Impeachment Thread

[KeithD]

Since House didn’t bother to subpoena him, it is highly unlikely the Senate would do so.

He was asked to testify in the House. He didn't show up. Members of the administration and former members of the administration shouldn't have to be subpoenaed to testify to Congress on what they did in their administration jobs. Congress has constitutionally provided oversight responsibility. Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

He was asked to testify in the House. He didn't show up. Members of the administration and former members of the administration shouldn't have to be subpoenaed to testify to Congress on what they did in their administration jobs. Congress has constitutionally provided oversight responsibility. Who do you think you're fooling?

Sorry amigo, but that’s not for you or I to decide. The House chose not to subpoena him. They had the option of doing so adjudicating through the courts. In their rush to impeach, they did not exercise that option. If you think the GOP-controlled Senate is going to do Pelosi’s bidding and subpoena Mr. Bolton, prepare to be disappointed.

 

[icanhelp1]

Sorry amigo, but that’s not for you or I to decide. The House chose not to subpoena him. They had the option of doing so adjudicating through the courts. In their rush to impeach, they did not exercise that option. If you think the GOP-controlled Senate is going to do Pelosi’s bidding and subpoena Mr. Bolton, prepare to be disappointed.

Keith only sees things through 3D TDS glasses.

 

[KeithD]

Sorry amigo, but that’s not for you or I to decide. The House chose not to subpoena him. They had the option of doing so adjudicating through the courts. In their rush to impeach, they did not exercise that option. If you think the GOP-controlled Senate is going to do Pelosi’s bidding and subpoena Mr. Bolton, prepare to be disappointed.

Of course you would try to deflect from that one. He was scheduled to appear at a House interview in early November and didn't show up. Try to change that fact, Bubba.

You completely punted on the issue that an administration official or former administration official jolly well shouldn't require a subpoena to appear before a congressional oversight committee concerning their work in government. We all know why you won't respond to that.

He could still appear at a House hearing. They aren't anywhere close to being finished with Trump's corruption and criminality. And he shouldn't have to receive a subpoena to appear to account for his work in the government.

You Trumpettes are a trip.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Of course you would try to deflect from that one. He was scheduled to appear at a House interview in early November and didn't show up. Try to change that fact, Bubba.

You completely punted on the issue that an administration official or former administration official jolly well shouldn't require a subpoena to appear before a congressional oversight committee concerning their work in government. We all know why you won't respond to that.

He could still appear at a House hearing. They aren't anywhere close to being finished with Trump's corruption and criminality. And he shouldn't have to receive a subpoena to appear to account for his work in the government.

You Trumpettes are a trip.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Fact is Bolton did not testify before the House and is not likely to testify before the Senate. If this “deflection” troubles you, so be it.

 

[KeithD]

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Fact is Bolton did not testify before the House and is not likely to testify before the Senate. If this “deflection” troubles you, so be it.

Fact: Bolton was scheduled to interview preliminary to House testimony on 7 November 2019 and didn't show up. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/john-bolton-fails-to-appear-before-impeachment-investigators)

You're a deflecting liar. What a surprise.

You also continue to fail to acknowledge that any current or former member of an administration shouldn't need a subpoena to show up to testify to a congressional oversight committee on their government work. Your failure to acknowledge this also is no surprise. Nor is it a surprise that they are stonewalling and won't show up. If they had exonerating under-oath testimony to give on the acts and behavior of Donald Trump, they would run to Capitol Hill under their own steam and beg to testify. We all, including you, know why they don't.

 

[icanhelp1]

Fact: Bolton was scheduled to interview preliminary to House testimony on 7 November 2019 and didn't show up. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/john-bolton-fails-to-appear-before-impeachment-investigators)

You're a deflecting liar. What a surprise.

You also continue to fail to acknowledge that any current or former member of an administration shouldn't need a subpoena to show up to testify to a congressional oversight committee on their government work. Your failure to acknowledge this also is no surprise.

Just like Eric Holder; he went willingly, OH wait!! he was found in contempt of congress and court. Typical TDS on steroids. Just wondering, does your face look like Obama's ass?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Fact: Bolton was scheduled to interview preliminary to House testimony on 7 November 2019 and didn't show up. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/john-bolton-fails-to-appear-before-impeachment-investigators)

You're a deflecting liar. What a surprise.

You also continue to fail to acknowledge that any current or former member of an administration shouldn't need a subpoena to show up to testify to a congressional oversight committee on their government work. Your failure to acknowledge this also is no surprise.

I’m not disputing the fact that Bolton did not appear. This is established fact. It is also an established fact that the House could have issued a subpoena and chose not to. I’m not interested in debating what you think “should” have happened. Here in Realville, we deal with what is. TDS sufferers also believe Trump should not be President, yet he is. Go figure.

 

[Dumpington]

KeithD writes (about John Bolton): "He was asked to testify in the House. He didn't show up."

The House Democrats didn't need John Bolton's testimony before voting to impeach President Trump. But U.S. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer says he now wants Bolton to testify if only because the House Democrats are offering such a WEAK case!

BabyBoomer50s writes: "Sorry amigo, but that’s not for you or I to decide. The House chose not to subpoena him."

Exactly right - only the U.S. Senate can now decide who is to testify and who isn't. Nancy Pelosi & Adam Schiff are no longer calling the shots!

KeithD responds: "He could still appear at a House hearing. They aren't anywhere close to being finished with Trump's corruption and criminality."

According to our U.S. Constitution, Keith, the House can impeach President Trump a dozen times over for whatever dumbass reasons they so choose - but only the U.S. Senate has the power to remove the president from office!

BabyBoomer50s writes: "Fact is Bolton did not testify before the House and is not likely to testify before the Senate. If this “deflection” troubles you, so be it."

Keith is primarily unhappy that the U.S. Senate remains in Republican hands, thanks largely to President Obama's hugely unpopular health care legislation passed in 2009, but also because of the Democrats placing their trust in Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford back in the summer of 2018, during the Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings!

Keith responds: "You also continue to fail to acknowledge that any current or former member of an administration shouldn't need a subpoena to show up to testify to a congressional oversight committee on their government work."

I repeat: the House Democrats can impeach President Trump a dozen times over for whatever dumbass reasons they so choose - but only the U.S. Senate has the power to remove this president from office! (and that's NOT happening!)

 

[LincolnDuncan]

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Fact is Bolton did not testify before the House and is not likely to testify before the Senate. If this “deflection” troubles you, so be it.

You just abused the shit out of a very intelligent quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You should also research the definition of a "fact"

 

[KeithD]

I’m not disputing the fact that Bolton did not appear. This is established fact. It is also an established fact that the House could have issued a subpoena and chose not to. I’m not interested in debating what you think “should” have happened. Here in Realville, we deal with what is. TDS sufferers also believe Trump should not be President, yet he is. Go figure.

Of course you aren't interested in responding to the fact that both current and former administration officials should not require a subpoena to testify to congressional oversight committees when called to do so (and to provide requested government-controlled documents, not incidentally). It's their job to do so. Of course you will continue not addressing that and deflecting from it. We all know why, just as we all know why they won't flock to Capitol Hill to provide exonerating testimony under oath.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Of course you aren't interested in responding to the fact that both current and former administration officials should not require...

Notice your use of the word “should.” This is your opinion you’re entitled to it. The fact remains, he did not testify and was not subpoenaed. There is a legal process for resolving these things. Again, we are dealing with the world as it is, not as the way you think it “should” be. I’m quite certain that you also think he “should” be removed from office. I suggest you don’t hold your breath.

 

[Dumpington]

KeithD writes: "Of course you will continue not addressing that and deflecting from it. We all know why, just as we all know why they won't flock to Capitol Hill to provide exonerating testimony under oath."

And WHO are you suggesting they testify to, Keith?

You seem to be forgetting that the House Democrats have ALREADY passed two articles of impeachment - but until they reach the U.S. Senate it means NOTHING!

The ONLY possible way that the U.S. Senate is ever going to put the Trump administration on trial is if Nancy Pelosi forwards her articles to the U.S. Senate - but if she gets cold feet and refuses to do so, NOTHING is going to happen!

In any case, you are not addressing the issue - YOU ARE DEFLECTING - if you want the investigation to continue, it HAS to be handled in the United States Senate! Nancy Pelosi does NOT speak for the Senate! She speaks ONLY for the House!

I know that you WISH Adam Schiff & Jerry Nadler ran things in the Senate, but they do not. And even if they did, Nancy Pelosi would STILL have to forward the articles of impeachment to that legislative body, but that doesn't appear to be something she wants to do!

 

[KeithD]

Notice your use of the word “should.” This is your opinion you’re entitled to it. The fact remains, he did not testify and was not subpoenaed. There is a legal process for resolving these things. Again, we are dealing with the world as it is, not as the way you think it “should” be. I’m quite certain that you also think he “should” be removed from office. I suggest you don’t hold your breath.

By constitutional law, Congress has oversight responsibility over the executive branch and administration officials are obligated by constitutional law to respond to this oversight by showing up to testify to congressional oversight committees when called to do so--and to provide requested documents. A subpoena isn't required. Trump's chums are only saying it is to prolong the stonewalling through the court system.

There, does that do it? You are participating in an attempt to cover up illegal activities by the president and his administration, which they are trying to spin out by stonewalling and running everything up the levels of the courts as far as they can get.

Thus, you, like them, are the scum of the earth.

Is that direct enough for you?

 

[JackLuis]

GOP senator abandons McConnell on Bolton testimony: ‘I’d like to hear what he has to say’

Cracks are appearing in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stonewall against witnesses testifying in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.

McConnell has faced new pressure to agree to witnesses after former National Security Advisor John Bolton announced he was willing to testify if subpoenaed.

“He has first-hand information,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) acknowledged on Monday during a Bloomberg News interview.

“I’d like to hear what he has to say,” Romney explained.

He stopped short of vowing to vote with Democrats on the question, cryptically saying, “time will tell.”

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

GOP senator abandons McConnell on Bolton testimony: ‘I’d like to hear what he has to say’

Post #968 did not age well.

Just in from The Hill:

“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has the votes to quash Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer's (N.Y.) demands to require additional witnesses testify at the start of President Trump's impeachment trial.
Two key moderate senators, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), on Monday evening backed McConnell's position that the Senate should follow the precedent of the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial and defer until later in the process the question of calling additional witnesses.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...lock-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump**famp

 

[KeithD]

We'll see how on the record votes on any of this go. Then we'll use those during election campaigning. I think it's pretty clear what American citizens expect to be included in a trial. It's all speculation at this point (or propaganda attempts to influence the outcome).

 

[JackLuis]

Maddow breaks down the ‘absolutely mind-bending’ Trump development — impacting Iran and Iraq

The host of “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC focused on one key development in Washington, DC that could have key impacts in President Donald Trump’s “impeachment trial” — that also could have key ramifications for America’s foreign policy in both Iran and Iraq.

The host noted that one of the key facts in the abuse of power article of impeachment against Trump is that Vice President Mike Pence was expected to deliver the quid pro quo during a meeting with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Maddow reported that expectation was revealed by Eric Chewning, who at the time served as chief of staff to Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

In an email about the meeting, Chewning wrote, “we expect the issue to be resolved then.”

“Eric Chewning has just suddenly resigned his job,” Maddow noted.

 

[JackLuis]

Rep. Ro Khanna moves to subpoena John Bolton for House testimony ‘this week or next’

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) on Tuesday called for former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify before a House committee.

Earlier this week, Bolton said in a statement that he would be willing to speak to Senate investigators if he was subpoenaed.

But Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has asserted that Bolton should not be allowed to testify before the Senate because he was not subpoenaed by the House during the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Report Advertisement

“Now that John Bolton has said that he is open to testifying in the Senate, there’s no argument for why he shouldn’t testify from the House,” Khanna told MSNBC on Wednesday. “And it would help counter Rubio’s argument that we can’t consider [Bolton’s] testimony if the House doesn’t consider it.”

It isn't served yet! Adam get your shit together!

 

[JackLuis]

Kevin McCarthy claims Trump killed Iranian general because Adam Schiff ‘spent the last year on impeachment’

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarty (R-CA) on Tuesday suggested that President Donald Trump would not have ordered a drone strike on a top Iranian general if House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) had not pursued impeachment.

 

[Dumpington]

KeithD writes: "I think it's pretty clear what American citizens expect to be included in a trial."

Democratic Party U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer says he wants new witnesses to testify in a Senate trial because he argues that the House Democrats did a HALF-ASSED job with their articles of impeachment, sending to the senate an indictment built on hearsay evidence that's just embarrassing.

Nancy Pelosi is now hesitating to forward anything to the U.S. Senate because it will only make her House Democrats appear inept. HOW can they accuse the president of any wrongdoing when their own party now says they didn't speak to enough witnesses to warrant any kind of a conviction?

JackLuis posts: "House Minority Leader Kevin McCarty (R-CA) on Tuesday suggested that President Donald Trump would not have ordered a drone strike on a top Iranian general if House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) had not pursued impeachment."

1) General Soleimani was a bad guy who had killed Americans. He deserved what he got.

2) The House Democrats have ZERO CHANCE of removing President Trump in an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate.

3) During Monica Lewinsky's testimony during Bill Clinton's House impeachment, Bill Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes into Iraq and the Sudan. WHO was President Clinton going after? Nobody knows!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

As expected...

From The Hill:
McConnell Takes Round 1 in Impeachment Battle

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has won round one of the Senate impeachment fight, announcing Tuesday that he has the votes to adopt rules that do not require additional witnesses and key documents despite the strong objections of Democrats.

McConnell did not lose support from a single member of his conference in the standoff with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has warned that GOP senators would be "participating in a cover-up" if they don't vote for subpoenas of key Trump advisers such as former national security adviser John Bolton at the trial's outset.

Now the pressure is on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, even though there isn't a bipartisan deal on how to proceed.

"We have the votes," McConnell told reporters triumphantly after meeting with Republican colleagues over lunch.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...l-takes-round-one-in-impeachment-battle**famp

 

[phrodeau]

As expected...

From The Hill:
McConnell Takes Round 1 in Impeachment Battle

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has won round one of the Senate impeachment fight, announcing Tuesday that he has the votes to adopt rules that do not require additional witnesses and key documents despite the strong objections of Democrats.

McConnell did not lose support from a single member of his conference in the standoff with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has warned that GOP senators would be "participating in a cover-up" if they don't vote for subpoenas of key Trump advisers such as former national security adviser John Bolton at the trial's outset.

Now the pressure is on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, even though there isn't a bipartisan deal on how to proceed.

"We have the votes," McConnell told reporters triumphantly after meeting with Republican colleagues over lunch.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...l-takes-round-one-in-impeachment-battle**famp

Who here believes Moscow Mitch’s claim that he has the votes?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Who here believes Moscow Mitch’s claim that he has the votes?

Senators Collins & Murkowski are on board.

 

[KeithD]

Events are moving so fast that it's meaningless for anyone to guarantee what the Republicans in the Senate are going to be doing a week from now. At some point their constituents might storm their offices and throttle the cowards in their chairs.