Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, December 16, 2019

In the letter obtained by CNN, Schumer, a New York Democrat, called for at least four witnesses to testify, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Bolton can testify confirming everything that Fiona Hall said... and confirming that he called Trump's actions, "a drug deal".

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-16 12:53 PM | Reply

There is no reason why they shouldn't testify, their testimony is arguably more relevant than Sondland and Yovanovich. With CJ Roberts there to rule on any Executive Privilege assertions, the Administration is more than protected.

Mulvaney might not have much to say that helps the Dems, but Bolton is a total wildcard for both sides.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-16 01:19 PM | Reply

Schumer is calling the ------- "we'll turn this into a Biden trial!" card because if he gets witnesses so do they.

He's betting that the public will be swayed when Bolton's testimony corroborates most of what Fiona Hall said and he confirms that he called this, "a drug deal", and just what he meant by that; that Trump did indeed do just what all the House witnesses said he did.

And that they'll be turned off when the GOPhers have only whataboutism conspiracy theories and no defence at all for what Trump did.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-16 01:56 PM | Reply

Schumer is calling the ------- "we'll turn this into a Biden trial!" card because if he gets witnesses so do they.

Schumer is betting that McConnell will be as petty as Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler were and will not let him call Bolton and Mulvaney, thereby gutting the GOP's argument that the process in the House was unfair/one sided. As the "prosecutors" the House gets to put on witnesses but turnabout is fair play in politics, and now McConnell is holding all the cards as opposed to Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler. If the trial goes further than just some summary proceedings, then McConnell will have to grant some of Schumer's requests, otherwise the screams of "hypocrisy" (and rightfully so) will resound through Congress and the MSM.

As for a "Biden trial", nothing good will come out of that for the Dems (unless you do not want Biden to be the nominee) and it's pretty much a no-lose situation for the GOP so that will happen in an extended trial and CJ Roberts will allow the testimony to proceed over any relevance objections (and they will be numerous) from the House Managers.

As I have said repeatedly, Bolton will be a "be careful what you wish for" witness and at the end of the day he is NeoCon to the core, so even if he corroborates Hill's testimony, he will also eviscerate the Dems at every turn.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-16 03:18 PM | Reply

Wait... this is what you begged for for months and now you are getting cold feet?

As I told you to begin with, Trump could shoot Stormy Daniels dead on 5th Ave and these pukes on the right would never convict him... also, it was alway, at 67 votes, going to take more than just a few Never-Trumpers, it was going to take some so-called moderates, too, so your idea that there are such a thing as conscientious GOP Sens who would do the right thing given enough evidence was always hogwash.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-16 03:45 PM | Reply

always,

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-16 03:46 PM | Reply

The people that have accused Fat Nixon of breaking the law have all testified under oath.

The people that could exonerate Fat Nixon have all been told not to testify by Fat Nixon.

That isn't what innocent people do.

#7 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-16 04:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#5

How do you get the "cold feet" takeaway - I am telling you how this could play out, I have never said it wasn't going to or shouldn't happen.

I know you desperately look to prove me wrong about something...anything...but nothing I posted leads to your conclusion here.

Better luck next time.

#8 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-16 04:26 PM | Reply

#7

Looks like someone needs to read this article and thread about how OLC opinions are binding on executive branch employees until a Court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-16 04:28 PM | Reply

- look to prove me wrong

You need absolutely no help with that.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-16 05:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey."

and ______________?

There seems to be a name missing from the above. Donald McGahn.

That's odd.

#11 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-17 02:10 AM | Reply

#9 re looks like...
But has Trump declared executive privilege?
So far he has not, simply ordered staff & members if the administration to not respond to subpoenas or testify on the basis of presidential immunity without actually declaring executive privilege.
Whatever Bolton maybe, he's not likely to lie as a sworn witness.
Trump can't declare EO without it looking like he's obstructing justice, the Democrats are going to force Republican Senators to either approve witness subpoenas & risk the testimony of those with firsthand knowledge or refuse to allow the subpoenas on a partisan procedural vote or clearly show themselves to be partisan obstructionist toadies with no interest in establishing fact & findings.
Which is why McConnell is already pushing for a "no trial" impeachment.

