Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Patooka]

I don't know. One of the guys with glasses. I had my back turned toward the computer away from the TV. I forget his name.

In legal terms that is called hearsay. It's generally dismissed as bullshit.

I think the problem you are facing is like trying to tell someone that never scoops their cat's box that their house reeks of cat piss and turds. When you live in an environment like that for so long, you stop being able to sense the problem.

When all you do all day is vomit up cow shit, you become unaware of the persistent bullshit stank of all that you vomit.

What's disturbing is that Half-life knows what an echo chamber is. And yet he volunteers himself into an environment riddled with cat piss and stank. I'm a cat person myself and yet even I understand some custodial engineering is required from time to time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just so we're abreast of the latest developments, Alan Dershowitz argued today that if Trump felt it was in the national interest, it cannot therefore be an impeachable offense. Seriously:

“If a 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...If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisers? Just do what’s best for the country.”

We're entering into Dear Leader territory here.

"When the President does it, it's not illegal."

 

[Ford]

Just so we're abreast of the latest developments, Alan Dershowitz argued today that if Trump felt it was in the national interest, it cannot therefore be an impeachable offense. Seriously:

“If a 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...If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisers? Just do what’s best for the country.”

We're entering into Dear Leader territory here.

"When the President does it, it's not illegal."

After reading the tea leaves, his Republican allies turned on Nixon. To his credit, he looked at the lay of the land and resigned.

That's not going to happen this time.

I have this dark dream that in the future (perhaps more near than far), a Democratic President is going to commit some heinous act while in office, and - if they've got a Democratic Senate in their corner - they'll say "so? I'm President and cannot be held accountable."

This is the precedent that's about to be set. Wingers like Halfie don't seem to grasp this.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just so we're abreast of the latest developments, Alan Dershowitz argued today that if Trump felt it was in the national interest, it cannot therefore be an impeachable offense. Seriously:

“If a 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...If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisers? Just do what’s best for the country.”

We're entering into Dear Leader territory here.

"When the President does it, it's not illegal."

He actually said this after he was booted out of office. "Some people, you just canin't reach."

 

[Keith&Co.]

"When the President does it, it's not illegal."

He actually said this after he was booted out of office. "Some people, you just canin't reach."

He also said "Sock it to me" on Laff In.
Years later, on the Laff In reprise, he said, "You can stop, now."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The House cannot prove guilt beyond doubt. That would be a trial. The Senate has to do the trial.

The House proves the case with a preponderance of evidence, like a grand jury or arrest warrant affidavit. So they proved impeachment is reasonable, but not the trial.

The Senate must Constitutionally have a trial. A trial is different than House procedure and needs more evidence because the burden is higher.

Traitor Russianpublicans are afraid.

I thought they were doing the trial right now? I was told, "It's past the Senate and in the house for trial now."

You guys are confusing.

Wow, you are very confused. It is past the House and in the Senate.

 

[Elixir]

Wow, you are very confused.

You have a real gift for understatement.

 

[lpetrich]

White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book - CNNPolitics

The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

In a letter to Bolton's lawyer, a top official at the National Security Council wrote the unpublished manuscript of Bolton's book "appears to contain significant amounts of classified information" and couldn't be published as written.

The letter, which is dated January 23, said some of the information was classified at the "top secret" level, meaning it "reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security."

"The manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information," the letter read

This will be fun.

 

[Deepak]

White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book - CNNPolitics

The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

In a letter to Bolton's lawyer, a top official at the National Security Council wrote the unpublished manuscript of Bolton's book "appears to contain significant amounts of classified information" and couldn't be published as written.

The letter, which is dated January 23, said some of the information was classified at the "top secret" level, meaning it "reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security."

"The manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information," the letter read

This will be fun.

Grasping at straws, to their own detriment really. Blocking the manuscript doesn't prevent his testimony, and any questions about classified info would be resolved during the testimony regardless of the true classification of the manuscript. More importantly, this only motivates Bolton - not just in the sense of a personal sleight, but also because a conviction would effectively remove the largest impediment to publication.

The letter makes sure to call out NDAs https://www.scribd.com/document/444787844/Bolton-Letter

 

[Keith&Co.]

