The only thing similar about the two controversies is that new allegations kept inconveniencing politicians who wanted to move on. By that standard, nearly every unfolding Washington scandal is like the Kavanaugh hearings.

Putting aside the hilarity of John “Stop the Count” Bolton being a willing pawn of the Democrats, there were no recorded telephone calls confirming elements of the allegations against Kavanaugh. None of the Kavanaugh accusations had the sort of corroboration and material evidence already in the public record in the impeachment case. And Trump’s former national-security adviser is relying not on a decades-old unverifiable recollection but on his memory of events from a few months ago.

The biggest difference between how the Senate handled the Kavanaugh smear campaign and how it’s handling the impeachment case is this: With Kavanaugh, Senate Republicans bent over backward to hear from witnesses; with Trump, they’ve gone into a defensive crouch to avoid it. And that may not be enough any longer.

On one side I want this Senate Trial to be over, on the other side it would be interesting to hear what Mr. Bolton has to say under oath.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Discrediting Bolton Won’t Be Easy for Team Trump: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-trial-john-bolton-not-easy-to-discredit/

On one side I want this Senate Trial to be over, on the other side it would be interesting to hear what Mr. Bolton has to say under oath.

 

Nonetheless, does anyone even know the real text of the manuscript?  I can picture the text describing the President as hoping to hold funds contingent on the Ukes starting an investigation but in the end, he didn't because the Ukranians got their funding.  So in essence, there was no crime.  Yet, even if Bolton is allowed to testify, it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment for "Obstruction of Congress" or "Abuse of Power" according to Dershowitz.....  

https://pjmedia.com/trending/lol-democrat-just-accidentally-admitted-house-impeachment-case-is-evidence-free/

There was an unintended moment of levity during a break at the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump on Tuesday.

Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, one of the designated "spin doctors" sent to the microphones to clean up any damage to the Democrats' message caused by President Trump's impeachment attorneys, dropped an unintentional truth bomb during a media interview.

 

C-SPAN broke away from the proceedings in time to hear Blumenthal say this about the Trump defense lawyers:

 

It was a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidence – we need the evidence. We need the witnesses and documents... They may have the votes at this moment, but I hope my colleagues will look themselves in the mirror ... [W]hat we want is the truth, not some quid pro quo on the witnesses...
Blumenthal's plea for witnesses and documents — "we need the evidence" — only underscores how hastily the House put their "bereft of evidence" case together.

In other words "We just listened to the Republicans summarizing the Democrats case which is bereft of evidence, but we need the evidence"  

Isn't the burden of proof normally on the prosecution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you stick up a bank but don't actually take the money, you still will be charged.

Dersh has 0 credibility.

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment,” - The Dersh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, swordfish said:

Nonetheless, does anyone even know the real text of the manuscript?  I can picture the text describing the President as hoping to hold funds contingent on the Ukes starting an investigation but in the end, he didn't because the Ukranians got their funding.  So in essence, there was no crime.  Yet, even if Bolton is allowed to testify, it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment for "Obstruction of Congress" or "Abuse of Power" according to Dershowitz.....  

https://pjmedia.com/trending/lol-democrat-just-accidentally-admitted-house-impeachment-case-is-evidence-free/

There was an unintended moment of levity during a break at the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump on Tuesday.

Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, one of the designated "spin doctors" sent to the microphones to clean up any damage to the Democrats' message caused by President Trump's impeachment attorneys, dropped an unintentional truth bomb during a media interview.

 

C-SPAN broke away from the proceedings in time to hear Blumenthal say this about the Trump defense lawyers:

 

It was a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidence – we need the evidence. We need the witnesses and documents... They may have the votes at this moment, but I hope my colleagues will look themselves in the mirror ... [W]hat we want is the truth, not some quid pro quo on the witnesses...
Blumenthal's plea for witnesses and documents — "we need the evidence" — only underscores how hastily the House put their "bereft of evidence" case together.

In other words "We just listened to the Republicans summarizing the Democrats case which is bereft of evidence, but we need the evidence"  

Isn't the burden of proof normally on the prosecution?

