Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Jeb007]

Dearly beloved contributors of the thread, by and large of the Democratic persuasion, I have watched you salivate over the impeachment,which was apparently a done deal if one was to believe you.

Now, you are entertaining me with "'murica sees this, goodbye votes", as if Trump lawyer team didn't just destroy the Schiff narrative.

I wish you all the best and don't ever change! Your coping is entertaining af.

[Tenlo]

Dearly beloved contributors of the thread, by and large of the Democratic persuasion, I have watched you salivate over the impeachment,which was apparently a done deal if one was to believe you.

Now, you are entertaining me with "'murica sees this, goodbye votes", as if Trump lawyer team didn't just destroy the Schiff narrative.

I wish you all the best and don't ever change! Your coping is entertaining af.

How did he destroy the "narrative" and what do you think of Bolton throwing Trump's who case under the bus in his book? I'm curious

[Orbitus]

Dearly beloved contributors of the thread, by and large of the Democratic persuasion, I have watched you salivate over the impeachment,which was apparently a done deal if one was to believe you.

Now, you are entertaining me with "'murica sees this, goodbye votes", as if Trump lawyer team didn't just destroy the Schiff narrative.

I wish you all the best and don't ever change! Your coping is entertaining af.

Yeah, the Trump lawyers didn't destroy anything but their own credibility. To which they probably didn't have any in the first place if they are Trump lawyers.

[Noxx79]

Dearly beloved contributors of the thread, by and large of the Democratic persuasion, I have watched you salivate over the impeachment,which was apparently a done deal if one was to believe you.

Now, you are entertaining me with "'murica sees this, goodbye votes", as if Trump lawyer team didn't just destroy the Schiff narrative.

I wish you all the best and don't ever change! Your coping is entertaining af.

Not that it matters:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox...d-remove-trump

[Breccia]

Even the GOP are increasingly worried about Bolton's book.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said Monday that it is "increasingly likely" that he and at least three other Senate Republicans will vote to call former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness in President Trump's impeachment trial.

GOP sources told Axios that the revelations from Bolton's book could be enough to sway the four Republican senators needed to vote for witness testimony in the trial.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), another key swing vote on witnesses, also said in a statement that the reports about Bolton's book "[strengthened] the case for witnesses" and "prompted a number of conversations" among senators.

Considering that the NSC directly confirmed they'd read Bolton's book, there's not a lot of options they have here. These are direct allegations by Team Trump itself that Ukraine was being blackmailed for Biden dirt. This isn't some tinfoil hat wearing random poster, or even a journalist citing unnamed sources. This is Bolton. At this point, one off three things will happen.

1) Bolton will testify under oath that this is what happened.
2) Someone else at the meeting will defend Trump by testifying that's not what happened.
3) Team Trump and the GOP will intentionally block all info to the issue and do it in public, therefore admitting the truth doesn't matter.

[solinari6]

1) Bolton will testify under oath that this is what happened.
2) Someone else at the meeting will defend Trump by testifying that's not what happened.
3) Team Trump and the GOP will intentionally block all info to the issue and do it in public, therefore admitting the truth doesn't matter.

Or likely:
4) They just say: "Yeah, he did it. So what? It's not impeachable"

[Breccia]

Or likely:
4) They just say: "Yeah, he did it. So what? It's not impeachable"

I suppose so. I would love to see them defend that while running in 2020. More importantly, I would almost love to see other politicians running against them, working with state/local governments to get business or private info on these Republicans, then say "What? You personally and directly said this was okay."

[Noxx79]

Or likely:
4) They just say: "Yeah, he did it. So what? It's not impeachable"

In which case schiff needs to get some big balls and argue/threaten that this would be setting precedent and every republican senator should worry about the next dem president starting political investigations with foreign nations.

Trump, Graham, nunes, Cruz for starters, and every republican who spent the 4th of July in Russia should be terrified.

[DocSavageFan]

I'm waiting for a statement from Bolton that either confirms or denies the NYT allegation. The timing of the article is impeccable.

[Breccia]

I'm waiting for a statement from Bolton that either confirms or denies the NYT allegation.

Well, he was invited to testify by the House. He chose not to. So you can blame Bolton for the waiting, or Trump for withholding his testimony. Either way, this could have been resolved months ago, but Team Trump decided to make it an issue.

[Edge-]

I'm waiting for a statement from Bolton that either confirms or denies the NYT allegation. The timing of the article is impeccable.

Well, he did just send his book off to the White House for NSC approval. And this White House is one of the leakiest of all time. It checks out, and reinforces a mountain of existing information.

