I'm watching. The procedural errors of the House are compelling. Mitt will have temporarily forget he has a law degree and will have to suspend his belief he's being fair and impartial if he calls for witnesses. I suspect he'll do both...
I can at least watch these guys. I would have thrown something through the TV screen if I'd been watching Shifty Schiff and the other inquisitors last week.
The only thing that has MSM more wee-weed up than the Bolton 'bombshell-o-the-day' is that the President's team isn't addressing the Bolton-bombshell-o-the day' the way they MSM wants them to.
There was a recognition from the team they are responding to the case the House has brought to the Senate. MSM is infuriated.
I much prefer listening to lawyers to politicians when it’s a legal argument.
Well, many (most?) politicians have law degrees these days. But unfortunately many of them don't focus on speaking about the law, at least in the case of the Dem House Members anyway. Instead they seem far more interested in mind reading Trump and imputing all sorts of sinister motivations behind past actions.
Honestly not watching. I did spend some time pruning our multi-plum tree and the other lace wing maple. I have the weeping flowering cherry left to do, along with maybe some work on the Japanese maple and possibly some of the rhododendrons.
I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument. Certainly you are not going to believe the guy who lies about knowing Lev Parnas in the face of photos and video tapes of the two together joining back over a year?
roesch/Voltaire:I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument.
"Trump's reasoning" occurred entirely in Trump's head. Bolton was not a "first-person witness" to it.
But, that being said, what exactly did Bolton say that you think "clearly contradicts the Trump narrative"?
Pat Cipollone was more effective on Saturday than the people today. The case against Adam Schiff, Eric Ciamarella and Hunter Biden should be emphasized more, IMO.
I listened to Cipollone's Saturday remarks again after our fake lawyer troll claimed Cipollone "lied" when he said that Republicans were shut out of Schiff's secret basement hearings. If you go to 9:30 of the tape, he said (in a brief aside) that Schiff locked people out from the President's side. He was obviously referring to the President's lawyers as has been claimed by many Republican House members.
Gee. It seems like leftists are deliberately lying. How can that be?
Wait for the "Trump Impeachment" director's cut. It will be well worth it. It will contain the deleted scenes, the bloopers, the out-takes, and it will include the exclusive X rated scenes that did NOT make it to the TV screen! Well worth the $19.95 (plus shipping and handling). But wait, there is MORE! Order today and you can get a second disk free! Just pay the shipping and handling!
r/v are you capable of writing just one sentence in standard English? I've never read one comment by you that doesn't reek of utter stupidity and pointlessness. And of course, the typical pretentious name and avatar in an attempt to come across well-read and intellectual.
Honestly, boring, monotone citations to; history, courts, law professors, and former Attorneys General is probably a good media strategy. Right now the public doesn't care about the impeachment both Republican and Democrat because they figure it is already decided. The only way that a conviction could occur is if somehow there is a huge political wave of support for removal that comes out of nowhere. The only way that could happen is if suddenly people really cared about it. Boring speeches from Trump's team helps drive away any interest in the proceedings. The death of Kobe Bryant probably played a greater role.
I’ve been watching the proceedings today after skipping the Ds’ presentation. It may be me hunkering down in an echo chamber but I’ve never thought the Ds had a case for impeachment and early on I tuned them out, though I’ve read plenty of arguments from across the political divide that what Trump did is impeachable. I haven’t been persuaded. And what have I missed by skipping the Ds presentation—Nadler calling Trump a dictator? I’ve found the R lawyers interesting, restrained, respectful and maybe slightly soporific. But, near sleepiness aside, I hear good points being made.
What now strongly intrigues me is what impact the reported, ostensible “Bolton bombshell” will have on the Senate trial.
Here's my guess what will happen with Bolton's testimony.
He'll repeat what was in the book, that Trump preferred to hold the aid until they released their documents on interference. He'll paint Trump as a big doofus.
Notice what wasn't in the leaked book. Bolton's reply. He'll testify he told Trump he couldn't do that. Bolton will be the hero in his own story.
Just a guess but based on all the other bombshells that failed to explode when the context is released.
Off topic. Today's "Business Outlook" Journal enclosure almost entirely given over to promotion of hemp production of various kinds in New Mexico. Between that and the sure thing bonanza from the oilpatch, the state is going to be rolling in money. This with gas at $2.50/gal. and the long reported commercial marijuana bankruptcies in California and Colorado. These people are bonkers.
Laid down for a nap and woke up from a dream so vivid I thought it was real for a moment. It was of a Journal front page demanding that New Mexico secede from the Union in very strong language. How long before we see that kind of thing for real?
Enjoying the factuality, no fuss, methodical approach. Purpura has a nice little schtick: (1) The House Managers said X. For 23 hours they told you X. Again and again. (2) But what they didn’t tell you was ~X, which was part of their own record. (3) Here is ~X in their own witness’ own words: [cite, quote, play clip] (4) The House Managers could have told you ~X but they didn’t. They chose not to tell you. (5) Why not?
roesch/voltaire said... I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument.
>>>>For starters, we have a treaty with Ukraine to cooperate with investigating corruption by each others' citizens. Next, it is highly appropriate for a POTUS to question whether taxpayer money should be given to countries that interfere with our elections. Ukrainian courts have already convicted people for doing that in 2016, to bolster Hillary's efforts. Finally, the money was not withheld. So essentially you want Trump to be impeached for a thought crime.
***********
Certainly you are not going to believe the guy who lies about knowing Lev Parnas in the face of photos and video tapes of the two together joining back over a year?
>>>Certainly you are not going to mindlessly assume that because Trump is pictured at fundraisers with people, that he actually "knows" them in the sense that he has done any business with them. I have a couple of pictures taken with some New England Patriots, but they sure as shit don't "know" me.
Mitt will have temporarily forget he has a law degree and will have to suspend his belief he's being fair and impartial if he calls for witnesses.
I've always wondered why Mitt Romney takes the positions he does. I mean it is possible he is just being earnest and following his beliefs. I somewhat doubt that, but it is a reasonable possibility. I suppose it is possible he has an animus against Trump and wants revenge against Trump. I strongly doubt that, because most of what I have heard of him prior is that he is a very decent guy. I also doubt the usual political considerations offered. Susan Collins I can see having to finagle a position given the state she is from. But Mitt is now Senator of Utah, and that isn't turning blue anytime soon. which left me wondering if he thinks it is likely that there will be a breakdown of the parties soon, and if he is firmly cast at the center, he could be in a position to lead in a new centrist party.
I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument.
We know you find it hard. What do you teach again ? "“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
― George Orwell
I assume you don't teach logic.
Certainly you are not going to mindlessly assume that because Trump is pictured at fundraisers with people, that he actually "knows" them in the sense that he has done any business with them.
Or fuck them like Stormy Daniels. A guy who is a health freak would dip his wick in the sewer of a porn "star."
