US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[Lord Thesaurian]

Parnas is hardly a credible witness. He is the source for the CNN story that claimed Nunes went to Vienna, which turned out to be more fake news.

The Senate would determine the credibility of any witnesses called and any documents submitted as testimony. The documents Parnas provided connect a few dots and give context to facts that have already been established. The relevance is that his documents/testimony would further refute the White House’s false narrative regarding the aid freeze and the firing of a US diplomat. Speaking of needing a bigger rug:

The White House budget office violated the law when it froze U.S. military aid to Ukraine, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a new report.
President Donald Trump ordered the hold on the critical security assistance in July, a slew of senior White House officials testified to House impeachment investigators late last year. It was a move that coincided with an effort by the president and his allies to pressure Ukraine to investigate Trump’s Democratic rivals.


“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the GAO wrote in an eight-page report released on Thursday.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ao-says-099682

[B. W.]

The Senate would determine the credibility of any witnesses called and any documents submitted as testimony. The documents Parnas provided connect a few dots and give context to facts that have already been established. The relevance is that his documents/testimony would further refute the White House’s false narrative regarding the aid freeze and the firing of a US diplomat. Speaking of needing a bigger rug:

Parnas was arrested and is facing a criminal indictment for a whole bunch of nefarious activity regarding Ukraine. I wouldn't look for the Senate to rate him a reliable witness, not to mention the fact that he is responsible for a fake news story.

The GAO report is nonbinding and was requested by a democrat Senator from Maryland. I wouldn't get your hopes up on it. The very same GAO said the same thing about Obama on seven different occasions. They can't make criminal charges or Obama would have been facing them.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Parnas was arrested and is facing a criminal indictment for a whole bunch of nefarious activity regarding Ukraine. I wouldn't look for the Senate to rate him a reliable witness, not to mention the fact that he is responsible for a fake news story.

The GAO report is nonbinding and was requested by a democrat Senator from Maryland. I wouldn't get your hopes up on it. The very same GAO said the same thing about Obama on seven different occasions. They can't make criminal charges or Obama would have been facing them.

I don’t have any hopes. I’m just waiting to see how much more info comes out before Republicans close their eyes and give their man a pass.

[Ludicus]

I can even understand Trump's supporters. Joe Biden is a hypocrite on Ukraine - The Washington Post




Biden's hypocrisy summarized. Year 2104,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Vice President Joe Biden and son Hunter golfing with Devon Archer, who sat on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings alongside Hunter




Biden: "Nobody warned me about a potential conflict of interest. Nobody warned me about that!" -contradicted by Amos Hochstein.

Biden, an alternate version of Schultz,

[Gaidin]

Parnas was arrested and is facing a criminal indictment for a whole bunch of nefarious activity regarding Ukraine.

He was indicted regarding campaign finance laws. Not this crap spewing up regarding Ukraine. Ironically, if Congress can take testimony from Frank Costello fifteen years after he was actually convicted of mob activity I'm pretty sure they can take testimony from Lev Parnas when he's merely indicted without breaking a sweat if they want to.

[B. W.]

He was indicted regarding campaign finance laws. Not this crap spewing up regarding Ukraine. Ironically, if Congress can take testimony from Frank Costello fifteen years after he was actually convicted of mob activity I'm pretty sure they can take testimony from Lev Parnas when he's merely indicted without breaking a sweat if they want to.

Parnas is Ukrainian. The supposed money involved would be coming from Ukraine.

[The spartan]

My original claim was that Trump's presidency was a consequence of institutional damage and failures (themselves a direct cause of spiraling trust in the government since the turn of the century). I cited the Iraq War as one (of many) examples to illustrate this.

You are assuming that the functionality of an institution is squarely reflected by the public trust in the government. If that were true, government institutions must have had a huge improvement in quality right around 2001. Lucky coincidence, that.

You responded by claiming that since Republicans were initially supportive of the war, that must mean that it had a negligible effect on the 2016 election. This is false for at least three key reasons: (1) According to your own source, by 2014, the percentage of Reps./lean Reps. who felt the US had mostly achieved its objectives in Iraq was only 38%; (2) Again according to your own source, Rep./lean Rep. support for the war itself had dropped by >30% between 2003 and 2016; (3) Trump's distance from the war shielded him from the accusations of incompetence whilst not impeding his tough guy act. This was not a luxury which establishment candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton could afford.

