Aggiebrewer said:

---

Sadly, dem voters will believe whatever they are told by their masters

---

Yes, but you have to hope the center no longer does. The Left Democrats votes are already decided. It is the center left liberals you want turning on this sham impeachment and the radical Left agenda.

Aggiebrewer said:

---

Sadly, dem voters will believe whatever they are told by their masters

---

One must think to believe something, Most Dem voters do not even do that. They just follow orders or the crowd. There is no thought process involved.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Quote:

---

What is Bolton going to say that is so devastating? Really would like to know.

---

Trump would really like you not to know. And for nobody to know.

---

Come on, tell me. I would really like to know. If it's so horrible, give me the five three worst things then.

---

He will likely confirm that Trump withheld the aid and WH meeting until they announced investigations. The QPQ Trump denies. He called this escapade a "drug deal".

---

Looks like we are back to the Clinton shenanigans of definitions. Did the funds get transferred by the deadline? If so, what was withheld?

will25u said:

---

Democrats seem awfully scared of Hunter Biden testifying. Willing to give up calling witnesses so that Hunter Biden is not called to testify?

Quote:

---

House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., has suggested that, if a trade is needed to secure House witnesses, the managers will not agree to any witnesses if Hunter Biden is part of the deal. If true, is the House prepared to give up on proving its case to protect the Bidens from the ignoble moment of answering questions about the Ukraine contract?

---

---

"If a trade is needed"
I thought the Senate set the rules. If witnesses are allowed both sides call whom they desire. No limits no trading. Both sides get to request/subpoena documents (re: Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Whistleblower, Fiona Hill, Yankadick, Hunter & Joe Biden, Ted Lieu phone/email/written correspondence).

Heck this Schiff show could go on throughout Trump's second term as President.

Win-win
USA prospers and the insane left get to reeeeeeeee for 5 more years(re: I mean that's what they enjoy most in life is playing victim, amiright)

Its not a win-win. You need the Democrats hurled out of the House so that Trump has both houses and actual legislation rather can take the place of executive orders that can easily be over-turned.

titan said:

---

Its not a win-win. You need the Democrats hurled out of the House so that Trump has both houses and actual legislation rather can take the place of executive orders that can easily be over-turned.

---

OK, I amend my original (apparently not so humorous) statement.

Win-win

USA prospers and the insane left get to reeeeeeeee for 5 more years(re: I mean that's what they enjoy most in life is playing victim, amiright.) and the good guys get a super majority in both the House of Representatives & Senate.

Now that would be humorous. In much the same way as Brexit vote last year proved to be.

The Dem playbook should be obvious by now. If you can't get a conviction (and they won't), then you must delegitimize the trial itself.

I'm pretty sure Trump's legal team will know all that, but just in case, do you mind stepping out of retirement for a few minutes and making a couple of phone calls if needed? Apparently, some on here believe he and his team are card carrying idiots.

Amazing what real legal strategy looks like versus what we saw in the House debacle.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

I'm pretty sure Trump's legal team will know all that, but just in case, do you mind stepping out of retirement for a few minutes and making a couple of phone calls if needed? Apparently, some on here believe he and his team are card carrying idiots.

Amazing what real legal strategy looks like versus what we saw in the House debacle.

---

Saw Dersh on Stephanopoulus yesterday. As he explained his role in Trump's defense as "of counsel" as in a role limited to making the Constitutional law arguments only. He is not involved in any witness or no witness decisions nor anything fact based for that matter. His argument is that these articles of impeachment do not present impeachable conduct, even if all of the allegations are taken as true. That position is consistent with what would be in a motion to dismiss and/or motion for a directed verdict and the conclusion of the prosecution's case.

If his argument does not win the day, the other lawyers are there to argue the facts. Just like the decision in every criminal case whether to present a defense case in chief at the conclusion of the prosecution's case.

It may seem counter-intuitive to laypersons to argue on one hand to accept all of the allegations as true on one hand and then come back to argue that the facts as alleged are not true but it is standard, particularly with very weak cases, such as this one.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

I'm pretty sure Trump's legal team will know all that, but just in case, do you mind stepping out of retirement for a few minutes and making a couple of phone calls if needed? Apparently, some on here believe he and his team are card carrying idiots.

Amazing what real legal strategy looks like versus what we saw in the House debacle.

---

Saw Dersh on Stephanopoulus yesterday. As he explained his role in Trump's defense as "of counsel" as in a role limited to making the Constitutional law arguments only. He is not involved in any witness or no witness decisions nor anything fact based for that matter. His argument is that these articles of impeachment do not present impeachable conduct, even if all of the allegations are taken as true. That position is consistent with what would be in a motion to dismiss and/or motion for a directed verdict and the conclusion of the prosecution's case.

If his argument does not win the day, the other lawyers are there to argue the facts. Just like the decision in every criminal case whether to present a defense case in chief at the conclusion of the prosecution's case.

It may seem counter-intuitive to laypersons to argue on one hand to accept all of the allegations as true on one hand and then come back to argue that the facts as alleged are not true but it is standard, particularly with very weak cases, such as this one.

---

It's a bit ironic because the accusations are 100% fabricated lies.

Quote:

---

It's a bit ironic because the accusations are 100% fabricated lies.