Meanwhile, about this talk about "deals" on witnesses, such as a one-for-one agreement --
No. No deals. Like someone said -- Graham, I think -- if the prosecution gets even just one, the defense has the fundamental right to call as many witnesses as it wants to in response to the charges.
I think this is it, though Mitt has become a bit twisted in his morals, as he acts like name calling by a President is more egregious than abuse of power in the House...
I thinks the tape reveals more than a photo op with Trump; Parnas can be heard making comments about ambassador Yovanovitch and Trump responds to those comments. And there are many more photos of the two including the photo of Rudy, Parnas and Tump which might count as a team photo? (As am aside Sytnyk, who did provide the black book with Maniford information, faced criminal charges for possible disclosure of a planned raid on Voloddymyr Omelyan's house, and not for bolstering Hillary's efforts.
I caught part of the "denial of due process argument" on the radio while driving. I thought it was pretty good; a bit later (after a stop) I heard the demolition of the obstruction of Congress charge.
Look these are legal arguments raised in civil fashion by knowledgeable professional people. Sit at counsel table in a court room in a civil lawsuit, you'll hear those "droning" arguments often. Been there, done that, and have some idea of what a capable professional presentation is.
Got home and saw Pam Bondi on TV. She's banging away on Hunter and Joe's corruption. You ask yourself,"Why?" It could be to demonstrate that Trump was justified in asking about corruption in the Ukraine. It could be to make the Democrats think about whether they really want to call Bolton with his "bombshell" evidence. Of course that's the 999th "bombshell" that the MSM has announced--and most of them weren't any more of a "bombshell" than a 4th of July sparkler. But if "quid pro quo" for getting the Bolton testimony is that Hunter Biden also gets called to testify, even Schiff and Nadler, fools that they are, might want to think twice about it.
They are trying to convict and remove Trump using critical theory, which I guess Schiff learned from Laurence Tribe. I think it was critical theory that Hillary was. talking about when she said to Vince Foster in a meeting, a week before he “killed himself” that he was a "hick lawyer and would never get it.” R/V doesn’t care about facts, he cares about manipulating perception in the way that a fact might. It’s like when carmakers try to put “value cues” into a car design, without actually, you know, putting actual value into it.
roesch/voltaire said... I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument. Certainly you are not going to believe the guy who lies about knowing Lev Parnas in the face of photos and video tapes of the two together joining back over a year?
Trump delayed Aid Obama refused to ever send.
Trump delayed Aid house managers trying to impeach him voted against sending.
Trump delayed Aid that was a resupply of material currently in stock.
According to the mind readers we are supposed to be angry at Trump's imputed motive: he wanted Ukraine to find out where the aid we had been sending them for 3 years actually went.
R/V and the rest of these people are enemies. There is nothing they will stop at.
Laid down for a nap and woke up from a dream so vivid I thought it was real for a moment. It was of a Journal front page demanding that New Mexico secede from the Union in very strong language.
New Mexico has a pretty strong grip on that Federal teat. I just don't see that happening.
I am eagerly awaiting the investigation of the meeting between Obama, Ciaramella, and the Ukrainians who handed over documents about Manafort during that investigation of Ukrainian corruption.
It is time for everyone in DC to get the Manafort treatment.
Sure, lots of politicians have law degrees, but they aren't lawyers for the most part- I wouldn't allow, pretty much any of them, to represent me in traffic court. There are high profile law professors who I wouldn't allow to do this either, but the ratio isn't nearly as one sided.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, Prince Andrew is not cooperating with the FBI anent the Epstein investigation. He's in enough trouble with Mum.
I don’t see where this stops, Trump can never prove himself innocent of every new charge that the Democrats will keep making up. I say end it now. Bolton’s book just clears Trump on the “complete absence” of a national interest, and I really doubt that any Republican is going to vote to convict on the “obstruction of Congress” thing because Trump asked for his day in court.
It’s over. Let the Senators make their speeches and put it to bed. No matter what happens, the Democrats are going to caterwaul and their caterwauling will be amplified in the press. Plus ça change.
Speaking of the Royal Family. I read somewhere that Megan was the name of one of the furies, and the purpose of a fury in Greek mythology was to punish those who had escaped justice. Just saying.
.@nytimes being consistent that Bolton says Trump wanted to hold aid until Ukraine actually "conducted the investigations," not just "announced" them. The Narrative has subtly shifted in way that favors Trump https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/impeachment-trial-live-01-27. - Mickey Kaus
Certain commenter hardest hit. I believe he said something along the lines of “Trump is totally busted now because there was no ‘serious’ investigation."
"Megan (also spelled Meghan, Meagan, Megyn, Meaghan) is a Welsh female given name, originally a pet form of Meg or Meggie, which is itself a short form f Margaret. Margaret is from the Greek μαργαριτης (margarites) for "pearl". " -Wikipedia
BREAKING: All Big 3 networks ABC, CBS, NBC blacked out Trump defense lawyer Pam Bondi's presentation this afternoon of Ukraine corruption related to Joe Biden, son Hunter Biden & Burisma. In contrast, Big 3 carried Schiff's p.m. presentations live, preempting regular programming
Eric Herschmann of WH defense team is doing a similarly methodical job on the House Managers for their standard of what constitutes “abuse of power.” He uses their own words to parse the Obama “hot mic” exchange in March 2012 with Medvedev where he trades Russian quietude today for post-election favors: which in fact were granted when Russia in 2014 invaded Ukraine and Obama does...nothing.
Just my opinion, of course, but that sure looks like a pile of smoking ruins where the House impeachment managers' case used to be. That severed hand with a ring with a big stone might belong to Schiftimeini.
Let's not forget that this Impeachment show is just a show. The worlds best legal arguments will not change a single vote in the Senate.
I watched the Bush v. Gore trial in FLA. One of my HS classmates is a managing partner with Phil Beck who absolutely destroyed, I mean really destroyed the Democrats' witnesses. Judge Saunders (a Democrat) ruled in favor of the Bush campaign because it was the equivalent of a Perry Mason drama where the guilty party confessed in open court.
David Boies (Clinton lawyer) appealed to the FLA Supreme Court. They promptly overturned the ruling. Hence, it went to the SCOTUS.
The overwhelming Bush case did not matter. The Democrat FLASC judges had an obvious agenda. It was then I realized that the Clintons had totally corrupted this country.
Speaking of the Royal Family. I read somewhere that Megan was the name of one of the furies, and the purpose of a fury in Greek mythology was to punish those who had escaped justice.
Meghan is not associated with Prince Andrew, but with his nephew ex-prince Harry. As far as we know, Harry has not escaped any sort of justice.
@Francisco D: Looking for more on tat, I found this:
https://www.bartlit-beck.com/about-news-59.html
"Watching Phil Beck cross examine is like watching something get carved up with an Exacto knife."