#12 | Posted by kingcuke at 2019-12-17 02:18 AM | Reply

RIGHT/CENTER

"OLC opinions are binding on executive branch until a Court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise"

Aside from the fact that's already been done (pending appeals), it seems to me that your quote is a tad misleading.

As I read it i.e. "OCL opinions are binding on executive branch employees but courts are not required to treat them as legal authorities."

That sounds like a court doesn't even have to recognize, or take into account, the OCL opinion in the decision making process. IOW, no ruling at all, pro or con, on the matter. It's irrelevant.

#13 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-17 02:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Sen. Chuck Schumer says Senate wants to hear from current and former administration officials who "have direct knowledge of why the aid to Ukraine was delayed."

LOL ~~ now there a gauntlet if ever I heard one.

#14 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-17 04:46 AM | Reply

If the trial goes further than just some summary proceedings, then McConnell will have to grant some of Schumer's requests, otherwise the screams of "hypocrisy" (and rightfully so) will resound through Congress and the MSM. - #4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-16 03:18 PM

I don't really believe that the guy who stated that his goal was to make Obama a 1 term president, that single-handedly delayed a Supreme Court nominee, and who's proudest moments was when he told Obama to his face that Obama wasn't filling that SC seat is going to care about public calls of "hypocrisy".

#15 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-17 08:48 AM | Reply

The people that have accused Fat Nixon of breaking the law have all testified under oath.

The people that could exonerate Fat Nixon have all been told not to testify by Fat Nixon.

That isn't what innocent people do.

#7 | Posted by Nixon

What were you on trial for?

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-17 10:53 AM | Reply

"Sen. Chuck Schumer says Senate wants to hear from current and former administration officials who "have direct knowledge of why the aid to Ukraine was delayed."

LOL ~~ now there a gauntlet if ever I heard one.

#14 | Posted by Twinpac

Military aid was cut off for 8 years under o'bummer and only a couple weeks under Trump. Explain that twi.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-17 10:58 AM | Reply

The dems in the senate should get to call as many witness as the house allowed the republicans.

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-17 11:00 AM | Reply

Military aid was cut off for 8 years under o'bummer...

Go take a dirt nap Snippy. Aid flowed throughout the Obama Administration's term as needed. Obama would NOT provide javelin missiles because he believed their use would lead to an escalation in the overall war.

And if you didn't know, now you do department; the Ukrainians aren't actually allowed to USE the javelins right now in the battlefield anyway. The entire stockpile is stored on the other side of Ukraine away from the active war zone per US instructions.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-17 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#13

OLC's are not irrelevant, they are what are considered "advisory" opinions by the Court, and do have to be considered, but it is up to the Judge as to how much weight he/she will give them. Moreover, one ruling on a particular witness has minimal precedential value for a particular Judge since each situation is different and zero precedential value for a coordinate (different) court on the same level.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-17 03:30 PM | Reply

Military aid was cut off for 8 years under o'bummer...

Go take a dirt nap Snippy. Aid flowed throughout the Obama Administration's term as needed.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma

You are way short on facts ton. In fact you are a damn lair.

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine at all

By Marc Thiessen

Joe Biden has said that by holding up vital military aid to Ukraine, President Trump "used the power and resources of the United States to pressure a sovereign nation, a partner that is still under direct assault from Russia ... to subvert the rule of law."

That's rich. The aid in question is lethal military assistance that the Obama-Biden administration refused to give Ukraine.

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress " with Biden sitting directly behind him " Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared "one cannot win a war with blankets."

#21 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-17 04:59 PM | Reply

Snippy, never call me a liar. I've forgotten more facts than your pinhead will ever hold.

While the Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment.

By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles. While it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military. Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.

www.cnn.com

I clearly stated that Obama would not provide javelin missiles which are indeed lethal aid, right?

Again, learn reading comprehension because you obviously don't understand what the words that I use actually mean as part of the English language.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-17 05:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Hypothetically, I wonder if Schumer would agree to having Mulvaney and Bolton testimony on the condition that Joe and Hunter Biden also testify...

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 06:12 PM | Reply

#23 what could Hunter and Joe possibly testify to? Whether the prosecutor was fired in order to impede the investigation that was not currently occurring when he was fired? Ya, that is one hell of a story... I would accept Joe testifying after Trump, and you can have Hunter for Mulvaney. Fat lot of good it would do you.

#24 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-18 06:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Justagirl,

The rationale behind the Bidens testifying would be to try and build a narrative about a corrupt arrangement between Biden, his son and Ukraine with the GOP could then argue legitimizes Trump's call asking for an investigation.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 06:22 PM | Reply

Yes, but I doubt it would work. They put Hilary on the stand and grilled her for hours with nothing to show. I believe Joe's version as it has the most information to back it up and seems pretty transparent. Now do Trump, oh that is right, we cant...

#26 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-18 06:24 PM | Reply

"legitimizes Trump's call asking for an investigation."

Riiiiight. Because the guy running the fake university and the sham charity was really, really, really concerned about corruption.

Just not enough to mention it on the call.
And not enough to hold up aid the year before.
And not enough to hold up aid the year before that.
And not enough to bring it up with Putin, MBS, Kim, Netanyahoo, or Erdogan.
And not enough to be worried about Ukraine's corruption, but rather a private company's.

And it was a just a COINCIDENCE the company was connected to Trump's presumptive chief political rival's son.

Soooo....TOTALLY LEGITIMATE!

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 06:29 PM | Reply

Danforth,

I used the word "narrative" in #25 for a reason.

Much about impeachment is public perception.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 06:41 PM | Reply

Oh, so the reason to have Bidens testify is to perpetuate a hoax.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 06:45 PM | Reply

#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Oh definitely, there was never a question of that. Trump wants to spread his conspiracy theory as far as he can.

#30 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-18 06:47 PM | Reply

No doubt.
Deplorables don't dare call it a hoax, despite calling it a narrative, despite acknowledging that it's false, is all I was trying to call out.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 06:52 PM | Reply

31 -- yes well Jeff has jumped off the fence onto the deplorables' side so...

#32 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-18 06:53 PM | Reply

"I used the word "narrative" in #25 for a reason."

Oh. So you don't buy it, but you'll boost the signal anyway.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 07:15 PM | Reply

31 -- yes well Jeff has jumped off the fence onto the deplorables' side so...

#32 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

How do you figure?

I asked a hypothetical question and explained the rationale behind trying to get Joe and Hunter Biden to testify. That is political analysis, nothing more.

Here's the thing regarding the Biden/Ukraine thing...I'm well aware that Joe Biden seeking to have Shokin fired wasn't a corrupt act. It was something that the international banking system wanted as well as a number of European allies wanted. So, Biden leveraging secured loans against firing this guy wasn't for personal gain (Shokin wasn't even actively investigating Burisma when this took place), it was a foreign-policy initiative.

I don't think the GOP would focus on that. In fact, they'd be stupid to do so during actual testimony because all of that would come out.

Given the opportunity, They'd hone in on the fact that Hunter was hired by Burisma, paid WAY above what a typical consultant is paid AND that he had no prior experience in the energy industry or Ukraine. Throw in the fact that he never even went to Ukraine while he was sitting on a board for Burisma and all of a sudden a narrative is built. Add in that when this all took place a member of the Obama administration who was close to all of this kinda blew the whistle that arrangement created, at the very least, the optics of a conflict of interest. THAT is precisely why the Republicans want Joe and Hunter Biden to testify.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 07:20 PM | Reply

#33

I hope #34 clarifies where I stand.

Here's a suggestion to all of you: When you see, POSTED BY: JEFFJ it's OK to seek clarification in lieu of assuming the absolute worst intent. It's OK to think, "Hey, maybe I'm misconstruing what he's trying to convey. Perhaps I should dig a bit deeper to better understand what he's articulating."

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 07:23 PM | Reply

Here's a suggestion to all of you: When you see, POSTED BY: JEFFJ it's OK to seek clarification in lieu of assuming the absolute worst intent. It's OK to think, "Hey, maybe I'm misconstruing what he's trying to convey. Perhaps I should dig a bit deeper to better understand what he's articulating."
#35 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why bother within someone who's an admitted troll? Onus is on you to clarify if you're fccking around or not.

#36 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-18 07:32 PM | Reply

with the GOP could then argue legitimizes Trump's call asking for an investigation.
#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's a terrible argument. Would you agree?

#37 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-18 07:36 PM | Reply

Why bother within someone who's an admitted troll? Onus is on you to clarify if you're fccking around or not.