Well no, the graph also indicated it was still "supported" to this day. Or rather, that a majority of the Republican constituency still sees the invasion of Iraq as "the right decision". It would be odd for them to think it was the right decision to make but also an example of failing on the government. My guess is that Trump voters don't really give a toss about "illegal wars" conducted by America. They hardly think about foreign policy at all.

Because it is a ridiculous notion.

There's a difference between misplaced/misdirected and arbitrary behaviours.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ar·bi·trar·y

:based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

If you would rather call it that then fine. I tend to give a little agency to voters in my perspective. That's the point, though: the idea that certain voters' perception to the state of things is woefully misplaced should not seem spectacular to you.

Oh goodie, semantics!

Oh no, you are right, the bad meany bad guys got away with being bad because deep state bad government men are corrupt.

The "let the banks fail crowd" have a clearer understanding of what free market capitalism looks like (or is supposed to look like) than interventionists do. The govt's half-in half-out approach to fiscal policy is largely responsible for the exorbitant cost of healthcare and education and the creation of multinationals which are "too big to fail".

Implying that American voters give even the tiniest of about "free market capitalism". The "let the banks fail crowd" wanted something that would have been catastrophically bad for them to happen because they didn't understand the consequences of what they were talking about. They, fortunately, had nowhere near the power to make that happen.

The financial crisis and its aftermath were the result of institutional failures which were characterized by reckless lending (facilitated by a poor regulatory framework), an inability to anticipate events (in both the private and public sector), a laboured response from the Fed., Congress and the WH and a limp-wristed attempt to hold those responsible to account in the aftermath.

I agree, the crash had much to do with weakened financial regulations.

Arguing that the lack of consumer protections within the criminal code rebukes the accusation of institutional failure on DC's part is ludicrous.

Why? These regulatory changes were done by congress, the people that voters pick to represent them. I am sure their constituency was fine with them doing this at the time. Voters getting what they asked for and not liking what they got (*cough cough* Iraq war) is not a sign of the legislative branch failing, it is still going along with what people voted for at the time.

As is your position that the grossly irresponsible and/or negligent and/or criminal behaviours of organizations like New Century Financial, AHMIC, Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers, the Bank of America etc. are not examples of institutional malpractice/incompetence. Frankly I have no idea how else the causes of crisis can be categorized other than as a series of chronic institutional failures. An act of God perhaps?

Of course there was malpractice and incompetence on behalf of bankers before the crash, but you are getting closer to just saying "if something went wrong, that necessarily means a public institution failed in it's function", which isn't true. It was caused by lack of regulation and bad practices in the financial sector, but the amount of public oversight on the financial institutions is in the purview of our legislative representatives so that citizens upset with the causes of the crash can vote in representatives that promote fixing those shortcomings. Like, what else is the government supposed to do? If voters want to update laws on punishing bankers, they should probably vote on and promote that.

An atheist criticising faith again. Typical.

Who said I was an atheist?

My original claim was that Trump's presidency was a consequence of institutional damage and failures (themselves a direct cause of spiraling trust in the government since the turn of the century). I cited the Iraq War as one (of many) examples to illustrate this.

You are assuming that the functionality of an institution is squarely reflected by the public trust in the government. If that were true, government institutions must have had a huge improvement in quality right around 2001. Lucky coincidence, that.

You responded by claiming that since Republicans were initially supportive of the war, that must mean that it had a negligible effect on the 2016 election. This is false for at least three key reasons: (1) According to your own source, by 2014, the percentage of Reps./lean Reps. who felt the US had mostly achieved its objectives in Iraq was only 38%; (2) Again according to your own source, Rep./lean Rep. support for the war itself had dropped by >30% between 2003 and 2016; (3) Trump's distance from the war shielded him from the accusations of incompetence whilst not impeding his tough guy act. This was not a luxury which establishment candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton could afford.

