Preview of Bolton's book

[H_Arendt]

@WuWei

@H_Arendt

@WuWei

@H_Arendt

@WuWei

@H_Arendt

You asked for a direct witness to Trump’s actions

No I didn’t.

I stand corrected. But the heart of the case introduced to defend Donald Trump by his lawyers on this past Saturday was that the case lacked a direct witness. And you do occasionally express opinions that overlap with Trump’s defenders, if my memory serves me well.

So what? Impeachment is a political process.

Well your argument is with Trump’s lawyers I suppose, not with me. I bet you can catch them in the bar at the Post Office Hotel most nights. That’s where most of the Trump crew hangs out.

They are part of the kabuki, just like Schiff and Nadler and the media.

Why are you casting aspersions on Japanese artistry?

[TommyLucchese]

@Plasmaball

All. Bolton has to do is deny he leaked and the story remains out there twisting the knife at trump. He timed this almost perfectly.

Now the question is do you spill the beans at the trial or hold your cards to sell books.

Being a witness will sell more books even if he spills the lot because people will assume there is more.

[TommyLucchese]

@MoleUK

Yeah, there’s no way political considerations would outweigh evidence in the decisions of politicians.

.

No matter how guilty, it will be political suicide for most Republican Senators to vote to remove Trump from office.

Trump voters haven’t even forgiven those who condemned him re: the grab em by the ■■■■■ tape.

But ok the flip side no one is gonna seriously risk their re-election to do him a solid either.

[Plasmaball]

It might…I hope he doesnt play it the other way though and keeps it simple.

He says what we think he is going to say ot will damage the gop a lot.

[sikofit]

@Plasmaball

It was a cat

You dont get your news from cats on YouTube? That’s baaaaaahad

[TommyLucchese]

@Plasmaball

It might…I hope he doesnt play it the other way though and keeps it simple.

He says what we think he is going to say ot will damage the gop a lot.

I mean this whole thing has been about keeping it simple and focused on one issue, which prevents the tsunami of ■■■■■■■■ overwhelm it.

[Plasmaball]

Im a sheople so no…I prefer my news more farm raised

[MoleUK]

@TommyLucchese

But ok the flip side no one is gonna seriously risk their re-election to do him a solid either.

You’d think so. But this bunch of idiots seem to continually express surprise when he ■■■■■ them over for the Xth time in a row.

[Plasmaball]

I disagree. Its lie so much that people give up from trying.

[MoleUK]

@Plasmaball

I disagree. Its lie so much that people give up from trying.

One of 2016’s most valuable lessons.

[bigtwnvin]

The “reality” is that the partisan political House “solemnly” marched two Articles to the Senate chamber that did not fit the definition of “an impeachable offense”.
Debate it all you want but “if the gloves don’t fit you must aquit”!
The longer the Dims stomp their feet, filibuster and continue to bore the American people with their hopes, lies and BS the bigger their clown show gets and the more likely they will suffer consequences in November.

[Smyrna]

@AmusedObserver

I feel that the evidence presented in the House was more than sufficient to justify impeachment, and by a very clear margin. Now, however, there’s even more.

I’ll ask you just one more time: do you believe the Senate should base their decision on all currently available evidence? If not, how can you possibly justify such a choice?

Bull feces. This isn’t about your feelings. It’s about the facts and they didn’t present them and their presentation obviously wasn’t overwhelming. The House lied about their case and I believe that many Dems will jump their ship as a direct result in 2020.

[westaussie]

Fact: the House of Reps as per the USA constitution voted to impeach D Trump in the House of Reps.

[Smyrna]

@westaussie

Fact: the House of Reps as per the USA constitution voted to impeach D Trump in the House of Reps.

Fact; only one party made this decision to impeach. Now present this “overwhelming evidence” that was so convincing to only one side of the aisle, to the Senate as per the Constitution and prove to the whole world just how one sided and partisanly shameful their whole process was.

[westaussie]

It is not for me to present the evidence to the Senate and I do note that M McConnell did not want the body of evidence from the House of Reps impeachment inquiry/hearing to be entered into the Senate impeachment trial record.

[WuWei]

@H_Arendt

@WuWei

@H_Arendt

@WuWei

@H_Arendt

@WuWei

@H_Arendt

You asked for a direct witness to Trump’s actions

No I didn’t.

I stand corrected. But the heart of the case introduced to defend Donald Trump by his lawyers on this past Saturday was that the case lacked a direct witness. And you do occasionally express opinions that overlap with Trump’s defenders, if my memory serves me well.

So what? Impeachment is a political process.

Well your argument is with Trump’s lawyers I suppose, not with me. I bet you can catch them in the bar at the Post Office Hotel most nights. That’s where most of the Trump crew hangs out.

They are part of the kabuki, just like Schiff and Nadler and the media.

Why are you casting aspersions on Japanese artistry?

Because I want to. And I’m self-identifying as a geisha today.

[WorldWatcher]

GOP develops aggressive 'Plan B' in impeachment trial, as several Dems appear...

Fox is reporting that Mitch’s plan “B” on witnesses is to:

(A) poison pill the resolution so they can say they had a vote but ensures witnesses won’t be called, and

(B) have it include a provision so that if ANY witness defies the subpoena that ALL witnesses processing stops immediately. What does “defy” mean? Objects to? Files a court case? Claims executive privilege? So the GOP issues a subpoena for a minor player who behind the scenes will have already agreed to defy the Senate and will file a case such as Kruggerman (Sp?) which will automatically end seeking testimony from Mulvaney, Bolton, OMB Director, etc.
.
.
.
.WW

[bigtwnvin]

You are correct. They followed the US Constitution in a partisan vote of two Articles that do not meet the legal standards of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
Enough Constitutional Scholars, Professors, amateur or professional lawyers have debated the issue ad nauseum.
The partisan House may as well presented the Senate with Articles of “Moprey” or “Rogue and Vagabond”!
The House did a piss poor job, wasted the taxpayers time and money and managed to accomplish the opposite of what their objectives were. Now they’ll have the American voters to answer to and lately looks like the voters are none too happy.

[westaussie]

How much of the House of Reps impeachment inquiry/hearing did you watch live? I certainly heard enough evidence presented that justified a vote in favour of impeaching Trump by the House of Reps.

There is one and only one logical reason to explain why D Trump does not want any witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial. Trump knows that the evidence from those witnesses will not corroborate his claims.

[hwyflier]

@bigtwnvin

The “reality” is that the partisan political House “solemnly” marched two Articles to the Senate chamber that did not fit the definition of “an impeachable offense”.

It’s nice to see you can repeat Alan Dershowitz.

@bigtwnvin

The longer the Dims stomp their feet, filibuster and continue to bore the American people with their hopes, lies and BS the bigger their clown show gets and the more likely they will suffer consequences in November.

That sounds like a win/win for republicans. So then what’s the rush?