Senate Impeachment Hearings

[Shabibilicious]

11 minutes ago, learning all i can said:

Where to start?  As a retiree I have had the privilege to watch this unfolding from the very start.  I watched and heard every witness when the Dems declared impeachment proceedings in the bunker and have not missed one iota since it has been marched over to the Senate.  I have stayed away from news articles, even turning away from fox news when Hannity, Ingram, Levin and Rush have brought in their opinions.  I have held on purely to every word brought forth from both sides which I believe has enabled me to see the hypocrisy and the true dealings of the democratic party.  They would truely destroy our constitution  in exchange for their own power.  I have never witnessed such hate for another human being nor the power-hungar that could actually be the first act to destroy our nation..  I have seen the twisted lies from the Dems as from my own remembrance of their so called witnesses.  The old saying "say it enough then most will believe it and it becomes true" has been consistent in their lowdown tactics which has been soely sought thru-out these whole proceedings.  Surely they will be held accountable for such underhanded dealings.  I can only pray that it is the Lords will to open every eye of the American people to see the corruption and hold these men and women accountable for the attempt to bring destruction and the downfall of our country.

 

Now that I have given my opinion, I have a thought about something that has come up about Bolton and his book.  How in the world will calling Bolton help them.  If his book is under review with the NSC and cannot be released until further investigation then he certainly can't be called as a witness and detail what's in his book.  How will this help the dems?  The Dems have one thing on their mind and that is taking control of the 2020 election.  They have proven themselves to be the most corrupt and underhanded group of lawlessness that I have ever witnessed.  We all should be outraged.  We should have the wisdom and foresight to understand that we just can't go on like this and expect our children and grandchildren to have a future of law.  Yes, each of us can give our own opinions and fuss about it all day long but in the end there will only be one winner and that winner will be the one that holds true to the standards that God has set before us.  We all know His truths, are we letting our hearts be swayed by our own desires and wants just so we can put up a deceitful arguement as the Dems have done for the power or so we can say "yep, I won that one?"  This whole thing has been disgusting but has enabled most of us to embrace and stand firm for actual truth.  It has enabled us to see the real depravity and what man will actually do for power and control.  Maybe, this is why it was designed to help each of us see the true evils of the world we live in......I know that I am saddened and have more concerns about the future generations than ever.  Man continues to contribute to evil and brings about its growth.  I fear it is nearly full blown if God doesn't intervene and put His hand back on our Nation.  

 

I've  rambled enough.  I know much of what I've expressed here means very little to many of you and that's ok with me.  I pray for our Country everyday.  I pray for the future of our children everyday.  We just can't let these unlawful things continue if we value the lives of our loved ones.  Gods word will stand whether we use it or not.  I just know in my heart that it's time that we look at tomorrow instead of putting all our focus on today and who will win today and who was right and who was wrong.  It is clear that we need help and that help will not come from government.

 

Thank you for your heartfelt opinion, Barb.  This article seems relevant to your post, so I decided to share it.  I'm not attacking, just sharing, so please view it as such.  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

 

POLITICS 

01/29/2020 05:25 am ET Updated 1 day ago

Evangelical Singer Calls Out Trump’s Christian Supporters In Scathing New Song

 

An evangelical Christian musician is calling out his fellow members of the faith for their widespread support of President Donald Trump in a new song titled: “Hymn For The 81%.”

“This song might ruffle some feathers, but maybe some feathers need to be ruffled,” Daniel Deitrich told Religion News Service, adding:   

Maybe some tables need to be turned over. Hear me on this, though: It is because I was taught to take the words of Jesus and the prophets seriously that I cannot stay silent.

The song’s title refers to the 81% of evangelicals who voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Since then, they’ve remained one of his most consistent group of supporters despite the chasm between core biblical tenets and the president’s behavior and policies.

“Even after enacting deliberately cruel policies to rip families apart and put children in cages at the southern border, evangelical support is as fervent as ever,” Deitrich, who is listed as the pastor for arts and worship at South Bend City Church in Indiana, wrote on YouTube. 

Deitrich also noted that he was raised on Christian values. 

