Prognightmare said:

---

---

Be prepared for them to scream "OBSTRUCTION!" louder than ever.

Then let them hold an official vote. Names on the board!

will25u said:

---

If true, this is rather disturbing.

https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/09/26/bolton-contacted-whistleblower-prior-to-filing-complaint-suggesting-an-attempted-coup/

Quote:

---

In the hours after National Security Advisor John Bolton was fired by President Donald Trump on September 10th, he immediately began calling longtime political operatives in Washington, DC, sources tell The Chronicle. Many of those calls were made to Democrats and many of them in the national security establishment.

One of those contacts was the intelligence agency whistleblower who filed the now-famous complaint pertaining to the President's call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, that is now the subject of intense congressional scrutiny. That complaint was filed only weeks before, on August 12th. The source alleges that the whistleblower was given the information that comprises the contents of his complaint from Bolton himself, which if true would constitute an extraordinary breach of national security and an indictable offense punishable by imprisonment.

"It's go time," he began those conversations, multiple sources tell The Chronicle, as if to suggest that Bolton's patience with the President had worn thin, and even implying later in more than one conversation that a faction of neo-conservatives at the Central Intelligence Agency was ready to remove the President from office.

---

---

I'm having trouble connecting the dots here.

-Bolton fired 9/10, began making calls
-Whistleblower complaint filed 8/12

So, how was Bolton feeding the whistleblower the information after a disgruntled firing if the firing happened a month after the whistleblower's filing?

Is this article saying that Bolton was actively working against the President while still the National Security Advisor?

txaggie_08 said:

---

will25u said:

---

If true, this is rather disturbing.

https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/09/26/bolton-contacted-whistleblower-prior-to-filing-complaint-suggesting-an-attempted-coup/

Quote:

---

In the hours after National Security Advisor John Bolton was fired by President Donald Trump on September 10th, he immediately began calling longtime political operatives in Washington, DC, sources tell The Chronicle. Many of those calls were made to Democrats and many of them in the national security establishment.

One of those contacts was the intelligence agency whistleblower who filed the now-famous complaint pertaining to the President's call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, that is now the subject of intense congressional scrutiny. That complaint was filed only weeks before, on August 12th. The source alleges that the whistleblower was given the information that comprises the contents of his complaint from Bolton himself, which if true would constitute an extraordinary breach of national security and an indictable offense punishable by imprisonment.

"It's go time," he began those conversations, multiple sources tell The Chronicle, as if to suggest that Bolton's patience with the President had worn thin, and even implying later in more than one conversation that a faction of neo-conservatives at the Central Intelligence Agency was ready to remove the President from office.

---

---

I'm having trouble connecting the dots here.

-Bolton fired 9/10, began making calls
-Whistleblower complaint filed 8/12

So, how was Bolton feeding the whistleblower the information after a disgruntled firing if the firing happened a month after the whistleblower's filing?

Is this article saying that Bolton was actively working against the President while still the National Security Advisor?

---

Time lines and logic have no place in a purely manufactured narrative. Dems aren't even smart enough to put forth plausible stories anymore.

Why the Mueller thread is approaching one thousand pages. Dems just won't stop making things up, all out of animus and not facts.

txaggie_08 said:

---

will25u said:

---

If true, this is rather disturbing.

https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/09/26/bolton-contacted-whistleblower-prior-to-filing-complaint-suggesting-an-attempted-coup/

Quote:

---

In the hours after National Security Advisor John Bolton was fired by President Donald Trump on September 10th, he immediately began calling longtime political operatives in Washington, DC, sources tell The Chronicle. Many of those calls were made to Democrats and many of them in the national security establishment.

One of those contacts was the intelligence agency whistleblower who filed the now-famous complaint pertaining to the President's call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, that is now the subject of intense congressional scrutiny. That complaint was filed only weeks before, on August 12th. The source alleges that the whistleblower was given the information that comprises the contents of his complaint from Bolton himself, which if true would constitute an extraordinary breach of national security and an indictable offense punishable by imprisonment.