Image may contain: 1 person, possible text that says '"A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT." -LINDSEY GRAHAM, 1998 OCCUPY DEMOCRATS'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate will crush the Democrat coup within the next few days. The Democrats and their Fake News propaganda will return to their "snuggy" blanket of Russia.

John Bolton joins the list of Democrat super hero's which includes:

Michael Avenatti

Robert Mueller

Michael Wolf

Christine Blasey Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, swordfish said:

82230628_1464697550366425_5825032099366699008_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_eui2=AeEXYge3mwepUP0FxnLGsL0qQCLic-xEpFbLFUWvCTAim6jLIecwFxtT7uKRgYvNRuBVqULu8CxjNaSp1P1o2YsJonPcK1NMIT9XLyy9W2BIjA&_nc_ohc=fdpLLUpicIQAX-OWI2_&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=a6c326263af8af63b2dee138f386c7d8&oe=5E8DD7A7

You can make it up. That's what Cruz did. It's lies.

Edited by gonzoron
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

You can make it up. That's what Cruz did. It's lies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lev-parnas-barred-from-impeachment-trial-makes-himself-its-star-anyway/2020/01/29/2cb47062-42d2-11ea-aa6a-083d01b3ed18_story.html

He was headed to the impeachment trial, where neither he nor anyone else has been called as a witness. He already suspected he would not be allowed inside. Though his lawyer, Joseph Bondy, had procured tickets from the office of Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Parnas was wearing an electronic monitoring device around his ankle because he was under house arrest in Florida, charged with campaign finance violations. A New York federal judge permitted the travel but denied Bondy’s request to have his client’s monitor temporarily removed. Senate rules prohibited most electronic devices from the trial.

FAKE NEWS.......?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480617-ted-cruz-backtracks-after-lev-parnas-lawyer-calls-senators-tweet-fake-news

Parnas’s attorney, Joseph Bondy, responded to Cruz’s tweet calling him “Fake news Ted Cruz,” clarifying that Parnas did not get "ejected" from the trial, as he was not allowed in in the first place. His lawyers did attend, and Parnas later held a press conference and "unity walk."

 

Parnas also wasn't invited by Schumer to attend the trial, though as a New York constituent he did request seats for the gallery from Schumer's office.

“Like many other New York constituents, Mr. Bondy reached out and asked for gallery tickets, and we said yes,” a spokesman for Schumer said. 

Cruz went on to clarify hours later, once the Senate broke for dinner, admitting that information he was given in the Senate cloakroom was “slightly inaccurate.” He did not take down the original tweet.

“Instead of his being 'ejected' from the gallery, Parnas was told he wouldn’t be allowed into the gallery w/ his ankle bracelet, and so he didn’t actually try to go in,” Cruz explained. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Image result for splitting hairs

See also: Bill Clinton Impeachment Trial.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

If you stick up a bank but don't actually take the money, you still will be charged.

Dersh has 0 credibility.

Your law background.....his law background....Hhhhmmmmmm

Your just pissed because a fellow Dem turned.....

 

Edited by TrojanDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A hypocrite is easy to spot.

A media whore is easy to spot.

Dersh is both.

Im not a member of either party.

I don't care what party he is in.  He is a hypocritical media whore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

A hypocrite is easy to spot.

A media whore is easy to spot.

Dersh is both.

Im not a member of either party.

I don't care what party he is in.  He is a hypocritical media whore

I don't give a %$#@ how your register...you are absolutely a liberal.  Don't see too many GOP libs.

Your resume compared to "Dersh's....yea....that's close.

Why so bitter man?  

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

I don't give a %$#@ how your register...you are absolutely a liberal.  Don't see too many GOP libs.

Your resume compared to "Dersh's....yea....that's close.

Why so bitter man?  

Doesn't change the fact that he is a hypocritical media whore.

I'm pro life.  Don't pretend to know me.  Stick to the Dersh Bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Doesn't change the fact that he is a hypocritical media whore.

I'm pro life.  Don't pretend to know me.  Stick to the Dersh Bag.

I’ll continue to judge you from your same old repeated sarcastic bitter posts.  Don’t like it?  Eat dirt!

When it comes to trusting in someone knowing the law, I will trust a Dersh Bag over a DBag every time.  Got it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...