Democraps in senate impeachment circus getting desperate

They want John Bolton to testify SO badly that these fucker seem willing to let the Republicans play them just like the fools they are. They, in their deranged thinking have some convoluted thought that Bolton will have the goods they need to show the people of this country how evil Trump is...Bolton isn't going to lie for them!! Trading the Bittens testimony for Boltons...YES pretty stupid. This shit is entertaining...


Senate Democrats Look to Trade John Bolton Testimony for Joe and Hunter Biden Testimonies

Posted at 5:00 pm on January 22, 2020 by Bonchie


You know how I know things aren’t going well for Democrats in regards to impeachment?
Because some Democrats are so desperate for a Hail Mary in their case that they are now entertaining a trade of John Bolton’s testimony for Joe and Hunter Biden’s testimony.

Nick Arama
Here’s the thing the above reporter doesn’t get. It’s not a “bluff” if Republicans actually want it to happen. Does anyone really think Senate Republicans are fearful of what John Bolton might say? That Bolton, who’s been universally trashed by the Democrats for decades, is going to suddenly become their savior? Come on.
The reality is that Bolton’s testimony would likely go no further than the testimonies previously given. Bolton’s complaint before resigning was that he was out of the loop and that the President wouldn’t listen to him on certain issues. That naturally dictates that he has no inside information of any impeachable scheme, nor would he have been privy to any evidence of such. The best case scenario for Democrats is that Bolton gives a rehash of Bill Taylor’s testimony, which was easily picked apart in its aftermath.
Further, I’m highly skeptical that Bolton has any desire to deliver Democrats a victory. They’ve opposed him and his foreign policy at every turn. Does anyone really believe Bolton wants to see Trump damaged enough to catapult a Democrat into the White House? I don’t see it.
But Republicans have plenty to gain by getting Joe and Hunter Biden in front of the cameras. The optics of having having Hunter try to explain why he was getting $80,000 a year from a corrupt Ukrainian company would be a gold mine for the GOP. There are also plenty of questions surrounding Joe Biden and the use of his influence for multiple family members. Plus, anytime Joe speaks, it’s apparent just how not up to the job of President he is.
After this news broke, a multitude of responses came in the form of saying this is “a trap” and to not “take the bait.” Democrats would be wise to heed that advice. None of them know what Bolton will say and there’s ample reason to believe he could actually help Trump’s case, even inadvertently. But Republicans know exactly what they stand to gain by grilling the Bidens on national TV.
But look, Democrats have nothing left. Their only shot at this point is that Bolton lays out some bombshell that has thus far managed to remain locked away. That’s not going to happen and I think this is a deal they’d regret making.

Speaking of circuses.

Donald Trump Did a Zillion Tweets Today and Each One Is Terrible


https://www.motherjones.com/impeachm...e-is-terrible/

As day two of his impeachment trial began in the Senate, President Donald Trump departed Switzerland, en route to Washington, DC.

The trip to Davos, a high-powered conference for the jet set and global elite, was “very successful,” the third president ever to be impeached said. “For USA.”

Had the conference not gone well for other countries? Unclear. What was it George Washington said during his Second Inaugural? “Screw ’em” or some such?

The flight went … well, it went. The flight flew and didn’t crash. So in that sense, it was a good flight. But how did the flight go in relative terms to most flights? Maybe not so great.

The president broke a personal record for most tweets and retweets.

He did some retweets of people saying nice things about him.

He retweeted some videos of himself complaining about democrats.

He retweeted some compliments from his sons, Don Jr. and Mike.

He retweeted some weird tweets by the guy who runs social media for his campaign.

He tweeted “no pressure” before immediately retweeting a set of tweets from a congressman credibly accused of failing to report sexual abuse.

He then sent about a million retweets of crazy people I am not going to bother putting here.

Finally, he topped it off with a Trump golden classic, threatening immigrants:

Sorry, if you come you will be immediately sent back!

“We wish he could have stayed in Davos longer,” many Americans and no Swiss thought.

tl;dr: Donald Trump spent this Wednesday the same way he spends most Wednesdays, the only difference being this Wednesday he was live-tweeting Fox News on a plane and also facing removal from office in the Senate.

This guy is losing it!

We have to protect the inventor of the wheel.

All past federal impeachment trials by the senate have had witnesses. The Bidens are just a diversion by trump, In trump's call, he made no mention of corruption, just the gas company and the Bidens. The fact trump didn't go to the FBI with concerns or launch an investigation of his own shows all he cared about was damaging an opponent. There have been no charges made against the Bidens by Ukraine.


Yes, every past impeachment trial included witnesses. Baldwin hits mark with Trump-related claim

"Witnesses have been a key point of debate in the lead up to President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial before the U.S. Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., delayed sending the Senate the articles of impeachment while seeking —among other things — a commitment to call witnesses from Republicans who control the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has vowed to force votes on witnesses and documents in the Republican-controlled chamber.

Democrats say avoiding witnesses would be tantamount to a cover-up.

And Wisconsin’s Democratic senator, Tammy Baldwin, said it would also be breaking with centuries of tradition.

"Every other impeachment trial the Senate has ever had, including those for other federal officials aside from the two presidential impeachments … has included witnesses," Baldwin said in a Jan. 19, 2020, appearance on WISN-TV’s ‘UpFront’ program.