"It's go time," he began those conversations, multiple sources tell The Chronicle, as if to suggest that Bolton's patience with the President had worn thin, and even implying later in more than one conversation that a faction of neo-conservatives at the Central Intelligence Agency was ready to remove the President from office.

---

---

I'm having trouble connecting the dots here.

-Bolton fired 9/10, began making calls
-Whistleblower complaint filed 8/12

So, how was Bolton feeding the whistleblower the information after a disgruntled firing if the firing happened a month after the whistleblower's filing?

Is this article saying that Bolton was actively working against the President while still the National Security Advisor?

---

Didn't they change the rules about first hand knowledge after the complaint was filed?

will25u said:

---

Rep. Zeldin Slams Dems On Impeachment: "This Entire Thing Is A Political Charade"

---

Now that guy is impressive!!!

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

will25u said:

---

---

Is this from 2016?

2016? During Obama's term?

will25u said:

---

---

Well, no s***. Neither Nixon nor Clinton were being impeached (or attempted impeachment in Nixon's case) on solely partisan effort. There has to be bi-partisan support. And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.

As it is, the Dems have nothing that is even a colorable claim of high crimes and misdemeanors, even an amorphous charge of abuse of power or a true obstruction issue. So those same GOP Congress Critters are standing on the sideline.

You can bet the dems will pick off a few GOP darlings from the house and senate and scream bipartisan.

Rockdoc said:

---

You can bet the dems will pick off a few GOP darlings from the house and senate and scream bipartisan.

---

Probably 3-5 Republicans in the Senate at least (Romney, Collins, Sasse, Murkowski for sure and one or more out of Burr, Tillis, or Scott) and in the House we know that the Amash will, and I'd bet Hurd does as well.

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Well, no s***. Neither Nixon nor Clinton were being impeached (or attempted impeachment in Nixon's case) on solely partisan effort. There has to be bi-partisan support. And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.

As it is, the Dems have nothing that is even a colorable claim of high crimes and misdemeanors, even an amorphous charge of abuse of power or a true obstruction issue. So those same GOP Congress Critters are standing on the sideline.

---

Clinton's impeachment was not a bipartisan effort. No Democrats voted for it in the House. 10 Republicans Senators voted 'not guilty' for perjury and 5 voted 'not guilty' for obstruction.

txaggie_08 said:

---

2016? During Obama's term?

---

Specifically, November 2016.
The Dems were talking about impeachment since the day the current president was elected.

And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.



lol

Rapier108 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

You can bet the dems will pick off a few GOP darlings from the house and senate and scream bipartisan.

---

Probably 3-5 Republicans in the Senate at least (Romney, Collins, Sasse, Murkowski for sure and one or more out of Burr, Tillis, or Scott) and in the House we know that the Amash will, and I'd bet Hurd does as well.

---

Those aren't the darlings they need. They need a Meadows, Jordan, Ratcliffe, McCaul in the House. And a Graham, Cruz, McConnell, Cornyn, Washburn in the Senate. (I am using them as examples of the heft the Dems need, not those people individually.)

Rapier108 said:

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Well, no s***. Neither Nixon nor Clinton were being impeached (or attempted impeachment in Nixon's case) on solely partisan effort. There has to be bi-partisan support. And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.

As it is, the Dems have nothing that is even a colorable claim of high crimes and misdemeanors, even an amorphous charge of abuse of power or a true obstruction issue. So those same GOP Congress Critters are standing on the sideline.

---

Clinton's impeachment was not a bipartisan effort. No Democrats voted for it in the House. 10 Republicans Senators voted 'not guilty' for perjury and 5 voted 'not guilty' for obstruction.

---

Wrong Manny. 5 voted for it in the House.

---

Mr. Troll, Do you consider that bipartisan?

ETA Does my presence offend you in a way that motivates you to be aggressive towards me by calling me childish names?

It's 9:27 AM on October 9, 2019 and Donald J. Trump is STILL the POTUS.

chimmy said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Well, no s***. Neither Nixon nor Clinton were being impeached (or attempted impeachment in Nixon's case) on solely partisan effort. There has to be bi-partisan support. And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.

