Wow, Bolton wants to testify!

[PLizzy]

By "scuttle", I meant deep-six the thing quickly using whatever methods possible. It's becoming clear to me that Pelosi is letting this thing simmer in at least part, believing there's so much "there" there that things will continue to leak out in some manner or politics will evolve.

Do you mean a motion to dismiss the articles after the opening presentations?

 

[Old 'N Chill]

He can testify in the crapper. We don't need to hear his BS

The crapper, where the Coward in Chief does all his tweeting with those tiny brown thumbs. We don't need to hear or read his BS either.

 

[Chomsky]

Do you mean a motion to dismiss the articles after the opening presentations?

I'm not speaking of anything specific, though that is one method. I'm beginning to think this thing could slowly turn into a hot potato if McConnel lets it simmer. So he may hit the point where he has to take some quick pain to get rid of it.

Also as Trump continues his erratic foreign military adventures, the public is not going to get any friendlier towards him and the GOP have to defend him from two things at once.

 

[PLizzy]

I'm not speaking of anything specific, though that is one method. I'm beginning to think this thing could slowly turn into a hot potato if McConnel lets it simmer. So he may hit the point where he has to take some quick pain to get rid of it.

That's the only card he could play. He could make a motion to proceed with an up or down vote on the articles, but he'd need a majority that he simply doesn't have.

It's hard going to be hard for them to get the trial wrapped up by the SOTU, where the Republicans want him to be acquitted so he can scream vindication. Lots of Republicans are deeply worried about him having a total meltdown at the SOTU if the trial is still proceeding, and driving a nail through the heart of his reelection.

 

[WillyPete]

My suspicion is that McConnel is better-off taking the immediate political hit for scuttling the trial, than to let the witnesses do even worse political damage. If Trump gets damaged, he won't have coat-tails, coat-tails those swing-state Senators need.

Odds are either way there will be more information released, so the spike will be even more obviously political. It does seem like the most disappointing option, so you're probably right.

 

[Chomsky]

That's the only card he could play. He could make a motion to proceed with an up or down vote on the articles, but he'd need a majority that he simply doesn't have.

It's hard going to be hard for them to get the trial wrapped up by the SOTU, where the Republicans want him to be acquitted so he can scream vindication. Lots of Republicans are deeply worried about him having a total meltdown at the SOTU if the trial is still proceeding, and driving a nail through the heart of his reelection.

I have little doubt that Pelosi is going to deny Trump an acquittal for the SOTU, and in fact will drive him into it in impeachment. Did you see how she presented a SOTU offer to Trump virtually immediately after she impeached him? And the media & pundits were surprised? This was just after she decided not send-over the articles of impeachment? Where media and pundits were also surprised? Well guess what? It's now looking like she knew exactly what she was doing.

 

[WillyPete]

Um, I'd agree with the "even-handed trial" part if there were in fact actual high crimes and misdemeanors in dispute.

Not seeing any in the current set of Articles. In an actual criminal trial, a judge would throw them out. Trials are not designed to be "fishing expeditions." The purpose is for the Prosecution to PRESENT evidence, not try to find some by putting people on the stand hoping they might be able to provide it.

Meanwhile, as other people have argued, this is not an "actual" trial. This is true. The "Investigators" were the House, and before they voted they had a chance to try to get evidence. They had complete control of the process, which they then used to demonstrate absolute political bias.

The trial according to the Constitution, is conducted by the Senate. As per the same Article of the Constitution, they have complete control over the process. They want the process to mirror precedent under the Clinton example, but if the House keeps making demands, the Senate can change the rules.

Meanwhile, it's a bit late to be crying for evenhanded, when based on the lack of any real evidence, IMO no "trial" has to occur. The Senate can listen to the non-evidence provided by the House Managers, Trump (if he is wisely advised) can just sit it out, and he'd be acquitted fair and square.

I doubt it's going to shock you to learn we have a difference of opinion.

By the same perfectly good logic that gives the Senate control over the rules of the trial, the House is in charge of deciding what is or isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.

I'd hope we'd agree that a complete airing out of the truth of the matter (whichever side benefits) would be the best outcome.

 

[Chomsky]

I doubt it's going to shock you to learn we have a difference of opinion.

By the same perfectly good logic that gives the Senate control over the rules of the trial, the House is in charge of deciding what is or isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.

I'd hope we'd agree that a complete airing out of the truth of the matter (whichever side benefits) would be the best outcome.

This has to be one of the fairest posts I've seen in awhile. Nice! :thumbs:

 

[Captain Adverse]

I doubt it's going to shock you to learn we have a difference of opinion.

By the same perfectly good logic that gives the Senate control over the rules of the trial, the House is in charge of deciding what is or isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.

Correction. As with any prosecution, the House can decide what to charge the person with, and they can "allege" whatever they so chose. It then becomes their burden to PROVE their allegations with factual evidence.

For example, even in this Forum I can accuse you of all sorts of things. Yet I'd still have to PROVE my allegations with some kind of actual evidence. At least to those in the Forum who believe one is innocent until proven guilty. Other's in this Court of Public Opinion either won't need proof and will simply accept my assertion, while those who are of a different opinion may dismiss it regardless.

But at least I recognize I have that burden of proof.

I'd hope we'd agree that a complete airing out of the truth of the matter (whichever side benefits) would be the best outcome.

The problem is with this last sentence. It is not Trump's burden to "air out evidence." :no:

He is presumed innocent even in this process. The WHOLE burden of proof rests with the House via it's Impeachment Managers. Before they concluded their vote for the Articles, IMO like any other "prosecution," they should already have all their evidence ready for trial. NO "fishing expedition."