#36 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

I do need to be better about offering clarity up-front. No doubt. The problem is, when I offer clarification after it's obvious someone misconstrued what I said, the clarification is rarely accepted by certain individuals on this site and instead the response is, "You're lying! You're just a ----------- Trump -------!"

It's a terrible argument. Would you agree?

#37 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

A terrible argument would be trying to paint Biden's Quid Pro Quo with Ukraine to get Shokin fired as a way to personally benefit his son.

Things get a bit murkier when we take into account my last paragraph in #34. Now, at the end of the day the GOP would have to provide evidence as to specific actions that Joe Biden took that were self-serving as it pertained to his son and Ukraine. I am not aware of any such examples.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 07:44 PM | Reply

"I asked a hypothetical question"

Maybe that's the problem.
Hypotheticals are a distraction, and a canard.
There's more than enough facts and realities to know that Trump violated the law and his sworn Oath of Office.
But you'd rather talk about hypotheticals...

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 07:46 PM | Reply

"Now, at the end of the day the GOP would have to provide evidence as to specific actions that Joe Biden took that were self-serving as it pertained to his son and Ukraine."

^
Literally nothing to do with Trump.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 07:47 PM | Reply

"Now, at the end of the day the GOP would have to provide evidence as to specific actions that Joe Biden took that were self-serving as it pertained to his son and Ukraine."

^
Literally nothing to do with Trump.

#40 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 08:19 PM | Reply

#41 it's central to Trump's call to Zelensky, which is what this is all about.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 08:20 PM | Reply

"Given the opportunity, They'd hone in on the fact that Hunter was hired by Burisma, paid WAY above what a typical consultant is paid "

A barometer no Republican would apply to Jared.

If Hunter is bad, aren't Jared's business deals with Saudi Arabia worse?

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 08:51 PM | Reply

"it's central to Trump's call to Zelensky"

What a steaming pile.

You'd have to be a moron to fall for the "Trump was rooting out corruption" manure.

You're not a moron, are you?

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 08:52 PM | Reply

It's hilarious that on the one hand, Republicans want to pretend the impeachment process is a court of law that requires things like "due process" and "the right to confront your accuser," and on the other hand want to act like subpoenas are a thing to be tossed in the shredder with your check stubs to pornstars.

It's either a courtroom process or it's not. Make up your minds, -------------.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-18 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's either a courtroom process or it's not. Make up your minds, -------------.
#45 | POSTED BY JOE

Newsworthy.

#46 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-18 08:56 PM | Reply

If Hunter is bad, aren't Jared's business deals with Saudi Arabia worse?
#43 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

STILL waiting for a Trumper or Republican to answer this question. And I'm not holding my breath.

#47 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-18 08:58 PM | Reply

"It's hilarious that on the one hand, Republicans want to pretend the impeachment process is a court of law that requires things like "due process" and "the right to confront your accuser," and on the other hand..."

...admit they're not a fair juror, nor will they ever be.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 09:01 PM | Reply

#41 it's central to Trump's call to Zelensky, which is what this is all about.
#42 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

^
You mean the part where Trump told Zelensky, investigate Biden or no aid?

The specifics of what Trump demanded from Ukraine isn't relevant to the crime Trump committed by withholding aid to get whatever it is Trump demanded.

What you're doing is pretending that, since maybe Biden is corrupt, it's okay for Trump to demand an investigation into that in exchange for releasing our aid. And you're perfectly aware that is not legal -- no matter how corrupt Biden is!

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 09:19 PM | Reply

You'd have to be a moron to fall for the "Trump was rooting out corruption" manure.

I agree. AGAIN, I'm looking at this from a political standpoint. I'm fully aware of what Trump was trying to do. As it pertains to the Bidens I was simply pointing out, from a political standpoint, the angle the GOP would be taking in terms of crafting a narrative that resonates with the public.

Impeachment isn't a legal remedy, it's a political remedy. It's about sufficiently persuading the public to a point where the 11th Amendment (Thou shall be re-elected) overrides party loyalty.

So far the public hasn't appeared to be sufficiently convinced and that's with the Democrats being on offense the entire time, up to this point. Now, they hand the ball over to the GOP in the Senate. In the House the Democrats controlled the process. In the Senate the GOP will control the process. As I've said, what's good for the goose and all that...