Well no, the graph also indicated it was still "supported" to this day. Or rather, that a majority of the Republican constituency still sees the invasion of Iraq as "the right decision". It would be odd for them to think it was the right decision to make but also an example of failing on the government. My guess is that Trump voters don't really give a toss about "illegal wars" conducted by America. They hardly think about foreign policy at all.

Because it is a ridiculous notion.

There's a difference between misplaced/misdirected and arbitrary behaviours.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ar·bi·trar·y

:based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

If you would rather call it that then fine. I tend to give a little agency to voters in my perspective. That's the point, though: the idea that certain voters' perception to the state of things is woefully misplaced should not seem spectacular to you.

Oh goodie, semantics!

Oh no, you are right, the bad meany bad guys got away with being bad because deep state bad government men are corrupt.

The "let the banks fail crowd" have a clearer understanding of what free market capitalism looks like (or is supposed to look like) than interventionists do. The govt's half-in half-out approach to fiscal policy is largely responsible for the exorbitant cost of healthcare and education and the creation of multinationals which are "too big to fail".

The financial crisis and its aftermath were the result of institutional failures which were characterized by reckless lending (facilitated by a poor regulatory framework), an inability to anticipate events (in both the private and public sector), a laboured response from the Fed., Congress and the WH and a limp-wristed attempt to hold those responsible to account in the aftermath.

I agree, the crash had much to do with weakened financial regulations.

Arguing that the lack of consumer protections within the criminal code rebukes the accusation of institutional failure on DC's part is ludicrous.

Why? These regulatory changes were done by congress, the people that voters pick to represent them. I am sure their constituency was fine with them doing this at the time. Voters getting what they asked for and not liking what they got (*cough cough* Iraq war) is not a sign of the legislative branch failing, it is still going along with what people voted for at the time.

As is your position that the grossly irresponsible and/or negligent and/or criminal behaviours of organizations like New Century Financial, AHMIC, Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers, the Bank of America etc. are not examples of institutional malpractice/incompetence. Frankly I have no idea how else the causes of crisis can be categorized other than as a series of chronic institutional failures. An act of God perhaps?

Of course there was malpractice and incompetence on behalf of bankers before the crash, but you are getting closer to just saying "if something went wrong, that necessarily means a public institution failed in it's function", which isn't true. It was caused by lack of regulation and bad practices in the financial sector, but the amount of public oversight on the financial institutions is in the purview of our legislative representatives so that citizens upset with the causes of the crash can vote in representatives that promote fixing those shortcomings. Like, what else is the government supposed to do? If voters want to update laws on punishing bankers, they should probably vote on and promote that.

An atheist criticising faith again. Typical.

Who said I was an atheist?

If they did, I've seen no evidence of it. Not that I see how alleged corruption within the RNC really disproves my view. The existence of rot within the established ranks of the Republican Party is a central element of my general thesis.

So you mean people are just now upset with something that has always been the case? Shocker.

Nothing "happened" to it. The DNC is supposed to be a neutral player in the election.

And the RNC gets the R-pass? National Committees have had favorites since parties have been a thing.

Now, now don't mock the Bernie bros too hard. After all, the Mango Mussolini's decimation of HRC did prove them right that centrists and corporate shills are an ineffectual antidote to conservative "insurgents".

Idk when one of our closer elections in our recent years turned into a "decimation", but ok.

Count again. Brenannan was confirmed in '57, Powell and Rehnquist were nominated in '71 and Kennedy in '87.

Wow! I am so hyped for this point you are getting to!

Only in Prodromos' dreams.

Or, you know, in the real world as well.

Neocon. enough for my tastes.

Corpus Donaldi hosts a non-ideological ideology? He really must be an interdimensional Lord.

Since when do you need space powers to be ideologically inconsistent?

This isn't true. Senior Republicans like Graham, McConnell, Rubio, Cruz, McSally, Crenshaw, Romney et al. denounced the proposed Syria exit, the former calling it (not politely) "the most screwed up decision I've seen since I've been in Congress" and vowing that he would "hold you [Trump] accountable". The latter called it "a bloodstain in the annals of American history". There is no way that the President will be able to withdrawal from the Middle East so long as he relies on the support of neocon. Senators. It's the the one issue that they absolutely would throw him under the bus over.