Arthur Miller on MSNBC, December 2, 2000 "'To me, it proves that trials with witnesses and facts trump spin,' said another lawyer for Mr. Bush, Fred H. Bartlit. 'There's no spin in the courtroom. That's why the system is so good, because nobody can figure out what happened when it's all spin. Then, when a judge goes through all the facts and they see the witnesses, they hear them, and they know who's believable and who's not, then they get it right.'"
New York Times, December 5, 2000, page A21
And there are two links to video clips there. Phil Beck's cross-examination of a voting machine expert and a statistical expert.
Droning on? Good. I hope Mittens and Senator Collins are bored as fuck. They're responsible for this dragging out. Should have been shot down outta the box.
This will go on and on, then Mittens and Collins will DEMAND witnesses. And then it will drag for at least another 2-3 weeks. Then both will vote to convict on ONE count, and then bask in the Liberal MSM praise.
There still might not be witnesses here- Bolton didn't actually add anything that wasn't already known, and there still remains the fact that the aid was released, not denied, and the Ukrainians did nothing apparently to get it either, nor did they know about the hold for almost the entire time, and have publicly stated that there was no pressure put on them. It really does come down to trying to impeach Trump for a thought, not an action.
I have wanted witnesses the entire time- I still want them- if Bolton testifying gets Trump's lawyers their witnesses called, it is worth it. It is politically impossible to allow the Democrats to call Bolton and associated witnesses, but to deny Trump's defense lawyers their witnesses. This idea that you do this one sided calling of witnesses at this juncture shows a shocking lack of common sense- or maybe it isn't shocking considering where the idea is emanating.
It takes 4 Republicans to call Bolton- I am not sure there are 4- I count 3, and you might not get Collins.
And there are two links to video clips there. Phil Beck's cross-examination of a voting machine expert and a statistical expert.
Thanks Sammy.
I wonder what our hostess thinks about those Beck cross examinations. It was amazing, something aspiring trial lawyers need to watch - truly some Perry Mason-type moments.
If Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone did that to Adam Schiff, Eric Ciamarella and Joe Biden, I doubt that any Democrat votes would change. Well, maybe a few of the supposed moderates like Sinema, Manchin and Tester.
Hearing bits and pieces on C-Span radio as I hopped in and out of my car. I was impressed by a presentation by a woman lawyer for the Pres who made a quite compelling case that investigating Ukrainian corruption was a matter of long standing policy interest by Obama's and then Trump's state department. I am generally disappointed that this question (which I regard as the central question) has not been discussed enough.
Go on with your impeachment farce, it means nothing to me. If, though, the senate votes to remove Trump, then I'm all for CWII. If we can't, under any circumstances, have the president we elected, then why bother to have a country ?
What the fuck is Robert Ray talking about? Stop boring us to death, Trump team. Jeez.
I recall he was the young Special Prosecutor who replaced Starr in the Clinton impeachment, and settled it by fining Clinton $25K and taking away his law license.
If, though, the senate votes to remove Trump, then I'm all for CWII. If we can't, under any circumstances, have the president we elected, then why bother to have a country ?
Setting aside I think the Bolton leak is garbage to be ignored; I'll play along with this idea of Bolton being a hero. Except Bolton could claim, like Ambassador Sondland that they all assumed Trump wanted a Quid Pro Quo and admit that Trump never said as much and specifically stated otherwise. Then Bolton can drop that the back channel conversations were about Ukraine providing evidence of corrupt Ukraine officials helping Hillary in 2016. Bolton becomes a hero in his own story and wrecks the Democrat narrative.
I read somewhere that Megan was the name of one of the furies, and the purpose of a fury in Greek mythology was to punish those who had escaped justice.
Megaera, Μέγαιρα, is one of the Furies, yes. But I doubt that Meaghan derives from it.
The timing of "Bombshell-Bolton" has made me reject it. It has this bad look of quid pro quo - you put in some weaselly paragraphs about Trump and his thoughts and we'll get the publisher to time the book release so as to boost sales. I don't mean I know that happened. I mean it looks exactly like that. Maybe Bolton could issue a press release explaining the strange timing (Ha, ha. I like to laff.). Regardless, in a few months or years it will be clear what was going on. There's all kinds of mutants and critters in the DC swamp, all striving against each other. Someday we'll know the variations. Meanwhile it would be stupid to just accept "Bombshell-Bolton" at face value.
I have known a couple of contractors somewhat like Trump. When checked out, it always turned out that they had not said exactly what they were said to have said, and what they had said was always just a bit fuzzy around the edges as to exactly what it meant. When these guys want to really tell each other something, they do it by slightly changing the inflection of their voice or maybe raising an eyebrow while they are saying something otherwise not remarkable.
Having read the comments, I see that Aunty's question was already dealt with. A link to Lorraine Hunt Lieberson singing the famous aria from Handel's Hercules: 'See, see, they come... Megaera fell...'.
In Britain, the English have 80% of the people and 90% of the money. The Welsh and Scottish independence movements expect the English to continue to subsidize their economies even after Wales and Scotland declare themselves independent despite the English politicians keep telling them that no, that is not the way it works.
I'm not listening to the mild dronings because back in December I listened twice to Mitch McConnell's mild dronings on how the Senate was going to handle this mess. But I am carefully checking the checking the comments to see if the flight path is suddenly altered. So far the Dems are still flying to nowhere.
“ I could be mistaken but I think Mitt has already stated he’s not a lifer..”
Why would he be? He was already fairly rich - maybe $200 mil when he was running for President, and that was near the depth of the Obama Recession. Likely more now. The Senate is filled with mostly mediocre intellects, esp on the Dem side, people who got rich through graft and corruption, unlike the hard work he used to build his fortune (yes, he inherited some from his father, but apparently gave that away). Part of building his fortune was hiring the brightest people he could find. That was very likely a very intellectually stimulating environment, very much unlike the Senate. Once you are sworn into the Senate, you have the title for life. So why not enjoy his many grandkids? Probably much more fulfilling than working in the Senate.
"If, though, the senate votes to remove Trump, then I'm all for CWII. If we can't, under any circumstances, have the president we elected, then why bother to have a country ?"
Ditto
You had him for 3 years, until he got to a point where he couldn't help himself any longer and may have committed an impeachable offense against the electoral process. You don't get to have an unimpeachable president, unless of course he abstains from acting impeachably. Read the constitution.
Anyway, it would be interesting to see who you fight your second unconstitutional war against. Against the House - elected as it was by no less of the country than the minority who voted for Trump? The House gets sole power of impeachment. Again, read the constitution. If you can't abide by it, you lose. That's the country you peckerheads seem to have trouble being lawfully represented by.
