No Witnesses

[99explorer]

Thus far, the game plan for Trump's defense consists of attacks on the prosecution, and the bulk of his support is from the lunatic fringe that thrives on conspiracy theories.

[Ontario Honker Hunter]

Yeah, the defence has been built around whether this is an impeachable offence. "High crimes and misdemeanours" is indeed vague. But the president using his power and government money to discredit a potential political opponent is certainly extremely bad form (and definitely a criminal offence in just about every state). I'm not adverse to stretching (if it is a stretch) the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanours to establish this kind of precedent. Could only be an excellent deterrent for future presidents no matter what party they belong to. Similarly I think acquitting Trump based solely on the supposed ambiguity of high crimes and misdemeanours will set a terrible precedent. Sure doesn't look good for democracy if the president of the US can beat the rap on a technicality.

I'm anxious to hear what Bolton has to say (or rather, to hear him say it ... we already know what he will say). I am sure the Republicans want to shut this guy up. Mostly I think because Bolton is a loudmouth (a prerequisite for Fox News commentator) and a bully. He didn't do the party any favours when he appeared before the Senate the last time over Bush's attempted appointment of him as UN representative. What a fiasco that was. I must say this is just the kinda guy I would expect Trump would have put in his outfit. Those two are cut from the same cloth, that's for sure. Well, almost the same cloth. Like Trump, Bolton may be a flaming arsehole and a loudmouth, but unlike Trump, he's not stupid. I can't see him going along with withholding Congressional aid for that purpose. And I can certainly see Bolton telling Trump quite bluntly (because Bolton has a reputation for being "blunt" and "rude") that it was a mistake. The White House was obviously too leaky to be doing something that foolish. We all know how well Trump takes it when his staff tries to tell him he's making a mistake. Ask Rex Tillerson. Anyway, Bolton testimony is a way out of this mess for the Republicans. They should make use of the opportunity. On the other hand I really think it will be a huge mistake if they try to block it. American voters, both Democrat and Republican, want transparency. They want the show. That's why they voted in a TV reality show host. Any senator looking at reelection who tries to block transparency will pay the price next fall. His opponent will capitalise on that big time with a show of his own. Even those senators up for reelection four years down the road have to be nervous about blocking Bolton's testimony. Or they should be if they're smart. Anyway, trials are supposed to be about hearing testimony. That's basic common law principle.

[CD2]

When I hear people feeling too sorry for others......makes me wonder what terrible sins theyve committed.

Trying to salve a wounded conscience, not by their time/ energy or money......no they want to legislate that from other people to make themselves feel better.

[jhjimbo]

I don't think Bolton testimony is valuable because much of it would be classified. He can say in his fictional book more without the penalty of perjury.

[CD2]

Never liked the little SOB (Bolton)

[FirstBubba]

Bolton's book was blown way out of proportion by the New York "Slimes".
The "Slimes" did a smear job, but no retraction or apology.

[Danbo]

Yeah, the defence has been built around whether this is an impeachable offence. "High crimes and misdemeanours" is indeed vague. But the president using his power and government money to discredit a potential political opponent is certainly extremely bad form (and definitely a criminal offence in just about every state). I'm not adverse to stretching (if it is a stretch) the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanours to establish this kind of precedent. Could only be an excellent deterrent for future presidents no matter what party they belong to. Similarly I think acquitting Trump based solely on the supposed ambiguity of high crimes and misdemeanours will set a terrible precedent. Sure doesn't look good for democracy if the president of the US can beat the rap on a technicality.

I'm anxious to hear what Bolton has to say (or rather, to hear him say it ... we already know what he will say). I am sure the Republicans want to shut this guy up. Mostly I think because Bolton is a loudmouth (a prerequisite for Fox News commentator) and a bully. He didn't do the party any favours when he appeared before the Senate the last time over Bush's attempted appointment of him as UN representative. What a fiasco that was. I must say this is just the kinda guy I would expect Trump would have put in his outfit. Those two are cut from the same cloth, that's for sure. Well, almost the same cloth. Like Trump, Bolton may be a flaming arsehole and a loudmouth, but unlike Trump, he's not stupid. I can't see him going along with withholding Congressional aid for that purpose. And I can certainly see Bolton telling Trump quite bluntly (because Bolton has a reputation for being "blunt" and "rude") that it was a mistake. The White House was obviously too leaky to be doing something that foolish. We all know how well Trump takes it when his staff tries to tell him he's making a mistake. Ask Rex Tillerson. Anyway, Bolton testimony is a way out of this mess for the Republicans. They should make use of the opportunity. On the other hand I really think it will be a huge mistake if they try to block it. American voters, both Democrat and Republican, want transparency. They want the show. That's why they voted in a TV reality show host. Any senator looking at reelection who tries to block transparency will pay the price next fall. His opponent will capitalise on that big time with a show of his own. Even those senators up for reelection four years down the road have to be nervous about blocking Bolton's testimony. Or they should be if they're smart. Anyway, trials are supposed to be about hearing testimony. That's basic common law principle.

Like Obama used FBI? If they go down this rd and impeach Trump which they won’t. Any president can be impeached for any little thing! We don’t know what Bolton will say he wants to sell books. He will never testify they will call privilege and it could take years in court. How’s the great Blackface prime minister doing. You know what I can’t understand is all the hate for our president.When Obama was president he was my president I didn’t go around on blogs bashing him I hope all is well. To many hateful people in the world.

[99explorer]

I don't think people hate Trump so much as they hold him in contempt because he is so ignorant and arrogant.
Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch once said that Trump was the most obnoxious person he had ever met in his life.
He has no friends. Just relatives.

[Danbo]

Just because you think somebody is ignorant or obnoxious is not reason to impeach 99.look at my governor he’s prolly corrupt but I don’t think he will be removed and he shouldn’t be the people need to vote. The dims have been saying all along if we don’t impeach him he’s going to win again. This will be all over by end of week any ways.

[Danbo]

There will be one person who loses job in November who will be held accountable

[FirstBubba]

"... When Obama was president he was my president I didn’t go around on blogs bashing him I hope all is well. To many hateful people in the world. ..."

I unabashedly bashed Obama at every opportunity, especially when he blatantly did stupid stuff.
BUT....!
I will still bash Trump if I think he's doing the wrong thing!

[Danbo]

I unabashedly bashed Obama at every opportunity, especially when he blatantly did stupid stuff.
BUT....!
I 3ill sleep badh Trump if I think he's doing the wrong thing!

FB yes but you don’t hate the man you hate his policies it’s ok to disagree but there are three on here who have hate in there hearts like Trump wronged them in past it’s ridiculous !

[FirstBubba]

FB yes but you don’t hate the man you hate his policies it’s ok to disagree but there are three on here who have hate in there hearts like Trump wronged them in past it’s ridiculous !

You are correct, I don't "hate".
Strong, intense dislike, but never "hate".
"Hate" is a very ugly word.

[Danbo]

Fb you had a reason other than obnoxious to dislike the man.

[99explorer]

Back on topic, Mitch McConnell has just indicated that he does not have the votes to block witnesses.

https://news.yahoo.com/are-boltons-a...212745700.html