When you say "throw him under the bus", what do you mean exactly? What would that look like?

Huzzah, he knows what a Republican is!

Indeed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Of course they'd prefer Mike "electrocution is the solution" Pence, but he hasn't proven himself to be an electoral asset (the true political gold dust) like Trump has. That said, if Dynamite Don. loses the 2020 poll, he'll be the one getting thrown to the wolves. It's a case of win or die for him.

Totally agree. Makes you think he might get desperate if he is close to or actually loses 2020. And there are a lot of desperates out there that would support him being desperate.

What is "offline"?

It's just another front of the war.

Do try not to get too flustered over the semantics of a meme.

Does picturing me as a frothing SJW help the magazine loading go by faster?

Correct. Well said by me there.

What people want and what's in their best interests are two different things.

I totally agree, but we don't tend to be so patronizing when referring to voter priorities. You can invalidate any policy goal that way: the southern border wall project is probably not in the best interest of Trump supporters, but it would be weird declare that for them. If you just wanted to say that the Dem voters are dumb for wanting Trump impeached that, is one thing, but they clearing support it happening. Their representatives are just delivering.

You've already conceded that impeachment is an act of retaliatory institutional vandalism anyway, so I don't see the purpose in trying to justify it further.

I did no such thing. I said you were a hypocrite to criticize such an act even if it were happening that way.

America! America!
Don. shed his grace on thee,
To crown thy reign, thy wall shall strain,
From sea to shining sea!

Such a fanboy.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Mr. Dershowitz encouraged Mr. Toobin to read a law review article I wrote on the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, in which a former Supreme Court justice, Benjamin Curtis, successfully argued that no one should ever be punished for doing something that wasn’t a crime. Mr. Dershowitz apparently thought my article supported his view that even if Mr. Trump did everything the House has accused him of doing, the president shouldn’t be convicted because he hasn’t been accused of criminal behavior.
As an academic, my first reaction was to be grateful that someone had actually read one of my articles.

But as a legal academic, my second reaction was confusion. Even if you think impeachment requires a crime, as I do, that belief hardly supports the president’s defense or Mr. Dershowitz’s position. President Trump has been accused of a crime. Two in fact: “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.”

Common-law crimes are no harder to define with precision than crimes written down in a statute. Ask any first-year law students for the common law’s definition of burglary and they’ll (hopefully) be able to tell you: “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.” If someone is accused of burglary in a state where the crime isn’t defined by statute, no defense lawyer would respond by announcing that burglary is vague or made up. Burglary is an established crime, even where its definition exists only in legal treatises and judicial opinions.

President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds them.” The treatise noted that such an officer “is punishable by indictment, though no injurious effects result to any individual from his misconduct.”

As for “obstruction of Congress,” that’s not only a common-law crime. Versions of the crime have also been listed in the federal criminal code since the 19th century.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/o...nse-trump.html

Looks like the facts are so indisputable that Trump’s “best people” still can’t come up with a better defense than “crimes aren’t really crimes.” Will Republicans acquit him now and end it? Or will they play along a little longer, call a couple witnesses, and pretend it makes a difference to their vote? Place your bets now. Hint: skipping portions of the trial doesn’t help the odds any of them will care what witnesses have to say in the first place.

[Cope]

You are assuming that the functionality of an institution is squarely reflected by the public trust in the government. If that were true, government institutions must have had a huge improvement in quality right around 2001. Lucky coincidence, that.

I'm assuming that public trust in institutions is related to the "functionality" of said institutions, not that institutional functionality is only factor affecting public trust.

Well no, the graph also indicated it was still "supported" to this day. Or rather, that a majority of the Republican constituency still sees the invasion of Iraq as "the right decision". It would be odd for them to think
it was the right decision to make but also an example of failing on the government. My guess is that Trump voters don't really give a toss about "illegal wars" conducted by America.

I've already answered this point. Republican disapproval for the management of the situation in Iraq and softening support for the invasion combined with Democratic opposition to the war's criminality benefitted Trump (he used it to his advantage) and damaged establishment candidates like Clinton. Whether you like it or not, support for the Iraq War was - and still is - an acid test for whether a candidate is suitable to be CinC . This is precisely why Biden is still being pestered about it 18 years later.