Wars are fought over territory or ethnic rivalries - neither of which represent your current conundrum. There's no sectional divide. Or ethnic - which is something in which our country is not and was never based. Just ideological/partisan - and the only way to remove those rivalries if you can't present a winning argument that supersedes them is through a tyrannical government or gendarmerie enforcing mind control over the people. I'm not surprised to see your sympathy for that kind of a "remedy" to your anti-pluralism problem.
In the meantime, the best course is for you to send word of your violent intent against whichever representatives (or their constituents) you would like to take out in your "war" to law enforcement, so that they can deal with your mental problem appropriately. Until then, kindly fuck off and play toy soldier with the nearest bands of five-year olds who can relate to it.
When Franklin talked about the people who could not "keep" it (America) as a republic he was talking about you.
DBQ couldn't even kill her husband when incited with violent rage against him so it's kind of pathetic that she thinks she's going to rally bands of violent Americans to kill off the tens of millions other Americans that she must undoubtedly dispatch in order to win her "CWII" against their participation and influence in the constitutional political process. What a high price she must exact in order for them to participate according to her approval.
“DBQ couldn't even kill her husband when incited with violent rage against him so it's kind of pathetic that she thinks she's going to rally bands of violent Americans to kill off the tens of millions other Americans that she must undoubtedly dispatch in order to win her "CWII" against their participation and influence in the constitutional political process. What a high price she must exact in order for them to participate according to her approval.
Seriously, piss off.”
Sometimes ya just gotta laugh at these preppers who wish they had a reason for hoarding canned food, beans and rice and ammo for the last 20 years.
Howard admits the democrat party is a criminal organization. R/V- John Wayne Gacy was photographed with president Carter and his wife. Does that mean carter condoned murder?
I thought the presentations on behalf of the President were very well done. Like the professor, I much prefer the legal arguments to the purely political ones; in this regard, I thought Patrick Philbin was excellent - his arguments could easily have been offered on behalf of anyone occupying the executive office. The arguments concerning Biden were much harder to watch, but I thought even they were well executed, in the sense that they accomplished what was I think was intended (largely to show the Democratic Senators how devastating it could be if the Bidens were to testify, and TV viewers how scummy Hunter’s arrangement was). Dershowitz was better than I expected: his points were more nuanced and substantive, and his style and passion came across as more authentic, than I’d anticipated. I was initially surprised that Bolton was ignored, but it’s hard to address something like that effectively when your client is simultaneously out there addressing it ineffectively - so silence was probably the right choice.
Somebody's calling my name... https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=you+tube+hush+hush+somebody%27s+calling+my+name#id=1&vid=bff202f8aa14336097be0460959eed13&action=click
Of course I watched my ex-prof's outstanding performance. I always admired Dersh as he has always been one of those guys who did not let his personal politics impede his rationality. And of course, it is always nice to watch a REAL attorney presenting an interesting case in a highly effective fashion. Of course the D side had no real attorneys representing it.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
139 comments:
I listened to Ken Starr give a lecture.
It was like he was talking to first year law students.
Off topic, but SC gives Trump another big win on immigration.
I'm watching. The procedural errors of the House are compelling. Mitt will have temporarily forget he has a law degree and will have to suspend his belief he's being fair and impartial if he calls for witnesses. I suspect he'll do both...
Yes it is a nice distraction from the possible testimony of Giuliani and Bolton.
I was listening to the droning, but then Mr. Starr seemed to come awake. I wondered if a producer had whispered in his ear.
I can at least watch these guys. I would have thrown something through the TV screen if I'd been watching Shifty Schiff and the other inquisitors last week.
The only thing that has MSM more wee-weed up than the Bolton 'bombshell-o-the-day' is that the President's team isn't addressing the Bolton-bombshell-o-the day' the way they MSM wants them to.
There was a recognition from the team they are responding to the case the House has brought to the Senate. MSM is infuriated.
Also, I'm not reflexively yelling "Liar!" at the TV screen for these guys.
A nice antedote to the hysterical accusations we're been bombarded with for weeks. Give me the facts in a mild voice any day.
I am so immune to claims of bombshells.
See my earlier post for why I don’t think Bolton’s words condemn Trump. They can easily be used in a pro Trump argument.
I much prefer listening to lawyers to politicians when it’s a legal argument.
With politicians, I get disgusted and have to walk away. With lawyers I am able to listen and then I get some gentle napping in along the way.
I much prefer listening to lawyers to politicians when it’s a legal argument.
Well, many (most?) politicians have law degrees these days. But unfortunately many of them don't focus on speaking about the law, at least in the case of the Dem House Members anyway. Instead they seem far more interested in mind reading Trump and imputing all sorts of sinister motivations behind past actions.
Honestly not watching. I did spend some time pruning our multi-plum tree and the other lace wing maple. I have the weeping flowering cherry left to do, along with maybe some work on the Japanese maple and possibly some of the rhododendrons.
Turns out Lt. Col. Kent Dorfman's identical twin brother is the NSC reviewer for Bolton's pecuniarily published and punctual piece-of-sh*t.
You can't make this stuff up. The glitches in the matrix keep piling up too fast.
It is all a ploy to keep impeachment going and a spoiler to block consequences for the corruption of the swamp.
Notice how the leftists are working harder to ignore the clear criminality of their leaders than to actually explain why what trump did was wrong.
I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument. Certainly you are not going to believe the guy who lies about knowing Lev Parnas in the face of photos and video tapes of the two together joining back over a year?
That thing's still on free TV?
purpura is particularly very methodical, yes they have to resort to innuendo, that's all they have
Watching TV with closed captions while I work out in the gym.
roesch/Voltaire: I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument.
"Trump's reasoning" occurred entirely in Trump's head. Bolton was not a "first-person witness" to it.
But, that being said, what exactly did Bolton say that you think "clearly contradicts the Trump narrative"?
Pat Cipollone was more effective on Saturday than the people today. The case against Adam Schiff, Eric Ciamarella and Hunter Biden should be emphasized more, IMO.
I listened to Cipollone's Saturday remarks again after our fake lawyer troll claimed Cipollone "lied" when he said that Republicans were shut out of Schiff's secret basement hearings. If you go to 9:30 of the tape, he said (in a brief aside) that Schiff locked people out from the President's side. He was obviously referring to the President's lawyers as has been claimed by many Republican House members.
Gee. It seems like leftists are deliberately lying. How can that be?
Seeing Red said...
That thing's still on free TV?
1/27/20, 3:10 PM
Wait for the "Trump Impeachment" director's cut. It will be well worth it. It will contain the deleted scenes, the bloopers, the out-takes, and it will include the exclusive X rated scenes that did NOT make it to the TV screen! Well worth the $19.95 (plus shipping and handling). But wait, there is MORE! Order today and you can get a second disk free! Just pay the shipping and handling!
r/v are you capable of writing just one sentence in standard English? I've never read one comment by you that doesn't reek of utter stupidity and pointlessness. And of course, the typical pretentious name and avatar in an attempt to come across well-read and intellectual.
