Wildcat said:

---

This surprises me. What have they seen to make them think this will go better a second time around.

---

They don't have anything else (if they had something new about Ukraine, it would be Schiff, not Nadler the Hutt, holding he hearings) so it is going to be just them repeating the same lies we've already heard, plus a ton of "Orange Man Bad!"

He's begging Trump to show in the hope of ensnaring him in some inconsistency that he will then label a "lie" to Congress and the grounds for impeachment.

Can't imagine Trump showing for that.

Link to Letter

Wildcat said:

---

He's begging Trump to show in the hope of ensnaring him in some inconsistency that he will then label a "lie" to Congress and the grounds for impeachment.

Can't imagine Trump showing for that.

---

He's not showing up for that, but his lawyers will.

Sure sounds like they are moving full speed ahead to me.

FriscoKid said:

---

Sure sounds like they are moving full speed ahead to me.

---

They have no choice.

If they don't impeach, their base will going thermonuclear. They have to do it, and then blame the Republicans when it fails. Not impeaching means their base throws a fit and stays home.

If they do, Trump will not be removed from office (despite the fact that more than 1/3 of people think impeachment means removed from office) and his base will be enraged to turn out even more.

They are going to get absolutely killed in the senate. The whistleblower will come out and Schiff will be a fact witness. I agree that their base demands it, but wow. This will be worse.

Agreed. May well cost them the House.

Last day of votes in the 12th. How short are these Judiciary Hearings going to be?

Isn't something happening on the 9th? And isn't someone talking on the 11th?

If they already know how they are voting, facts be damned, how long do they really need to be?

Gary Johnson said:

---

Nah. ZH made a bad point. No "policy" was changed, the aid was delivered per the letter of the bill, as Trump always intended. Once he got what he wanted.

It's a risible after the fact justification.

---

God you're slow! So who's given more military aid, actual weapons, to Ukraine, president Trump or Obama?

No policy change there. Only every witness said president Trump's policy has done more. But he didn't change policy! Lol

Testimony showed, unequivocally, that the swamp agencies cabal didn't like that president Trump didn't follow their, self appointed, narrative.

You keep rreeeing though, it's fun to watch.

FriscoKid said:

---

Isn't something happening on the 9th? And isn't someone talking on the 11th?

---

There was a court hearing on Kupperman's subpoena (works for Bolton) but then I thought the subpoena was withdrawn. I'll have to go back and check.

aggiehawg said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Isn't something happening on the 9th? And isn't someone talking on the 11th?

---

There was a court hearing on Kupperman's subpoena (works for Bolton) but then I thought the subpoena was withdrawn. I'll have to go back and check.

---

Horowitz

Thanks. Brain fart. But what is this?

Quote:

---

The hearing will feature legal experts who will examine the constitutional grounds for impeachment, according to Democratic aides who discussed the schedule on condition of anonymity before any announcement.

---

So a bunch of LawFare lawyers are going to testify? Should be riveting.

FriscoKid said:

---

Isn't something happening on the 9th? And isn't someone talking on the 11th?

---

Ding ding ding! They, their talking heads and MSM, are already trying to minimize the impact and the dems need a smoke screen to scream it's retribution from the president and Barr.

RGLAG85 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Isn't something happening on the 9th? And isn't someone talking on the 11th?

---

Ding ding ding! They, their talking heads and MSM, are already trying to minimize the impact and the dems need a smoke screen to scream it's retribution from the president and Barr.

---

It's gonna be historic. Trump said so.

If members of the IC are indicted for falsifying documents in order to spy on a political opponent, it will be nothing short of historic.

chimmy said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Isn't something happening on the 9th? And isn't someone talking on the 11th?

---

Ding ding ding! They, their talking heads and MSM, are already trying to minimize the impact and the dems need a smoke screen to scream it's retribution from the president and Barr.

---

It's gonna be historic. Trump said so.

---

It may be but I don't think with Horowitz background it will be. Unlike you and your ilk, I won't reeeeee about "got them" until it's actually known what's in it. Do I think there are some nervous people, yes. I just think it will scratch the surface of the corruption because the critters are still entrenched. The best hope for truth will be Durham.

This ought to concern all constitutional Americans and yes, I think even Republicans can and should be implicated.

Trump shows up and this is how he responds to each alleged crimes:

RGLAG85 said:

---

chimmy said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Isn't something happening on the 9th? And isn't someone talking on the 11th?

---

Ding ding ding! They, their talking heads and MSM, are already trying to minimize the impact and the dems need a smoke screen to scream it's retribution from the president and Barr.

---

It's gonna be historic. Trump said so.

---

It may be but I don't think with Horowitz background it will be. Unlike you and your ilk, I won't reeeeee about "got them" until it's actually known what's in it. Do I think there are some nervous people, yes. I just think it will scratch the surface of the corruption because the critters are still entrenched. The best hope for truth will be Durham.

This ought to concern all constitutional Americans and yes, I think even Republicans can and should be implicated.

---

I can reeee all I want because Trump already got'em. He has outed the deep state in the FBI (Durham is running cleanup). He has outed the deep state in the State Dept. He is outing the deep state in the Pentagon (one gone and probably more on the way). Trump will hollow out the federal government of all the deep state libs and this country will be stronger than ever.

RGLAG85 said:

---

chimmy said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Isn't something happening on the 9th? And isn't someone talking on the 11th?

---

Ding ding ding! They, their talking heads and MSM, are already trying to minimize the impact and the dems need a smoke screen to scream it's retribution from the president and Barr.

---

It's gonna be historic. Trump said so.

---

It may be but I don't think with Horowitz background it will be. Unlike you and your ilk, I won't reeeeee about "got them" until it's actually known what's in it. Do I think there are some nervous people, yes. I just think it will scratch the surface of the corruption because the critters are still entrenched. The best hope for truth will be Durham.

This ought to concern all constitutional Americans and yes, I think even Republicans can and should be implicated.

---

Horowitz is not when the fireworks start. Durham is the fireworks. Horowitz's CHS report and upcoming FISA abuse report lay the groundwork for the BOOM that will be the Durham report.

I posted this thread from Brian Cates on the Mueller thread, but it is a good read for over here also. It is more than these 4 tweets, so continue on and read it all. It really is good.

So Nadler is going to parade some lefty "Constitutional lawyers" (Laurence Tribe, among them is my guess) to discuss the Constitutional aspects of impeachment BUT Trump's lawyers will have the chance to ask questions of these witnesses, too. Could very easily turn into a snoozefest for most people (other than me) with how-many-angels-can-fit-on-a-pinhead type of legal theory navel gazing. Which wouldn't advance the Dems chosen narrative by much.

So who will Trump send? Hopefully not Rudy. But maybe a Trey Gowdy? Jay Sekulow? Alan Dershowitz? Add some fireworks?

Thoughts?

chimmy said:

---

---

Walls....are.....closing.....in.....

aggiehawg said:

---

So Nadler is going to parade some lefty "Constitutional lawyers" (Laurence Tribe, among them is my guess) to discuss the Constitutional aspects of impeachment BUT Trump's lawyers will have the chance to ask questions of these witnesses, too. Could very easily turn into a snoozefest for most people (other than me) with how-many-angels-can-fit-on-a-pinhead type of legal theory navel gazing. Which wouldn't advance the Dems chosen narrative by much.

So who will Trump send? Hopefully not Rudy. But maybe a Trey Gowdy? Jay Sekulow? Alan Dershowitz? Add some fireworks?

Thoughts?

---

He's not sending Rudy. Sekulow? Cipollone? That would be OK right?

I would either use Dershowitz or noone.

Dershowitz is a Democrat. He supported Hillary. He supported Obama. He's outspoken against this particular impeachment circus.

At best, he's "partisan" voice of reason against the impeachment proceedings.

At worst, he flips, supports the proceedings and we get our wish for the whole thing to move over to the senate.

Wildcat said:

---

Agreed. May well cost them the House.

---

Which would make all the months of suffering through this `find a crime fishing' expedition worthwhile in the end. Let it be so, that the GOP gets both Houses with Trump' re-election.

Quote:

---

He's not sending Rudy. Sekulow? Cipollone? That would be OK right?

---

Sekulow is good on TV but he's a trial attorney, not a Constitutional scholar. Not that familiar with how Cipollone comes across on camera. My preference would be Dersh but doubt he'd agree to do it.

Although Tribe has lost a step and some of his marbles by now (he sucks at twitter and says really dumb things), he is still The Expert as his hornbooks are still in use. I consider Dersh his equal who could go toe to toe with him.

But I guess my overall question is the strategy here. Use a dry yet brilliant lawyer to spar with them over minutiae that no one outside of lawyers have a clue what is going on, bores them to death and channels get changed?

Or fireworks with explosive moments, like a good reality TV show?

I can see advantages and drawbacks to either approach. (I'd be fine with Andy McCarthy too but his gig with Fox may get in the way.)

chimmy said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

chimmy said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Isn't something happening on the 9th? And isn't someone talking on the 11th?

---

Ding ding ding! They, their talking heads and MSM, are already trying to minimize the impact and the dems need a smoke screen to scream it's retribution from the president and Barr.

---

It's gonna be historic. Trump said so.

---

It may be but I don't think with Horowitz background it will be. Unlike you and your ilk, I won't reeeeee about "got them" until it's actually known what's in it. Do I think there are some nervous people, yes. I just think it will scratch the surface of the corruption because the critters are still entrenched. The best hope for truth will be Durham.

This ought to concern all constitutional Americans and yes, I think even Republicans can and should be implicated.

---

I can reeee all I want because Trump already got'em. He has outed the deep state in the FBI (Durham is running cleanup). He has outed the deep state in the State Dept. He is outing the deep state in the Pentagon (one gone and probably more on the way). Trump will hollow out the federal government of all the deep state libs and this country will be stronger than ever.

---

Sorry, misunderstood your "it's going to be historic" as sarcasm. You're good to reeeeee!

Sims said:

---

I would either use Dershowitz or noone.

Dershowitz is a Democrat. He supported Hillary. He supported Obama. He's outspoken against this particular impeachment circus.

At best, he's "partisan" voice of reason against the impeachment proceedings.

At worst, he flips, supports the proceedings and we get our wish for the whole thing to move over to the senate.

---

Can't send no one. Not when the number one complaint is how unfair Schiff's process was with Nadler inviting them. Have to send someone.

Send Jim Adler.

There is a constitutional lawyer that works for Landmark Legal Foundation. Maybe he could go and school everyone on the topic and back it up with letters from Hamilton and other framers.

Draft Mark Levin!