GOP Senator Puts Nancy Pelosi on Notice; No Articles by Monday, He Will Introduce Measure to Dismiss

Two things stand out at the moment:
1. What does Bolton know?
2. Why is the GOP desperate to keep Bolton from testifying?

 

That's true... a Ham (Pelosi), Bologna (Schiff), and Limburger (Nadler) indictment on Sour Grapes bread.

 

Actually it is a living document. Meaning that it changes over time. It is the Amendment Process that makes it a living document.

 

The GOP doesn't have to be "desperate" about anything. Nancy's House prosecutors have the burden of proof. If you are the accused and the prosecution has a very weak case against you, then it's smart to say as little as possible and just let them "prove" their accusations.

Republicans just want to get back to work and stop messing with this impeachment nonsense. The sooner it's over the better for the country.

If Nancy wanted Bolton, she should have waited for the courts to tell him to show up. Same with any other witnesses that she was too impatient to follow previous precedents.

 

dropped their accusations as articles of impeachment? I mean, thats's as far as they can go with a POTUS. Sounds like a stiff cupper to me.

For anyone with a logical thought process.

'Clear directive from POTUS'. No bias. no presumption. no inference. Just straight simple language.

Circumstantial evidence was used to impeach, and was more then enough. Direct evidence was leaked post-impeachment vote.

I was talking about the legal process of impeachment. Not subpeonas. That was half-decided by the SC via Nixon and said that EP is not absolute.

Yes, because the Dems are the devil and the Reps can do no wrong. Jebus, what is it with this party and this absolute dedication to deification of it?

I was talking about both sides.

And again (I feel like I'm going in circles here with you), that it being entirely of the purview of the respective houses means that in this day and age, neither can be fully trusted to be impartial (with at least one stating so, out loud to reporters), and therefore an independent view must be taken to keep both sides in check. Or are you ok with either side running rampant on their own doing whatever they want to get the answer they want?[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

You don’t remember the ‘high crimes’ of bribery they were accusing POTUS for then ended up not including them?
Instead they included no high crimes or misdemeanors.

 

You don’t remember the ‘high crimes’ of bribery they were accusing POTUS for then ended up not including them?
Instead they included no high crimes or misdemeanors.[/QUOTE]
Why would they use bribery when the issue was extortion? And realistically, if they didn't include it, then who cares about it?

 

I do, ethically inclined people when they make a charge generally have a reason for the charges/accusations they make of another person. Ethically challenged people engage in the kitchen sink: Throw something at the wall, and find out what sticks.

 

I wish that same thought process was applied when they had the ..what 500th different investigation into Hillary?

Oh right..i forgot...that was "different".

Also, prosecutors know that it's best to put forward your strongest case. Why muddle things up on your side when you have a perfectly good opposition team ready to do so for you?

 

Except they already muddled things up. As far as Hillary is concerned, the GOP could and did do whatever it wanted. Also, Hillary was never impeached or threatened to be removed from government, not even as an ineffectual NY Senator. It's literally apples and oranges to "focus testing" words to find a favorable outcome, only to find the evidence doesn't support said favorable outcome.

As an independent, I don't want to impeach the President for "morally questionable" decisions. For those, there's the ballot box and 2020. Democrats should be able to put forth an argument why they will be better. If they can't put that argument forward, they don't get to use impeachment what they can't do through the compelling argument to the American People.

 

So...I suppose you are saying that you scanned the 600 pages and found no reference to the Impoundment Control Act? I have no explanation for that until I have read the 600 pages. I'd be relatively sure that it will be brought up at trial. Have you not read the Act?

 

Democrats focused on bribery for a week or two and later constitutional bribery after running a poll to find out which term would hurt Republicans politically the most. "Extortion" didn't poll as well, and Dems think their base is too stupid/uneducated to understand "quid pro quo". "Briiiiibbbeeeerrrrrryyyyy", is velvety and slides off the tongue from a marketing propaganda standpoint. Democrat voters chose "bribery". Unfortunately, House Dems could not prove bribery, so they had to water down charges to 1) "interference in with the 2020 elections" and 2) "failure to respond to very strongly worded letters inviting witnesses to show up and testify".

In other words, Democrats didn't care if any charges are real or severe; it's whatever hurts Trump and Republicans the most. Politics has always been a dirty business. Pelosi really has turned things into swamp slime....proving Trump's point about the long-time establishment power figures.

 

So your ok with the GOPs throwing anything against the wall to see what will stick but not with the Dems doing the same? Alrighty then.

