Day 9 impeachment [Archive] - Debate Policy

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 09:44 AM

I left off yesterday hearing rumblings about an early conclusion on Friday. The more I thought about it the less I see it happening. I dunno, just a guess.

Just starting with some left over news from around the web before things get chugging along today.

Now, besides the fact that they had their chance with Bolton, and Bolton already stating outright there were no issues with the call.

---

Adam Schiff Said John Bolton Lacks 'Credibility' and Is Prone to 'Conspiracy Theories'

On Wednesday afternoon, a 2019 interview featuring John Bolton surfaced which appeared to undermine the allegations made in the former national security advisor's forthcoming book of misconduct. The unearthed interview prompted Trump to declare "Game over" for the Democrats.

But even more videos have surfaced that are equally devastating for the Democrats wanting to call John Bolton to testify.

One new clip shows Adam Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager trying to make the case for Bolton to testify, saying Bolton had a "lack of credibility" and was prone to "conspiracy theories." Schiff now argues that Bolton is an important and believable witness.

"This is someone who's likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president toward belligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his love of conspiracy theories," Schiff said of Bolton to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on March 22, 2018, when Bolton was named Trump's national security adviser. "And I'll, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier: John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration."

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/flashback-adam-schiff-said-john-bolton-lacks-credibility-and-is-prone-to-conspiracy-theories/

(I think posted already, but adding here to keep an updated list)
This Bombshell Interview with John Bolton Will Crush the Democrats

Democrats are desperately trying to get John Bolton to testify in the Senate trial to hear what he has to say about President Trump and Ukraine, in the hopes they can make up for their weak case for impeachment with some brand new bombshell that will turn the tide against Trump.

But the Democrats have already heard from John Bolton. On August 27, 2019, Bolton gave an interview with Radio Free Europe and spoke about both of Trump's phone calls with President Zelensky.

Bolton was asked if he planned to meet with President Zelensky, and what messaged he planned to bring to him.

“Well, I will be meeting Zelensky, he and President Trump have already spoken twice. The President called to congratulate President Zelensky on his election and then on his success in the parliamentary election. They were very warm and cordial calls," Bolton said. [Emphasis added]

Bolton continued, "The success of Ukraine maintaining its freedom, its system of representative government, a free-market economy free of corruption and dealing with problems of the Donbas and the Crimea are high priorities here obviously and high priorities for the United States as well.”

Adam Schiff: "Ask John Bolton."

John Bolton in 2019: @realDonaldTrump's phone calls with President Zelensky were "very warm and cordial... the success of Ukraine ... [maintaining] a free market economy free of corruption ... is high priorit[y] of the US" pic.twitter.com/w6lAuDCKmR

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 29, 2020

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/watch-boltons-bombshell-interview-on-the-trump-zelensky-phone-call/

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 09:49 AM

This one may or may not have happened. There are many possibilities in the Burisma connection, which is why I think it's important that they investigate the hell out of that one. The democrats are putting a stop to any attempt from any angle to look into Burisma, and between my gut feeling and the tons of evidence out already, I think I can see why they want a halt to all of this.

--

Impeachment 'Whistleblower' May Be Implicated in Biden-Burisma Caper, Trump Lawyer Says

The unnamed "whistleblower" who launched the investigation that became the impeachment of President Donald Trump may himself be implicated in the Obama administration's decision to ultimately overlook the conflict of interest involving then-Vice President Joe Biden (administration point man on Ukraine) and his son Hunter, who served on the board of the notoriously corrupt Ukrainian gas firm Burisma. The fact that key questions about the "whistleblower" have been shut down from the start is a serious violation of Trump's due process, according to Patrick Philbin, deputy counsel to the president.

Philbin listed three key due process concerns: a lack of authorization, the Democrats not allowing Trump to present evidence or present or cross-examine witnesses, and the whistleblower's coordination with the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

"Manager Schiff or his staff had some role in consulting with the whistleblower that remains secret to this day and all attempts to find out about that, to ask questions about that, were shut down," the president's lawyer noted.

This shady coordination raises a whole host of pertinent questions about the whistleblower's motivation for filing his report. If, as has been claimed in many reports, the whistleblower worked with Joe Biden, then this individual may have gotten the impeachment ball rolling in order to protect himself.

