Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[K1052]

Nothing to see here

White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book

The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

www.cnn.com

The idea that Bolton filled his book with Top Secret material is...not remotely plausible.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The idea that Bolton filled his book with Top Secret material is...not remotely plausible.

Remember that this admin classifies anything negative about Trump top secret. Doesn't mean it's an actual threat to national security.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Nothing to see here

White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book

The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

www.cnn.com

Per what I read somewhere
The WHite house has had a draft of Bolton’s book for either weeks or montHs

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Interesting...Collins, Murkowski and Romney submit the first question on how to deal with multiple motives for Trump blocking aid to Ukraine and how that relates to Article I.

If I understood that response correctly (who is this guy--counsel for White House or counsel for Chief Justice?) basically as long as the President had one legitimate motive, then the corrupt motive can be ignored for Article I?

Bold claim Cotton, let's see how it works out.

 

[K1052]

Remember that this admin classifies anything negative about Trump top secret. Doesn't mean it's an actual threat to national security.

Not likely to be a super persuasive argument in court for prior restraint.

 

[UNCjigga]

Question--throughout this whole whistleblower ordeal cum impeachment inquiry cum trial--how often has President Trump tweeted about "burden sharing" with respect to Ukrainian defense aid? Compare that to the number of tweets mentioning "Hunter", "Biden" or "Burisma".

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Oh man, Schiff disassembling arguments about House not calling for Bolton testimony, busting out McGhan court arguments.

 

[UNCjigga]

Schiff is literally tearing WH counsel a new one. Very well-prepared at the outset at least...especially bringing the McGahn case in to show that President/GOP's assertion that the House "didn't try hard enough" to get Bolton or other Executive Branch witnesses is not in good faith.

 

[UNCjigga]

Patrick Philbin is, once again, making a great case for why the Senate, held to a "higher standard" with respect to conviction/removal than the House, should be calling witnesses and documents and why the House had a lower burden of proof threshhold.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Patrick Philbin is, once again, making a great case for why the Senate, held to a "higher standard" with respect to conviction/removal than the House, should be calling witnesses and documents and why the House had a lower burden of proof threshhold.

Yep, trying to convince them that the Senate has a higher burden of proof (therefore the House argument isn't good enough) while also arguing they don't need more evidence to further the trial is a thin rope to climb, to say the least.

 

[hal2kilo]

What a stream of lies! So the defense is just going to lie about known events?

 

[hal2kilo]

What a stream of lies! So the defense is just going to lie about known events?

Thankfully Crow's beating them back down.

 

[ivwshane]

You gotta love the defense doing exactly what they are accusing the prosecutors of doing. Taking half truths and giving opinion without proof. They also continue to straight up lie.

 

[hal2kilo]

Now we get the Dershowitz gymnastics of logic. He was really doing it for the national interest.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Now we get the Dershowitz gymnastics of logic. He was really doing it for the national interest.

His speech patterns and hand movements (not to mention his arguments) remind me of Data the Comedian:

 

[HomerJS]

I tuned in for a couple of minutes. Republican asks leading question of Dershowitz, "aren't quid pro quos part of foreign policy"

They are equating foreign policy with personal favors. Of course Trump supporters will claim they are the same thing.

Fucking liars, all of those Republicans.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I tuned in for a couple of minutes. Republican asks leading question of Dershowitz, "aren't quid pro quos part of foreign policy"

They are equating foreign policy with personal favors. Of course Trump supporters will claim they are the same thing.

Fucking liars, all of those Republicans.

They've been conflating US policy with Trump's personal motives since this started, even when they were stating it never even happened.

 

[ivwshane]

Holy shit! Dershorwitz just argued that because politicians believe their re-election is in the public interest they can do no wrong when they use the power of their office to ensure their re-election.

So holding up aid that congress authorized and was determined to be an illegal hold is A-ok because trump believed his re-election is in the public’s interest.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Holy shit! Dershorwitz just argued that because politicians believe their re-election is in the public interest they can do no wrong when they use the power of their office to ensure their re-election.

So holding up aid that congress authorized and was determined to be an illegal hold is A-ok because trump believed his re-election is in the public’s interest.

Yup, and Schiff is shredding it yet again.

Ahahaha, 'regarding which quid pro quo's are illegal, you don't need to be a mind reader, you can just ask John Bolton'.

 

[hal2kilo]

Theses softball questions by the Republicans aren't working out so well.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

God his arguments regarding courts are asinine. He's blatantly saying that via the courts they can create constitutional crisis by removing the ability of the Legislative to investigate the Executive, but that the Legislative should go through that process anyhow 'just because', and otherwise the Executive cannot be obstructing.

 

[ivwshane]

Guys, we can’t have an impeachment because the senate can’t do their normal jobs.

Lol

Guys our democracy is at stake but we shouldn’t worry about that until we handle all of our normal business first. /eyeroll

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Guys, we can’t have an impeachment because the senate can’t do their normal jobs.

Lol

Guys our democracy is at stake but we shouldn’t worry about that until we handle all of our normal business first. /eyeroll

I mean that sounds like a whole lot of work. You guys don't want to do all that right? That sounds lame and boring, let other people do the lame and boring work, let's go party.

'If the House is able to successfully perform oversight on the executive, that might lead to even MORE cases of the house performing oversight on the executive! it'd be chaos!'

 

[zinfamous]

Senators need to start referring to "The pedophile for the defense" has argued....when referring to Dershowitz.

 

[ivwshane]

I love the executive privilege argument where EVERYTHING can be a claimed as executive privilege which essentially allows for no oversight.

The lesson here is; all communication between the president and their advisors are privileged and therefore no documents or testimony is allowed because it would violate that privilege. Let’s ignore the fact that EP has always been used for specific instances.