If he'd talked to the House, this wouldn't have been so "conveniently" timed. It would have come out last year.

[DocSavageFan]

Well, he was invited to testify by the House. He chose not to. So you can blame Bolton for the waiting, or Trump for withholding his testimony. Either way, this could have been resolved months ago, but Team Trump decided to make it an issue.

I don't understand why the House didn't subpoena him. The optics for Democrats are horrible imo.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, he did just send his book off to the White House for NSC approval. And this White House is one of the leakiest of all time. It checks out, and reinforces a mountain of existing information.

If he'd talked to the House, this wouldn't have been so "conveniently" timed. It would have come out last year.

This appears to be a NSC leak, not a WH leak.

[Machismo]

I don't understand why the House didn't subpoena him. The optics for Democrats are horrible imo.

- - - Updated - - -


This appears to be a NSC leak, not a WH leak.

Yeah, keep lying to yourself.

More people corroborating the claims of Trump's crimes and corruption, and you want to say this looks bad for the House.

[Edge-]

This appears to be a NSC leak, not a WH leak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...cil#Membership

These are White House appointees for the most part.

https://www.axios.com/john-bolton-bo...4ccebf4b1.html

"Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript was submitted to the NSC for pre-publication review and has been under initial review by the NSC. No White House personnel outside NSC have reviewed the manuscript."

The NSC disagrees with you.

[solinari6]

I don't understand why the House didn't subpoena him. The optics for Democrats are horrible imo.

Because they subpoena'd Don McGahn 9 months ago, and they are still no where near getting him to testify yet.

[Edge-]

I don't understand why the House didn't subpoena him. The optics for Democrats are horrible imo.

McGahn was subpoena'd back in May, 2019 - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...-with-subpoena

A judge ruled in late November that he must comply with the subpoena, as of early December he still has not - https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/d...district-court

Bolton was asked to testify, and in early November indicated he may after the Mcgahn suit was ruled on - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-mick-mulvaney

He still hasn't volunteered himself despite that lawsuit being ruled on.

So what would subpoenaing Bolton have changed with this? We'd have another 9+ month lawsuit with the party in question still refusing court orders to testify? Which would change...what, exactly?

[DocSavageFan]

Yeah, keep lying to yourself.

More people corroborating the claims of Trump's crimes and corruption, and you want to say this looks bad for the House.

I offered an opinion that you personally disagree with. That's not lying and for you to frame it as such is blatant ___.

The House didn't do their job by not subpoenaing Bolton imo . The Democrats stated several times that they had overwhelming evidence to justify impeachment. Yet the first thing they "requested" when they presented their case to the Senate was the need for more witnesses and documents. If you think those optics look good...more power to you!

[Daelak]

I offered an opinion that you personally disagree with. That's not lying and for you to frame it as such is blatant ___.

The House didn't do their job by not subpoenaing Bolton imo . The Democrats stated several times that they had overwhelming evidence to justify impeachment. Yet the first thing they "requested" when they presented their case to the Senate was the need for more witnesses and documents. If you think those optics look good...more power to you!

They subpoenaed Bolton's aide, who is represented by Bolton's attorney. Their attorney said they would not abide by the subpoena and that they would sue the HIC and said they would go through the same process as McGahn's attorney.

[Machismo]

I offered an opinion that you personally disagree with. That's not lying and for you to frame it as such is blatant ___.

The House didn't do their job by not subpoenaing Bolton imo . The Democrats stated several times that they had overwhelming evidence to justify impeachment. Yet the first thing they "requested" when they presented their case to the Senate was the need for more witnesses and documents. If you think those optics look good...more power to you!

It's you being completely and totally disingenuous.

They asked him to testify, your ass backwards attempt to try and put lipstick on yet another pig is rather adorable.

More witnesses is warranted, especially for all of those who were too cowardly to show up the first time, like Bolton, Giuliani, Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo... you get the picture.

I love that Bolton is corroborating the whistleblower claims, and you are trying to say this makes the House look bad. I almost feel bad for the people who feel compelled to push this bullshit.

[DocSavageFan]

McGahn was subpoena'd back in May, 2019 - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...-with-subpoena

A judge ruled in late November that he must comply with the subpoena, as of early December he still has not - https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/d...district-court

Bolton was asked to testify, and in early November indicated he may after the Mcgahn suit was ruled on - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-mick-mulvaney

He still hasn't volunteered himself despite that lawsuit being ruled on.

So what would subpoenaing Bolton have changed with this? We'd have another 9+ month lawsuit with the party in question still refusing court orders to testify? Which would change...what, exactly?

The process needs to play out. We are a nation of laws are we not?