impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[TwiceHorn 31,478]

14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I don't have time to fact check but this CNN article says that there were three witnesses.

McConnell promptly rejected that proposal from Schumer. "We don't create impeachments," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "We judge them."
But here's the catch: The rules of how a Senate trial will work -- with regard to calling witnesses and all the rest -- are determined by the Senate. In the last impeachment trial -- for Bill Clinton in January 1999 -- the rules package governing how the trial would proceed was approved 100-0. (Three witnesses were allowed to testify in that trial.) While McConnell has signaled that he will try to negotiate a deal with Schumer over the rules, it's hard to see how the two will find common ground -- especially over the question of witnesses.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/john-bolton-senate-mcconnell/index.html

Appears to be correct. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

Quote

Democrats strongly objected to calling any witnesses, claiming they were not necessary, given the voluminous House record already available. Republicans, however, claimed the Democrats were trying to stop them from presenting a thorough case against Clinton. They originally wanted to call up to 15 witnesses.

On February 1, Monica Lewinsky was questioned by House prosecutors behind closed doors for four hours, with the procedure videotaped. The President's lawyers asked her no questions and instead read her a brief statement of apology: "Ms. Lewinsky, on behalf of the President, we'd like to tell you how very sorry we all are for what you have had to go through."

Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal were questioned by House prosecutors over the next two days. But it quickly became evident that the depositions were unlikely to change any votes in the Senate. There was no 'smoking gun' or any new revelation.

On February 4, the Senate voted 70-30 against calling Lewinsky to testify in person. The vote came as a relief to many in Washington who dreaded the prospect of Lewinsky testifying in the historic Senate chamber about her sexual encounters with the President. Instead, videotaped excerpts of her February 1 deposition would be used. Thus, two days later, Americans, for the first time, saw and heard Lewinsky as 30 video excerpts were played on TV monitors in the Senate chamber during final presentations by House prosecutors and Clinton's lawyers.

First bolded is kind of humorous.  Strange bedfellows, indeed.

[jimmyjazz 45,957]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Appears to be correct. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

First bolded is kind of humorous.  Strange bedfellows, indeed.

The Dems were the minority in both houses -- their objections were toothless, as is their desire to call witnesses now.  One key difference is surely the amount of testimony already on record, right?

[TwiceHorn 31,478]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The Dems were the minority in both houses -- their objections were toothless, as is their desire to call witnesses now.  One key difference is surely the amount of testimony already on record, right?

Given the circumstances (not based on other judicial proceedings), I think there's plenty of testimony right now.  I think there was more testimony in the Clinton case because of grand jury(s) and the civil suit, as well as the Starr investigation before any impeachment inquiry was undertaken.  But that doesn't mean all that evidence was necessary.

It seems that you can take two views of it. One, that the House investigation prior to voting out articles of impeachment is in the nature of discovery and investigation and ought to be repeated, formally, before the Senate; or two, that the House is the fact-developing body and the Senate is the law-applying body:  sort of a bifurcated jury.  The latter view seems to have been mostly employed in the Clinton impeachment.

I suppose the latter is the view that's inevitable when the Senate majority is the party of the President.

Edited January 6, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45,957]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Given the circumstances (not based on other judicial proceedings), I think there's plenty of testimony right now.

I don't think having the managers make their cases is nearly as informative to the public as witnesses testifying to what they know.  Obviously, Mitch agrees.

[WhatTheBuck 28,783]

4 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Even if Mitch would never consider it, Bolton indicating he's open and willing to testify to the Senate if subpoenaed doesn't exactly help Mitch in his cover-up bid.

What cover-up? They're doing everything in plain sight. 

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The current trend I'm seeing in social media is "the Dems didn't play by the rules during House hearings, why should the Republicans do so in the Senate trial?"

Never mind that the House investigations went exactly by the book.

The book that was written by the Republicans. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

You guys are being way too negative about the Bolton news today. 

Moscow Mitch knows that if Bolton testifies live in front of the Senate either Trump’s presidency ends or the republicans expose themselves to the entire world the complete frauds that they actually are. More likely the former since at that point its every man for himself and the frauds will be looking to cover their own asses. 

Bolton’s testimony will be damning and Moscow Mitch know it. That’s how he convinced Trump to get off his “let’s call all the witnesses” train. 

