Impeachment

DOW selling off a bit today. Small 1%+ move so far. But as the stakes get higher, the market, imo, will begin to price in risk of a Dem sweep.

You can't forget, @Iceaxe, we live in a bubble. Where America is still decent, where truth matters, and where wild eyed leftism is a joke.

The media paints the opposite picture, and tens of millions know nothing else but what they hear from it. Maybe 60 to 80% of the pop hears nothing but that. Dems need to move just a small number of votes in WI, MI, PA and wherever else. Isn't much to get across the line.

Call me silly, I just have little faith in truth winning after decades of it losing.

I'm all in, I'm riding this pony right into the ground...

And no way in hell are the Democrats going to sweep. Right now they are going to actually have to work to keep the House, which should have been a give me.

Trump will be elected President.
GOP keeps the Senate
Democrats keep the House

Those are my predictions at the moment.

/Bookmarked

So, what is Bolten's EXACT allegations, and what is the context?

1. Is he alleging that Trump mentioned to him that he would like or wants miltary aid tied to the investigations?
2. Or did he give him a directive to explicitly withhold military aid until after the investigations were confirmed?

There is HUGE difference between these scenarios. The first is symply Trump discussing plans with his National Security Advisor, and sharing his desires. This is in no way a criminal offense. This would be considered a THOUGHT crime. (Minority Report??). If all he was doing was blowing steam, or discussing the circumstance - even if he mentioned this during a discussion and was redirected and told - "Hey, Mr. President, you can't do that. That would be illegal", and then he backed down from it, that's still not a criminal offense, to be discussing what to do.

If if was the 2nd situation - if he actually withheld the military aid, where is the evidence of the crime? Where is the victim? Congress approved the money, and it was scheduled to be delivere to Ukraine no later than Sept 30. The aid was delivered Sept 12. Where is the crime?

Ukraine has repeatedly said - we don't know what you guys are talking about. "We didn't know aid was being withheld in exchange for investigations." How do you blackmail/pressure/extort someone if they don't even know they are being pressured to do something? Who is the victim? Shouldn't a victim allege that they were victimized in order for there to be a crime?

If Bolten had this information, why didn't he come forward with it earlier? Why did the transcript for his book have to be 'leaked' through the National Security Council 'conveniently' on the eve of Trumps defense taking the stand?

If his information was so important and so damning and necessary to this case, like Schiffty says, why didn't Schiffty subpena Bolten during the House trial?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-boltons-book/

"the New York Times about an as-yet-unpublished manuscript in which the former national security advisor reportedly claims, “President Trump said he wanted to keep aid to Ukraine frozen until its officials helped him with investigations into Democrats.”

If this is what they have - Bolten stating the Trump 'wanted' to keep aid...., isn't that evidence IN SUPPORT of Trump NOT being guilty of actually witholding aid for investigations? So, the only EVIDENCE that the Dems have is Trumps no fired National Security Advisor 'claiming' that Trump 'wanted' to withhold the aid. Can this seriously be any more flimsy of a case?

So, POTUS is scrutinizing aid to a foreign country that allegedly interfered with the 2016 election, and wants something done to investigate it, and the Dems want to remove him for it. ??

Agreed ^. But it still comes down to how this plays out, in moving votes. We know the House didn't subpoena Bolton because they wanted to rush. We know his testimony doesn't materially change anything legal.

But do you believe those truths matter in today's America? They don't.

Romney and Collins have already made it pretty clear they want Bolton to testify. Toomey indicating similar. Justification for the entire impeachment. Very sad day.

Not sure if allowing one witness allows all, or if the Senate can specify which witnesses. If the latter, I doubt Romney and Collins would agree to call Hunter. If the former, Trump's team would call Hunter obviously.

Bottom line? Odds for removal went from zero to some number. Maybe 5% or 10% at this point. Thanks to John Bolton and the neocons. And this even after Dershowitz's utterly superb dismantling of the legal basis for the entire impeachment. But ignored by Romney.

Attachment 93920

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dougrz

And this even after Dershowitz's utterly superb dismantling of the legal basis for the entire impeachment.

---

Yes, Dershowitz was brilliant. I hope there is a motion to simply dismiss this thing based upon the lack of any legal grounds for impeachment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

Yes, Dershowitz was brilliant. I hope there is a motion to simply dismiss this thing based upon the lack of any legal grounds for impeachment.