 

[RAMOSS]

He can testify in the crapper. We don't need to hear his BS

-VySky

"We do not want to listen to any facts, our mind is made up" - Republicans

 

[GreatNews2night]

It's not wishful thinking. There is no more Republican Party if they allow Trump to get away with this. In fact, there is no more legislative branch of government if they allow Trump to get away with this. Republican Senators in statewide elections cannot be as partisan as those Repug House idiots, not if most of these Senators ever want to be re-elected.

The longer this battle over witnesses drags out, the worse it's going to be for Trump. Eventually, 60% - 70% of Americans will want Trump removed and these Republican Senators will turn.

If there is a trial, you will be surprised by the outcome, just like you were surprised that Bolton came forward today.

I feel for you, because we're on the same side. But you'll be very disappointed. There will be no turning of Republican senators, regardless of polls, and regardless of the evidence. There is one and only one outcome of the Senate trial: Trump's acquittal. There is no possibility whatsoever of any different result.

Gee, even to get only 4 of them to turn and force the subpoenas of witnesses, it's an uphill battle; much worse, getting at least 22 GOP senators to support the removal of the president. It's not going to happen. The earlier you accept that, the less you'll be disappointed.

 

[GreatNews2night]

At this point, Trump could rape a dog on the WH lawn, and his followers would insist he was trying to disable a bomb in its ass.

Pretty much, although... ugh, your post is too graphic, now I can't unsee it. LOL

 

[TheRepublican]

I think that he should and, let me explain it again if Bolton is in the room during the conversation but yet you would pull someone who was a second hand but wasn’t there! Here’s a question that you would find stupid but why don’t we pull Clinton because obviously she wasn’t there . But, we demand to respect her feelings right? We had to sit through some bull crap lecture! I’m making a point. We have testimonials from people who weren’t even in the same exact room as the president during the conversation? Was Hillary? No! What would happen if Bolton says read the freaking transcript! What then request to hear from the transcriptist?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GreatNews2night]

I'm not speaking of anything specific, though that is one method. I'm beginning to think this thing could slowly turn into a hot potato if McConnel lets it simmer. So he may hit the point where he has to take some quick pain to get rid of it.

Also as Trump continues his erratic foreign military adventures, the public is not going to get any friendlier towards him and the GOP have to defend him from two things at once.

The Iran attack changed the calculation. McConnell knows that getting involved in a major Middle East war is unpopular, so, holding an impeachment trial simultaneously with it is a recipe for political disaster, even if of course regardless of all of this, the end result will be acquittal anyway. I think that it is not impossible that McConnell will direct his caucus to immediately motion for a vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment once they are received and right after the opening statements are done, get it passed by simple majority, and declare that he did that because the president being distracted by a domestic witch hunt (it will be McConnell's words, not mine) while the country is in conflict with a foreign power is not good for the morale of our troops, or some similar excuse.

 

[TheRepublican]

In the senate, which does not want to call any witnesses.

Oh you mean the Pelosi senate?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GreatNews2night]

That's the only card he could play. He could make a motion to proceed with an up or down vote on the articles, but he'd need a majority that he simply doesn't have.

It's hard going to be hard for them to get the trial wrapped up by the SOTU, where the Republicans want him to be acquitted so he can scream vindication. Lots of Republicans are deeply worried about him having a total meltdown at the SOTU if the trial is still proceeding, and driving a nail through the heart of his reelection.

A motion to dismiss doesn't need two thirds. The articles can be dismissed by simple majority, I think. Conviction and removal is what needs two thirds.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I have little doubt that Pelosi is going to deny Trump an acquittal for the SOTU, and in fact will drive him into it in impeachment. Did you see how she presented a SOTU offer to Trump virtually immediately after she impeached him? And the media & pundits were surprised? This was just after she decided not send-over the articles of impeachment? Where media and pundits were also surprised? Well guess what? It's now looking like she knew exactly what she was doing.

She always knows what she is doing. She is much better than Trump, in the matter of political strategy.

 

[TheRepublican]

In the end it doesn't matter You could have video of Trump raping a seven year old boy and the senate Republicans would not convict.

You are wrong because if that’s the case then we would impeach trump! Here’s the problem the democrats want to vote for us and decide for us and, no over my deadbody


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[VySky]

"We do not want to listen to any facts, our mind is made up" - Republicans

Facts escape Democrats... A red herring

-VySky

 

[marke]

I didn't see this coming. Apparently neither did the White House, or Congress.

Bolton’s Offer to Give Impeachment Testimony Catches Congress, White House By Surprise

Bolton is a good man with nothing to hide. If Biden and the whistleblower are good men with nothing to hide then they should also testify.

 

[RAMOSS]

Facts escape Democrats... A red herring

-VySky

That, of course, is a non-factual highly partisan sound bit. Of course, so was the first statement.

 

[snakestretcher]

I can't wait to see the predictably infantile Twitter tsunami from Trump over this.

 

[snakestretcher]

Bolton is a good man with nothing to hide. If Biden and the whistleblower are good men with nothing to hide then they should also testify.

And so should Trump and all the rest of those he forbade to comply with subpoena requests. Fair enough? Good men with nothing to hide, right?

 

[marke]

And so should Trump and all the rest of those he forbade to comply with subpoena requests. Fair enough? Good men with nothing to hide, right?

Fair enough. Let all those subpoenaed by the House testify unless testimony will compromise national security, ongoing investigations, or overseas covert operations, and let all those subpoenaed by the Senate do the same.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Nobody really knows what Bolton will divulge anyways.

It could be a big nothingburger, or he makes Trump look bad.

The Senate will not convict anyways........regardless.