Moscow Mitch don’t wanna expose himself and his so called party as a complete fraud, so he gonna fight this with all he got. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

You guys are being way too negative about the Bolton news today. 

Moscow Mitch knows that if Bolton testifies live in front of the Senate either Trump’s presidency ends or the republicans expose themselves to the entire world the complete frauds that they actually are. More likely the former since at that point its every man for himself and the frauds will be looking to cover their own asses. 

Bolton’s testimony will be damning and Moscow Mitch know it. That’s how he convinced Trump to get off his “let’s call all the witnesses” train. 

Moscow Mitch don’t wanna expose himself and his so called party as a complete fraud, so he gonna fight this with all he got. 

Being negative because this is the all out effort by Mitch to force this thing quickly before he loses control of it.  If Pelosi can stretch it out until the McGahn decision he loses control.   This is a ploy to get Bolton to testify with Mitch making all the rules about questions. See, it was fair!    

Thats why the dems aren’t serving him a subpoena right now.  

[henrygandorf 29,191]

1 minute ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Being negative because this is the all out effort by Mitch to force this thing quickly before he loses control of it.  If Pelosi can stretch it out until the McGahn decision he loses control.   This is a ploy to get Bolton to testify with Mitch making all the rules about questions. See, it was fair!    

Thats why the dems aren’t serving him a subpoena right now.  

the dems don't have the power to do that.

like i said earlier, i still don't see the downside to this development.  there was no pressure on bolton to say this, and nobody expected any of the big 3-4 fact witnesses to ever come forward.  i'm really not sure why he did, unless he actually feels like he should.  now, at some point, mcconnell will basically have to say "no, we don't want witnesses who know something to talk during the trial."  even the dumber americans' ears will perk up at that one.

it will likely lead to nothing, but there's a better chance bolton will testify today than there was yesterday, and that's not nothing.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the dems don't have the power to do that.

like i said earlier, i still don't see the downside to this development.  there was no pressure on bolton to say this, and nobody expected any of the big 3-4 fact witnesses to ever come forward.  i'm really not sure why he did, unless he actually feels like he should.  now, at some point, mcconnell will basically have to say "no, we don't want witnesses who know something to talk during the trial."  even the dumber americans' ears will perk up at that one.

it will likely lead to nothing, but there's a better chance bolton will testify today than there was yesterday, and that's not nothing.

I just assumed it was a bait and switch, to open the door for him to “testify “ to GOP-asked, meaningless questions.  And nor give the dems the opportunity to question him.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

but there's a better chance bolton will testify today than there was yesterday

weird.  gloria borger just said this almost word for word on cnn.  she's obviously on surly stalking my shit.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

Just now, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I just assumed it was a bait and switch, to open the door for him to “testify “ to GOP-asked, meaningless questions.  And nor give the dems the opportunity to question him.

it might be, i'm not familiar with all the rules.  but there's no pressure on them to even go thru these motions.

and i don't think there's a scenario where the dems wouldn't be able to ask questions.  of course, he could claim some bullshit privilege, but that's seems kinda counter-intuitive at this point.  republicans got their time to ask questions during the house investigation, they just used it to attack the process and grandstand, so it only seems like they didn't have a chance to ask their questions.  they also stormed the gates and demanded to be allowed into committees that half of them already belonged to, so who the f knows.

[NWBuck 8,568]

Is it possible that Bolton said he would consider testifying so that Pelosi would send the articles to the Senate? After which, he can change his mind and Turtle can fast track the hearing to his heart's content 

[Biff Tannen 45,688]

8 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

they also stormed the gates and demanded to be allowed into committees that half of them already belonged to, so who the f knows.

That was fucking crazy town.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

11 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Is it possible that Bolton said he would consider testifying so that Pelosi would send the articles to the Senate? After which, he can change his mind and Turtle can fast track the hearing to his heart's content 

i think they’re fine with her never sending the articles. 

[Degenerate Gardner 4,085]

As for Bolton testifying honestly about facts potentially damaging to the GOP: I'll belueve it when I see it    He may well have acted admirably in private but in public it's party above all else and truth is an unwelcome stranger. Things must stay within The Family. I so hope to be proven wrong.