"If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role? What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma," Philbin asked. "Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that?"

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/impeachment-whistleblower-may-be-implicated-in-biden-burisma-caper-trump-lawyer-says/

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 09:55 AM

I have to wonder if Roberts will lean towards taking the safe way so as not to give the appearance of favoring the republicans. And he should be acting like it's all data to him and there are neither (R) or (D) in the room. Simply judge this case based on evidence and the merit of their cases. Probably afraid of being the next on the hit list if he doesn't.

I read several articles on this one late last night and then this one. I just don't see why he avoided this one. If it was a worry about a name they could have simple renamed that.

--

Chief Justice John Roberts Shuts Down Rand Paul’s Question on Alleged ‘Whistleblower’

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on Wednesday blocked an attempt by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to pose questions regarding the so-called “whistleblower” — the individual who sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump — according to reports.

Politico and The Hill state that Roberts indicated he would oppose reading Paul’s questions, as it is believed that he would be forced to name or provide identifying information on the alleged individual.

Speaking to reporters following a Republican dinner, Paul signaled that he may still fight to have his question read.

“It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” he told reporters.

However, other Senate Republicans, include Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD), appear to have sided with Roberts over Paul.

“I don’t think that happens, and I guess I would hope that it doesn’t,” Thune said when asked if the so-called “whistleblower” will be named.

Roberts has not offered any legal argument for hiding the individual’s identity. As Breitbart News has repeatedly explained, the only statutory protection for people who submit whistleblower complaints is that the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) cannot name him or her publicly:

Even left-wing mainstream media outlets—CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), and Reuters — determined that, certainly, no law prohibits President Donald Trump or members of Congress from disclosing the name of the leaker who sparked the impeachment inquiry.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/30/chief-justice-john-roberts-shuts-down-rand-pauls-question-on-alleged-whistleblower/

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 09:57 AM

STTAB

01-30-2020, 10:08 AM

Is he just spouting this or do they really have that much support? I would think so, as I've been saying for eons just how important this is. Or is it a tactic to get them to rethink trying to press the Bolton issue?

--

Graham: There Are ’53 Republican Votes to Call Hunter Biden’

While speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated that if witnesses are called in the Senate’s impeachment trial, there will be 53 Republican votes in favor of calling 2020 Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter as a witness in the trial.

Graham said, “If there’s going to be one witness, there will be more. And there’s 53 Republican votes to call Hunter Biden, not 51, not 52. Because all of us believe that if this trial goes on, Hunter Biden is a very relevant witness.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/29/graham-there-are-53-republican-votes-to-call-hunter-biden/

I personally don't know what Hunter Biden is needed for here. I mean is what Trump did legal if Hunter DID do something wrong or ........ Because there is not much chance of them proving the Biden's did anything wrong, so it seems to me that the better argument is simply "Delaying the aid was within the President's power THE END, regardless of Hunter Biden" I wouldn't even make this about the Biden's , that plays right into Democrats hands making it seem like all Trump cared about was the Bidens

The people I want to hear from are Atkinson, Schiff, and the "whistleblower" and sure put Bolton up there, I've a feeling his testimony will be as disappointing to Democrats as Mueller's report was.

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 10:17 AM

Here's another from the Mark Levin show.

--

Levin Unveils Video of John Bolton Describing Trump’s Conversations With President of Ukraine

Rather than wait for his 6 P.M. show to begin, radio host Mark Levin chose Wednesday to unveil a video of former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton earlier in the day – because it was too important to the nation that the video be seen while the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump was taking place.

“I am linking to this now, rather than waiting for my radio show this evening, even though I know the backbenchers will gobble it up & claim they're ‘breaking news’ with their ‘exclusive’ reports. So be it. It needs to get out there to a broad audience,” Levin tweeted, introducing the embedded video:

“And this is an interview with John Bolton describing the president's conversations w/ the president of Ukraine as warm & cordial in Aug 2019.If he thought at the time that the president was stiff-arming the Ukrainians, he had a funny way of showing it.”

In the interview, Ambassador Bolton was asked by a Ukrainian reporter if there were plans to meet with President Zelensky and, if so, what messages the Trump Administration has for him.

