Jump to content

The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

It wasn't Bolton, it was for some guy named Charles Kupperman, and the Ds withdrew it likely because they knew they'd lose.

So...I'm happy that you know that the reason none of these people testified in the House was because the WH fought so hard to keep them quiet. Hmmm....wonder why.

Link to post

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have long ago proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest and resistant to facts and reason.

Interesting thing about this.     Shokin was widely viewed as a corrupt prosecutor by almost all of our allies.  It was widely known within our our foreign policy team that he actually neede

You would invoke Alan Dershowitz to defend Donald Trump.  He defended Epstein and procured his sweetheart deal that allowed him to continue raping children. Epstein pled the 5th when as

Posted Images

Bolton's testimony efforts are briefed in the Intelligence Committee's December Report, p. 232:

Quote

 

Ambassador John Bolton, Former National Security Advisor

 

On October 30, the Committees sent a letter to the personal attorney of Ambassador John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor to President Trump, seeking his appearance at a deposition on November 7.223 Later that day, Ambassador Bolton’s personal attorney sent an email to Committee staff stating, “As you no doubt have anticipated, Ambassador Bolton is not willing to appear voluntarily.”224

 

On November 7, Ambassador Bolton did not appear for the scheduled deposition. On November 8, Ambassador Bolton’s personal attorney sent a letter to Douglas Letter, the General Counsel of the House of Representatives, suggesting that, if Ambassador Bolton were subpoenaed, he would file a lawsuit and would comply with the subpoena only if ordered to do so by the court. He referenced a lawsuit filed by another former official, Dr. Charles Kupperman, represented by the same attorney, and stated:

"As I emphasized in my previous responses to letters from the House Chairs, Dr. Kupperman stands ready, as does Ambassador Bolton, to testify if the Judiciary resolves the conflict in favor of the Legislative Branch’s position respecting such testimony."225

 

To date, Ambassador Bolton has not changed his position or come forward to testify.226

 

In early January, Bolton agreed to testify before the Senate if subpoenaed. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Well, it's going to be really interesting to see what kind of "payback" he gets.

hope he stays away from windows in tall buildings and soup served by russian waiters

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

 

Now, here's the really wacky logic that people in American Politics can't seem to see from the inside.

 

So....Kimberley is saying that The Democrats only forced the Senate to vote so that they can try to retake the Senate.  And...if they succeed, they can thank Romney.

 

Well.....ummmm.....maybe they should thank the Republicans that chose Trump over country.

Link to post

Two quick thoughts:

  1. Romney's vote is momentous, the first ever bipartisan removal vote. Trump's legacy will always carry this scarlet letter.
  2. I'm actually surprised he voted to acquit Article 2 Obstruction, setting precedent that the President can claim "absolute immunity" and block all documents and testimony without a viable executive privilege claim.
Link to post
19 minutes ago, QMany said:

Two quick thoughts:

  1. Romney's vote is momentous, the first ever bipartisan removal vote. Trump's legacy will always carry this scarlet letter.
  2. I'm actually surprised he voted to acquit Article 2 Obstruction, setting precedent that the President can claim "absolute immunity" and block all documents and testimony without a viable executive privilege claim.

 

I agree on both points, but I think point 2 is a symptom of the effectiveness of the obstruction. The Republican strategy was to force a limitation/flaw/error and then point out how that limitation means the processes was flawed and political. This allowed for a ton of legal wiggle room. Because this was a mechanism of the senate and could by and large be done behind closed doors, it didn't come from the president. In essence if I told you in a private conversation to harm someone and you did it and never told on me, it's never going to come back to me. The senate can't obstruct a senate trial when the majority agrees that what they're doing is fine, as such by the letter of the law they're likely right for crossing the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

It's absurd, but I can get it. 

Link to post

I was worried about Manchin. 

 

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Final votes: Bipartisan effort to convict, completely partisan votes to acquit.

:thumbs

 

Including Rep. Amash, it was a bipartisan effort to impeach and convict. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

FUN FACT: 

  • Mitt Romney got 47.2% of presidential votes versus incumbent President Obama.
  • Donald Trump got 46.1% of presidential votes versus Hillary Clinton. 
  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...