[WhatTheBuck 28,783]

8 minutes ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

As for Bolton testifying honestly about facts potentially damaging to the GOP: I'll belueve it when I see it    He may well have acted admirably in private but in public it's party above all else and truth is an unwelcome stranger. Things must stay within The Family. I so hope to be proven wrong.

Sadly, you won't be. 

[Party_Taco 3,729]

 
Over 60 thread

Had cocktails in that room the other night, then she told me I was handsome at dinner I’m front of my colleagues. Capped the night with Pappy 15 and Highland Park 18. /csb

She’s an incredible woman and a true joy to be around. Her husband is not to be trifled with but is in every way deserving of her.

[4th&Five 41,554]

 

[Tuco 5,076]

I'd be curious in knowing Bolton's legal defense for believing it would be appropriate to adhere to a Senate subpoena, but not a House subpoena. 

[wildcat09 29,354]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I'd be curious in knowing Bolton's legal defense for believing it would be appropriate to adhere to a Senate subpoena, but not a House subpoena. 

The rules don't apply to Republicans. That's their legal defense.

[WhatTheBuck 28,783]

5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I'd be curious in knowing Bolton's legal defense for believing it would be appropriate to adhere to a Senate subpoena, but not a House subpoena. 

He'll only adhere to the subpoena he knows will never come. And what wildcat09 said. 

[Tuco 5,076]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He'll only adhere to the subpoena he knows will never come. And what wildcat09 said. 

I get his practical rationale, I am just curious how that would be argued in front of a judge. 

I figured Bolton was the toughest of targets for a subpoena because as the national security adviser, he was obviously involved in national security and involved in direct consultation with the President.  Guys like Perry would have a much harder time making those claims. But when Bolton says he would be willing to testify for the Senate, that rationale seems to go out the window.  Maybe the judge still protects him on those argument, because of the precedent, but I don't know how his lawyers argue it in good faith. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Tuco

[henrygandorf 29,191]

13 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I'd be curious in knowing Bolton's legal defense for believing it would be appropriate to adhere to a Senate subpoena, but not a House subpoena. 

i would assume the answer would take about 12 minutes, and it would do everything except address the actual question. 

[wildcat09 29,354]

3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I get his practical rationale, I am just curious how that would be argued in front of a judge. 

I figured Bolton was the toughest of targets for a subpoena because as the national security adviser, he was obviously involved in national security and involved in direct consultation with the President.  Guys like Perry would have a much harder time making those claims. But when Bolton says he would be willing to testify for the Senate, that rationale seems to go out the window.  Maybe the judge still protects him on those argument, because of the precedent, but I don't know how his lawyers argue it in good faith. 

Why would you expect good faith from Republicans?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,871]

the fix is in, y'all:

 

[horncyclist 1,387]

I can't find the tweet but Schumer said something indicating that Pelosi would send over the articles soon as the landscape for the trial is now clear. She had laid the groundwork for that cover when withholding them and probably calculates as a political maneuver she's gotten all she can about the delay.

Goal for Dems should be to reveal the Senate trial for the he cover up that is, let them acquit and then let the voters remove him in November. 

 

[GRHorn 105]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,688]

There's not a more detestable human being in government than that motherfucker.  He's selling us completely down the river for his own personal gain and Rs are just lapping it up like the sniveling, drooling, idiot, cowards they are.  Good work, all around.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,871]

what exactly did he win?

[CowboyFred 1,151]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

what exactly did he win?

MoscowMitch?  I'm guessing re-election next time around by pushing this "trial" through the way he wants.  Perhaps saves some of his wrongdoings with regards to Parnas, etc. from coming to light at this time in a Senate trial by not allowing more evidence and testimony.

If I'm a member of the Senate (dem or rep. leaning towards fair trial) I repeat to anybody that would listen that we are prepared to call Bolton to testify.  Hell, the House should call him to testify to watch him try and get out of it.

He may have not "won" anything, but the American public is definitely losing by this cunt  (as well as the rest of the GOP) being a snake and fucking this shit up.

[DDD Dad 14,339]

54 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

Is that dandruff?

[GRHorn 105]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Is that dandruff?

Probably cocaine right?

[Pescado_Rojo 19,416]

It's Kentucky, so probably meth

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

26 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Is that dandruff?