---

And then the "Schiffing" interpretations of those accusations as quid pro quo, then bribery, then extortion, then obstruction, and now back to bribery according to House Manager Crow on the Sunday shows yesterday.

Why I brought up the McDonnell decision again. For purposes of the federal bribery statutes, a White House meeting is not an official act. And the statutes cannot be applied thereto.

And interesting sidenote to McDonnell decision was the number of Dem politicians who had their convictions overturned in whole or in part because of it. Those included the guy in Louisiana with the cash in the freezer, William Jefferson.

Quote:

---

"must state clearly and unambiguously that they have been discredited."

---

That's a bold move. Is he saying that his zero experience son didn't get a fat paycheck from Bursima?

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

"must state clearly and unambiguously that they have been discredited."

---

That's a bold move. Is he saying that his zero experience son didn't get a fat paycheck from Bursima?

---

Discredited by whom? And what else was discredited?

That Shokin was fired?

That Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars of loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired?

That Shokin has never been charged with a crime, much less for something relating to corruption?

That Shokin, unlike most others in Ukrainian government, didn't become rich through his service?

That Biden repeatedly called Shokin's successor, Lutsenko, "a solid guy"??

The same Lutsenko that called Yovanovitch corrupt?

His handlers and campaign are not very self aware......this type of statement and pushback smack of desperation. If his son takes the stand, he is done.

houag80 said:

---

His handlers and campaign are not very self aware......this type of statement and pushback smack of desperation. If his son takes the stand, he is done.

---

Kellyanne said this morning that this was the plan. If the senate calls Bolton then the president will exert EP and then ask to call Hunter.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6124990391001#sp=show-clips

Kellyanne interview

I think McConnell should send them this list:

Adam Schiffty
Nancy Pelosi
Biden, H
Biden, J
Vindman
The WB
Fiona
Sondland (again)
Nads
Chalupa

Then ask, who you want *******? Bring it.

houag80 said:

---

I think McConnell should send them this list:

Adam Schiffty
Nancy Pelosi
Biden, H
Biden, J
Vindman
The WB
Fiona
Sondland (again)
Nads

Then ask, who you want *******? Bring it.

---

Add Chalupa

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Trump brief: 'Former Vice President Biden did not immunize his past conduct (or his son's) from all scrutiny simply by declaring his candidacy for the presidency.'

---

Hhmm, my spidey sense are telling me they have documentation that Shokin was investigating Burisma and by extension its executive officers and BOD members.

will25u said:

---

Democrats seem awfully scared of Hunter Biden testifying. Willing to give up calling witnesses so that Hunter Biden is not called to testify?

Quote:

---

House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., has suggested that, if a trade is needed to secure House witnesses, the managers will not agree to any witnesses if Hunter Biden is part of the deal. If true, is the House prepared to give up on proving its case to protect the Bidens from the ignoble moment of answering questions about the Ukraine contract?

---

---

Wait - Chance Chase McGillicutty told me this means Hunter must be hiding crimes

OK. Playtime is over. Here comes the defense. Dems are going to be begging to end this thing by Friday.

Dem believers today...

aggiehawg said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

"must state clearly and unambiguously that they have been discredited."

---

That's a bold move. Is he saying that his zero experience son didn't get a fat paycheck from Bursima?

---

Discredited by whom?

---

Chance Chase McGillicutty

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

"must state clearly and unambiguously that they have been discredited."

---

That's a bold move. Is he saying that his zero experience son didn't get a fat paycheck from Bursima?

---

The boys at NPR routinely refer to the Ukrainian claims as "debunked". And it irritates me immensely that they routinely conflate claims of Ukrainian election interference with COI and the Bidens.

Wildcat said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

"must state clearly and unambiguously that they have been discredited."

---

That's a bold move. Is he saying that his zero experience son didn't get a fat paycheck from Bursima?

---

The boys at NPR routinely refer to the Ukrainian claims as "debunked". And it irritates me immensely that they routinely conflate claims of Ukrainian election interference with COI and the Bidens.

---

If NPR says the claims are debunked, then what more do we need. As they beg for money, they keep saying that their news reporting is fair and unbiased. Their reputation is so pure they don't need cite evidence or do any more investigative reporting into potential wrongdoing by a Democrat.

captkirk said:

---

houag80 said:

---

I think McConnell should send them this list:

Adam Schiffty
Nancy Pelosi
Biden, H
Biden, J
Vindman
The WB
Fiona
Sondland (again)
Nads

Then ask, who you want *******? Bring it.

---

Add Chalupa

---

Add IC IG that corrupted the rules in favor of the whistleblower.

aggiehawg said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Trump brief: 'Former Vice President Biden did not immunize his past conduct (or his son's) from all scrutiny simply by declaring his candidacy for the presidency.'

---

Hhmm, my spidey sense are telling me they have documentation that Shokin was investigating Burisma and by extension its executive officers and BOD members.

---

Glad to finally see that statement from the Trump brief. A lot of us have been saying that since his whole thing began that just because Biden is a candidate for POTUS doesn't grant him immunity to being investigated. In fact, it makes it all the more important that he is investigated before the country potentially elects someone who is corrupt.