(1, 2, 3, 4)

They hardly think about foreign policy at all.

That's where you're wrong kiddo.

If you would rather call it that then fine. I tend to give a little agency to voters in my perspective. That's the point, though: the idea that certain voters' perception to the state of things is woefully misplaced should not seem spectacular to you.

I'm the one supposing agency, not you. My position is predicated on the idea that voters became distrustful and resentful of the ruling class because of their mismanagement of the institutions. You're the one trying to argue that people were just arbitrarily/wrongfully angry and/or stupid.

Oh no, you are right, the bad meany bad guys got away with being bad because deep state bad government men are corrupt.

^ A liberal's defence of bankers/Wall St. executives.

Implying that American voters give even the tiniest of about "free market capitalism".

That's where you're wrong (again) kiddo.

And let me be clear: most Yanks (socialism is illegal south of Virginia) who sympathise with socialism are thinking of the sort Scandinavianism which is actually market capitalism and an enhanced state welfare.

The "let the banks fail crowd" wanted something that would have been catastrophically bad for them to happen because they didn't understand the consequences of what they were talking about. They, fortunately, had nowhere near the power to make that happen.

Malpractice and incompetence within the market should be punished by the market. That's how the system is supposed to work. I take the point that inaction would've lead to a collapse of the housing market and a depression, though I suspect that the state's continual subsidization of the economy and the colossal national debt (which will never be dealt with till its too late) combined with the expectation of intervention will come home to roost. Keep your eyes open for a German recession and an end to DB as an early symptom.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I agree, the crash had much to do with weakened financial regulations.

It was as much to do with weakened regulations as it was to do with a failure by central govt. to recognize or act upon the pitfalls of shadow banking.

Why? These regulatory changes were done by congress, the people that voters pick to represent them. I am sure their constituency was fine with them doing this at the time. Voters getting what they asked for and not liking what they got (*cough cough* Iraq war) is not a sign of the legislative branch failing, it is still going along with what people voted for at the time.

You're conflating a general interest in managed deregulation with specific financial changes made as a result of lobbying (repeal of Glass-Steagall for instance) and unilateral decisions taken in the private sector. The public might, for example, have supported the extension of credit to impoverished communities via the end of redlining, but that doesn't mean they're at fault for the dangerous relaxation of lending standards which caused the subprime mortgage crisis.

Of course there was malpractice and incompetence on behalf of bankers before the crash, but you are getting closer to just saying "if something went wrong, that necessarily means a public institution failed in it's function", which isn't true.

We aren't talking about someone wearing odd socks to work or misfiling the W-2's. When hundred+ year old institutions like Lehman Brothers or AIG collapse, that's a pretty catastrophic failure in function.

It was caused by lack of regulation and bad practices in the financial sector, but the amount of public oversight on the financial institutions is in the purview of our legislative representatives so that citizens upset with the causes of the crash can vote in representatives that promote fixing those shortcomings. Like, what else is the government supposed to do? If voters want to update laws on punishing bankers, they should probably vote on and promote that.

The people can vote in reps. who will manage those aspects better going forward, but that doesn't mean that anyone can solve the problems overnight or that people don't resent the mistakes that were made. You can't "undo" decisions like the Iraq War irrespective of who you elect.

Who said I was an atheist?

If it sounds like a duck...

So you mean people are just now upset with something that has always been the case? Shocker.

And the RNC gets the R-pass? National Committees have had favorites since parties have been a thing.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Idk when one of our closer elections in our recent years turned into a "decimation", but ok.

I'm not referring to the proximity of the candidates in terms of vote share.

Wow! I am so hyped for this point you are getting to!

No Supreme Court Justice has been nominated and confirmed in an election year since before WWII. Neither has any Justice been confirmed by a Senate sitting in opposition to the White House during an election year since the 19th century.

Or, you know, in the real world as well.

We've been over this. No one is going to be taking your brave new world from you. Relax.

Since when do you need space powers to be ideologically inconsistent?

Since it's an irreconcilable contradiction to project a non-ideological ideology.