As it is, the Dems have nothing that is even a colorable claim of high crimes and misdemeanors, even an amorphous charge of abuse of power or a true obstruction issue. So those same GOP Congress Critters are standing on the sideline.

---

Clinton's impeachment was not a bipartisan effort. No Democrats voted for it in the House. 10 Republicans Senators voted 'not guilty' for perjury and 5 voted 'not guilty' for obstruction.

---

Wrong Manny. 5 voted for it in the House.

---

Mr. Troll, Do you consider that bipartisan?

ETA Does my presence offend you in a way that motivates you to be aggressive towards me by calling me childish names?

---

Don't be wrong.

Some things that make you go... Hmmmm...

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/09/anti-trump-whistleblower-attorney-worked-directly-for-james-clapper/

Quote:

---

One of the attorneys representing the anonymous "whistleblowers" accusing President Donald Trump of conspiring with foreign leaders to interfere in the next U.S. presidential election used to report directly to former director of national intelligence James Clapper.

Charles McCullough, an attorney now representing the whistleblowers with Andrew Bakaj, a former staffer for Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, was previously the inspector general of the intelligence community (ICIG) at the height of the Clinton email scandal.

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Well, no s***. Neither Nixon nor Clinton were being impeached (or attempted impeachment in Nixon's case) on solely partisan effort. There has to be bi-partisan support. And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.

As it is, the Dems have nothing that is even a colorable claim of high crimes and misdemeanors, even an amorphous charge of abuse of power or a true obstruction issue. So those same GOP Congress Critters are standing on the sideline.

---

Clinton's impeachment was not a bipartisan effort. No Democrats voted for it in the House. 10 Republicans Senators voted 'not guilty' for perjury and 5 voted 'not guilty' for obstruction.

---

But were the Democrats excluded from meetings? Denied access to witnesses? etc etc. I think that is what aggiehawg is referring to here by partisan effort, not so much the actual voting results. Right now, Pelosi and her band of clowns are essentially trying to impeach the President behind a veil of secrecy and closed doors in what is a purely partisan effort right now.

txagbear said:

---

And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.



lol

---

Actually I don't think this is a laughable notion at all. I think secretly there are a lot of GOPers who would prefer not to have Trump in office. He's too unpredictable, not swampy enough, whatever. They are neutered from doing anything about it because of his high popularity with GOP voters. But if the Dems came up with a solid reason or evidence for impeachment, I have little doubt you'd see these GOP Congress critters sign on the dotted line for impeachment.

4stringAg said:

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Well, no s***. Neither Nixon nor Clinton were being impeached (or attempted impeachment in Nixon's case) on solely partisan effort. There has to be bi-partisan support. And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.

As it is, the Dems have nothing that is even a colorable claim of high crimes and misdemeanors, even an amorphous charge of abuse of power or a true obstruction issue. So those same GOP Congress Critters are standing on the sideline.

---

Clinton's impeachment was not a bipartisan effort. No Democrats voted for it in the House. 10 Republicans Senators voted 'not guilty' for perjury and 5 voted 'not guilty' for obstruction.

---

But were the Democrats excluded from meetings? Denied access to witnesses? etc etc. I think that is what aggiehawg is referring to here by partisan effort, not so much the actual voting results. Right now, Pelosi and her band of clowns are essentially trying to impeach the President behind a veil of secrecy and closed doors in what is a purely partisan effort right now.

---

I'm not sure to what you are referring. The whole impeachment matters not anyway because the Senate won't convict, like Clinton.

Quote:

---

But were the Democrats excluded from meetings? Denied access to witnesses? etc etc. I think that is what aggiehawg is referring to here by partisan effort, not so much the actual voting results. Right now, Pelosi and her band of clowns are essentially trying to impeach the President behind a veil of secrecy and closed doors in what is a purely partisan effort right now.

---

Yes, a fair process to both sides, not a grand jury where there is no true due process allowing the accused to present a defense nor even be present for it.

If Pelosi even dreams of having much bi-partisan support, she needs to ensure there is a fair process first, then let the chips fall where they may.

By conducting an inherently un fair and one-sided process, she and the Dems are shouting that they are the ones who are above the law, with no regard for Constitutional principles. She would rather do her best imitation of a Stalinesque show trial in the House, just to affect the 2020 election knowing it will go nowhere in the Senate. She's willing to risk losing the House just to do that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But were the Democrats excluded from meetings? Denied access to witnesses? etc etc. I think that is what aggiehawg is referring to here by partisan effort, not so much the actual voting results. Right now, Pelosi and her band of clowns are essentially trying to impeach the President behind a veil of secrecy and closed doors in what is a purely partisan effort right now.

---

Yes, a fair process to both sides, not a grand jury where there is no true due process allowing the accused to present a defense nor even be present for it.

If Pelosi even dreams of having much bi-partisan support, she needs to ensure there is a fair process first, then let the chips fall where they may.

By conducting an inherently un fair and one-sided process, she and the Dems are shouting that they are the ones who are above the law, with no regard for Constitutional principles. She would rather do her best imitation of a Stalinesque show trial in the House, just to affect the 2020 election knowing it will go nowhere in the Senate. She's willing to risk losing the House just to do that.

---

I don't think it is in Trumps interest to testify before Congress, if that's what you are saying. The best strategy would be to not cooperate with Democrats and keep everything as partisan as possible. It's a battle of political narratives. Trump knows this and does a great job on twitter.

Quote:

---

I don't think it is in Trumps interest to testify before Congress, if that's what you are saying. The best strategy would be to not cooperate with Democrats and keep everything as partisan as possible. It's a battle of political narratives. Trump knows this and does a great job on twitter.

---

Trump doesn't need to testify himself but Republican House members would be able subpoena favorable witnesses and mount a defense. The trial in the Senate would therefore be a traditional adversarial proceeding.

The risk Pelosi is running if she manages to get some articles of impeachment out of the House is that the Senate will not accept any of them because of the lack of a formal vote and a legitimate process in the House.

The Senate can choose to accept or deny each individual article of impeachment and if the process is that deeply flawed they easily could deny them all.

will25u said:

---

Some things that make you go... Hmmmm...

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/09/anti-trump-whistleblower-attorney-worked-directly-for-james-clapper/

Quote:

---

One of the attorneys representing the anonymous "whistleblowers" accusing President Donald Trump of conspiring with foreign leaders to interfere in the next U.S. presidential election used to report directly to former director of national intelligence James Clapper.

Charles McCullough, an attorney now representing the whistleblowers with Andrew Bakaj, a former staffer for Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, was previously the inspector general of the intelligence community (ICIG) at the height of the Clinton email scandal.

---

---

So it is Susan Gordan

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't think it is in Trumps interest to testify before Congress, if that's what you are saying. The best strategy would be to not cooperate with Democrats and keep everything as partisan as possible. It's a battle of political narratives. Trump knows this and does a great job on twitter.

---

Trump doesn't need to testify himself but Republican House members would be able subpoena favorable witnesses and mount a defense. The trial in the Senate would therefore be a traditional adversarial proceeding.

The risk Pelosi is running if she manages to get some articles of impeachment out of the House is that the Senate will not accept any of them because of the lack of a formal vote and a legitimate process in the House.

The Senate can choose to accept or deny each individual article of impeachment and if the process is that deeply flawed they easily could deny them all.

---

The only legitimate process for the House specified in the Constitution is to pass the articles of impeachment with a majority, anything else is a formality.

Quote:

---

The House of Representatives shall chose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

---

Do Democrats care about getting Republicans on-board? I don't think so. They know it won't pass the Senate.

4stringAg said:

---

txagbear said:

---

And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.



lol

---

Actually I don't think this is a laughable notion at all. I think secretly there are a lot of GOPers who would prefer not to have Trump in office. He's too unpredictable, not swampy enough, whatever. They are neutered from doing anything about it because of his high popularity with GOP voters. But if the Dems came up with a solid reason or evidence for impeachment, I have little doubt you'd see these GOP Congress critters sign on the dotted line for impeachment.

---

I saw someone joke online that the key to getting a conviction in the senate is to time the trial to be after the filing deadlines for GOP primary challenges.