Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When these people testify in open hearings and Mulvaney, Pompeo and the rest are left to stew, it won't matter what they say in press conferences or whatnot. They had their chance to be sworn in and "correct the record" and they didn't do it.

Democrats will not believe anything said defending Trump no matter who says it - and whether under oath or otherwise. Republicans will not believe anything said against Trump - whether under oath or otherwise. It is the independents who remain to be persuaded one way or the other.

Since when are military personnel and civil service employees partisan? Maybe look at it this way: some people were willing to come forward and testify and others weren't. Maybe our norms suggest those who testify, sworn under oath and in public are to be believed, and those who illegally duck subpoenas and remain in the shadows shouldn't be believed - or maybe our norms are too shattered.

Well, there will be a trial in the Senate and I have no doubt that if and when Trump is acquitted, Democrats will be calling foul!

What would be the basis for acquittal?

That there were fewer than 67 guilty votes.

[Anonymous]

Seriously - What’s Bolton’s deal? Does he want to testify or not? Why say you have key insight and knowledge of meetings the committees haven’t learned about if you aren’t going to testify?
He’s either fishing for attention for attention’s sake, or he’s playing some sort of game. Does he want to stretch out the inquiry so it’s not tied up by Christmas?

John, Get on or off the pot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What would be the basis for acquittal?

That there were fewer than 67 guilty votes.

And the basis for not voting to remove will be that their guiding principle is retaining power, even if you have to ignore the Constitution to do it.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. McConnell is fundraising on the idea that Trump will not be convicted in the Senate. They have already made up their minds. So the House is opening the kimono and letting the world see what kind of mobster tactics the Trump Administration is using. Either the American public will rise up and say this is unacceptable, or it won't. Either the Senate will get the message or it won't.

If there is enough outrage, and the Senate chooses to ignore, it puts every red and purple GOP seat in peril later next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. McConnell is fundraising on the idea that Trump will not be convicted in the Senate. They have already made up their minds. So the House is opening the kimono and letting the world see what kind of mobster tactics the Trump Administration is using. Either the American public will rise up and say this is unacceptable, or it won't. Either the Senate will get the message or it won't.

If there is enough outrage, and the Senate chooses to ignore, it puts every red and purple GOP seat in peril later next year.

Or perhaps the more these 'whistleblowers' are exposed, the more we see the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. McConnell is fundraising on the idea that Trump will not be convicted in the Senate. They have already made up their minds. So the House is opening the kimono and letting the world see what kind of mobster tactics the Trump Administration is using. Either the American public will rise up and say this is unacceptable, or it won't. Either the Senate will get the message or it won't.

If there is enough outrage, and the Senate chooses to ignore, it puts every red and purple GOP seat in peril later next year.

Or perhaps the more these 'whistleblowers' are exposed, the more we see the truth.

Do tell. When Mulvaney, Giuliani and Trump have already admitted the crime, and there is evidence in the form of documents, testimony and texts/phone calls, what more truth do you expect to find?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously - What’s Bolton’s deal? Does he want to testify or not? Why say you have key insight and knowledge of meetings the committees haven’t learned about if you aren’t going to testify?
He’s either fishing for attention for attention’s sake, or he’s playing some sort of game. Does he want to stretch out the inquiry so it’s not tied up by Christmas?

John, Get on or off the pot.

I don't think Bolton's lawyer anticipated that the House would pull the subpoena. Now Bolton wants to reveal what he knows but he won't testify unless he has a blessing from the judiciary. Basically Bolton blew it. The House called his bluff.

I don't understand why the courts can't fast track this decision. It's crazy that a hearing can't be held until early December.

[Anonymous]

Not sure if Trump supporters have noticed that the House is releasing transcripts that implicate subjects only after they have formally refused to appear such as with Mulvaney today.

By letting Trump withhold their testimony, they're losing their shot to speak for themselves and the testimony of others, along with third party evidence, will speak for them.

Stable Genius illegally forbidding testimony is undercutting any defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if Trump supporters have noticed that the House is releasing transcripts that implicate subjects only after they have formally refused to appear such as with Mulvaney today.

By letting Trump withhold their testimony, they're losing their shot to speak for themselves and the testimony of others, along with third party evidence, will speak for them.

Stable Genius illegally forbidding testimony is undercutting any defense.

I think this is why Bolton is signaling that he has evidence/information not heard before. He wants to put out "his side" of the story. Too late though. Bolton should have shown up on Thursday when he was called to testify.

[Anonymous]

I was wondering why on earth the lawyer would be "disappionted" at the lack of a subpoena....Does he/she get lose money if the client isn't forced to testify? Odd doings indeed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was wondering why on earth the lawyer would be "disappionted" at the lack of a subpoena....Does he/she get lose money if the client isn't forced to testify? Odd doings indeed

or the lawyer wants to get a supreme court case under his belt?
Bolton is maybe not happy to sink into obscurity

[Anonymous]

Every single person who is refusing to testify can be charged with "accessory after the fact" as part of the cover-up. Why they would willingly want to subject themselves to that is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Devin Nunes has written to Schiff telling him they want him to testify behind closed doors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Devin Nunes has written to Schiff telling him they want him to testify behind closed doors.

More deflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. McConnell is fundraising on the idea that Trump will not be convicted in the Senate. They have already made up their minds. So the House is opening the kimono and letting the world see what kind of mobster tactics the Trump Administration is using. Either the American public will rise up and say this is unacceptable, or it won't. Either the Senate will get the message or it won't.

If there is enough outrage, and the Senate chooses to ignore, it puts every red and purple GOP seat in peril later next year.

Or perhaps the more these 'whistleblowers' are exposed, the more we see the truth.

Do tell. When Mulvaney, Giuliani and Trump have already admitted the crime, and there is evidence in the form of documents, testimony and texts/phone calls, what more truth do you expect to find?

Admitted the crime

And when the documents and testimonies all are speculative and how those individuals interpret what they hear and learn through others. Your first clue is when they have to say there were code words.