When you say "throw him under the bus", what do you mean exactly? What would that look like?

It would look like that porcelain ponce, Adam Schiff, gliding around Washington as the "Kingslayer" until he perished from excessive inhalation of his own flatulence.

Totally agree. Makes you think he might get desperate if he is close to or actually loses 2020. And there are a lot of desperates out there that would support him being desperate.

Cry wolf harder.

It's just another front of the war.

You and your bloody warmongering.

Does picturing me as a frothing SJW help the magazine loading go by faster?

Yes. But I don't use mags: I dress up in a feldgrau tunic and feed my 42 with an unlimited ammo belt.

I totally agree, but we don't tend to be so patronizing when referring to voter priorities.

Good bait. See your above posted bike meme for more details.

You can invalidate any policy goal that way: the southern border wall project is probably not in the best interest of Trump supporters, but it would be weird declare that for them.

> Impeachment is a policy goal.

That just about sums up the Democratic platform really.

I did no such thing. I said you were a hypocrite to criticize such an act even if it were happening that way.

You claimed that impeachment was a race to the bottom justified by McConnell's obstructions and Norm's insistence that the GOP had turned into an insurgent party. That's why we discussed it as an electoral strategy. Because it's about power not principles.

Such a fanboy.

A partistan-hack, snowflakey, SJW, fanboy more like.

[Gaidin]

Looks like the facts are so indisputable that Trump’s “best people” still can’t come up with a better defense than “crimes aren’t really crimes.” Will Republicans acquit him now and end it? Or will they play along a little longer, call a couple witnesses, and pretend it makes a difference to their vote? Place your bets now. Hint: skipping portions of the trial doesn’t help the odds any of them will care what witnesses have to say in the first place.

Whenever someone says this behavior is acceptable I go back to Founding Fathers time and point them to the XYZ-Affair. We didn’t bribe France. We said no and started putting cannons on our merchant ships, with the funding approval of Congress I might add. Why should Ukraine bribe us.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Whenever someone says this behavior is acceptable I go back to Founding Fathers time and point them to the XYZ-Affair. We didn’t bribe France. We said no and started putting cannons on our merchant ships, with the funding approval of Congress I might add. Why should Ukraine bribe us.

The amazing thing to me about the parallels there is that it’s another example of Trump trying to turn us into the hole country the Founders had already figured out how not to be over two centuries ago. #winning


Edit: interestingly enough, I figured Bolton would more or less cover for Trump if subpoenaed, so it would be wise for Senate Republicans to agree to have him testify, if only to defuse the clamor for witnesses. Apparently Trump and Fox don’t think so, nor does he seem to be confident in McConnell’s ability to block witnesses and documents from the trial. Compulsive witness intimidation and preemptive attempts to discredit Bolton ensue, courtesy of the Orange Leader and his henchmen. To summarize, John Bolton is now a Democrat hack. His decades as the patron saint of GOP foreign policy were all a malicious ruse to put him in a position him to sabotage DJT

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...s-trial-108698

https://www.newsweek.com/foxs-lou-do...-state-1484298

[B. W.]

Democrats hope of Bolton being their ace in the hole have been dashed:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...hn_bolton.html

...not to mention the fact that Schiff has called him to be not credible in the past.

[Lord Thesaurian]

There is no ace in the hole. Republicans control the trial and that’s that. Even if a motion to call witnesses passes, it will not necessarily mean Bolton is called. Republicans can block anything the Democrats try to do. The GOP could decide to subpoena the Bidens, Hillary Clinton, and the owner of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. They could have called any witnesses they wanted already, but are eager to get the trial over with as the steady stream of damning information continues.

Instead of pleading with Republicans to be less corrupt, the Democrats need to remind the public that without calling first-hand witnesses to the impeachment charges (Bolton, Mulvaney, etc), the trial is a sham, and the only way to end Trump’s monarchial aspirations is to vote Democrat in 2020.

The damage to the system is already done, as Trump’s attorneys will have successfully set the precedent that the president is above the law, and seeking the aid of foreign powers to help his re-election is inherently “in the national interest.” They’ve staked their case on it, because there is no way to refute the facts of Trump’s corruption and blatant abuse of power. So much for “no collusion, no obstruction.”

[Coughdrop addict]

To summarize, John Bolton is now a Democrat hack. His decades as the patron saint of GOP foreign policy were all a malicious ruse to put him in a position him to sabotage DJT

It's classic mind control cult behavior. The leader is always right, a divinely-appointed and infallible genius, and mere mortals have no right to question him. Those who do so are heretics and apostates who must be shunned and cast out.

[B. W.]

There is no ace in the hole. Republicans control the trial and that’s that. Even if a motion to call witnesses passes, it will not necessarily mean Bolton is called. Republicans can block anything the Democrats try to do. The GOP could decide to subpoena the Bidens, Hillary Clinton, and the owner of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. They could have called any witnesses they wanted already, but are eager to get the trial over with as the steady stream of damning information continues.

Instead of pleading with Republicans to be less corrupt, the Democrats need to remind the public that without calling first-hand witnesses to the impeachment charges (Bolton, Mulvaney, etc), the trial is a sham, and the only way to end Trump’s monarchial aspirations is to vote Democrat in 2020.

The damage to the system is already done, as Trump’s attorneys will have successfully set the precedent that the president is above the law, and seeking the aid of foreign powers to help his re-election is inherently “in the national interest.” They’ve staked their case on it, because there is no way to refute the facts of Trump’s corruption and blatant abuse of power. So much for “no collusion, no obstruction.”

The Democrats should have called those witnesses at the House impeachment hearing if they wanted to put them up for testimony.

The only precedent that has been set here is that a President can be impeached on the secret testimony of an unnamed witness whose source is hearsay.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The Democrats should have called those witnesses at the House impeachment hearing if they wanted to put them up for testimony.

Yeah...gosh...why didn’t they? Oh wait:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The head of the House impeachment inquiry said Monday that the failure of four White House officials to testify despite subpoenas adds to the evidence against President Donald Trump.

In the case of Eisenberg, the White House informed his attorneys that the president would block his testimony by invoking a sweeping form of executive privilege known as "constitutional immunity," according to a letter Sunday from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to Eisenberg's lawyer.

Eisenberg's testimony is considered especially relevant to the inquiry because of his central role in the immediate aftermath of the July 25 phone call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden and a Ukrainian company where he served on the board.

Blair, who is one of the few people who actually listened to the call, is believed to have specific information about a halt to U.S. military aid earmarked for Ukraine, which was ordered by Trump and conveyed through Mulvaney.

The fourth witness, McCormack, could potentially offer House impeachment inquiry investigators a fresh perspective into several key events leading up to the phone call, including any collaboration between Perry and Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, during the spring and summer.

According to testimony from several current and former administration officials in recent weeks, Perry was one of three administration officials who were charged with running a shadow foreign policy toward Ukraine and working closely with Giuliani.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/four...t-inquiry.html

John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser to President Trump who resisted efforts to pressure Ukraine for help against domestic political rivals, dashed any expectation on Tuesday that he would testify soon in the House impeachment investigation in response to a court ruling involving a onetime colleague.

Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer who represents Mr. Bolton, said that a court decision on Monday ordering another former White House official to appear before Congress under subpoena did not apply to Mr. Bolton because of the nature of his job. Mr. Cooper said Mr. Bolton would therefore wait for another judge to rule in a separate case that could take weeks more to litigate.
The statement came a day after a federal district judge rejected the assertion that Mr. Trump could block aides from responding to congressional subpoenas based on a sweeping claim of presidential immunity. The ruling ordered Donald F. McGahn II, a former White House counsel for Mr. Trump, to comply with a House subpoena. Mr. McGahn’s lawyer filed a notice on Tuesday that he would appeal and asked that the order be suspended in the meantime.

While the judge said it made no difference whether a White House official dealt with national security matters, Mr. Cooper rejected any suggestion that it would cover Mr. Bolton.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/u...testimony.html

The House did try to call “those witnesses.” Trump blocked them from testifying. You know, because he’s innocent and has nothing to hide.

The only precedent that has been set here is that a President can be impeached on the secret testimony of an unnamed witness whose source is hearsay.

I’m sure the White House will mail you a gold star for your dutiful repetition of that false deflection. Trump’s own lawyers are sticking to the claim that “so what if he did it; you can’t impeach him for it,” because he did what the House impeached him for. That’s the precedent that is set here. Even if the president abuses his power and obstructs Congressional investigations, you can’t impeach him for it. The coequal power of the branches of government will effectively be a thing of the past the day Trump is acquitted.

Trump’s defenders have suggested that the overall impeachment effort is illegitimate or somehow tainted because of Democrats’ reliance on what the GOP alleges is “hearsay.” As a professor of law, I know this claim is incorrect.

The legal concept of hearsay applies in trials and related proceedings in court. It doesn’t apply – and doesn’t make sense – in the congressional impeachment inquiry, nor in any potential impeachment trial in the Senate.

But Congress is not a court, and no rules of evidence apply to its activities, including impeachment. This is not a technical distinction: It’s a foundational part of the constitutional structure.

Even if the analogy between the impeachment inquiry and a criminal proceeding were appropriate, the hearsay rule doesn’t apply to the analogous phases of a criminal case.

If the case proceeds to a trial in the Senate, the only rules governing the proceeding are Senate rules – which a majority of senators can vote to change at any point.

https://theconversation.com/why-hear...earings-127164

[B. W.]

Yeah...gosh...why didn’t they? Oh wait:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The House did try to call “those witnesses.” Trump blocked them from testifying. You know, because he’s innocent and has nothing to hide.


I’m sure the White House will mail you a gold star for your dutiful repetition of that false deflection. Trump’s own lawyers are sticking to the claim that “so what if he did it; you can’t impeach him for it,” because he did what the House impeached him for. That’s the precedent that is set here. Even if the president abuses his power and obstructs Congressional investigations, you can’t impeach him for it. The coequal power of the branches of government will effectively be a thing of the past the day Trump is acquitted.

Despite all that left wing media spin the fact remains that Bolton was never subpoenaed by the house. You should expand your reading list.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Despite all that left wing media spin the fact remains that Bolton was never subpoenaed by the house. You should expand your reading list.

My reading list has nothing to do with the fact you made a series of blatantly false claims that I just debunked. As I just said, Bolton was asked to testify by the House. He refused, and his lawyer indicated he would only comply if a specific court ruling forced him to, citing Trump’s gag order. You claimed the House “should have called those witnesses.” They did. If you didn’t know that, perhaps you should expand your reading list.

[Coughdrop addict]

Trump's turning on Bolton and anyone else he hired and praised until they somehow magically became "a lib" is just continuing the pattern he's followed his whole life. He uses and discards others as needed, and will cast a business partner, long time ally, or wife to the curb on a whim, because ultimately he cannot relate to others. To him other people are tools and toys to be put to use and thrown away when they have served their purposes.

Senate Republicans and his supporters have convinced themselves that they are the exception. That Trump truly values and respects them and will reward their loyalty. They are lying to themselves. Trump sees other people constantly praising and sticking out their necks for him as simply the natural order of things. Once he can no longer wring any more money or aggrandizement from them, they too will be discarded. Being the center of his own universe, nothing and no one matters but himself.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Indeed. Trump after Bolton said he won’t testify before the House:

Mr. Trump, who is on the verge of being impeached for pushing Ukraine to help him against his Democratic rivals while withholding American security aid, said later Tuesday that he had no concern about Mr. Bolton testifying and that he was resisting the House investigation because he considered it illegitimate.

“John Bolton is a patriot and may know that I held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country, & I wanted to know why nearby European countries weren’t putting up money also,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, rebutting his own administration officials who have said he was holding the money back to pressure Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/u...testimony.html

Trump after Bolton said he’s willing to testify to the Senate:

For a guy who couldn’t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn’t get approved for anything since, “begged” me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying “Don’t do it, sir,” takes the job, mistakenly says “Libyan Model” on T.V., and......many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...world-n1125351

Trump also lied about Bolton’s potential testimony before the House, a falsehood dutifully repeated by some in this thread:

"The Democrat controlled House never even asked John Bolton to testify. It is up to them, not up to the Senate!"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/polit...eck/index.html