aggiehawg said:

---

McConnell will give White House counsel what they want is what War Damn Turtle said.

There is no way Biden and his son perform well under examination in the Senate trial. None. And that testimony looks to be sometime in January, before the Iowa Caucuses.

What a disastrous knee cap the Dems have delivered to Biden. Mind boggling how they willingly rushed to throw him under the bus.

It cannot be an abuse of power if Hunter Biden was the pay-for-play access to the VP's office. Even if they decide not to call Biden, the tape of him bragging about his quid pro quo, fire Shokin or no billion dollars in loan guarantees, will be played on a virtual loop. Open the trial every morning by saying, "This is why we are here," then play the tape. (I'm indulging in hyperbole here, not suggesting they actually do that.)

---

I don't think McConnell and Graham are afraid of the witnesses president Trump and the other Republicans want to call hurting Trump. I think they're afraid of the witness the dems will call exposing them to the widespread corruption. Back to the deal I spoke of earlier in this thread.

It needs to be shown the light though, consequences be damned.

It appears Graham & McConnell are having a choreographed "public conversation" as to how to best move forward in the Senate. They probably already know what they will do, it's just a matter of getting it out and batted around prior to the official announcement.

I don't think they want the dems to know exactly what they are going to do at this point in time. They have reasons.

Quote:

---

I think they're afraid of the witness the dems will call exposing them to the widespread corruption. Back to the deal I spoke of earlier in this thread.

It needs to be shown the light though, consequences be damned.

---

My point is that the relevance or materiality of any proposed witnesses the Dems may want to call to smear, say Lindsay Graham, under these articles of impeachment. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over Joe Biden, his political opponent.

Biden is squarely in the relevant and material witness category as is his son, since the Ukraine phone call is the sole basis for these articles. What else is material and relevant is the misnamed whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, Adam Schiff, his staffers, Misko, Grace and Eager and IC IG Atkinson. Particularly Atkinson whose closed door deposition is still being withheld by Schiff.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Sadly, Gohmert behaved deplorably last night, too. The stain of being a subservient toady for a miscreant like Trump doesn't ever wash off.

---

How did Gohmert do anything wrong. Schiff for brains told us he's never met the whistleblower, so none of the names Gohmert presented jeopardize exposing the WB. Why did the House Dems refuse to call a single fact wirness? Hint: it's because there aren't any.

Rockdoc said:

---

titan said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Graham is worried about something. If he gets into trouble, too bad.

---

Hope it is not too serious. McCain was a bad influence on him -- no telling what he might have gotten triangulated into.

---

Agree. But it's becoming painfully obvious politicians are learning how to pad their bank accounts and it needs to stop.

---

Agree 100%

All libs and CMs need to hear this loud and clear:

It doesn't matter which party they are from. The crooks who were involved with this need to be held to account. No exceptions.

Bird93 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Sadly, Gohmert behaved deplorably last night, too. The stain of being a subservient toady for a miscreant like Trump doesn't ever wash off.

---

How did Gohmert do anything wrong. Schiff for brains told us he's never met the whistleblower, so none of the names Gohmert presented jeopardize exposing the WB. Why did the House Dems refuse to call a single fact wirness? Hint: it's because there aren't any.

---

Gohmert didn't. It was the Dems and press loud response to just a name among others that apparently underscored it. If they had not said anything you wouldn't know which name it was (theoretically, by the rules of this asinine `open secret' about a biased witness)

Eric CIAramella is the worst kept secret in the history of secrets.

Beaux12 said:

---

Eric CIAramella is the worst kept secret in the history of secrets.

---

And I don't understand why there isn't a flock of reporters camped at the end of his driveway. At least a "No comment," or flat denial would be demanded if he had been wrongly identified.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think they're afraid of the witness the dems will call exposing them to the widespread corruption. Back to the deal I spoke of earlier in this thread.

It needs to be shown the light though, consequences be damned.

---

My point is that the relevance or materiality of any proposed witnesses the Dems may want to call to smear, say Lindsay Graham, under these articles of impeachment. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over Joe Biden, his political opponent.

Biden is squarely in the relevant and material witness category as is his son, since the Ukraine phone call is the sole basis for these articles. What else is material and relevant is the misnamed whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, Adam Schiff, his staffers, Misko, Grace and Eager and IC IG Atkinson. Particularly Atkinson whose closed door deposition is still being withheld by Schiff.