---

I think this would be the best thing for the country and Constitution as it would set a standard that would stop this from happening again.

I fear the day when one party rules both houses and removes an elected President simply because they don't like him.

Climb-Utah.com

The behavior of these key Repubs is exactly what we saw for decades. Giving in to Dems "just a little" to make a deal possible. Trump ushered in a new era, of fighting and standing up. The key reason he's so hated by the left. They didn't mind the Bushes ultimately, who would roll and cave at the drop of hat. They were convenient foils and not much impediment to their plans.

Enter Romney and Toomey.

Did hell just freeze over? Or is she just pulling tricks?

Attachment 93921

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”


https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...mpression=true

Probably says more that she's confident enough damage has been done.

I'm upping my odds of a Dem sweep from 40 to 50%. Kelly came out backing Bolton. The knives are out, blows are being landed.

The few % of middle voters decide all this, and this doesn't look good for Trump. Invoking exec privilege looks bad, and having Bolton say he requested "this" looks bad.

The end result will be probably 52 to 48 for conviction now. Given that the Romney axis has disregarded the constitution and won't dismiss this case, they are receptive to the very idea of ousting him, which means they will vote that way in the end.

Really upsetting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dougrz

The end result will be probably 52 to 48 for conviction now.

---

It requires 67 votes in the Senate to impeach Trump... and that is NEVER going to happen. So you can rest easy....

The Senate can vote to dismiss the case with 50 votes, plus the VP as tie breaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

It requires 67 votes in the Senate to impeach Trump... and that is NEVER going to happen. So you can rest easy....

The Senate can vote to dismiss the case with 50 votes, plus the VP as tie breaker.

---

I know the 2/3 requirement. But there's no denying it's a powerful message to run on: "a majority thinks he's guilty."

52-48 to remove was my prediction way back months ago when this started. I came around to quick dismissal as of Sunday. Blown away now by Bolton.

Repub skunks would be Romney, Collins, Toomey, Murkowski, and Alexander.

Attachment 93922

BREAKING NEWS: SEN. MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL (R-KY) SAYS HE DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO END IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES
By Kevin Ryan


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says Republicans don’t currently have enough votes to block witnesses in President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.


Earlier today, Trump’s legal team concluded their defense presentation. At one point, they made the case that witness testimony by former National Security Advisor John Bolton wasn’t necessary, because even if his alleged claims that Trump told him he wanted to pause Ukrainian assistance until they investigated Burisma and Hunter Biden are true, it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment.


But at a meeting of all Republican senators late this afternoon, GOP leaders told their members that they don’t currently have the votes to prevent witnesses from being called, sources say.


Republicans had hoped to wrap up the trial with an acquittal of the president by this week, but Democrats have said Bolton should appear under oath to offer a firsthand account of the president’s motivations for freezing aid to Ukraine.


Polls suggesting that a majority of the public also favors having witnesses may have convinced enough Republican senators to agree. Only 4 Republicans are needed to join with Democrat’s to vote for witnesses in order to make it happen. If McConnell is correct, that appears to be what is happening.


Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) indicated on Monday that they were likely to favor witnesses. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) remained open to the idea.


A separate plan to make Bolton’s manuscript available to the Senate for review instead of calling him to testify about it has also been discussed. But as of right now, if McConnell is correct, it appears the Senate trial will not be able to conclude without witnesses.


Either way, the next phase, in which the Senators can ask questions to the defense and prosecution, begins tomorrow.


SOURCE: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-d...ts-11580215229

Seems a bit odd that every witness and The President of Ukraine, all said aid was not tied to a biden investigation.

Now, along comes bolton, selling a book and he says otherwise:ne_nau:

It doesn't add up for bolton.

Leading up to rally in NJ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFR1S3wzPTM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IONzk_eRFpA

Attachment 93923

Tried to post a list of Trumps accomplishments---got this

The following errors occurred with your submission

• The text that you have entered is too long (82320 characters). Please shorten it to 30000 characters long.

So--just go here:

http://www.magapill.com/

Dems are playing a game where they want Bolton but not Biden/s to testify. I think they might reject any witness deal, in order to keep the Bidens out. Better to claim a crooked trial and let it end, they're going to lose anyway, then have the Bidens sullied. Run on the "coverup" line instead.