I'm watching "Bringing Up Baby" on TCM. Much better use of my limited time.
the previous bombshell deliverer,
https://twitter.com/JoePerticone/status/1221840932997337090
Ken Starr was like a college professor droning on and on. Where's the heated cross-examination?
Honestly, boring, monotone citations to; history, courts, law professors, and former Attorneys General is probably a good media strategy. Right now the public doesn't care about the impeachment both Republican and Democrat because they figure it is already decided. The only way that a conviction could occur is if somehow there is a huge political wave of support for removal that comes out of nowhere. The only way that could happen is if suddenly people really cared about it. Boring speeches from Trump's team helps drive away any interest in the proceedings. The death of Kobe Bryant probably played a greater role.
I’ve been watching the proceedings today after skipping the Ds’ presentation. It may be me hunkering down in an echo chamber but I’ve never thought the Ds had a case for impeachment and early on I tuned them out, though I’ve read plenty of arguments from across the political divide that what Trump did is impeachable. I haven’t been persuaded. And what have I missed by skipping the Ds presentation—Nadler calling Trump a dictator? I’ve found the R lawyers interesting, restrained, respectful and maybe slightly soporific. But, near sleepiness aside, I hear good points being made.
What now strongly intrigues me is what impact the reported, ostensible “Bolton bombshell” will have on the Senate trial.
Here's my guess what will happen with Bolton's testimony.
He'll repeat what was in the book, that Trump preferred to hold the aid until they released their documents on interference. He'll paint Trump as a big doofus.
Notice what wasn't in the leaked book. Bolton's reply. He'll testify he told Trump he couldn't do that. Bolton will be the hero in his own story.
Just a guess but based on all the other bombshells that failed to explode when the context is released.
Off topic.
Today's "Business Outlook" Journal enclosure almost entirely given over to promotion of hemp production of various kinds in New Mexico. Between that and the sure thing bonanza from the oilpatch, the state is going to be rolling in money.
This with gas at $2.50/gal. and the long reported commercial marijuana bankruptcies in California and Colorado.
These people are bonkers.
Laid down for a nap and woke up from a dream so vivid I thought it was real for a moment. It was of a Journal front page demanding that New Mexico secede from the Union in very strong language.
How long before we see that kind of thing for real?
(I am not making that up. It was a real dream.)
they can even screw up pot sales in California, its striking how bad their management is,
The Muppet Movie?
Enjoying the factuality, no fuss, methodical approach. Purpura has a nice little schtick:
(1) The House Managers said X. For 23 hours they told you X. Again and again.
(2) But what they didn’t tell you was ~X, which was part of their own record.
(3) Here is ~X in their own witness’ own words: [cite, quote, play clip]
(4) The House Managers could have told you ~X but they didn’t. They chose not to tell you.
(5) Why not?
I don't know about listening, but Pam Bondi is a lot nicer to look at than Schiff or Nadler.
very stable people
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2020/01/27/chuck-todd-loses-it-compares-ken-starr-bank-robber
roesch/voltaire said...
I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument.
>>>>For starters, we have a treaty with Ukraine to cooperate with investigating corruption by each others' citizens. Next, it is highly appropriate for a POTUS to question whether taxpayer money should be given to countries that interfere with our elections. Ukrainian courts have already convicted people for doing that in 2016, to bolster Hillary's efforts. Finally, the money was not withheld. So essentially you want Trump to be impeached for a thought crime.
***********
Certainly you are not going to believe the guy who lies about knowing Lev Parnas in the face of photos and video tapes of the two together joining back over a year?
>>>Certainly you are not going to mindlessly assume that because Trump is pictured at fundraisers with people, that he actually "knows" them in the sense that he has done any business with them. I have a couple of pictures taken with some New England Patriots, but they sure as shit don't "know" me.
Mitt will have temporarily forget he has a law degree and will have to suspend his belief he's being fair and impartial if he calls for witnesses.
I've always wondered why Mitt Romney takes the positions he does. I mean it is possible he is just being earnest and following his beliefs. I somewhat doubt that, but it is a reasonable possibility. I suppose it is possible he has an animus against Trump and wants revenge against Trump. I strongly doubt that, because most of what I have heard of him prior is that he is a very decent guy. I also doubt the usual political considerations offered. Susan Collins I can see having to finagle a position given the state she is from. But Mitt is now Senator of Utah, and that isn't turning blue anytime soon. which left me wondering if he thinks it is likely that there will be a breakdown of the parties soon, and if he is firmly cast at the center, he could be in a position to lead in a new centrist party.
yes, they brought him information like the bothan spies,
https://twitter.com/Shem_Infinite/status/1221910278884950018?s=20
Pam Bondi hitting Biden/Burisma hard.
Or, as the media would say, "conspiracy theories".
The woman after the break was unlistenable.
Mitt's deal is public show of morality, like McCain's was grandstanding.
Morality that goes public becomes the worst sort of evil. Probably Hannah Arendt.
McCain was just an asshole, not evil.
"I must not saw of the branch on which I am sitting." Went by just now at 50wpm in morse code.
When you're not performing a mind reading, you don't have to put on a show.
There is no cape, ball, or funny hat required.
It was like he was talking to first year law students.
Explaining "I don't like him so he should be gone" isn't a good reason to overturn an election must be done at a pre-K level.
We have to do it in these comment threads all the time.
I am so immune to claims of bombshells.
All the good ones are preceded by "blonde".
I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument.
We know you find it hard. What do you teach again ? "“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
― George Orwell
I assume you don't teach logic.
Certainly you are not going to mindlessly assume that because Trump is pictured at fundraisers with people, that he actually "knows" them in the sense that he has done any business with them.
Or fuck them like Stormy Daniels. A guy who is a health freak would dip his wick in the sewer of a porn "star."
Meanwhile, about this talk about "deals" on witnesses, such as a one-for-one agreement --
No. No deals. Like someone said -- Graham, I think -- if the prosecution gets even just one, the defense has the fundamental right to call as many witnesses as it wants to in response to the charges.
Mitt's deal is public show of morality
I think this is it, though Mitt has become a bit twisted in his morals, as he acts like name calling by a President is more egregious than abuse of power in the House...
I thinks the tape reveals more than a photo op with Trump; Parnas can be heard making comments about ambassador Yovanovitch and Trump responds to those comments. And there are many more photos of the two including the photo of Rudy, Parnas and Tump which might count as a team photo? (As am aside Sytnyk, who did provide the black book with Maniford information, faced criminal charges for possible disclosure of a planned raid on Voloddymyr Omelyan's house, and not for bolstering Hillary's efforts.
Two slices of cold Roundtable Pizza, with a side of philbin has me dozing on and off...
I caught part of the "denial of due process argument" on the radio while driving. I thought it was pretty good; a bit later (after a stop) I heard the demolition of the obstruction of Congress charge.
