The initial part didn’t involve foreign entities
Impeachment
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
Yep. Hillary's people brought in Christopher Steele. In other words, she colluded with a foreigner to influence an election.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I explained that all to him 2 years ago, with multiple citations, and I can prove it. He doesnt care.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
On the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Chuck Todd predicted the Dems' Impeachment Circus will be over by Saturday. Possibly by Friday night.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Well by all means, impeach her.
He sees their tactics, I'm sure. Mitt is not that stupid. He is a duplicitous (look it up, Barry) snake, but he is not stupid.
Well by all means, impeach her.
And I'm sure you'd be all for it if she had won, right? Lol.
I'm not necessarily a Romney guy either. However, I have a hard time faulting him for supporting the calling of witnesses, regardless of the Democrats' partisan hackery. Keep in mind what Trump's position is. He's arguing that it was a "perfect call" and there was no quid pro quo. It's a stupid defense, but that's what he's going with.
A key fact witness (and it's a real fact witness, unlike the House witnesses who were largely a waste of time) apparently says Trump's story isn't true. If you're interested in finding out what happened, voting for that witness to testify is pretty defensible.
Now it shouldn't be a half-assed witness calling. If Bolton is going to testify, then the matter that was going to be investigated should also be looked into. Accordingly, Hunter Biden should also testify. If Romney says Yes to Bolton but No to Biden, then I'll join the chorus and call him a choad too.
(Side note - is the correct spelling "choad" or "chode?" I've seen it both ways.)
But hasn't Romney refused to comment on having Schiff and the whistle blower among others testify? If so, how interested is he in the truth when it may be exculpatory for Trump?
Well, they are being sued. Good luck with that.Well by all means, impeach her.
Ex-Trump aide Carter Page files suit against DNC over dossier: ‘This is only the first salvo’
Declining to comment isn't the same as saying No. He may want to wait and see if they're necessary. I will say this. It's a lot easier to defend calling the whistleblower than calling Schiff. I'd call the whistleblower to get around the hearsay problem. Who are these unidentified people that he references in his report? They should be known and perhaps subpoenaed. Schiff should only get called if other evidence suggests that he made himself a fact witness.
But he's happy to come out and tell everyone who will listen that Bolton should be heard from. Why won't he do the same with regard to Schiff? Because he hates Trump and can't hide that fact.
He couldn't get elected and beat Obama because he was so nice in that campaign. Probably hates Trump for the same reason other establishment Rs do. He is more outspoken against Trump than he was running against Obama.
And I get that even if Schiff did testify he will just lie and get away with it like he has done for 2 years about collusion etc.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Well, if she'd won we'd be trying to impeach her. If we were doing it regarding all of those murders that earned her the name "killary" then I guess I'd be OK with that.
Bolton's testimony is more relevant and crucial. Schiff's only matters if the whistleblower gets called and testifies to certain things about his activities with Schiff.
We know he isn't a fan of Trump, but his position would be pretty defensible even if he was a full-blown ball licker of Trump's.
No doubt that the cross examination of Schiff would be spectacular and a lot of fun to watch.
Last edited:
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I have no problem with Schiff testifying. That said, the whistleblower should stay relatively anonymous. The call was released so it is a moot point. Call Hunter too. He may plead the 5th, I don't know.
Highly unlikely, Barry.
This is nonsense. Whistleblowers testify everyday. Whistleblower laws protect him from adverse employment actions. They don't protect his story from hearsay laws, cross-examination, and scrutiny.
I have learned 2 important things to avoid prosecutions: declare you’ll are running for office and you are a whistleblower. Based on dem logic, you are untouchable
First question from trump's defense: "Mr. Bolton, why did you not express your concerns about the phone call before the President fired you?"
Ok, so these insurance programs are costing more than they are taking in. You either raise premiums or cut benefits or both to avoid calamitous results
instead of showing leadership and screaming from the rooftop about it the congress engages in a kabuki impeachment over a matter of Ukrainian significance and the president, cured of his bone spurs as the draft expired, rails a crowd of fawning worshippers about how the VA can now refer vets to private health providers. At no expense I am sure
Yes, and everybody in DC knows they would be committing political suicide to do so. Not one of them, save perhaps Rand Paul, has the balls even mention it let alone advocate cuts..
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
But they released the "transcript" of the perfect call. It would be akin to trying to prove that Barry Switzer violated NCAA rules. He wrote a book. Hell Bolton's testimony is about to hit the best seller charts.
You do understand that this same logic, if applied consistently, would defeat the purpose of calling John Bolton and frankly everybody right?
Good chance he'd say, "I did express my concerns directly to the President shortly after the call."
I imagine they would then ask about the interview where he did not express this and said the call was cordial etc. Seems to raise doubt about his concern over the call.
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