---

I understand and completely agree. I just get the sense that Graham is afraid of opening the Biden can of worms. There may have been something to quid pro Joe's shot across his bow.

Hope I'm wrong. And, I want it all exposed.

The final, most essential command of the Party is telling people to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears. -- Orwell

I'm glad the founding fathers had the foresight to give qualified immunity to all past crimes to those who may possibly be nominated by their political party to run for office.

Quote:

---

The Justice Department on Thursday made public a series of internal memos that the Trump administration has relied on to justify its defiance of congressional subpoenas related to the impeachment inquiry.
The memos, written by legal advisers in the department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), date as far back as the Nixon administration and supply legal arguments for a broad reading of presidential power in the face of congressional oversight.

The documents may provide clues to the defense strategy for President Trump in a Senate impeachment trial that is all but certain. Democrats have sought administration witnesses and documents to make their case for removing Trump from office.

---

Quote:

---

The OLC reportedly published the opinions in response to a request from House Democrats, who are suing to compel testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn. The OLC cited the memos in a May OLC opinion that gave legal justifications for blocking the congressional subpoena against McGahn.

The release of the memos comes as the Justice Department appeals a ruling by a federal district judge last month ordering McGahn to testify before Congress. In that ruling, the judge rejected the department's argument that McGahn has "absolute immunity" from the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee's subpoena.

---

More here

Yes, and very arguably what Trump did was entirely a legal way to do that. He's no responsible for Biden's behavior.

And he isn't running against Biden yet. We haven't had primaries.

MetoliusAg said:

---

The final, most essential command of the Party is telling people to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears. -- Orwell

---

So, what you're saying is that if I'm going to engage in kickbacks from a corrupt foreign power, I need to make sure that it is the other party in power in the US? That way, if the corrupt foreign power is asked to investigate my crimes, it's an impeachable offense?

Got it.

And since when did Hunter Biden become Trump's political rival?

MetoliusAg said:

---

The final, most essential command of the Party is telling people to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears. -- Orwell

---

Why did the Obama admin and Hillary do that to Trump?

Quote:

---

Yes, and very arguably what Trump did was entirely a legal way to do that.

---

It's illegal and Trump says he didn't do it. Presumably because he knows it's wrong. His lawyers even taught him some new latin.

Quote:

---

And he isn't running against Biden yet. We haven't had primaries.

---

Trump perceived him as his main challenger, that's what matters.

Quote:

---

July 2018
Advisers to President Trump say Joe Biden is the Democrat he most fears running against, and that Pennsylvania is the state he worries most about flipping against him.

August 2018
Early poll shows Biden leading Trump by 7 points

---

https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-fears-biden-losing-pennsylvania-1532514558-e1bf871b-5edb-44e8-baa4-5506e99550fb.html

Gary Johnson said:

---

There's a legal way to do it that doesn't involve getting yourself impeached. Trump was frustrated real investigators were ignoring his conspiracy theories and here we are.

---

He will be acquitted of the charge and it will thus be legal.

Sure bud. When does the FBI Biden investigation start? It's not happening. The Republicans had 4 years of House control, could have had hearings any time they wanted or referred it to the FBI. There were no investigations because the allegations are self serving and not credible.

Quote:

---

The Daily Caller contacted the offices of all 31 House Democrats from districts where President Trump won in 2016 to ask them if they would vote to impeach President Trump, as many have not publicly stated where they stand on impeachment. Each office was contacted at least three times and all offices were given ample time to respond.

---

LINK

There was and is an ongoing DOJ investigation into 2016 corruption in the election and maybe bribery money with a company called Bursima. It was appropriate for Trump to ask the Ukraine president for assistance in that investigation if they had anything to offer.

He was not digging up dirt on a political rival despite all of your pearl clutching.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Sure bud. When does the FBI Biden investigation start? It's not happening. The Republicans had 4 years of House control, could have had hearings any time they wanted or referred it to the FBI. There were no investigations because the allegations are self serving and not credible.

---

That how trials work. You get acquitted you didnt do anything illegal.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Sure bud. When does the FBI Biden investigation start? It's not happening. The Republicans had 4 years of House control, could have had hearings any time they wanted or referred it to the FBI. There were no investigations because the allegations are self serving and not credible.