 

“I learned to take the words of Jesus seriously ― love God, love your neighbor, feed the hungry, fight for justice for the oppressed. I thought that things like love, kindness, gentleness, and self-control MATTERED,” he wrote. “I have been so confused and deeply saddened by the unflinching loyalty to a man who so clearly embodies the opposite of these values.”

Deitrich told RNS that while the song was a rebuke, it “comes from a deep well of love.”

Indeed, one line of the song is: “You said to love the lost, so I’m loving you now.” But the next line puts evangelical Christians who support Trump on notice:

You said speak the truth

I’m calling you out
Why don’t you live the words
That you put in my mouth

 

Deitrich said the song’s bridge originally was “an angry middle finger to the listener” that he found cathartic, but he toned it down in the final version. 

“I remember gearing up for that angry bridge but being hit with a wave of sadness instead,” he told RNS. ”‘Come home, you taught me better than this’ came out. That’s the take in the finished recording.” 

Listen to the hymn below: 

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/daniel-deitrich-evangelical-anti-trump-song_n_5e3114ebc5b6e8375f64ce56

 

 

[DinarDavo]

34 minutes ago, learning all i can said:

Where to start?  As a retiree I have had the privilege to watch this unfolding from the very start.  I watched and heard every witness when the Dems declared impeachment proceedings in the bunker and have not missed one iota since it has been marched over to the Senate.  I have stayed away from news articles, even turning away from fox news when Hannity, Ingram, Levin and Rush have brought in their opinions.  I have held on purely to every word brought forth from both sides which I believe has enabled me to see the hypocrisy and the true dealings of the democratic party.  They would truely destroy our constitution  in exchange for their own power.  I have never witnessed such hate for another human being nor the power-hungar that could actually be the first act to destroy our nation..  I have seen the twisted lies from the Dems as from my own remembrance of their so called witnesses.  The old saying "say it enough then most will believe it and it becomes true" has been consistent in their lowdown tactics which has been soely sought thru-out these whole proceedings.  Surely they will be held accountable for such underhanded dealings.  I can only pray that it is the Lords will to open every eye of the American people to see the corruption and hold these men and women accountable for the attempt to bring destruction and the downfall of our country.

 

Now that I have given my opinion, I have a thought about something that has come up about Bolton and his book.  How in the world will calling Bolton help them.  If his book is under review with the NSC and cannot be released until further investigation then he certainly can't be called as a witness and detail what's in his book.  How will this help the dems?  The Dems have one thing on their mind and that is taking control of the 2020 election.  They have proven themselves to be the most corrupt and underhanded group of lawlessness that I have ever witnessed.  We all should be outraged.  We should have the wisdom and foresight to understand that we just can't go on like this and expect our children and grandchildren to have a future of law.  Yes, each of us can give our own opinions and fuss about it all day long but in the end there will only be one winner and that winner will be the one that holds true to the standards that God has set before us.  We all know His truths, are we letting our hearts be swayed by our own desires and wants just so we can put up a deceitful arguement as the Dems have done for the power or so we can say "yep, I won that one?"  This whole thing has been disgusting but has enabled most of us to embrace and stand firm for actual truth.  It has enabled us to see the real depravity and what man will actually do for power and control.  Maybe, this is why it was designed to help each of us see the true evils of the world we live in......I know that I am saddened and have more concerns about the future generations than ever.  Man continues to contribute to evil and brings about its growth.  I fear it is nearly full blown if God doesn't intervene and put His hand back on our Nation.  

 

I've  rambled enough.  I know much of what I've expressed here means very little to many of you and that's ok with me.  I pray for our Country everyday.  I pray for the future of our children everyday.  We just can't let these unlawful things continue if we value the lives of our loved ones.  Gods word will stand whether we use it or not.  I just know in my heart that it's time that we look at tomorrow instead of putting all our focus on today and who will win today and who was right and who was wrong.  It is clear that we need help and that help will not come from government.

 

Our church has been praying for the darkness in DC (both sides of the aisle) be exposed so we can get our nation back on track...this is just the beginning.