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 09:24 PM | Reply

"I agree. AGAIN, I'm looking at this from a political standpoint. "

So...AGAIN...you don't believe it, but you'll be boosting the signal anyway.

"So far the public hasn't appeared to be sufficiently convinced"

You're making that up.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 09:30 PM | Reply

"I was simply pointing out, from a political standpoint,"

So rather than stop at "Trump was wrong", your plan is to throw as much sand into the faces and gears as possible.

"Now, they hand the ball over to the GOP in the Senate."

Ideally, not until the Senate agrees to hold a fair trial. I'm starting to warm to the idea Trump should be impeached, but the case not (yet) referred.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 09:32 PM | Reply

But for 8 hours the republicans bitched that the democrats didn't want to hear from the people that were involved.

Hahahaha you GOP goons are going down in history as traitors. Have fun licking robert e lee's taint in hell, morons!

#53 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-12-18 09:34 PM | Reply

"As I've said, what's good for the goose and all that..."

So you actually believe exactly the opposite of what you're pretending.

What a sacklicker you turned out to be.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 09:37 PM | Reply

"As I've said, what's good for the goose and all that..."

So you actually believe exactly the opposite of what you're pretending. ..

#54 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

What? Please expound.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 09:42 PM | Reply

"What? Please expound."

If you actually believed what you've pretending, you would've started by excoriating the Republicans.

And then continued excoriating them, nonstop.

Instead, you've already forgiven their traitorous soon-to-be behavior.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 09:45 PM | Reply

"So far the public hasn't appeared to be sufficiently convinced"

You're making that up.

#51 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The aggregate polling I saw on Monday had support for impeachment just shy of 50%.

"I agree. AGAIN, I'm looking at this from a political standpoint. "

So...AGAIN...you don't believe it, but you'll be boosting the signal anyway.

Boosting the signal? Are you referencing Batman?

I'm explaining how I see things shaking out short term. FFS. I predicted Ohio State would beat Michigan in football in November. The way you frame things you'd accuse me of being an OSU "sack licker" in spite of the fact that I'm a diehard UM fan.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 09:47 PM | Reply

If, as Trump declares, there is nothing to hide and that he and others are 100% innocent, why have they gone to such lengths to do prevent a full disclosure and compliance with Congressional subpoenas?

#58 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-12-18 09:50 PM | Reply

"The aggregate polling I saw on Monday had support for impeachment just shy of 50%."

So...a plurality.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 09:50 PM | Reply

#56 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You need to let go of your anger and hatred. You are becoming a Sith.

I am not going to respond to nonstop straw men nor am I going to accept the premise that I should be reacting to all of this in the 100% precise manner in which you demand I react to this.

"You're not the boss of me."

Every time I make a point you don't address the point at all, but instead try to make it about me, personally.

Alinsky tactics and Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 09:51 PM | Reply

"The aggregate polling I saw on Monday had support for impeachment just shy of 50%."

So...a plurality.

#59 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Yep. It's not a good position to be in after being on offense the entire time up to this point and turning the ball over to the other side.

Who knows...maybe Senate Democrats have a few tricks up their sleeves...

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 09:53 PM | Reply

For JEFF's consideration.

Most Americans Think There's Enough Evidence To Impeach Trump
fivethirtyeight.com

#62 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-18 10:18 PM | Reply

fivethirtyeight.com

#63 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-18 10:18 PM | Reply

JEFF

"Who knows...maybe Senate Democrats have a few tricks up their sleeves.."

Not the Senate Democrats, Jeff. The House Democrats, specifically Nancy Pelosi, who is always three steps ahead.

Wait and watch how she turns the tables on Mitch McConnell.

#64 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-19 03:39 AM | Reply

Jeff, here is my problem with your arguments - you continuously say "from a political standpoint", nobody cares about a standpoint in your mind. We care about what Jeff actually things. And guess what else... Jim Redneck at the corner gas station that doesnt follow politics doesnt know what a "political standpoint" even is. He just sees the arguments others like you are making every day online and in the news and thinks that this is all ok, and what Trump did wasnt really impeachable. So stop spreading your manure on this blog just to play devils advocate. You are like everyone else that muddies the water.

#65 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-19 09:18 AM | Reply

Justagirl,

Are you going to join the cadre of others who seem to think dictating to me what to comment on and how I should frame my comments is going to work?

I'm analyzing the situation and am giving my 2 cents as to how I think things will ultimately shake out.

specifically Nancy Pelosi, who is always three steps ahead.

Wait and watch how she turns the tables on Mitch McConnell.

#64 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

I completely agree that Pelosi is a brilliant political tactician. Here's the thing - so is McConnell.

She may have a few tricks up her sleeve but I guarantee that he does too.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 09:32 AM | Reply

#66 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I would never dictate what you could post, however I can and will express where my displeasure stems from. I see it not just from you here, but all over the internet. It is only useful in making idiots believe what Trump did isnt impeachable. You may think he should be, but the type of information you spread here shows up in memes from my dad's facebook account. Whom btw is still a firm believer this is all fake - that Trump hasnt obstructed anything, he's been the most transparent POTUS, Nancy made all of this up, and the call was perfect...

#67 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-19 09:49 AM | Reply

Justagirl,

I'm making predictions as to how I think things will play out.

I predicted Ohio State would beat Michigan in football last month. I was right. Does that make me an OSU fan? No, it doesn't. I've been a die-hard UM fan my whole life. However, I won't let my advocacy for UM sports turn me into Baghdad Bob.

Same here with impeachment. Fact is it will go nowhere in the Senate because, for whatever reason, Democrats failed to sufficiently move the public mood after throwing everything that could at it and had the tremendous assistance of a sycophantic media.

Well, now they are handing the ball over to the GOP and are trying to re-write the rules while the game is in progress.

Pelosi's apparent strategy is that she simply won't hand impeachment over to the Senate unless she gets to dictate how the Senate conducts its trial, as if the GOP had any say as to how the House conducted its inquiry.

I admire her stone-solid ovaries for how absolutely brazenly hypocritical she's being. And don't let that sound snarky. It's an impressive tactical political move.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 09:59 AM | Reply

Pelosi's apparent strategy is that she simply won't hand impeachment over to the Senate unless she gets to dictate how the Senate conducts its trial, as if the GOP had any say as to how the House conducted its inquiry.

You keep repeating this statutory lie Jeff, and I wish you'd stop. By rule, the Articles of Impeachment are only given to the Senate after the House has passed exactly who their managers of the Senate trial will be. Nancy Pelosi is simply saying that until Mitch McConnell codifies the official rules that the trial will be held under she is unable to decide which persons she needs to choose as managers, and will withhold that legislation until she does. Nancy is seeking a fair trial as most are normally adjudicated, nothing more, nothing less. If McConnell wants to codify a biased process against the Constitution's very demand for Senate impartiality, then let time and the public decide if that is kosher.

It's the Garland Maneuver, a pocket action that isn't addressed in any statutory language and something that cannot be adjudicated in the Courts.

The chickens just came home to roost.

#69 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 10:06 AM | Reply

--Pelosi's apparent strategy is that she simply won't hand impeachment over to the Senate unless she gets to dictate how the Senate conducts its trial, as if the GOP had any say as to how the House conducted its inquiry.

Which is blatantly unconstitutional and will end up in the SCOTUS.

#70 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 10:08 AM | Reply

"Nancy is seeking a fair trial as most are normally adjudicated, nothing more, nothing less"

I don't know Nancy personally and I don't know what's in her heart. You must if you posted that.

What she truly wants will remain a mystery to me. I'm okay with that. Personally, I think most career politicians are more concerned with winning than "fair".

But....that doesn't really matter either way to me.

My question is....how long can this stalemate last? Pelosi can demand what she wants but what if McConnell doesn't budge?

then what?

#71 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 10:14 AM | Reply

Which is blatantly unconstitutional and will end up in the SCOTUS.

You sound mad, but what the ---- do you know about the Constitution?

SCOTUS has historically avoided political questions. I'll concede that we no longer have a properly functioning Supreme Court and that it's largely filled with political operatives who might ignore that precedent, but they should stay out of this.

#72 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-19 10:18 AM | Reply

You sound mad...

