Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Watermelon]

I wonder what folks think about this? This seems to be a new development, or is Bolton bluffing (emphasis mine)?



Wasn't this the guy that was adamant about attacking Iran, which was a reason Trump gave him the boot?

I’d think this would put more pressure on the senate to call witnesses.

This is part of his statement:

Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study. I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.

[DivineOb]

BTW, the problem with Clinton’s e mails has a lot to do with the handling of classified material. Sending classified material, through an unclassified e mail system would have landed me in jail. We know she did it, we know her staff did it, so it isn’t a question of ‘possible laws broken’ but actual laws and policies broken that the people who did it, roam free.

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion. My point is that I apply the same standards to the person I ultimately voted for as for the person I ultimately voted against. And when I was assured from voices "on the left" that this was a nothingburger I was totally unconvinced because I know that there is no legitimate justification (not necessarily criminal) for managing her emails the way she did.

So not giving information, isn’t always because of nefarious purposes, correct?

Of course. The government has to keep secrets in some cases to prevent greater harm from befalling us. Trump gave a the readout (not a transcript!) from the call so obviously this is not that.

We know Clinton committed a crime, what actual crime, did Trump commit?

Impeachment does not require an underlying crime, full stop. If you're unconvinced let me know what you think of a couple of examples and then we can get more specific about Trump if you want.

Say I was elected president. On day 1 I announce my intent to do nothing but play Minecraft all day and that's what I do. Memos go unread. Briefings ignored. Phone is disconnected from the wall. I refuse to meet with lawmakers or advisors. Did I break a law? Or have I acted in a way so contrary to the expectations of my office that I must be removed for the sake of the republic?

What if I just start announcing every government secret we have on Twitter. No doubt you're aware that the president can declassify anything and everything she wants. Did I break a law? Or have I acted in a way so contrary to the expectations of my office that I must be removed for the sake of the republic?

What if Canada invades and I order the military to stand down and not return fire under any conditions? Did I break a law? Or have I acted in a way so contrary to the expectations of my office that I must be removed for the sake of the republic?

I don't claim that Trump did any of these things. But surely you agree that impeachment and removal is essential in all these cases.

[seanD]

I wonder what folks think about this? This seems to be a new development, or is Bolton bluffing (emphasis mine)?

WASHINGTON — John R. Bolton, the former White House national security adviser, said on Monday that he was willing to testify at President Trump’s impeachment trial if he was subpoenaed.

“I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify,” Mr. Bolton said in a statement on his website.

The development is a dramatic turn in the impeachment proceeding, which has been stalled over Democrats’ insistence on hearing from critical witnesses Mr. Trump blocked from testifying in the House inquiry into his pressure campaign on Ukraine. Mr. Bolton is a potential bombshell of a witness, with crucial knowledge of the president’s actions and conversations regarding Ukraine that could fill out key blanks in the narrative of the impeachment case.

His willingness to tell the Senate what he knows ratchets up pressure on Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who has refused to commit to calling witnesses at the impeachment trial, to change his stance. It is unclear how the White House will respond to Mr. Bolton’s declaration, but his statement strongly suggested that he would testify regardless of whether Mr. Trump sought to prevent him.

...

Mr. Bolton declined to say on Monday precisely what he would be willing to tell Congress. But former White House officials and people close to Mr. Bolton have indicated that his testimony would likely be damning to Mr. Trump and put additional pressure on moderate Republicans to consider convicting him.

Source

Wasn't this the guy that was adamant about attacking Iran, which was a reason Trump gave him the boot?

[lilpixieofterror]

If I can be frank I think you are extremely trusting of the current government. I doubt very many conservatives on this forum would be similarly dispassionate about significantly lesser allegations about Obama's administration. I bet if I search for "Clinton emails" I would find a rabid mob ready to tear her limb from limb. And I am not unsympathetic to those who felt that way for legitimate reasons (I was one of them) for reasons I will lay out below.

You’re welcome to find these post where I said otherwise, but if congress wants compliance, it has the option of the courts to force compliance. You don’t get to infer guilt just because you want it now.

BTW, the problem with Clinton’s e mails has a lot to do with the handling of classified material. Sending classified material, through an unclassified e mail system would have landed me in jail. We know she did it, we know her staff did it, so it isn’t a question of ‘possible laws broken’ but actual laws and policies broken that the people who did it, roam free.

I do not feel they had that right. There's a reason we recognize human rights which transcend borders, governments, and constitutions.

So not giving information, isn’t always because of nefarious purposes, correct?

This is a category error. I am private citizen who doesn't report to The People. I don't have any special public trust or public authority. I can't act in a significant way against The People due to blackmail or conflicts of interest. I've felt this way my whole life (see my above comment re: Clinton). I felt she violated the public trust by acting in a way to hide communications from FOIA and did so in a reckless manner. Not trying to shift the discussion but I assure you I try to be consistent in this expectation.

We know Clinton committed a crime, what actual crime, did Trump commit?

[lilpixieofterror]

He didn't ask if you would listen, Lilpix, he asked if want to hear. Your evasion makes obvious the fact that you would rather not hear. There are none so deaf.......

You’re very stupid huh? Here is what I said:

“Would I listen? Sure...”

Than I clarified that the rule of law needs to be followed first. Maybe you need to take English 101 again and let it teach you how to read what people say. The question was answered, with a follow up to the next point that was already made. Which is, “Only people that have something to hide, would not want others to look around.” which is directly against our bill of rights. I don’t need to let the police to search my house on a whim, but because I have the right to not have my stuff searched through. Legal challenges are not proof of guilt.

What a ridiculous analogy! One has to wonder why you're trying so hard to defend the President for his obstructing an inquiry into his actions. Well, we're not really wondering why, we know why, and so do you. The presidents obstruction is not protected by the Constitution, it's a violation of the Constitution. An alleged murderer doesn't have the power to determine what the admissable evidence will be or will not be. He doesn't have the power to order witnesses not to testify or to block direct evidence from being seen. The President is using his power to violate the Constitution, not to adhere to it.

I guess more of your failure to read Jimmy. Sorry, but there is no rule that says you can’t legally challenge Congress. I know you’ve been brainwashed to believe otherwise, but even Democrats have done the same. Don’t recall Obama nor Clinton being accused of obstructing for doing the same thing. Again, the executive branch is a co-equal branch.

The White House is not the Presidents House, it's the peoples house and it is the peoples prerogative to have it searched, if you will, not the guests.

Go ahead and try this theory and see where it gets you.

[DivineOb]

Would I listen? Sure, but as I said, it’s important that the rule of law is upheld first and foremost. If the Democrats are serious, they need to take it to the courts and let the courts decide.

If I can be frank I think you are extremely trusting of the current government. I doubt very many conservatives on this forum would be similarly dispassionate about significantly lesser allegations about Obama's administration. I bet if I search for "Clinton emails" I would find a rabid mob ready to tear her limb from limb. And I am not unsympathetic to those who felt that way for legitimate reasons (I was one of them) for reasons I will lay out below.

But did Nazi’s have a right to that information?

I do not feel they had that right. There's a reason we recognize human rights which transcend borders, governments, and constitutions.

What you’re setting up here is opposite of why we have constitutional protections to begin with. Why should you object to police searching your house? Do you have anything to hide?

This is a category error. I am private citizen who doesn't report to The People. I don't have any special public trust or public authority. I can't act in a significant way against The People due to blackmail or conflicts of interest. I've felt this way my whole life (see my above comment re: Clinton). I felt she violated the public trust by acting in a way to hide communications from FOIA and did so in a reckless manner. Not trying to shift the discussion but I assure you I try to be consistent in this expectation.

[seer]

Is that a trick question?

Well, who is the "we" you were speaking of? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[Sam]

Yes it does and you know it. It is very dishonest for you to say otherwise and hide behind a claim that they both have subpoena powers.

Nobody disputes that both committees have subpoena powers. What is at question is whether Schiff, as he has shown he is prone to do, screwed it up. Nadler, OTOH has at the very least, a veneer of competence and the validity of the subpoenas from his committee has not been drawn into question.

Dishonest? I fear you've entirely forgotten the meaning of the word.

Explain why, using Judge Jackson's ruling or any other legal precedent, subpoenas coming out of HPSCI lack legal authority.

Don't go calling people dishonest if you're just going to follow it up with griping and handwaving.

--Sam

[JimL]

Would I listen? Sure, but as I said, itÂ’s important that the rule of law is upheld first and foremost. If the Democrats are serious, they need to take it to the courts and let the courts decide.

He didn't ask if you would listen, Lilpix, he asked if want to hear. Your evasion makes obvious the fact that you would rather not hear. There are none so deaf.......

But did NaziÂ’s have a right to that information? What youÂ’re setting up here is opposite of why we have constitutional protections to begin with.

What a ridiculous analogy! One has to wonder why you're trying so hard to defend the President for his obstructing an inquiry into his actions. Well, we're not really wondering why, we know why, and so do you. The presidents obstruction is not protected by the Constitution, it's a violation of the Constitution. An alleged murderer doesn't have the power to determine what the admissable evidence will be or will not be. He doesn't have the power to order witnesses not to testify or to block direct evidence from being seen. The President is using his power to violate the Constitution, not to adhere to it.

Why should you object to police searching your house? Do you have anything to hide?

The White House is not the Presidents House, it's the peoples house and it is the peoples prerogative to have it searched, if you will, not the guests.

[Cow Poke]

The second impeachment article,...

...is so weak that Pelosi can't even transmit it to the Senate.

[firstfloor]

Are you a US citizen?

Is that a trick question?

[seer]

We, the people, demand it.

Are you a US citizen?

[firstfloor]

Trump’s willingness to sign up to war crimes makes him clearly unsuitable to continue in his post. It is time for him to resign, and calls for his resignation should be heard from McConnell and other senior Republicans. We, the people, demand it.

[lilpixieofterror]

So do I have it right that you *aren't* curious?

Would I listen? Sure, but as I said, it’s important that the rule of law is upheld first and foremost. If the Democrats are serious, they need to take it to the courts and let the courts decide.

No, and I think those who denied them that information did so because they believed themselves to be morally superior over the Nazis. *next*

But did Nazi’s have a right to that information? What you’re setting up here is opposite of why we have constitutional protections to begin with. Why should you object to police searching your house? Do you have anything to hide?

[Watermelon]

Yes it does and you know it. It is very dishonest for you to say otherwise and hide behind a claim that they both have subpoena powers.

Nobody disputes that both committees have subpoena powers. What is at question is whether Schiff, as he has shown he is prone to do, screwed it up. Nadler, OTOH has at the very least, a veneer of competence and the validity of the subpoenas from his committee has not been drawn into question.

Can you elaborate on what the complaint about Schiffs subpoena is?