Have witnesses really been called in every other Senate impeachment?

Let’s break out the history books.

Senate has held 15 impeachment trials
The Senate has held just two prior impeachment trials against presidents — Bill Clinton in 1999 and Andrew Johnson in 1868. Both included witnesses.

The Senate heard testimony from 41 witnesses in the Johnson proceeding, and three for Clinton, including Monica Lewinsky. In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported.

But those aren’t the only impeachments the Senate has heard. The U.S. Senate website lists 19 people prior to Trump who were impeached by the House, including 14 judges, a senator, a Supreme Court justice and the secretary of war.

Cases against three of the judges were halted before a trial when the judges resigned, and the case against Sen. William Blount in 1799 — the first impeachment in U.S. history — stopped before trial when the Senate determined it didn’t have such jurisdiction over one of its own.

That leaves 13 impeachment trials against other federal officials dating back to 1804. Eight of those yielded a guilty verdict, and five a not-guilty finding.

But all of them involved witnesses, said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

"I think there was a little bit of a sense — as there often is with things like Senate procedure — that the precedent is ambiguous and can be used however you want it," Bookbinder told PolitiFact Wisconsin. "We found that it’s not ambiguous in this case. … Every Senate impeachment trial that has been completed has involved witnesses."

Lawyers and researchers from the organization dug through Congressional archives and historical records for every impeachment for Bookbinder’s Jan. 9, 2020, op-ed in the Washington Post. His group is a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog that seeks to promote ethics in government and reduce the influence of money in politics.

Asked for evidence of Baldwin’s claim, her staff simply pointed to the Washington Post rundown.

Bookbinder’s piece also noted three recent trials have involved witnesses not called during the House phase of the impeachment proceedings: Judge Walter Nixon in 1989, Clinton and Judge Thomas Porteous in 2010.

The piece said in part:

"Although at least one senator has suggested that the Senate has no duty to go beyond testimony obtained by the House, that has happened on multiple occasions. The Senate heard from seven witnesses at Walter Nixon’s trial who had not testified before the House; three at Clinton’s trial who also had not testified before the House; and 17 at Porteous’s trial who had not testified before the House."

Our ruling
Baldwin said every impeachment trial in Senate history has included witnesses.

The research backs up her claim, though there are a few things to note. The Clinton impeachment involved video depositions, not live witnesses. And four people impeached by the House didn’t have a full trial in the Senate.

But the 15 people who faced a full trial in the Senate all saw witnesses called.

We rate this claim True"

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...had-witnesses/


Biden says he refuses to be part of impeachment witness deal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...a4e_story.html

This ought to do it...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/watch...ial/vp-BBZfPGB

Be patient. It takes a bit to load.

not to get off point

but it is in keeping with the thread's title

when schiff or any of the dims quote something a founding father wrote in desperate attempt to support some "point" they are trying to make

its invariably a half quote taken out of context and devoid of its real meaning

whata joke ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

not to get off point

but it is in keeping with the thread's title

when schiff or any of the dims quote something a founding father wrote in desperate attempt to support some "point" they are trying to make

its invariably a half quote taken out of context and devoid of its real meaning Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

So what yous are saying is that the Republicans own your Constitution and only they can use it as an excuses for their insidious political schemes.

Maybe yous should throw In a few “socialists,” “Facist,” “communists,” and a couple of “DPSTS” to add a little color to your tellings Post there, big shooter.

whata joke ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Greats thread as always, General!

LOLLING!

Greats thread as always, General!

LOLLING! Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Theres really something lacking in your life sir. What has made you such a miserable mess?

So what yous are saying is that the Republicans own your Constitution and only they can use it as an excuses for their insidious political schemes.

Maybe yous should throw In a few “socialists,” “Facist,” “communists,” and a couple of “DPSTS” to add a little color to your tellings Post there, big shooter. Originally Posted by HoeHummer

I don't know why a 'Canadian" like you is interfering in American politics and, I might add, your response to my post is off the mark

what I said was Schiff et al uses quotes out of their context, attempting I suspect, to confuse, conflating miscellaneous quotes with impeachment as if they were made regarding the impeachment clause when in fact they weren't, and, in addition, misquoting others by only using partial phrases out of their context

here's an example which I have heard Schiff give several times in support of his impeachment of President Trump. its a quote of Hamilton, but the quote wasn't about impeachment, it had nothing to do with any of the founders discussing the impeachment clause at all.. I guess the most charitable interpretation of Schiff's use is he is just ignorant but he liked the words:

“When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”


this was not about impeachment

in fact Hamilton himself was an elitist and was most fearful of a wider democracy

Theres really something lacking in your life sir. What has made you such a miserable mess? Originally Posted by claudefive

Why do yous give a fuck? Just walk in here and starts swinging on Day One.?

Unless it isn’t really Day One, eh?

Why do yous give a fuck? Just walk in here and starts swinging on Day One.?

Unless it isn’t really Day One, eh? Originally Posted by HoeHummer

I care my son. Come and accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and I will relieve your suffering

Get off the fucking cross, claudette, we needs the wood!

LOLLING. 2.0

I forgive yous. My blood will wash away most of your sins.