The Impeachment Thread

#36,301
#36,301
lawgator1 said:
The $64k question is whether, when he takes the oath, he honors it and tells the truth, or just spins to protect.

My money is on both. I do think when push comes to shove he will say that Trump did it to hurt Biden, that he (Bolton) warned him against it, and that Trump did it anyway. If asked the right way, he might even admit that disagreement over that was one of the reasons he left.
Click to expand...

It's a wildcard but I doubt he'll lie under oath.

There's huge risk in having a witness when you have no idea what they'll say. He's the witness of choice because he's easiest to get. I bet he's not the one they want though due to uncertainty of his story.

I'm betting Dems are fine without witnesses - they just want to portray R Senators as being complicit by not agreeing to witnesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 37L1 and hog88
#36,303
#36,303
lawgator1 said:
The $64k question is whether, when he takes the oath, he honors it and tells the truth, or just spins to protect.

My money is on both. I do think when push comes to shove he will say that Trump did it to hurt Biden, that he (Bolton) warned him against it, and that Trump did it anyway. If asked the right way, he might even admit that disagreement over that was one of the reasons he left.
Click to expand...
I doubt he testifies, nor should he
 
#36,305
#36,305
volinbham said:
It's a wildcard but I doubt he'll lie under oath.

There's huge risk in having a witness when you have no idea what they'll say. He's the witness of choice because he's easiest to get. I bet he's not the one they want though due to uncertainty of his story.

I'm betting Dems are fine without witnesses - they just want to portray R Senators as being complicit by not agreeing to witnesses.
Click to expand...


Disagree with the bolded. They want him because Trump fired him just as this was becoming public and in fact others have testified that Bolton was dead set against this and warned what would happen.
 
#36,306
#36,306
volinbham said:
reading comprehension is fundamental - they were witnesses that had already been heard from during the impeachment process and who's testimony was included from the House. No new fact witnesses to the impeachment articles were heard in the Senate. Schiff said so himself right in front of everyone.

so thanks for playing and pay attention going forward
Click to expand...
Who were the new witnesses the Republicans wanted but didn't get during the Senate trial for Clinton?
 
#36,307
#36,307
utvolpj said:
Ron Paul and the tea party moment made some effort but nothing really changes. It's why selling Trump as something different is such a farce. I'm just glad he finally admitted it yet some still don't seem to be convinced
Click to expand...

We are a consumer economy. Consumers have to produce good to pay for what they consume ... unless you play funky make believe economist games. The old barter economies pretty much proved the consumer/producer relationship; but funny money, lending, and governments pretty well mask the relationship. Trump has at least made progress in restoring some of the producer/consumer balance that the globalists in all previous administrations have undone. So, no, Trump hasn't done nothing, and momentum is a bitch to get under control. In fact the credit fiasco (personal, corporate, and particularly government) is likely the momentum pushing negative interest - the financial version of imaginary numbers.
 
#36,308
#36,308
I wouldn't say Bolton testifying is out of the realm of possibility. I believe Mitch said they would pretty much follow the same rules used during the Clinton trial. In that one they voted on introducing new witnesses AFTER the opening arguments. And considering Mitch & co probably know what Bolton would say I can see them offering a compromise on him testifying. What better way to stick in the Dems eye than to have Bolton deny the premise of the Dems case and get to put Schift or the whistle blower on the stand.
 
#36,309
#36,309
evillawyer said:
Who were the new witnesses the Republicans wanted but didn't get during the Senate trial for Clinton?
Click to expand...

precedent from Clinton impeachment - no new fact witnesses heard from in any way and according to Schiff that counts as witnesses. Maybe Sondland and Lt. Col. can come back
 
#36,311
#36,311
lawgator1 said:
Disagree with the bolded. They want him because Trump fired him just as this was becoming public and in fact others have testified that Bolton was dead set against this and warned what would happen.
Click to expand...

I meant easiest because he's not going to fight a subpoena - Mulvaney or other would have more info
 
#36,314
#36,314
luthervol said:
I seem to care more about legality than most Trumpers currently do.
Click to expand...

I’m positive you would denounce anything that removed Trump from office illegally ... while jumping up and down , buying beers for everyone and giggling like a giddy school girl on prom night .
 
#36,315
#36,315
volinbham said:
precedent from Clinton impeachment - no new fact witnesses heard from in any way and according to Schiff that counts as witnesses. Maybe Sondland and Lt. Col. can come back
Click to expand...

That's a non-answer. Who were the new witnesses the Republicans wanted during the Clinton impeachment trial that they didn't get to hear from?
 
#36,318
#36,318
0nelilreb said:
I’m positive you would denounce anything that removed Trump from office illegally ... while jumping up and down , buying beers for everyone and giggling like a giddy school girl on prom night .
Click to expand...
How could they remove him illegally?
 
#36,320
#36,320
evillawyer said:
That's a non-answer. Who were the new witnesses the Republicans wanted during the Clinton impeachment trial that they didn't get to hear from?
Click to expand...

it is not a non-answer any more than you're childish giddiness about Turley/Graham saying there doesn't have to be a crime to impeach. that is not the entire defense or even a significant part. I'm betting none of the R Senators held that believe.

It's a silly game of "oooh, look what so and so said; that means..." Just pointing out that this process is rife with such instances.

so in that vein, Schiff made an argument on the floor that calling witnesses that had already been heard from satisfies the "calling witnesses" standard.
 
#36,323
#36,323
hog88 said:
I wouldn't say Bolton testifying is out of the realm of possibility. I believe Mitch said they would pretty much follow the same rules used during the Clinton trial. In that one they voted on introducing new witnesses AFTER the opening arguments. And considering Mitch & co probably know what Bolton would say I can see them offering a compromise on him testifying. What better way to stick in the Dems eye than to have Bolton deny the premise of the Dems case and get to put Schift or the whistle blower on the stand.
Click to expand...
If it happens, Bidens son will be coming in. That is already in the cards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top