Look these are legal arguments raised in civil fashion by knowledgeable professional people. Sit at counsel table in a court room in a civil lawsuit, you'll hear those "droning" arguments often. Been there, done that, and have some idea of what a capable professional presentation is.
Got home and saw Pam Bondi on TV. She's banging away on Hunter and Joe's corruption. You ask yourself,"Why?" It could be to demonstrate that Trump was justified in asking about corruption in the Ukraine. It could be to make the Democrats think about whether they really want to call Bolton with his "bombshell" evidence. Of course that's the 999th "bombshell" that the MSM has announced--and most of them weren't any more of a "bombshell" than a 4th of July sparkler. But if "quid pro quo" for getting the Bolton testimony is that Hunter Biden also gets called to testify, even Schiff and Nadler, fools that they are, might want to think twice about it.
I'd say John Bolton has sold his soul to the Devil with his book: "the Room Where it Happened."
Retch/Voltaire keeps digging for the birthday pony in the pile of horseschiff...
It's both amusing and a little endearing, no?
Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine
No aid was withheld.
Please...end this. End this now.
The GOP has been presenting "The QUIET voice of reason-and-logic" VS. the ranting-and-raving of the Democrat-Socialist-Fascist.
Retch/Voltaire keeps digging for the birthday pony in the pile of horseschiff...
The wretch has a view of jurisprudence that would put all of us in jail at the whims of prosecutors.
Well, except for his fellow travelers.
They are trying to convict and remove Trump using critical theory, which I guess Schiff learned from Laurence Tribe. I think it was critical theory that Hillary was. talking about when she said to Vince Foster in a meeting, a week before he “killed himself” that he was a "hick lawyer and would never get it.” R/V doesn’t care about facts, he cares about manipulating perception in the way that a fact might. It’s like when carmakers try to put “value cues” into a car design, without actually, you know, putting actual value into it.
roesch/voltaire said...
I find it difficult to understand how Bolton a first person witness to Trump's reasoning for without holding aid to Ukraine that clearly contradicts the Trump narrative can be made into a pro Trump argument. Certainly you are not going to believe the guy who lies about knowing Lev Parnas in the face of photos and video tapes of the two together joining back over a year?
Trump delayed Aid Obama refused to ever send.
Trump delayed Aid house managers trying to impeach him voted against sending.
Trump delayed Aid that was a resupply of material currently in stock.
According to the mind readers we are supposed to be angry at Trump's imputed motive: he wanted Ukraine to find out where the aid we had been sending them for 3 years actually went.
R/V and the rest of these people are enemies. There is nothing they will stop at.
Laid down for a nap and woke up from a dream so vivid I thought it was real for a moment. It was of a Journal front page demanding that New Mexico secede from the Union in very strong language.
New Mexico has a pretty strong grip on that Federal teat. I just don't see that happening.
I see Pam Bondi is done.
Guess I'll tune back in for Martha MacCallum.
I am eagerly awaiting the investigation of the meeting between Obama, Ciaramella, and the Ukrainians who handed over documents about Manafort during that investigation of Ukrainian corruption.
It is time for everyone in DC to get the Manafort treatment.
Sure, lots of politicians have law degrees, but they aren't lawyers for the most part- I wouldn't allow, pretty much any of them, to represent me in traffic court. There are high profile law professors who I wouldn't allow to do this either, but the ratio isn't nearly as one sided.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, Prince Andrew is not cooperating with the FBI anent the Epstein investigation. He's in enough trouble with Mum.
I don’t see where this stops, Trump can never prove himself innocent of every new charge that the Democrats will keep making up. I say end it now. Bolton’s book just clears Trump on the “complete absence” of a national interest, and I really doubt that any Republican is going to vote to convict on the “obstruction of Congress” thing because Trump asked for his day in court.
It’s over. Let the Senators make their speeches and put it to bed. No matter what happens, the Democrats are going to caterwaul and their caterwauling will be amplified in the press. Plus ça change.
Speaking of the Royal Family. I read somewhere that Megan was the name of one of the furies, and the purpose of a fury in Greek mythology was to punish those who had escaped justice. Just saying.
.@nytimes being consistent that Bolton says Trump wanted to hold aid until Ukraine actually "conducted the investigations," not just "announced" them. The Narrative has subtly shifted in way that favors Trump https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/impeachment-trial-live-01-27. - Mickey Kaus
Certain commenter hardest hit. I believe he said something along the lines of “Trump is totally busted now because there was no ‘serious’ investigation."
"Megan (also spelled Meghan, Meagan, Megyn, Meaghan) is a Welsh female given name, originally a pet form of Meg or Meggie, which is itself a short form f Margaret. Margaret is from the Greek μαργαριτης (margarites) for "pearl". " -Wikipedia
Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
15 minutes ago
BREAKING: All Big 3 networks ABC, CBS, NBC blacked out Trump defense lawyer Pam Bondi's presentation this afternoon of Ukraine corruption related to Joe Biden, son Hunter Biden & Burisma. In contrast, Big 3 carried Schiff's p.m. presentations live, preempting regular programming
https://www.newsbusters.org/journalists/maggie-haberman?page=0%2C1
Mitt gets a shout out! Woop! Woop! He must be thinking...
Well, of course the networks would black it out. Did CNN and MSNBC cover it?
Eric Herschmann of WH defense team is doing a similarly methodical job on the House Managers for their standard of what constitutes “abuse of power.” He uses their own words to parse the Obama “hot mic” exchange in March 2012 with Medvedev where he trades Russian quietude today for post-election favors: which in fact were granted when Russia in 2014 invaded Ukraine and Obama does...nothing.
Lots more good stuff.
“-Wikipedia”
Obviously comprehensive and authoritative.
recognized three: Alecto or Alekto ("endless"), Megaera ("jealous rage"), and Tisiphone or Tilphousia ("vengeful destruction")
Close enough.
MSNBC and CNN still covering it live. Fox News stopped airing the defense after Bondi spoke.
Browndog,
To be fair, people actually tune to FOXNews to watch The FIVE.
Those other channels get viewers in the range of statistical noise.
Just my opinion, of course, but that sure looks like a pile of smoking ruins where the House impeachment managers' case used to be. That severed hand with a ring with a big stone might belong to Schiftimeini.
Let's not forget that this Impeachment show is just a show. The worlds best legal arguments will not change a single vote in the Senate.
I watched the Bush v. Gore trial in FLA. One of my HS classmates is a managing partner with Phil Beck who absolutely destroyed, I mean really destroyed the Democrats' witnesses. Judge Saunders (a Democrat) ruled in favor of the Bush campaign because it was the equivalent of a Perry Mason drama where the guilty party confessed in open court.
David Boies (Clinton lawyer) appealed to the FLA Supreme Court. They promptly overturned the ruling. Hence, it went to the SCOTUS.