1222561157254385665

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/levin-unveils-video-john-bolton-describing-trumps-conversations-president

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 10:28 AM

I personally don't know what Hunter Biden is needed for here. I mean is what Trump did legal if Hunter DID do something wrong or ........ Because there is not much chance of them proving the Biden's did anything wrong, so it seems to me that the better argument is simply "Delaying the aid was within the President's power THE END, regardless of Hunter Biden" I wouldn't even make this about the Biden's , that plays right into Democrats hands making it seem like all Trump cared about was the Bidens

The people I want to hear from are Atkinson, Schiff, and the "whistleblower" and sure put Bolton up there, I've a feeling his testimony will be as disappointin g to Democrats as Mueller's report was.

Perhaps them too, the more the better. But Hunter and Joe were key to why Trump and others wanted the Ukraine and Burisma to be investigated. And maybe you haven't seen all the stuff I posted over time, but I think there is plenty there to show that monies were coming and going when they should not have been. And how Hunter got key positions thanks to Dad. The latter tougher to prove, but the connections are there. The money can't be refuted much, but an investigation may better explain the where's and why's. Why were other folks suddenly getting money funneled weirdly to them ultimately from Burisma? And no doubt Joe kicked it off with his threats about not letting them get the money from their administration.

What it would show is that there was in fact legitimate reasons to have the entire thing investigated. Now I don't think what Trump did was illegal in any way to begin with, but proving wrongdoing would lend a better reason as to why he wanted things investigated. Not to mention having them under oath would be nice.

This was about overall corruption, but it just so happens to be that those 2, and maybe more, were a large part of it. And while finding out about corruption with someone you are sending money to is important to know - IMO, it's more important to know if it involves one of our politicians. And those 2 heavily involved, there are more players than just them 2.

Schiff and the whistlblower are extremely important IMO. If not for anything else but to get him under oath as well. When all is said and done, I would love to see something happen to Schiff for all of his lying over time, throughout the Russia investigation and now this one. And I believe that he did in fact meet with this whistleblower and surely knows who he is.

I also think that Clapper and Brennan had some say in this too, but I couldn't imagine either of those 2 being dumb enough to leave tracks. But they too worked with Ciaramella and the whole think stinks with them 2 without a doubt.

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 11:15 AM

Senator Josh Hawley: We’re Watching The Democrats’ Case For Impeachment Just Fall Apart

The Democrats’ case for impeachment has been flimsy from the start.

This week, it got even weaker.

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show on Wednesday night and said it’s all falling apart.

From FOX News:

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Wednesday that although some Republican senators are considering voting in favor of calling witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, none appear interested in voting to convict him on the articles presented by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

“Let’s be honest here, there are a lot of senators on the Republican side who do not like the president,” Hawley said. “They would be happy to vote against him … if they can find grounds to.”

“They can’t find any grounds to because there aren’t any, and the longer the House managers talk, the more obvious that becomes.”

Host Tucker Carlson asked Hawley about the possibility that three Democratic senators — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama — could potentially vote with Republicans to acquit Trump, and defy the apparent wishes of Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

“I think it’s very possible, Tucker. I think what it tells you is that they just don’t have a case,” he said of Schiff and the other Democratic impeachment managers.

Hawley has been providing updates on Twitter:

https://i.imgur.com/zbYMjSb.png

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/senator-josh-hawley-were-watching-the-democrats-case-for-impeachment-just-fall-apart-video/

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 11:32 AM

Ain't THIS the truth! It's a ploy of sorts. While they may very well want Bolton in, I think they know based on the past, and him hawking a book, it won't really do much. But they want the appearance of a cover-up AND not have the Biden's or others testifying to further ruin their case.

---

The Democrats’ dirty secret? They don’t want witnesses

The Senate leaders have stated their positions clearly and constantly. Chuck Schumer, who leads the Democratic minority, is demanding that John Bolton testify.

Mitch McConnell, who leads the Republicans’ narrow majority, responds that the Senate already has enough evidence to vote. If more was needed, the House should have gotten it when it had the chance. Anyway, the House managers have repeatedly boasted they have ‘overwhelming evidence’. The president’s lawyers add that, if any witnesses are called, they want to call some, too.