[learning all i can]

Shabbs, no offense taken at all.  His song is all so true.  "LET JUSTICE ROLL DOWN". Not yours or mine but Gods.  I dont think there is an objection here except when he sung about babies in cages.  Who started with the babies in cages?  Obama ! If he is putting down Christian's for supporting Trump, he's is steering in the wrong direction.  As I've indicated many times before, there are many things that Trump does that is unnerving and literally against some of my wants and desires but he is prolife.  He produced a humane way for these children and he has reckoned to do as he promised from the beginning.  We look at things from our own hearts and ways instead of Gods ways.  He fails to look at God in the beginning and what God has for His people.  How can the song writer judge what God has put into his children's hearts.  God calls us to make the best decisions we can according to His word. We only have 2 choices in elections.  We are deemed to vote the best we can of the 2.  Any Democrat at this point would go against any believer that truely depends on Gods word and believes Gods word as absolute.   Actually his song is very true, We have ALL turned from Gods word.  Time to start living it again.  Gods judgement has been promised to every nation of every man and woman.  Let Gods judgement roll down.....and it is so....thanks for sharing

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, learning all i can said:

Shabbs, no offense taken at all.  His song is all so true.  "LET JUSTICE ROLL DOWN". Not yours or mine but Gods.  I dont think there is an objection here except when he sung about babies in cages.  Who started with the babies in cages?  Obama ! If he is putting down Christian's for supporting Trump, he's is steering in the wrong direction.  As I've indicated many times before, there are many things that Trump does that is unnerving and literally against some of my wants and desires but he is prolife.  He produced a humane way for these children and he has reckoned to do as he promised from the beginning.  We look at things from our own hearts and ways instead of Gods ways.  He fails to look at God in the beginning and what God has for His people.  How can the song writer judge what God has put into his children's hearts.  God calls us to make the best decisions we can according to His word. We only have 2 choices in elections.  We are deemed to vote the best we can of the 2.  Any Democrat at this point would go against any believer that truely depends on Gods word and believes Gods word as absolute.   Actually his song is very true, We have ALL turned from Gods word.  Time to start living it again.  Gods judgement has been promised to every nation of every man and woman.  Let Gods judgement roll down.....and it is so....thanks for sharing

 

You're most welcome.  Have a great day.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[learning all i can]

23 minutes ago, DinarDavo said:

 

Our church has been praying for the darkness in DC (both sides of the aisle) be exposed so we can get our nation back on track...this is just the beginning.

My  church also has been in prayer for the change of hearts.  For healing of our nation.  I have been so impressed with the prayers of the Senate Chaplin of the hearings.  He is calling for the right change of hearts by the power of God knowing that God is the only one that can bring forth a change of heart.  Also that Gods will, will be done... Dinardivo, if you have not heard his prayers at the beginning of each session you should make it a point to listen.  His prayers are exactly what is needed and what all of us should be praying for.  God is listening. 

[Karsten]

Seems the left know the end is near so now start up the Intimidation Calls to get their own way.

 

‘F—ing Traitor’: Sen. Collins Releases Abusive Voicemails Ahead of Impeachment Vote

 

https://freebeacon.com/politics/traitor-sen-collins-releases-abusive-voicemails-ahead-of-impeachment-vote/?fbclid=IwAR0qrc3q71FQB7P5bSLMYgpRNI-MkNGk9t1jHwpZq-J6exMa1oMVXYovmG8

 

Karsten

[nstoolman1]

3 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

You're probably right....yet "impeachment" will always be attached to DJT with good reason.....and the GOP will forever be known for eroding the checks and balances safe guards of the U.S. Constitution.....It may not be the next election or even the one after that....but the time will come when Democrats will be back in charge....And when that happens, will they do their due diligence and defend the constitution or go on the offense as payback?....human nature says payback....and the GOP will have only themselves to blame, even though they'll do their best to spin it.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

 

That is funny. Good reason???? What, because the main stream media, you and most of the sewer dwellers(I say sewer because a swamp is a very efficient eco system) don't want him there to disrupt their cushy theft arrangement? Impeachment will be attached to DT for no good reason. Even if Bolton's statement that Trump suggested to hold back the money was true, there is no crime in wanting something as opposed to actually ordering it done. Otherwise there would be a lot of people in trouble all over the world. 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

5 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Justice Roberts Blocks Rand Paul from Naming Whistleblower During Impeachment Trial

Zachary Evans

,

National Review•January 30, 2020

 

 

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on Wednesday signaled to Republican senators that he will not say the name of the alleged Ukraine whistleblower during the question and answer session of the Senate impeachment trial.