The overwhelming Bush case did not matter. The Democrat FLASC judges had an obvious agenda. It was then I realized that the Clintons had totally corrupted this country.
Although I'd have to say that this particular "droning" was far from mild!
Speaking of the Royal Family. I read somewhere that Megan was the name of one of the furies, and the purpose of a fury in Greek mythology was to punish those who had escaped justice.
Meghan is not associated with Prince Andrew, but with his nephew ex-prince Harry. As far as we know, Harry has not escaped any sort of justice.
@Francisco D: Looking for more on tat, I found this:
https://www.bartlit-beck.com/about-news-59.html
"Watching Phil Beck cross examine is like watching something get carved up with an Exacto knife."
Arthur Miller on MSNBC, December 2, 2000
"'To me, it proves that trials with witnesses and facts trump spin,' said another lawyer for Mr. Bush, Fred H. Bartlit. 'There's no spin in the courtroom. That's why the system is so good, because nobody can figure out what happened when it's all spin. Then, when a judge goes through all the facts and they see the witnesses, they hear them, and they know who's believable and who's not, then they get it right.'"
New York Times, December 5, 2000, page A21
And there are two links to video clips there. Phil Beck's cross-examination of a voting machine expert and a statistical expert.
Droning on? Good. I hope Mittens and Senator Collins are bored as fuck. They're responsible for this dragging out. Should have been shot down outta the box.
This will go on and on, then Mittens and Collins will DEMAND witnesses. And then it will drag for at least another 2-3 weeks. Then both will vote to convict on ONE count, and then bask in the Liberal MSM praise.
There still might not be witnesses here- Bolton didn't actually add anything that wasn't already known, and there still remains the fact that the aid was released, not denied, and the Ukrainians did nothing apparently to get it either, nor did they know about the hold for almost the entire time, and have publicly stated that there was no pressure put on them. It really does come down to trying to impeach Trump for a thought, not an action.
I have wanted witnesses the entire time- I still want them- if Bolton testifying gets Trump's lawyers their witnesses called, it is worth it. It is politically impossible to allow the Democrats to call Bolton and associated witnesses, but to deny Trump's defense lawyers their witnesses. This idea that you do this one sided calling of witnesses at this juncture shows a shocking lack of common sense- or maybe it isn't shocking considering where the idea is emanating.
It takes 4 Republicans to call Bolton- I am not sure there are 4- I count 3, and you might not get Collins.
And there are two links to video clips there. Phil Beck's cross-examination of a voting machine expert and a statistical expert.
Thanks Sammy.
I wonder what our hostess thinks about those Beck cross examinations. It was amazing, something aspiring trial lawyers need to watch - truly some Perry Mason-type moments.
If Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone did that to Adam Schiff, Eric Ciamarella and Joe Biden, I doubt that any Democrat votes would change. Well, maybe a few of the supposed moderates like Sinema, Manchin and Tester.
Crunchy irony
https://mobile.twitter.com/thebradfordfile/status/1221856232954302465
In light of the qatar contact
https://mobile.twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1221917379225169926
Hearing bits and pieces on C-Span radio as I hopped in and out of my car. I was impressed by a presentation by a woman lawyer for the Pres who made a quite compelling case that investigating Ukrainian corruption was a matter of long standing policy interest by Obama's and then Trump's state department. I am generally disappointed that this question (which I regard as the central question) has not been discussed enough.
Go on with your impeachment farce, it means nothing to me. If, though, the senate votes to remove Trump, then I'm all for CWII. If we can't, under any circumstances, have the president we elected, then why bother to have a country ?
why does our tax money end up in Ukraine and then end up making the Biden's rich?
narciso... Bolton Book = False Flag?
What the fuck is Robert Ray talking about? Stop boring us to death, Trump team. Jeez.
I recall he was the young Special Prosecutor who replaced Starr in the Clinton impeachment, and settled it by fining Clinton $25K and taking away his law license.
I don't think he is needed here.
You people don't get it. The Bidens are made men. The impeachable offense is going after untouchables. That's why O'bozo gets a pass.
If, though, the senate votes to remove Trump, then I'm all for CWII. If we can't, under any circumstances, have the president we elected, then why bother to have a country ?
Ditto
what say you, Scott Adams?
Media using phrase "Bomb shell" is crying wolf wolf to normal ears.
Howard said...
You people don't get it. The Bidens are made men. The impeachable offense is going after untouchables. That's why O'bozo gets a pass.
Howard, Did you see "Casino?" Think "Casino."
I know some Mormons. They think Romney is a complete jerk and they think he is dishonest. Every one of em.
What the nets covered with a pillow:
https://mobile.twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1221935672048652288?s=21
Were they boring? I hear people like boring.
who is going to primary Romney in 4 years?
You are not usually so literal minded, tcrosse. The punishment is on the family themselves. There are more furies to come, hopefully.
"You people don't get it. The Bidens are made men. The impeachable offense is going after untouchables. That's why O'bozo gets a pass."
Not even Sal Tessio could be let off the hook. Not even for old time sake.
Howard often makes good points.
Bolton will be the hero in his own story.
Setting aside I think the Bolton leak is garbage to be ignored; I'll play along with this idea of Bolton being a hero. Except Bolton could claim, like Ambassador Sondland that they all assumed Trump wanted a Quid Pro Quo and admit that Trump never said as much and specifically stated otherwise. Then Bolton can drop that the back channel conversations were about Ukraine providing evidence of corrupt Ukraine officials helping Hillary in 2016. Bolton becomes a hero in his own story and wrecks the Democrat narrative.
BleachBit-and-Hammers: "who is going to primary Romney in 4 years?"
No one as Romney will not run for reelection since his poll numbers will be at loser Flake/Amash levels.
Besides, Romney only ran this last time to assist in the coup against Trump.
In 4 years that will no longer be an option.
Romney was polling at 58% in Utah, the last time I looked.
I read somewhere that Megan was the name of one of the furies, and the purpose of a fury in Greek mythology was to punish those who had escaped justice.
Megaera, Μέγαιρα, is one of the Furies, yes. But I doubt that Meaghan derives from it.
Birkel: "Romney was polling at 58% in Utah, the last time I looked."
We are just 2 years into Romney as The New McCain That Hates Republicans role.
Give it a little more time.
Bleachbit and hammers wins the whole Internet. Maybe for 2020
“why does our tax money end up in Ukraine and then end up making the Biden's rich?
The timing of "Bombshell-Bolton" has made me reject it. It has this bad look of quid pro quo - you put in some weaselly paragraphs about Trump and his thoughts and we'll get the publisher to time the book release so as to boost sales. I don't mean I know that happened. I mean it looks exactly like that. Maybe Bolton could issue a press release explaining the strange timing (Ha, ha. I like to laff.). Regardless, in a few months or years it will be clear what was going on. There's all kinds of mutants and critters in the DC swamp, all striving against each other. Someday we'll know the variations. Meanwhile it would be stupid to just accept "Bombshell-Bolton" at face value.