#72 | Posted by JOE

Posted by Joe. lol

#73 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 10:21 AM | Reply

I'll concede that we no longer have a properly functioning Supreme Court and that it's largely filled with political operatives who might ignore that precedent

I agree. I can easily see Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan lobbying the Chief Justice to insert SCOTUS into this.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:26 AM | Reply

how gives a crap what they want. they shut out Republicans in the house so they can take a flippin' leap

#75 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-12-19 10:30 AM | Reply

#74 Are you really such a hack that you can't admit the Republican justices are equally likely to insert themselves into a political question?

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-19 10:31 AM | Reply

Hunter Biden was basically hired as a lobbyist and the payments he received are not really out of line considering the influence he ad to offer. I don't like lobbyists but the things they do are not illegal under our laws. You want to limit lobbyists methods of influencing our government it's fine with me but I think you'd find that our SC would declare any such laws as unConstitutional under the "money is free speech" concept supported by our corrupt SC. Trump understands the hatred of lobbyists by most Americans and thus wanted that investigation to make Joe Biden and Hunter Biden look like the lobbyists most Americans despise but he tried to use 300 million dollars of military aid to Ukraine as the carrot to get Zelensky, who desperately needed that aid, to put on a dog and pony show that Trump could use in 2020 to call Biden a sold out lobbyist. His actions were for his own benefit, he even said he didn't care if the Ukrainians actually investigated or not, he just wanted the announcement of the investigation to make Biden look like a crook. Now he has been impeached for it so time will tell if Americans get what happened here or will just be the sheep they have been nodding their heads in agreement with anything Trump says or does. Baaaaaahhhhh. After 2020, if Trump wins, expect a shearing.

#77 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-19 10:32 AM | Reply

"#74 Are you really such a hack that you can't admit the Republican justices are equally likely to insert themselves into a political question?"

If Bush v Gore didn't convince him, nothing will. Even Sandra Day Oconnor said she deeply regretted that decision which was based on nothing except Republicans wanting more Republican on the court.

#78 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-19 10:35 AM | Reply

"how gives a crap what they want. they shut out Republicans in the house so they can take a flippin' leap"

Believes every Republican talking point and doesn't read about the actual truth.

#79 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-19 10:35 AM | Reply

#74 Are you really such a hack that you can't admit the Republican justices are equally likely to insert themselves into a political question?

#76 | POSTED BY JOE

No, not at all. When you made your "largely filled with political operatives" I (wrongly?) assumed you were solely referring to Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas.

My comment was a sarcastic dig at what I assumed you were focusing your direction.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:36 AM | Reply

My question is....how long can this stalemate last? Pelosi can demand what she wants but what if McConnell doesn't budge?
then what?

Right now, Pelosi's only saying that she needs to see what rules McConnell passes in the Senate before she can choose her managers and send over the Articles. She wants to see a fair trial process and all that means is what Americans do every single day throughout our justice system: The prosecution presents the charges, introduces evidence and testimony in support of those charges; the defense presents its counterarguments; and an impartial jury makes its ruling.

That's what she "wants" but she isn't demanding anything. She's reminding the Senate that the Founders expressly codified the demand that all the Senator/jurors take an additional oath which states that they will render "impartial justice." Not the House Dems are saying it, but the US Constitution says it.

This is where we are. The GOP is trying to justify not only ignoring the Constitution's oath, but running it into the ground.

#81 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 10:45 AM | Reply

Tony, we aren't going to get an impartial jury or decision in the senate.

insist on a "fair trial process" all you want but the outcome won't change.

Pelosi is trying to make it harder, politically, for the senate to bury evidence and testimony that's unfavorable for Trump, and by extension, any GOP senator who, after seeing all of it in public, still votes to keep Trump in office.

Good move on her part, IMO.

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 10:56 AM | Reply

#80 When i said "filled" i meant on all sides.

#83 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-19 11:01 AM | Reply

#83 | POSTED BY JOE

Well, then I made a false assumption and I apologize for that.

You know what they say about "assume"....it makes an ass out of u and me.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 11:04 AM | Reply

Pelosi is trying to make it harder, politically, for the senate to bury evidence and testimony that's unfavorable for Trump, and by extension, any GOP senator who, after seeing all of it in public, still votes to keep Trump in office.

Good move on her part, IMO.

Ebs, in a normal trial setting, the House will present the evidence supporting the Articles and call testimony to support them. Trump's defense cannot simply consist of ignoring the substance of the charges while attempting to put the entire process of impeachment on trial.