Roberts refused to read aloud a question submitted by Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) that contained the whistleblower’s name. The justice is tasked with reading questions submitted by senators, and up to now has not been compelled to reveal the identity of the alleged whistleblower.

“We’ve got members who, as you have already determined I think, have an interest in questions related to the whistleblower,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R., S.D.) told Politico. “But I suspect that won’t happen. I don’t think that happens. And I guess I would hope it doesn’t.”

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) has also reportedly cautioned against naming the whistleblower during impeachment proceedings. Paul, however, has said the name in several media reports over the course of the impeachment process.

“I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition,” Paul reportedly said after his question was rejected.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) publicly revealed the existence of the whistleblower complaint in September, and the complaint eventually led to the impeachment of President Trump. Republicans have accused Schiff of improperly coordinating his actions with the whistleblower.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/justice-roberts-blocks-rand-paul-130556096.html

 

GO RV, then BV

MORE LIES.

 

 

 

 

[Karsten]

Whoops......This isn't going way.......

 

 

 

Karsten

[learning all i can]

I tell ya what !!! Patrick Philbin,one of the Presidents lawyers has blown every question away.  He has brought forth every law and been able to dispute everything the Dems have managed to twist by the law.  This young mans name should become a household name for all of us that want justice and want our constitution to stay in tact.  I am very impressed, in fact if I could vote for Supreme court judges, he would certainly have my vote in the next available seat.  I'm just not sure hes old enough for eligibility.  Of course anyone under 35 years of age any more looks like a kid to me.  I bet he doesn't  live in his parents basement.  Check him out, he has made the case for the President.  And I believe it's just about over.........jmo

Edited January 31, 2020 by learning all i can

[coorslite21]

25 minutes ago, learning all i can said:

I tell ya what !!! Patrick Philbin,one of the Presidents lawyers has blown every question away.  He has brought forth every law and been able to dispute everything the Dems have managed to twist by the law.  This young mans name should become a household name for all of us that want justice and want our constitution to stay in tact.  I am very impressed, in fact if I could vote for Supreme court judges, he would certainly have my vote in the next available seat.  I'm just not sure hes old enough for eligibility.  Of course anyone under 35 years of age any more looks like a kid to me.  I bet he doesn't  live in his parents basement.  Check him out, he has made the case for the President.  And I believe it's just about over.........jmo

 

Barb,

No age limits on the Supreme  Court......Philbin is early to mid 40's.....

He has a very bright future!

Almost over......get some rest!

CL

[Shabibilicious]

News

Trial highlights: Dershowitz backtracks, Paul thwarted

MATTHEW DALY Associated Press•January 30, 2020

Scroll back up to restore default view.

WASHINGTON (AP) — As senators wrapped up their questions in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, one of Trump's attorneys tried to explain his controversial defense. Meanwhile, a Republican senator was dramatically thwarted in his questioning by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Throughout, senators heard urgent pleas either to stop a president who Democrats say tried to cheat in the 2020 election or shut down impeachment proceedings that Republicans insist were a purely partisan attack.

The proceedings had an air of uncertainty as lawmakers faced a crucial vote on whether to call witnesses — a decision that could lead to an abrupt end of the trial or bring days or weeks of testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton and other witnesses.

Highlights of Thursday's session and what's ahead as senators conduct just the third impeachment trial of a president.

CLEAN-UP ON AISLE FIVE

Alan Dershowitz, one of Trump's lawyers and a renowned Harvard professor, delivered a stunning defense of Trump Wednesday night that essentially would make it impossible to impeach a president for anything he might do to boost his reelection prospects. The argument was quickly and forcefully denounced by legal scholars, historians and editorial boards who said there are clear limits on presidential authority.

Dershowitz seemed to backtrack Thursday, saying his remarks have been misinterpreted. But Democrats seized on them as they pressed their case for Trump's removal from office for tying the release of military aid to Ukraine to an investigation of his political rivals.