---

Son of a *****! They fired the prosecutor.

Bo Darville said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Sure bud. When does the FBI Biden investigation start? It's not happening. The Republicans had 4 years of House control, could have had hearings any time they wanted or referred it to the FBI. There were no investigations because the allegations are self serving and not credible.

---

That how trials work. You get acquitted you didnt do anything illegal.

---

If you think he's an angry poster now, just wait until after the trial!

Quote:

---

John Ratcliffe (R-TX) argued Thursday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) will not release Michael Atkinson's transcript even though President Trump took the unprecedented step of releasing his July phone call transcript "so everyone could see the truth."

The congressman said that the reason Democrats are holding on to the transcript is because it exposes both the so-called "whistleblower" and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff in a lie.

---

Quote:

---

Ratcliffe pointed out that Democrats keep using the word "demand" do describe Trump's suggestion to the Ukraine president that corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden should be looked into.

"Guess which word isn't anywhere in the transcript?" Ratcliffe asked before informing the committee that the word is "demand."

---

Quote:

---

"Nowhere in that transcript does the president make a 'demand,'" he declared. "Do you know where the word 'demand' came from? It came from the whistleblower. That's the first time we heard the word demand," Ratcliffe explained.

Quote:

---

When he notified the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, he said President Trump made a demand! He thought he could do that because he thought no one would ever be able to prove that because what president would take the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript with a foreign leader. This president did! Something that the whistleblower never expected.
President Trump, we keep hearing, got caught. President Trump, we keep hearing, is obstructing justice. The president that took the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript so that everyone could see the truth is not obstructing congress. The president didn't get caught. The whistleblower got caught. The whistleblower made false statements. The whistleblower got caught with Chairman Schiff!

---

---

LINK

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, and very arguably what Trump did was entirely a legal way to do that.

---

It's illegal and Trump says he didn't do it. Presumably because he knows it's wrong. His lawyers even taught him some new latin.

Quote:

---

And he isn't running against Biden yet. We haven't had primaries.

---

Trump perceived him as his main challenger, that's what matters.

Quote:

---

July 2018
Advisers to President Trump say Joe Biden is the Democrat he most fears running against, and that Pennsylvania is the state he worries most about flipping against him.

August 2018
Early poll shows Biden leading Trump by 7 points

---

https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-fears-biden-losing-pennsylvania-1532514558-e1bf871b-5edb-44e8-baa4-5506e99550fb.html

---

How are you so dense that you can't understand the concept that it is impossible to prove Trump's actions were for political benefit vs investigating corruption in the nation's interests? You're assuming Trump did it for political gain. Assumptions do not stand up in a court of law without evidence proving them factual. Your opinion that Biden is clean is an opinion as is my opinion that Biden is as crooked as can be. Neither one has been proven or disproven, but circumstantial evidence points to my opinion being the correct one. Still doesn't matter as neither would stand up in court without factual evidence proving their veracity.

Quote:

---

Where were "patriots" like her in the Democrat party when Obama was ****ting on the constitution?

---

Val was promoting welfare dependency and social justice agendas in Orlando and misattributing an Islamic terror attack to homophobia.

Rockdoc said:

---

titan said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Graham is worried about something. If he gets into trouble, too bad.

---

Hope it is not too serious. McCain was a bad influence on him -- no telling what he might have gotten triangulated into.

---

Agree. But it's becoming painfully obvious politicians are learning how to pad their bank accounts and it needs to stop.

---

I hope anyone who has been corrupted is outed. But Graham has repeatedly stated that he wants this to be a short trial (ie limited witness')

What statute limits the President's article II powers to conduct diplomacy and make treaties? Treaties then can be enforced.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

Where were "patriots" like her in the Democrat party when Obama was ****ting on the constitution?

---

Val was promoting welfare dependency and social justice agendas in Orlando and misattributing an Islamic terror attack to homophobia.

---

And she was hanging out with the other Democrat patriots who were taking Obama to task for the death of Ukranians due to his Administrations denial of essential lethal weaponry.

Don't y'all remember?

This is going to be so bad for the Dems, and certain posters here haven't come to that realization yet. You've lost again

captkirk said:

---

This is going to be so bad for the Dems, and certain posters here haven't come to that realization yet. You've lost again

---

They will then avoid the thread. Look at how they have avoided fisa threads.