So I wonder what Richard Rich is expecting to get?
$83,333 per month seems to be bill at rate ~ $500 per hour for lawyer doing corporate governance guidance! .
Is that reasonable?
Where is Mitch McDeere (Tom Cruise) to rat out improper billing to FBI!
People hear what they want to hear.
I have known a couple of contractors somewhat like Trump. When checked out, it always turned out that they had not said exactly what they were said to have said, and what they had said was always just a bit fuzzy around the edges as to exactly what it meant.
When these guys want to really tell each other something, they do it by slightly changing the inflection of their voice or maybe raising an eyebrow while they are saying something otherwise not remarkable.
Having read the comments, I see that Aunty's question was already dealt with. A link to Lorraine Hunt Lieberson singing the famous aria from Handel's Hercules: 'See, see, they come... Megaera fell...'.
In Britain, the English have 80% of the people and 90% of the money. The Welsh and Scottish independence movements expect the English to continue to subsidize their economies even after Wales and Scotland declare themselves independent despite the English politicians keep telling them that no, that is not the way it works.
I'm not listening to the mild dronings because back in December I listened twice to Mitch McConnell's mild dronings on how the Senate was going to handle this mess. But I am carefully checking the checking the comments to see if the flight path is suddenly altered. So far the Dems are still flying to nowhere.
why does our tax money end up in Ukraine and then end up making the Biden's rich?
One reason is that the Swiss no longer launder money like they used to do.
Yes boies is like bendini lambert and locke, you catch on fast.
Thats what the panama dubai and paradise papers were about.
I could be mistaken but I think Mitt has already stated he’s not a lifer...
“ I could be mistaken but I think Mitt has already stated he’s not a lifer..”
Why would he be? He was already fairly rich - maybe $200 mil when he was running for President, and that was near the depth of the Obama Recession. Likely more now. The Senate is filled with mostly mediocre intellects, esp on the Dem side, people who got rich through graft and corruption, unlike the hard work he used to build his fortune (yes, he inherited some from his father, but apparently gave that away). Part of building his fortune was hiring the brightest people he could find. That was very likely a very intellectually stimulating environment, very much unlike the Senate. Once you are sworn into the Senate, you have the title for life. So why not enjoy his many grandkids? Probably much more fulfilling than working in the Senate.
"If, though, the senate votes to remove Trump, then I'm all for CWII. If we can't, under any circumstances, have the president we elected, then why bother to have a country ?"
Ditto
You had him for 3 years, until he got to a point where he couldn't help himself any longer and may have committed an impeachable offense against the electoral process. You don't get to have an unimpeachable president, unless of course he abstains from acting impeachably. Read the constitution.
Anyway, it would be interesting to see who you fight your second unconstitutional war against. Against the House - elected as it was by no less of the country than the minority who voted for Trump? The House gets sole power of impeachment. Again, read the constitution. If you can't abide by it, you lose. That's the country you peckerheads seem to have trouble being lawfully represented by.
Wars are fought over territory or ethnic rivalries - neither of which represent your current conundrum. There's no sectional divide. Or ethnic - which is something in which our country is not and was never based. Just ideological/partisan - and the only way to remove those rivalries if you can't present a winning argument that supersedes them is through a tyrannical government or gendarmerie enforcing mind control over the people. I'm not surprised to see your sympathy for that kind of a "remedy" to your anti-pluralism problem.
In the meantime, the best course is for you to send word of your violent intent against whichever representatives (or their constituents) you would like to take out in your "war" to law enforcement, so that they can deal with your mental problem appropriately. Until then, kindly fuck off and play toy soldier with the nearest bands of five-year olds who can relate to it.
When Franklin talked about the people who could not "keep" it (America) as a republic he was talking about you.
DBQ couldn't even kill her husband when incited with violent rage against him so it's kind of pathetic that she thinks she's going to rally bands of violent Americans to kill off the tens of millions other Americans that she must undoubtedly dispatch in order to win her "CWII" against their participation and influence in the constitutional political process. What a high price she must exact in order for them to participate according to her approval.
Seriously, piss off.
“With lawyers I am able to listen and then I get some gentle napping in along the way.”
The lenity of lawyers.
“DBQ couldn't even kill her husband when incited with violent rage against him so it's kind of pathetic that she thinks she's going to rally bands of violent Americans to kill off the tens of millions other Americans that she must undoubtedly dispatch in order to win her "CWII" against their participation and influence in the constitutional political process. What a high price she must exact in order for them to participate according to her approval.
Seriously, piss off.”
Sometimes ya just gotta laugh at these preppers who wish they had a reason for hoarding canned food, beans and rice and ammo for the last 20 years.
President Toilet Paper Shoe's Perfect Phone Call said "That's the country you peckerheads seem to have trouble being lawfully represented by."
I kinda get the feeling you'd like to sentence me to a re-education camp.
@ R/v
This may help.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1221799382896394245
McCain was just an asshole, not evil.
_____&&&&&
Can anyone be asshole enough not to know or care about evil?
Not with what McCain did re: Steele Dossier
I don't know about listening, but Pam Bondi is a lot nicer to look at than Schiff or Nadler.
She clears that LOW bar by a very healthy distance.
Better than Schiff’s maniacal ravings which Senator Feinstein home!
I like it when they hammer home points like they do on Law and Order...
Howard admits the democrat party is a criminal organization.
R/V- John Wayne Gacy was photographed with president Carter and his wife. Does that mean carter condoned murder?
I thought the presentations on behalf of the President were very well done. Like the professor, I much prefer the legal arguments to the purely political ones; in this regard, I thought Patrick Philbin was excellent - his arguments could easily have been offered on behalf of anyone occupying the executive office. The arguments concerning Biden were much harder to watch, but I thought even they were well executed, in the sense that they accomplished what was I think was intended (largely to show the Democratic Senators how devastating it could be if the Bidens were to testify, and TV viewers how scummy Hunter’s arrangement was). Dershowitz was better than I expected: his points were more nuanced and substantive, and his style and passion came across as more authentic, than I’d anticipated. I was initially surprised that Bolton was ignored, but it’s hard to address something like that effectively when your client is simultaneously out there addressing it ineffectively - so silence was probably the right choice.
Somebody's calling my name... https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=you+tube+hush+hush+somebody%27s+calling+my+name#id=1&vid=bff202f8aa14336097be0460959eed13&action=click
Of course I watched my ex-prof's outstanding performance. I always admired Dersh as he has always been one of those guys who did not let his personal politics impede his rationality. And of course, it is always nice to watch a REAL attorney presenting an interesting case in a highly effective fashion. Of course the D side had no real attorneys representing it.
Post a Comment