“I never said a president could do anything to get re-elected,'' Dershowitz said on Twitter. "A president seeking re-election cannot do anything he wants. He is not above the law.''

But Democrats said that is exactly what Dershowitz claimed on Wednesday: "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,” he said on the Senate floor.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead Democratic prosecutor called Dershowitz's argument “a descent into constitutional madness," adding that if followed, it ”would lead this country down the most destructive path."

Democrats were so confident that Dershowitz had blundered they replayed his remarks several times Thursday as they made their case.

WHISTLEBLOWER NO-GO

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky roiled the trial briefly Thursday as he tried to ask about the intelligence community whistleblower whose complaint led to the investigation that resulted in impeachment. Paul has said he believes the whistleblower may have conspired with House staff aides in writing the August complaint.

Roberts, who has told senators the whistleblower's identity should be protected, refused to read the question aloud. He did not say what was on the card.

Paul left the impeachment proceeding to hold a news conference where he claimed his question was not aimed at outing the whistleblower.

“I don’t know who the whistleblower is. ... My question’s not about the whistleblower,” Paul said. “My question’s about two people who were friends who worked together at the National Security Council who have been overheard talking about impeaching the president years in advance."

U.S. law protects the identity and careers of people who bring forward accusations of wrongdoing by government officials. Lawmakers in both parties have historically backed those protections.

BIPARTISAN QUESTION

In a rare show of bipartisanship, two Democrats — Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and West Virginia's Joe Manchin — joined with two Republicans, Alaskan Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins of Maine to ask a question.

The lawmakers wanted to be assured by the president that private citizens would not conduct foreign policy unless they've been specifically designated by the State Department to do so. The question referred to Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who played a key role in the Ukraine investigation.

White House lawyer Patrick Philbin said Giuliani was merely a "source of information" for Trump on Ukraine and was not conducting foreign policy. Even George Washington relied on trusted confidants, Philbin noted.

Schiff called the answer "breathtaking,'' saying the White House was admitting that Giuliani was not conducting official business when he was in Ukraine or working on Ukraine issues.

“They have just undermined their entire argument,'' Schiff said, adding that the White House had "acknowledged that the person in charge of this was not conducting policy'' but instead "was undergoing this domestic errand.”

The last comment referred to a remark by former Trump adviser Fiona Hill, who testified that Giuliani and his associates were on “a domestic political errand” while she and other professionals were engaged in foreign policy.

ECHOES OF WATERGATE

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, a congressional staffer during Watergate and now a House prosecutor, said Watergate also started as a partisan inquiry. A bipartisan consensus emerged only after Republicans — including staunch Nixon supporters — saw enough evidence to change their minds, she said.

“They couldn't turn away from the evidence that their president had committed abuse of power and they had to vote to impeach him,'' Lofgren said. While disappointed that House Republicans did not vote to impeach Trump, the Senate — "the greatest deliberative body on the planet'' — has a new opportunity, she said.

Unlike House investigators, the Senate can call first-hand witnesses like Bolton who can testify about what they heard Trump say and saw him do, Lofgren said. "I think we would all learn something. Let's see if that kind of information can help the senators come together as happened in the House Judiciary Committee so many years ago.''

WHAT'S AHEAD

Next steps for the trial were unclear late Thursday. A vote on witnesses, expected Friday, could lead to an abrupt end of the trial with an expected acquittal by Republican senators unconvinced of wrongdoing by Trump. A less likely, but still possible outcome was a deal that could bring testimony from Bolton and other witnesses.

Three Republican senators have indicated openness to calling witnesses, an outcome that could lead to a 50-50 tie on the question if no senator changes their vote. It was not clear if Roberts would attempt to break a tie.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trial-highlights-dershowitz-backtracks-paul-013159226.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

Politics

Senators break into laughter as Schiff points out ironic difference between Trump's legal defense and DOJ arguments

Summer Meza

January 30, 2020, 3:46 PM EST

 

 

President Trump's impeachment defense team seems to be on a different page than lawyers in the Department of Justice.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) noted this disparity while answering questions from senators in Trump's Senate impeachment trial on Thursday. Schiff said that while Trump's legal team argued the House should have gone to court to force witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify via subpoena, Justice Department lawyers were — nearly simultaneously — arguing in a separate case that it's up to Congress to enforce subpoenas through measures like... impeachment.