Also gives the skunk Repubs a chance to support witnesses knowing there won't be any.

I believe Graham said yesterday, If they want witness' then we get them all.

If this goes to witness', this trial needs to go on for many months and drag out every one.

A long list of witness' is not the dems friend...

The Democrats really don't give a shit about witnesses one way or the other... they just want to scar Trump...

Climb-Utah.com

Dershowitz incredible again tonight. Particularly two points.

1. 1st term vs 2nd term action. A pres orders an investigation vs a "potential opponent" in the first term, as here, and that's called impeachable since his motive is to benefit himself. But in his 2nd term the exact same action wouldn't have a personal benefit motive. Therefore not impeachable? If motive is the central issue here, then the underlying action itself isn't impeachable. Motive isn't a crime, the underlying must be analyzed standalone.

2. If Obama got polling data saying the left wing in his party would be mad if he sold weapons to Ukraine, would deciding not to sell weapons to Ukraine because of that data be impeachable? No one would or did argue that for Obama's decisions. Yet his motive would be / was to benefit himself, rather than strictly doing something in the "national interest." Presidents make decisions all the time based on how the public will react for or against their own political benefit.

And of course Collins and Murkowski submitted a question that gives indication about their leanings.

Paraphrasing: "If Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, did he bring it up in 2017, 2018 before Biden became a candidate?"

The meaning being, he only took interest in 2019 after Biden announced. Going back to motive as the key.

When this first came up months ago, I thought defiance would have been best. "Damn right I want investigations into Biden. No one is above the law, including a Democrat. I'm the chief law enforcement officer of the country. We have a treaty with Ukraine for co- law enforcement action."

Instead the defense is more a denial of actions.

Attachment 93926

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dougrz

And of course Collins and Murkowski submitted a question that gives indication about their leanings.

Paraphrasing: "If Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, did he bring it up in 2017, 2018 before Biden became a candidate?"

The meaning being, he only took interest in 2019 after Biden announced. Going back to motive as the key.

When this first came up months ago, I thought defiance would have been best. "Damn right I want investigations into Biden. No one is above the law, including a Democrat. I'm the chief law enforcement officer of the country. We have a treaty with Ukraine for co- law enforcement action."

Instead the defense is more a denial of actions.

---

The fly in the ointment for this line of flawed dem talking point is this:(Collins and Murkowski as well as mittens, just as well be dems)

Prior to Ukraine's last election, there was no one to work with that wasn't completely buried in corruption.

There was no reason to be compelled to call out a corrupt President on corruption.

That would be aikin to calling Carlo gambino and saying "ya know carlo, construction racketeering, gambling, loansharking, extortion, money laundering, prostitution,

those are bad things, you should knock it off".

Instead, Trump waited to deal with a new President of Ukraine who actually ran on ending the corruption.

It just so happened that push up joe started his campaign about the same time as the transition of a new President in Ukraine.

Heres why Trump will be acquitted:

Jay Sekulow Band--these guys are pretty good:2thumbs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=125&v=5oh7kchkPNc&feat ure=emb_ logo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=103&v=om-oM-gXPEs&feature=emb_logo

If classic rock is it---you must acquit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG-f2WuJmhQ

http://patriotretort.com/wp-content/...ey-800x445.jpg

https://storage.googleapis.com/wzuku...76a/3nb74n.jpg

https://image.cagle.com/234260/750/234260.png

https://gab.com/system/media_attachm...jpg?1571936581

^^^^^
According to The New Yorker, Hunter joined Burisma’s board in April of 2014 and remained on it until he declined to renew his position this past May. Meanwhile, according to Burisma’s website, Black was appointed in February of 2017 and continues to serve on its board. The timelines would indicate that Black and Biden worked together at Burisma, and indeed, web archives from late 2017 show Black and Biden listed simultaneously on the board.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26...nergy-company/

I'm just curious.....

To date, the dems have called 18 witness'

Testimony of all but one was released by schifft

why is 18 witness' inadequate?:ne_nau:

Bolton--"o.k. to lie"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=Sd3b2tALnrA&featur e=emb_lo go

https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFile...pg-1254396.JPG

https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFile...pg-1255094.JPG