They want to hear from former Vice President Biden, his son Hunter, the whistleblower whose complaint started the impeachment, and Rep. Schiff and his staff, who apparently worked with the whistleblower. That’s really a threat, meant to deter the Democrats in two ways. A parade of witnesses would prolong the trial. It would introduce new evidence that might damage the House managers’ case and perhaps to Schiff and Biden personally.

Those are the declared positions. What about the political calculations below the surface? Actually, neither side wants witnesses. The Republicans say so openly. The Democrats cannot. It’s not just that they have been clamoring to hear from John Bolton and other Trump aides. It’s not just because their base wants satisfaction. It’s because their best political move now is to blame Trump’s near-certain acquittal on a ‘Republican cover-up’.

The Democrats’ calculations begin with a simple point. Although Trump’s impeachment and removal won overwhelming support among party activists, it garnered no support among Republican voters and only a split verdict among Independents. The lack of bipartisan support from voters doomed it among their representatives on Capitol Hill. No House Republicans voted to impeach, and there is only a remote prospect any Senate Republican will vote to remove the president. It’s possible that two or three Senate Democrats might join the Republicans in voting for acquittal. The White House will then claim total vindication, hyperbolically argue that it had bipartisan support in this victory, and launch a sustained, high-intensity attack on the whole enterprise, beginning with an investigation into its still-secret origins with the whistleblower, Schiff’s staff, and the odd behavior of the intelligence community’s inspector general. The inspector general’s testimony to Schiff’s committee must be damaging since the Democrats still won’t release it.

Rest - https://spectator.us/democrats-dirty-secret-dont-want-witnesses/

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 12:02 PM

I would love to see this happen. And then the following screaming to the skies for the next year! And this time around they may need a permit and pay dearly for doing so! :laugh2:

I'm not sold yet though that this happens.

--

Mitch McConnell Plans Swift End to Trump’s Senate Trial If Friday Witness Vote Fails

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will move to swiftly wrap up the Senate trial of President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges if a planned Friday vote to allow witness testimony fails.

That’s according to reporting from CNN, which cites the number-two ranking GOP Senator, South Dakota’s John Thune.

“In the end it’s going to be up to the Leader [McConnell], but my view would be at that point you would want to start bringing this thing to a conclusion,” Thune told CNN on Wednesday. “I’m not sure there would be any value or any point in keeping it going.”

A potential vote on allowing additional witness testimony and documents has become a seminal question in the Senate trial, after new bombshell allegations from Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, currently out on bail facing campaign finance charges, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton came to light after the House impeachment inquiry was complete. Both Parnas and Bolton have directly implicated Trump in pushing for a quid pro quo that linked the release of Congressional approved military aid to an announcement by Ukrainian officials that they would be opening a corruption investigation into the president’s potential 2020 rival, Joe Biden.

Rest - https://www.mediaite.com/news/report-mitch-mcconnell-plans-swift-end-to-trumps-senate-trial-if-friday-witness-vote-fails/

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 03:24 PM

Sorry, Nancy, you no longer have the power to demand this. You can hope that things work out this ways, but very well can be acquitted. Your games and rushing are haunting you!

--

Pelosi: Trump Won’t ‘Be Acquitted’ Without Witnesses

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Thursday that President Donald Trump would not be acquitted if the impeachment trial does not include witnesses and documents.

Pelosi said, “He will not be acquitted. He cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. If you don’t have a trial, if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and that. I would hope that the senators, if it comes to a tie or if there’s a question of hearing testimony or receiving documents would leave it up to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Republican-appointed in a Republican Majority court. I would think that they would have confidence in the Chief Justice of the United States, that is really his title.”

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/30/pelosi-trump-wont-be-acquitted-without-witnesses/

Abbey Marie

01-30-2020, 03:34 PM

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 03:37 PM

If he isn’t removed from office, how long before these hypocrites bring yet another impeachment charge against him? It will never end until he’s gone.

But I’m betting the Dems’ real ace in the hole will come in November. It’s called voter fraud.

Some have already stated they would do more if they win the senate. Also read a few days ago about another possible impeachment attempt over his properties. So yeah, I have no doubt they will continue their games.