Again, each and every rule, even any rulings by the Chief Justice, can be overridden by a simple majority vote of the entire Senate. It will only take 4 Republican Senators to agree with the Democrats in determining how the trial will proceed. Mitch is not a god in charge of impeachment, he has to get 50 others to go along with him.

I still believe that even hard partisan GOP Senators will take the trial process seriously because of the gravity due the trial and encapsulated by the oath each of them take to render "impartial justice." There's no ambiguity here. Impartial justice is a concrete thing, not a squishy aberration. If such a thing can be applied, the facts and evidence underlying the Articles are pretty solid and damning if one views them impartially.

At some point, each and every Senator who may dismiss these Articles will be called to justify why they did so. An whining about revenge for what happened in the House or complete denial that the evidence and testimony doesn't prove the charges won't be tenable after the public witnesses a normal, evidence-based trial where wild rantings and accusations unrelated to the actual charges won't likely be allowed or voted on by 51 Senators not wishing to turn their respected chamber into a Trumpian Jerry Springer show.

#85 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 11:12 AM | Reply

Tony, we aren't going to get an impartial jury or decision in the senate.
#82 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Why should they? the articles weren't passed "impartially".

The minority wasn't asked by the majority to present witnesses. Which is "unfair", why shouldn't the minority have been allowed to present witnesses to counter any supposed evidence?

Proving the impeachment inquiry nothing more than a congressional level FBI FISA application operation run by Obama &Co.

I recall Tony and EtAl claiming the FBI can't lie in FISA those applications ... LOL as if...

What interesting to me, is the more Democrats act like babies and cowards the stronger the opposition grows, it has nothing to do with Trump.

But resistance to kangaroo processes, graft, and the obvious malfeasance being exposed of Obama, Biden and Clinton.

This impeachment when looked at in the totality of Trumps Presidency will be seen as an attempted coup, to prevent what is about to be exposed.

#86 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I wonder if Pelosi thinks she may be able to raise public outcry for the witnesses Trump has told not to testify, to ignore subpoenas, to be allowed to testify at the Senate trial? Even Trumpers are going to start asking why can't they testify, what are they hiding, what did John Bolton saying "he's not going to be part of that drug deal" actually mean. Good strategy but a little late and the Dems did a piss poor job of raising the question. So did the media.

#87 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-19 11:22 AM | Reply

"This impeachment when looked at in the totality of Trumps Presidency will be seen as an attempted coup, to prevent what is about to be exposed."

Yeah, the DEms were going to lay it on the line to enable Pence to become President. Laughable Andrea.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-19 11:23 AM | Reply

"The minority wasn't asked by the majority to present witnesses. Which is "unfair", why shouldn't the minority have been allowed to present witnesses to counter any supposed evidence?"

Do you think the defense is allowed to present witnesses in a Grand Jury hearing? That's what an impeachment hearing amounts. They will be able o present any relevant witnesses they want in the Senate Trial but they depend on their ignorant base to not understand that.

#89 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-19 11:25 AM | Reply

"This impeachment when looked at in the totality of Trumps Presidency will be seen as..." - #86 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 11:19 AM

It will be seen as the 3rd US President to be impeached by the US House of Representatives.

That's historical fact...now and forever.

Just as anyone outside of a 19th century US political historian couldn't tell you the complete circumstances (and partisan breakdown) of the vote to impeach Andrew Johnson in 1868, Trump's impeachment, even when looked at in the totality, will be seen as historical fact:

The 3rd US President to be impeached by the US House of Representatives.

Now and forever.

#90 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-19 11:27 AM | Reply

"This impeachment when looked at in the totality of Trumps Presidency will be seen as an attempted coup, to prevent what is about to be exposed."

Let's put this stupid argument to bed once and for all. If Donald Trump is convicted and removed, Mike Pence becomes President. Mike Pence was voted into office by every single voter who voted for Trump. How is this a coup? How is this overriding the will of voters, when they voted Pence into office knowing full well that at some point he may have to replace Trump?

Morons....

#91 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 11:28 AM | Reply

If President Hillary Rodham had been impeached and Kaine made president, the usual suspects would be calling it a coup.

#92 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 11:40 AM | Reply

#84 No worries.

#92 Wow brilliant argument, i love Trump now

#93 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-19 11:43 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort