NM11046 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said: @NM11046 Hope it matters - that would be great, I'm just not sure how it all plays out. I guess we hold out hope that Collins/Murkowski/Romney/+1 insist on witnesses. Cuz if there aren't 4+ it doesn't matter at all. Mitch just stays the course. I'm honestly not sure who the 4th would be ... I guess maybe Hurd? Gardener? McSally? Link to comment
Decoy73 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 I get the feeling a lot of political careers are at stake here. Not just Trumps. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 35 minutes ago, NM11046 said: Hope it matters - that would be great, I'm just not sure how it all plays out. I guess we hold out hope that Collins/Murkowski/Romney/+1 insist on witnesses. Cuz if there aren't 4+ it doesn't matter at all. Mitch just stays the course. I'm honestly not sure who the 4th would be ... I guess maybe Hurd? Gardener? McSally? Well...the interesting part is that neither you nor I can do one damn thing about it other than sit back and watch......and then vote next year. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Well...the interesting part is that neither you nor I can do one damn thing about it other than sit back and watch......and then vote next year. Yeah - I'm feeling very defeated today. But we can call our reps, ask our friends and families to do the same - especially if you are in a Red State. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 19 hours ago, NM11046 said: Hope it matters - that would be great, I'm just not sure how it all plays out. I guess we hold out hope that Collins/Murkowski/Romney/+1 insist on witnesses. Cuz if there aren't 4+ it doesn't matter at all. Mitch just stays the course. I'm honestly not sure who the 4th would be ... I guess maybe Hurd? Gardener? McSally? If Moscow Mitch, The Turtle, doesn't call witnesses I hope Bolton and other witnesses conspire together to go public with what they know for the good of the country. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, TGHusker said: If Moscow Mitch, The Turtle, doesn't call witnesses I hope Bolton and other witnesses conspire together to go public with what they know for the good of the country. Bolton is a frustrating person in so many ways. I'm not a fan of his at all with his work history. However, he seems like someone who has not gotten along with Trump and doesn't agree with his tactics nor his direction of how he's doing things. He basically left the administration because of all of that. However, he sure seems reluctant to come forward willingly with information. I guess I'll be surprised if he does anything unless he is subpoenaed. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Bolton is a frustrating person in so many ways. I'm not a fan of his at all with his work history. However, he seems like someone who has not gotten along with Trump and doesn't agree with his tactics nor his direction of how he's doing things. He basically left the administration because of all of that. However, he sure seems reluctant to come forward willingly with information. I guess I'll be surprised if he does anything unless he is subpoenaed. Agree - no fan of his hawkish ways. I think because Old Bone Spurs had spurned his advise, Bolton has a bone to pick wt Trump. I wish he would be more hawkish on the truth and just standup and shout it out. I have to believe he has some vital info to share. But then again, he may want the $$ from a book deal that spills it all - enriching himself but impoverishing true justice that we need at this time. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 7, 2020 Author Share Posted January 7, 2020 The problem with people like Bolton and Bannon is that, while they may have bones to pick with Trump, they hate the libs even more. I doubt we ever get anything useful out of any of these people. 1 Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 No big surprise here... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 2 hours ago, schriznoeder said: No big surprise here... OK, the way I understood it was that in 2015, the Republican controlled congress changed the rules so that the majority in the house sets the rules for impeachment and the majority in the Senate sets the rules for the trial. That's why when the Democrats set the rules in the House without input from the Republicans, their outrage was so meaningless. Well.....now this is the rules put in place for the Senate. The majority gets to set the rules moving forward. 1 Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: OK, the way I understood it was that in 2015, the Republican controlled congress changed the rules so that the majority in the house sets the rules for impeachment and the majority in the Senate sets the rules for the trial. That's why when the Democrats set the rules in the House without input from the Republicans, their outrage was so meaningless. Well.....now this is the rules put in place for the Senate. The majority gets to set the rules moving forward. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, schriznoeder said: That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah....but, like I said, the Republican's tears over how the Dems in the house handled it are nothing but a bunch of crocodile tears. Likewise, if the Dems start throwing a fit because the Republicans in the Senate do the same thing, well.....stop with the fake tears. 1 Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Yeah....but, like I said, the Republican's tears over how the Dems in the house handled it are nothing but a bunch of crocodile tears. Likewise, if the Dems start throwing a fit because the Republicans in the Senate do the same thing, well.....stop with the fake tears. I totally agree that both sides need to play by the rules set in place. BUT, only one side has blatantly tried to hide/suppress evidence throughout the process. So in this case, I'm a little more okay with the Dems' so-called "fake tears" than the Repubs'. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 14 minutes ago, schriznoeder said: I totally agree that both sides need to play by the rules set in place. BUT, only one side has blatantly tried to hide/suppress evidence throughout the process. So in this case, I'm a little more okay with the Dems' so-called "fake tears" than the Repubs'. If it comes off looking like a real sham trial, then I hope voters will rise up first in Kentucky and then else where to vote out the GOP leadership. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts