Here are the closing arguments that lasted right around 2 hours. Tomorrow there will be 8 hours of questions/answers, and again on Thursday. I think that leaves Friday for voting whether to call more witnesses, or vote on throwing the articles out.
01-28-2020, 10:07 PM (This post was last modified: 01-28-2020, 10:27 PM by Mystic Wanderer.)
As you've probably heard, John Bolton has released a book that claims he had private discussions with the President, and he stated that some of President Trump's statements could be very important for the trial.
President Trump has denied that he told Bolton anything, and whatever he's saying is just to sell books. I believe I also saw a tweet where A.G. Barr denied the allegations that Bolton spoke with him.
Here is an article to catch you up to speed, in case you don't know.
Quote:There may be enough new pressure on Senate Republicans to allow witnesses at President Trump's impeachment trial, after the leak from a forthcoming book by former national security adviser John Bolton that contradicts what the White House has been telling the country.
Why it matters: This is a dramatic, 11th-hour inflection point for the trial, with an eyewitness rebuttal to Trump's claim that he never tied the hold-up of Ukrainian aid to investigations into Joe Biden.
GOP sources say the revelation could be enough to sway the four Republican senators needed for witnesses — especially since Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have already strongly signaled they’d vote for witnesses.
What happened: Bolton alleges in his book — "The Room Where It Happened," out March 17 — that Trump explicitly told him "he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens," the N.Y. Times reported.
Trump strongly denied Bolton's claims on Twitter early today: "I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. ... If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book."
The state of play: Republican sources tell Axios that party leaders and the White House will still try to resist witnesses because, as one top aide put it, "there is a sense in the Senate that if one witness is allowed, the floodgates are open."
"If [Bolton] says stuff that implicates, say Mick [Mulvaney] or [Mike] Pompeo, then calls for them will intensify," the aide said.
What we can expect Trump's defense lawyers to say as they make their case at the trial, beginning at 1 p.m. today and continuing tomorrow:
They'll say Bolton's account doesn’t change any key facts, and reiterate that the aid, which was only briefly paused, was released without the announcement of any investigations.
They'll emphasize that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said there was no pressure, the call record shows no linkage between the two, and Zelensky got his meeting with Trump at the UN.
They'll also argue that Trump’s concerns about corruption in Ukraine were well-known: He questioned giving aid to the country for a number of reasons, just as he has done with other countries.
The intrigue: Bolton submitted the book to the White House on Dec. 30 for a standard prepublication security review for classified information.
The Times notes: "The submission ... may have given Mr. Trump’s aides and lawyers direct insight into what Mr. Bolton would say if he were called to testify."
"It also intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying."
Between the lines: Trump's defense team has the advantage of being able to do triage at the trial for the next two days, while the House managers listen silently.
So Dems are making a public case, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeting: "John Bolton has the evidence."
That would be none other than Yevgeny Vindman, Alexander Vindman's, twin brother.
Alexander was the one who insisted on wearing his military uniform into the House Impeachment's hearings, although this has never been allowed in the past from a witness. I'm sure he thought it would give his testimony more "credibility". They have to do something to coverup their lies, right?
Quote:The identical twin brother of Democratic impeachment witness Alexander Vindman, Yevgeny Vindman, is reportedly in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former officials at the National Security Council (NSC), according to Breitbart News, which would include the recently leaked manuscript of former National Security adviser John Bolton.
The report describes the reviews as a "standard process that allows the NSC to review book manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before publication."
Quote:
Quote:The New York Timesreported Sunday evening that Bolton’s draft book manuscript, which had been submitted to the NSC for prepublication review on Dec. 30, alleged that President Trump told Bolton in August 2019 that he wanted to withhold security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, among others.
It was not clear if the Times had seen the Bolton manuscript; its sources were “multiple people” who “described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.”
Bolton’s lawyer, Chuck Cooper, issued a statement in which he said: “It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted.” He did not confirm or deny the Times‘ reporting on the content of the manuscript. -Breitbart News
There's more if you want to read it. Click the title link above.
Here is another little spin that some of you may find interesting.
Who exactly IS Schummer's wife? (Someone reported her as his wife, but she could just be a date. I have no source for this.)
I've see the full photo on the right, and 'she' was standing next to Chuck Schummer.
It seems men in D.C. prefer other men that dress up as women more than REAL women.
Here is another little tid bit the public might need to know:
Quote:Former White House national security adviser John Bolton pocketed $115,000 from Ukrainian steel oligarch Viktor Pinchuk’s foundation shortly before entering President Donald Trump’s White House as national security adviser, a position first held in the Trump White House by General Michael Flynn.
Bolton’s unpublished manuscript reportedly accuses Trump of wanting to withhold military aid to Ukraine, but Trump denies this had anything to do with a Quid Pro Quo situation.
Democrats are clamoring to call Bolton as a witness in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial regarding his alleged pressuring of the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden’s alleged corruption in the country’s oil and gas industry. Ukraine’s president Zelensky adamantly denies that Trump pressured him.
Well, the timeline of how/when/why the aid was paused has already been established with the President's team of lawyers, but if you want to read the full article, here you go: Source
01-31-2020, 11:21 AM (This post was last modified: 01-31-2020, 11:22 AM by BIAD.)
Oh er... it seems that one of the sane ones has jumped the fence and focusing on ruining the theatre-show.
One might contemplate using the expression 'nothing-burger' once more!
Quote:Senate races toward Trump acquittal as hopes for new witnesses fade.
Republican Lamar Alexander says he will not support witnesses, as Democrats
warn of ‘normalization of lawlessness’.
Lamar Alexander in the US Capitol on Thursday.
'An effort to call witnesses at the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump appeared on the verge of failure
Thursday night after at least one of four Republican senators that Democrats needed to open the way said he
opposed the idea.
The setback for Democrats on the witnesses question meant that Trump could be acquitted by the Senate as
early as Friday. He would thereafter be the third president in US history to have been impeached but to have
avoided removal at trial.
Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who is retiring, announced on Thursday night at the end of a two-day
question-and-answer period that although what Trump had done was “inappropriate”, the misconduct did “not
meet the US Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense”.
“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people
should decide what to do about what he did,” Alexander said in a statement.
One wavering Republican senator, Susan Collins of Maine, announced on Thursday night that she would support
witnesses, while a second, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said she would sleep on it. A third, Mitt Romney of Utah,
indicated he would also support witnesses, saying: “I would like to hear from Mr Bolton”.
But it appeared that the best Democrats could hope for was a tie vote on the question.
John Roberts, who is presiding at the trial in his capacity as chief justice of the United States, might break such a
tie vote – or he might allow the vote to stand and declare the motion to be unsuccessful, meaning that the push for
witnesses would fail.
The lead prosecutor in the case, the House manager Adam Schiff, warned that the Republicans’ unified determination
to protect Trump instead of collecting evidence was paving the way toward a presidency unbound by congressional
oversight or any other checks and balances.
“What we have seen in the past few days is a descent into constitutional madness, because that way madness lies,”
Schiff said, comparing the Republican position to Richard Nixon’s infamous defense of his conduct in the Watergate
scandal: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
“Watergate is now 40, 50 years behind us,” said Schiff. “Have we learned nothing in the last half-century?
Have we learned nothing at all? We are right back to where we were a half-century ago, and we may even be in a worse
place because this time that argument may succeed.
“That is the normalization of lawlessness.”
In a late-stage gambit for witnesses, Schiff offered to restrict witness depositions to a time window of one week, after the
model of the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, when three witnesses were deposed on video outside the Senate chamber.
“Let’s use the Clinton model,” Schiff said. “Let’s take a week. Let’s take a week to have a fair trial.”
Democrats are pushing for the president’s former national security adviser John Bolton to testify, with what could be a
damaging account of Trump’s “quid pro quo” strategy with Ukraine that has resulted in his impeachment, while Republicans
are signaling they have the numbers necessary to shut down the attempt.
Bolton himself said after a speech in Austin, Texas, on Thursday night that witnesses who appeared during the House
impeachment proceedings had done so admirably. At the time – last month – Bolton threatened to respond with a
lawsuit to any subpoena to appear.
“All of them acted in the best interest of the country as they saw it and consistent to what they thought our policies were,”
said Bolton of the witnesses.
If Republicans successfully block witnesses, that could effectively trigger the beginning of the end of the impeachment trial,
with a final vote on whether to remove Trump from office or acquit him coming as early as Friday.
Such a trial would be about half as long as the previous shortest presidential impeachment trial in US history, that of Clinton,
which lasted just more than one month.
This week, Trump’s lawyers have shifted their arguments away from the president doing nothing wrong to a position equating
to: even if he did withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating his potential Democratic election rival Joe Biden, that
doesn’t meet the standard needed for impeachment.
With the question of whether to bring in potentially explosive new witness testimony hanging over the Senate, the trial has been
a tense affair. Ahead of the resumption of impeachment proceedings on Thursday, McConnell was asked by reporters if he had
confidence that he had the votes necessary to block a motion on witnesses.
“I always do,” McConnell said. But the top Senate Republican was more unsure on other aspects of the trial. When asked if he
had the votes for acquittal by Friday night, McConnell said: “We’ll see what tomorrow brings.”
Privately, Republican Senate staffers expressed confidence that they could block a motion for witnesses.
That prospect alarmed legal scholars and other observers.
“I don’t think people fully grasp the constitutional danger of this moment,” tweeted Susan Hennessey, executive editor of the
Lawfare web site. “If the Senate were to refuse to call relevant witnesses with direct testimony of grave presidential wrongdoing
then we can no longer understand impeachment to be a genuine check on executive overreach.”
Tom Nichols, a professor at the US Naval War College, tweeted: “The constitution wasn’t designed to deal with people who don’t
give a shit.”
The rush for witnesses followed a report from a leaked version of Bolton’s upcoming book where he said Trump told Bolton to hold
back on congressionally approved national security aid to Ukraine until officials there agreed to help investigate Biden, his family
and other matters involving US Democrats.
Bolton’s book has been a persistent topic of discussion throughout the week in Washington. On Monday, the former Trump chief
of staff John Kelly was asked about Bolton’s allegation in the book.
“If John Bolton says that in the book, I believe John Bolton,” Kelly said. “John’s an honest guy. He’s a man of integrity and great
character, so we’ll see what happens.”
On Thursday, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, refused to fully respond to Kelly’s comments.
“I respect Gen Kelly enormously and like him personally,” Conway said. “I don’t know what he’s referring to so I can’t answer.
I’ve not seen the manuscript.”
Thursday’s questioning portion of the hearings follows an eventful day in the impeachment trial. On Wednesday, Trump lawyer
Alan Dershowitz offered one of the most expansive and stunning arguments in Trump’s defense when he said the president
could not be removed from national office over requesting political favors if he believed those favors were in the public interest
of the country.
“If the president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid
pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said...'
Quote:The rush for witnesses followed a report from a leaked version of Bolton’s upcoming book where he said Trump told Bolton to hold
back on congressionally approved national security aid to Ukraine until officials there agreed to help investigate Biden, his family
and other matters involving US Democrats.
No way to know if this is what the President said, but if he did, then it's because the corruption in Ukraine involved the Biden's and their pay to play corruption. Too bad it just happened to be Joe and his son that were involved.
He wanted corruption investigated, it's why Joe ran for President, so he could use that to accuse President Trump of "interfering with the 2020 election". Q told us this is what would happen.
Q also told us it wouldn't work.
Quote:The rush for witnesses followed a report from a leaked version of Bolton’s upcoming book where he said Trump told Bolton to hold
back on congressionally approved national security aid to Ukraine until officials there agreed to help investigate Biden, his family
and other matters involving US Democrats.
No way to know if this is what the President said, but if he did, then it's because the corruption in Ukraine involved the Biden's and their pay to play corruption. Too bad it just happened to be Joe and his son that were involved.
He wanted corruption investigated, it's why Joe ran for President, so he could use that to accuse President Trump of "interfering with the 2020 election". Q told us this is what would happen.
Q also told us it wouldn't work.
Quote:
Looks like the internet took down that image, I have tied and can not find it.
@"guohua", if you're referring to the Q post, you can find it on www.Qmap.pub.
Today is the BIG day. Everyone is anxious as we await to see if the Senators will call witnesses, or acquit the POTUS. News outlets say we should know by the end of the day.
I'll be watching and will share the video when it's over.
(01-31-2020, 05:04 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: @"guohua", if you're referring to the Q post, you can find it on www.Qmap.pub.
Today is the BIG day. Everyone is anxious as we await to see if the Senators will call witnesses, or acquit the POTUS. News outlets say we should know by the end of the day.
I'll be watching and will share the video when it's over.
Yes I was, and Thank You.
I did watch it here about the "Q" post and MORE!
Starting at 1:02:17 and ending at 1:05:00
The Senate just voted to not allow more witnesses to be brought in. They will resume later to start the rest of this sham.
It's my understanding that each Senator will get 15 minutes to speak their mind on the floor. So, this could drag well into next week before we get a vote to Impeach, or not to Impeach. Sigh...
'The former US ambassador to Ukraine - a central figure in the impeachment proceedings
against President Donald Trump - has retired from the foreign service, US media report.
Marie Yovanovitch was recalled last May after being accused of being disloyal to Mr Trump.
She denies the claims.
She gave evidence at the hearings which led to Mr Trump's current trial in the Senate over
his Ukraine policy. The president is likely to be acquitted by loyal senators on Wednesday.
The two charges that led to his impeachment by the lower House of Representatives are
abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The first charge relates to an accusation that Mr Trump withheld US military aid to pressure
Ukraine into investigating a Democratic political rival, Joe Biden.
The second stems from an allegation that he purposefully obstructed the Congressional
impeachment investigation.
The president has repeatedly dismissed the inquiry as a "hoax" and a "witch-hunt".
Why was Marie Yovanovitch fired?
No details have been given about Ms Yovanovitch's retirement after 33 years of diplomatic
service. At the impeachment trial in November, Ms Yovanovitch testified that she was fired
from her role as the American ambassador to Kyiv in May over "false claims" by people with
"questionable motives".
She said her anti-corruption efforts had incurred the ire of influential Ukrainians who sought
to remove her. Ms Yovanovitch said she was shocked that her enemies appeared to find allies
in the Trump administration, including the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Trump ordered removal of envoy in Ukraine in 2018 - video
The former envoy's supporters say she was also smeared by US conservative media voices.
In an interview with Fox News' morning show in November, Mr Trump accused Ms Yovanovitch
of being disloyal by refusing to hang his photo in the US embassy in Ukraine.
"She said bad things about me, she wouldn't defend me, and I have the right to change the
ambassador," he said.
In footage that emerged from April 2018, Mr Trump can be heard saying "Get rid of her!"
- appearing to refer to Ms Yovanovitch - at a dinner with a group of donors in Washington.
In her testimony, Ms Yovanovitch said the allegation that she was disloyal to Mr Trump was false...'
This Sham called an Impeachment is nearly over, you would think the Democrats would know when they are beaten,,after three years,,,
Quote:Democrats Vow Trump Probes to Go On After Impeachment Trial Ends
They'll never recover from this. Look at the Faces of HATE!
All because their Girl Hillary, the person who was going to give America Away and to the EU Lost to a REAL American.
Quote:(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump’s scrutiny by Congress won’t end with his expected acquittal in the Senate. House Democrats have a list of inquiries they plan to pursue when the impeachment saga is over.
“The investigations and oversight will continue,” said Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York, head of the Oversight and Reform Committee, the lead investigative panel in the House. “We’ve got several cases.” Democratic-led committees in the House will keep seeking a wide range of evidence and testimony as they look into Trump’s administration, his policies and his businesses and finances.
They also plan to keep a focus on his conduct in dealing with Ukraine. In addition, there are multiple court cases running on separate tracks seeking access to his tax returns, testimony from former White House officials and financial records to show whether the president is unlawfully profiting from foreign governments. Three of the cases will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the spring.
This all will be occurring in the middle of a election campaign in which both parties will be fighting for control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. The Source of FOOLS
(02-02-2020, 06:24 AM)guohua Wrote: This Sham called an Impeachment is nearly over, you would think the Democrats would know when they are beaten,,after three years,,,
Quote:Democrats Vow Trump Probes to Go On After Impeachment Trial Ends
They'll never recover from this. Look at the Faces of HATE!
All because their Girl Hillary, the person who was going to give America Away and to the EU Lost to a REAL American.
Quote:(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump’s scrutiny by Congress won’t end with his expected acquittal in the Senate. House Democrats have a list of inquiries they plan to pursue when the impeachment saga is over.
“The investigations and oversight will continue,” said Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York, head of the Oversight and Reform Committee, the lead investigative panel in the House. “We’ve got several cases.” Democratic-led committees in the House will keep seeking a wide range of evidence and testimony as they look into Trump’s administration, his policies and his businesses and finances.
They also plan to keep a focus on his conduct in dealing with Ukraine. In addition, there are multiple court cases running on separate tracks seeking access to his tax returns, testimony from former White House officials and financial records to show whether the president is unlawfully profiting from foreign governments. Three of the cases will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the spring.
This all will be occurring in the middle of a election campaign in which both parties will be fighting for control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. The Source of FOOLS
Good luck with that, Dems.
From what I've been hearing, Durham is supposed to turn over his recommendations for indictments soon. I guess the Dems will be in an even quicker race to get Trump this time because they know the clock is ticking and it's about to run out of time (for them).
02-05-2020, 04:07 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2020, 04:08 PM by BIAD.)
Fact Checked: You have Mongos in the political forums.
Quote:Schiff warns that Trump could sell Alaska to Russia if unchecked.
'Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, warned on Monday that if President Trump's
dealings with Ukraine are not impeachable offenses, then nothing would stand in his way from attempting
bolder power grabs -going so far to claim Trump could use Alaska as a bargaining chip with "the Russians"
for support in 2020.
Schiff floated the far-flung hypothetical during his closing arguments at the Senate impeachment trial.
He appealed to Republicans who have acknowledged Trump's wrongdoing in the Ukraine matter to
prevent a "runaway presidency."
"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support
in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country,
delegating to him the decision whether to go to war," Schiff said.
"Because those things are not necessarily criminal, this argument would allow that he could not be impeached
for such abuses of power. Of course, this would be absurd. More than absurd, it would be dangerous."
The U.S. purchased what is now Alaska from Russia in 1867 for a transfer price of about $120 million in today's
dollars. William Seward, who was secretary of state under President Lincoln, had long pushed for the deal.
Alaska became the 49th state on Jan. 3, 1959.
Trump's defense countered that the Democrats have been out to impeach Trump since the start of his presidency,
nothing short of an effort to undo the 2016 election and to try to shape the next one.
"Leave it to the voters to choose," said White House counsel Pat Cipollone.
Schiff's comment drew critics on social media who said the remark was a naked scare tactic.
Jennifer Barbosa, an independent running against Schiff, said on Twitter that the California Democrat's comment
is an "insult to our intelligence."
Schiff, who is one of Trump's most vocal critics, has been criticized by some for his flair for the dramatic.
During the House impeachment inquiry, he read out a hyperbolic account of Trump's controversial call with
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.
"I have a favor I want from you," Schiff said at the time, while appearing to read from a piece of paper.
"And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political
opponent, understand? Lots of it, on this and on that."
Trump, who is under fire for allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, called
on Schiff to resign after the episode. Schiff, who represents parts of Hollywood, said his fictional summary was
"in parody."...'
Quote:Schiff floated the far-flung hypothetical during his closing arguments at the Senate impeachment trial.
"Far-flung hypothetical" situations is all they've had throughout this impeachment. "What ifs", and "he overheard someone's friend who is close to this one or that one", and other totally made up crap!
Their desperation is showing, and I hope anyone who still hasn't had their brain cells destroyed by listening to CNN and MSNBC will walk away before they become complete zombies.
The vote is today. He will be acquitted, and then the Demos will begin their next witch hunt; they already said they would.
It's not about doing anything the people elected them to do, it's all about getting the power back they lost in 2016.
The Republicans will win the House back in November, stack the Senate, and have more judges in place. Then perhaps President Trump can get on with "The best that's yet to come", and finish draining the swamp.
![[Image: vindman%20brothers.png?itok=GQwf4Edv]](https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/vindman%20brothers.png?itok=GQwf4Edv)
![[Image: 832adb66fd99e8746d8bcc89e58c53ac]](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/kAltVqPQlBXCarYeIaW8og--~B/aD0xMzMzO3c9MjAwMDtzbT0xO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/https://media.zenfs.com/en/bloomberg_politics_602/832adb66fd99e8746d8bcc89e58c53ac)
![[Image: ea6c5f5e308a9ca2df0dae3f9846f2e988a8d643...0c3a26.jpg]](https://cdn.qmap.pub/images/ea6c5f5e308a9ca2df0dae3f9846f2e988a8d6430f5ce097e6558d9fba0c3a26.jpg)