It is the freeze dried dendritic cells of the Kentuckians who have succumbed to cancer which he then uses as his life force to suck the state dry. Alas, Kentucky has the highest cancer rate in the nation, but one of the poorest health care system but this snake has access to wonderful health care. Meth, opioids, tobacco and drink are what he prescribes for the masses and then tut-tuts when they succumb.

I really hope the Senate trial is his Waterloo, but instead of sending him to Saint Helena, send him to Rikers. I'm sure the Senate trial will proceed in his favor, but one can hope for karma to surprise us all.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

What?! No Blue Steel?!!! Sad.

 

[Biff Tannen 45,688]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

What?! No Blue Steel?!!! Sad.

 

So these will be his yell leaders?

[tantric superman 4,667]

How did "moronic" gain so much cache?

[ruitxn 296]

Bolton is not going to be subpoenaed to testify and he damn well knows it.  His charade of having a patriotic rethink of his public responsibility is self-absorbed greed.  He implies that he has important insight concerning  this impeachment process. Since he was not granted an opportunity to testify you may buy his book and all will be revealed.  Sure thing.

[DDD Dad 14,339]

59 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

How did "moronic" gain so much cache?

Cachet.

[Biff Tannen 45,688]

3 minutes ago, ruitxn said:

Bolton is not going to be subpoenaed to testify and he damn well knows it.  His charade of having a patriotic rethink of his public responsibility is self-absorbed greed.  He implies that he has important insight concerning  this impeachment process. Since he was not granted an opportunity to testify you may buy his book and all will be revealed.  Sure thing.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

35 minutes ago, ruitxn said:

Bolton is not going to be subpoenaed to testify and he damn well knows it.  His charade of having a patriotic rethink of his public responsibility is self-absorbed greed.  He implies that he has important insight concerning  this impeachment process. Since he was not granted an opportunity to testify you may buy his book and all will be revealed.  Sure thing.

He just needs to phone his pals at the RNC to have them spend around $100,000 and buy up his books like they did for another author. He's no patriot, he's just like them.

[GRHorn 105]

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,674]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

He just needs to phone his pals at the RNC to have them spend around $100,000 and buy up his books like they did for another author. He's no patriot, he's just like them.

His book won’t sell well if there’s nothing juicy in it.   

[JimmyJames 12,271]

4 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It is the freeze dried dendritic cells of the Kentuckians who have succumbed to cancer which he then uses as his life force to suck the state dry. Alas, Kentucky has the highest cancer rate in the nation, but one of the poorest health care system but this snake has access to wonderful health care. Meth, opioids, tobacco and drink are what he prescribes for the masses and then tut-tuts when they succumb.

I really hope the Senate trial is his Waterloo, but instead of sending him to Saint Helena, send him to Rikers. I'm sure the Senate trial will proceed in his favor, but one can hope for karma to surprise us all.

I would feel sorry for the people of Kentucky but they are the ones who continually voted for Moscow Mitch. 
 

So fuck em. 

[Biff Tannen 45,688]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

 

 

I don't know about "Democrats", but I sure as shit never had any hopes of swaying him.  He's evil incarnate.

[GRHorn 105]

 

[Tuco 5,076]

So Pelosi looks at sources that outside of her echo chamber?  Do you understand the difference?

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Since you didn't comment upon the tweet from Byron York prior to posting it, were you applauding Speaker Pelosi for recognizing that someone who was once charged and plead guilty to obstruction would perhaps know what he was talking about and thus decided to consider some of the pros and cons? I expect that there is a measure of control in not sending over the Articles at this point, and the House members appear to be talking amongst themselves so time will tell if this decision to wait will be positive or negative. Obviously from some corners it is negative, but people were leaning that way prior to the inquiry as well. Sometimes it is hard to be patient, but this may come to a head sooner rather than later if Trump's odd health issues continue to become more apparent.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

Since Trump gets flack for acting like a 70 year old retiree by watching Fox News all day and night long and posting stupid shit to social media, I thought I would provide proof that someone else also watched TV.

checkmate, libtards.

[Chad Fuck 17,682]

 

So fucking what?

I got the idea to redo my garage from watching PBS.

CNN is not a propagandist network like FOX no matter how many times your orange god says so.