And realistically, I'm ok with the Impeachment label. I'd rather he stick around and be the focal point for the GOP vs Mike Pence.

 

I don't know. I would guess that a State Court COULD indict him and then he could argue that he's immune from prosecution because of the federal DoJ policy? But, that would seem to me to be a weak article. Remember, that he has reached "settlements" regarding both Trump University and the Trump Foundation, and closing both.

 

Democrats focused on bribery for a week or two and later constitutional bribery after running a poll to find out which term would hurt Republicans politically the most. "Extortion" didn't poll as well, and Dems think their base is too stupid/uneducated to understand "quid pro quo". "Briiiiibbbeeeerrrrrryyyyy", is velvety and slides off the tongue from a marketing propaganda standpoint. Democrat voters chose "bribery". Unfortunately, House Dems could not prove bribery, so they had to water down charges to 1) "interference in with the 2020 elections" and 2) "failure to respond to very strongly worded letters inviting witnesses to show up and testify".

In other words, Democrats didn't care if any charges are real or severe; it's whatever hurts Trump and Republicans the most. Politics has always been a dirty business. Pelosi really has turned things into swamp slime....proving Trump's point about the long-time establishment power figures.[/QUOTE]

lol new to politics eh? Everything is focus tested to death by all politicians who want to be reelected. Of course they went with what would instill itself into the public's mind. They want people to support them, and unfortunately, people would rather do what the flashy box thingy tells them then think for themselves. Why do you think Fox News has been so successful?

I'd love it if politics didn't have to try to cater to the least involved amongst us, but unfortunate, that's the majority, so they do what they can to penetrate through the fog of whatever the Kardashians are doing today to reach that part that's still paying attention.

 

That's hypothetical. The Senate is never going to get a 2/3rds vote to find Trump guilty. Nancy knows that and knew that from the beginning. As far as she's concerned she did what her base wanted and "impeached the m'f'er". She has no more responsibility from here and certainly won't accept responsibility for the mess she created. Oh well, as long as Dems are happy with impeachment.

 

Hey, you asked why they would chose "bribery" and not "extortion". I guess they didn't include you in their opinion poll.

 

Except Pelosi targeted VP Pence as well. In this Ukrainian scheme not unlike the Reichstag fires, and I'm sorry to say the comparison is so canny I'm not even breaking Godwin. Realistically, if I were in the House I would have demanded Pelosi recuse herself the moment that she and Schiff targeted VP Pence.

 

Indeed. Everyone knew that the way in which the Constitution was written misdemeanors could mean anything that the party in control of the House wanted it to mean. The only thing holding back the possible resulting abuse of power was an understanding of how fragile political institutions can be and also that such abuse of power almost always backlashes against the abusers.

But since the current leftist leadership is apparently either too ill-educated or too arrogant to take such things into consideration the nation's first ALL partisan impeachment over NEITHER High Crimes and nor Misdemeanors occurred. Backlash will happen. One possibility being that in the future a leftist president will now be very vulnerable.

 

The House Impeachment and the Senate trial are conducted by their own respective rules. Each holds the "sole power" over their respective part. Once it formally goes to the Senate, the only influence Pelosi will have is in the selection of the House "managers" for the trial. During the delay there have been several new revelations, such as Giuliani and Associates info, released e-mails, Bolten change of mind, etc. Plus, there has been a bit of a "walk-back" by McConnell in regard to his former public announcement of personal bias and the promise of complete coordination with the defendant. Remember, the latter was the reason for the Pelosi delay.

As previously stated, I personally would have had him removed from office for parking his golf cart on the Green, but there is a wide variety of other more serious transgressions, such as the Trump University fiasco, the Trump Foundation fiasco, Campaign Finance violations, possible money laundering and assorted other financial crimes, and obstruction of justice during the Comey and Mueller investigations.

 

I agree. Let the witnesses testify and get this whole thing over with. What is the Senate trying to hide?

 

Do you think Obama would have been impeached for all this by a GOP House?

 

Exactly. Feelings.

 

Well, the House of Pelosi is going to have to wait for her first "practice set" of articles to fail in the Senate, and then start off "fresh" with new partisan accusations. Maybe practice makes perfect, and she'll make sure the House calls all witnesses before calling for another official impeachment vote.

 

Nothing. The House was supposed to call all their witnesses before taking the final floor vote to impeach. Not the Senate's job to finish the House's unfinished business. "Cleanup on Article One and Two" is not in McConnell's job description.

Nancy spilled the milk. McConnell isn't going to mop up for her.