PostmodernProphet

01-30-2020, 11:51 PM

If he isn’t removed from office, how long before these hypocrites bring yet another impeachment charge against him? It will never end until he’s gone.

But I’m betting the Dems’ real ace in the hole will come in November. It’s called voter fraud.
personally, I don't think Nancy has the balls to go through this twice......

STTAB

01-31-2020, 11:24 AM

personally, I don't think Nancy has the balls to go through this twice......

Don't kid yourself. This impeachment was not about removing Trump , it was about flipping four Senate seats, and if they manage it , while keeping the House , next year Trump will be impeached and removed from office.

PostmodernProphet

01-31-2020, 10:33 PM

Don't kid yourself. This impeachment was not about removing Trump , it was about flipping four Senate seats, and if they manage it , while keeping the House , next year Trump will be impeached and removed from office.

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but even if the Demmycrats were able to win the Senate and keep the House next November the soonest they could impeach and remove Trump from office would be 2021 as the newly elected wouldn't be sworn in till next January......that being said, it is more likely they will lose every seat they picked up in the House in 2018, the Republicans will add one seat in the Senate, Trump will be elected to his second term and Ruth Ginsberg will die giving Trump his third SC appointment.....
Meanwhile Nancy will lose her bid to be the minority leader of the House, Manchen will switch parties and Bernie will die of old age.....

Gunny

01-31-2020, 10:36 PM

Wonder how much all this cost. The House BS, plus this. Then add the "Russian Collusion" price tag to it.

NightTrain

01-31-2020, 11:11 PM

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but even if the Demmycrats were able to win the Senate and keep the House next November the soonest they could impeach and remove Trump from office would be 2021 as the newly elected wouldn't be sworn in till next January......that being said, it is more likely they will lose every seat they picked up in the House in 2018, the Republicans will add one seat in the Senate, Trump will be elected to his second term and Ruth Ginsberg will die giving Trump his third SC appointment.....
Meanwhile Nancy will lose her bid to be the minority leader of the House, Manchen will switch parties and Bernie will die of old age.....

Wonder how much all this cost. The House BS, plus this. Then add the "Russian Collusion" price tag to it.

Yep, there will be a large price to pay for this circus they've made and they deserve every bit of it.

The house democrats will suffer a bloodbath bath and it will be glorious to behold.

Abbey Marie

01-31-2020, 11:24 PM

Anecdotally, our daughter works with a woman who is a lifelong Democrat. She said today that she is now disgusted with the Dems over the way they pushed this impeachment process, and she may now vote for Trump. I’d love to see millions more just like her. It’s encouraging.

Gunny

01-31-2020, 11:35 PM

Smartest thing the Dems could do at this point is just shut up and have the MSM run misdirection junk. Get as much distance between now and Nov as they can. Not much, but with gnat's having longer attention spans than the American public, it would not be a bad idea.

But they won't. They can't. A Dem wouldn't be a Dem without its crying towel out. Why not? No one has held the left accountable for its behavior so far.

PostmodernProphet

02-01-2020, 07:59 AM

Wonder how much all this cost. The House BS, plus this. Then add the "Russian Collusion" price tag to it.

it is ironic.......the demmycrats used tax payer money to topple a political opponent on the basis that he withheld tax payer money to topple a political opponent........I say at least it shows he's conservative.......he's charged with NOT spending, they spent..........

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

02-01-2020, 10:39 AM

it is ironic.......the demmycrats used tax payer money to topple a political opponent on the basis that he withheld tax payer money to topple a political opponent........I say at least it shows he's conservative.......he's charged with NOT spending, they spent..........

Dem party has used a trillions of dollars( from our paid taxes) , by way of gubbermint freebies programs to buy the black vote for 50+ years. And they have the gall to accuse Trump.... Johnson's so-called, War On Poverty, spearheaded that vote buying scam. And they targeted the group that would go for it for over 50 years and still running..-Tyr

Abbey Marie

02-01-2020, 01:00 PM

FB friends are having a meltdown. :laugh2:

Gunny

02-01-2020, 05:54 PM

Yep, there will be a large price to pay for this circus they've made and they deserve every bit of it.

The house democrats will suffer a bloodbath bath and it will be glorious to behold.I play for blood. I hope they pay in votes. We already know they won't be held politically and/or criminally liable.