White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book - CNNPolitics

The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

In a letter to Bolton's lawyer, a top official at the National Security Council wrote the unpublished manuscript of Bolton's book "appears to contain significant amounts of classified information" and couldn't be published as written.

The letter, which is dated January 23, said some of the information was classified at the "top secret" level, meaning it "reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security."

"The manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information," the letter read

This will be fun.

1) bolton registers as a Presidential candidate.
2) bolton publishes the book anyway, as the contents
A) will help him get elected
B) are in the public's interest
3) bolton publisher lawyer quotes trump's lawyers...a lot...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because it is a red herring in the conversation about if TRUMP committed a crime or abused his office

If you shoot a guy randomly in the street and that guy turns out to be a time traveling Hitler, you still just committed first degree murder.

The impeachment trial just mentioned, "The Dems have said they proved their case over and over. They claim it's fully proven. But, now they want witnesses? I thought they claimed it's already fully proven!"

Nailed to the wall. History will not be kind to the Democrats for this sham.

Witnesses are routinely called in slam-dunk cases!

 

[Jarhyn]

Because it is a red herring in the conversation about if TRUMP committed a crime or abused his office

If you shoot a guy randomly in the street and that guy turns out to be a time traveling Hitler, you still just committed first degree murder.

The impeachment trial just mentioned, "The Dems have said they proved their case over and over. They claim it's fully proven. But, now they want witnesses? I thought they claimed it's already fully proven!"

Nailed to the wall. History will not be kind to the Democrats for this sham.

Witnesses are routinely called in slam-dunk cases!

Witnesses are often part of what makes any given case a slam dunk.

Also, I did notice he didn't answer my statements at all.

 

[Half-Life]

Witnesses are routinely called in slam-dunk cases!

Witnesses are often part of what makes any given case a slam dunk.

Also, I did notice he didn't answer my statements at all.

Please tell me which statements.

 

[Half-Life]

Because it is a red herring in the conversation about if TRUMP committed a crime or abused his office

If you shoot a guy randomly in the street and that guy turns out to be a time traveling Hitler, you still just committed first degree murder.

The impeachment trial just mentioned, "The Dems have said they proved their case over and over. They claim it's fully proven. But, now they want witnesses? I thought they claimed it's already fully proven!"

Nailed to the wall. History will not be kind to the Democrats for this sham.

Witnesses are routinely called in slam-dunk cases!

I am not up to date. I thought there did not need to be any witnesses because it is not a criminal trial, so it is not subject to the rules of a criminal trial.

 

[blastula]

Shocker, Halfiie does not want witnesses.

 

[angelo]

Fox News just showed a part of the trial and I forget who it was but he asked a Democrat on the stand, "Do you have any evidence of Trump committing any crime at all?" The woman responded, "No."

Case closed.

What evidence do you have that Clinton did anything wrong?

Case closed.

The sperm stain on Monica's dress came from?

 

[Arctish]

Fox News just showed a part of the trial and I forget who it was but he asked a Democrat on the stand, "Do you have any evidence of Trump committing any crime at all?" The woman responded, "No."

Case closed.

What evidence do you have that Clinton did anything wrong?

Case closed.

The sperm stain on Monica's dress came from?

Consenting adults, one of whom produced the sperm and the other who decided to keep it as a memento.

No crime in that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The sperm stain on Monica's dress came from?

Consenting adults, one of whom produced the sperm and the other who decided to keep it as a memento.

No crime in that.

Also, ANGELO doesn't have that evidence. He only knows about it. Because investigation. And testimony. Of witnesses.
So if Angelo (or halfie) was on the stand, and someone asked, what evidence do YOU have...?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Witnesses are routinely called in slam-dunk cases!

I am not up to date. I thought there did not need to be any witnesses...

Well, that depends. Are we talking THIS impeachment or the last one? Because apparently, Scotty has reversed the polarity on the Jeffries impeachment some time between the two.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Dershowitz is capitalizing on the conflict. He is now on a new conservative podcast. I think he is an opportunist.

You THINK? I swear I heard my dog growl "opportunist asshole" when Dershowitz came on screen.

He's arguing that SCROTUS could legally have every single Democratic presidential candidate rounded up and sent to Gitmo, or even executed. If you assume he's not a complete fucking idiot, why else would he do this?