 

"You can't make this stuff up," said Schiff. As CNN reports, a DOJ lawyer on Thursday said if the House needs to enforce a subpoena, one of its options is to use its impeachment powers. As a reminder, Trump was impeached on obstruction of Congress after ordering aides to defy subpoenas that would have brought them to the House floor as witnesses. During the court hearing (related to the Trump administration's efforts to change the census, not an impeachment-related hearing), DOJ lawyer James Burnham argued the House can't ask the courts to enforce subpoenas — precisely what Trump's impeachment lawyers are suggesting Democrats should have done. Trump's legal team says Democrats should have fought in court for further witnesses, while Trump administration lawyers say courts have no right to enforce congressional subpoenas.

There were reportedly "audible gasps and laughs" on the Senate floor after Schiff pointed out the comedic timing of the opposing arguments.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senators-break-laughter-schiff-points-204600337.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

21 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

MORE LIES.

 

 

 

 

 

At Senate trial, chief justice again tosses out Rand Paul's whistleblower question

 

David Knowles  Editor  Yahoo News•January 30, 2020

 

Scroll back up to restore default view.

For the second time in as many days, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected a question submitted by Sen. Rand Paul during the impeachment trial of President Trump.

“The presiding officer declines to read the question that was submitted,” Roberts said Thursday after silently reading the notecard the senator from Kentucky sent to his desk.

Paul, who stood as he waited to see if Roberts would allow his question to be asked, smiled. He then gathered up his papers and walked out and held a press conference. A number of reporters in the press gallery hurried out to hear him.

On Wednesday, Roberts also refused to read a question from Paul, leading the senator to complain and for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to warn senators ahead of Thursday’s session to respect Roberts’s authority.

“We’ve been respectful of the chief justice’s unique position in reading our questions, and I want to assure him that that level of consideration for him will continue,” McConnell said.

At his news conference and on Twitter, Paul disclosed his question, which contained the name of the person many Republicans believe to be the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., reads a question about the whistleblower during President Trump's impeachment trial on Thursday. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

Paul was pursuing a Republican theory about a “close relationship” between that person and a member of the House Intelligence Committee staff and allegations that they “may have worked together to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.”

Yahoo News is withholding the name Paul included in his question, which he claimed was not about outing the whistleblower’s identity.

During Wednesday’s question-and-answer session, House Manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., denied Republican claims that he knew the identity of the whistleblower, who had contacted his office before filing the complaint about the July 25 phone call.

“I don’t know who the whistleblower is,” Schiff said Wednesday. “I haven’t met them or communicated with them in any way. The committee staff did not write the complaint or coach the whistleblower what to put in the complaint. The committee staff did not see the complaint before it was submitted to the inspector general.”

Republican supporters of the president, including Paul, have portrayed the whistleblower’s complaint as politically motivated, which they say taints the entire House inquiry. National security lawyer Mark S. Zaid, who represents the whistleblower, posted a retweet asserting that “Senator Paul's effort to out the Ukraine whistleblower is reckless and intended to distract and intimidate, not educate.”

Later in the day, the topic of the whistleblower was revisited when a group of Republican senators again asked about the relationship between Schiff’s staff and the whistleblower.

“Members of this body used to care about the protection of whistleblower identities, They didn’t use to gratuitously attack members of committee staff. But now they do,” Schiff responded, adding, “Whistleblowers are a unique and vital resource for the intelligence community because like other whistleblowers who can go public with their information, whistleblowers in the intelligence community cannot because it deals with classified information.”

Schiff said that Trump was likely “applauding this question because he wants his pound of flesh,” adding that “I can tell you who the whistleblower should be. It should be every one of us. Every one of us should be willing to blow the whistle on presidential misconduct.”

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow portrayed the question as entirely reasonable, saying that while federal whistleblower’s were protected from “retribution,” they were not entitled to anonymity.

“We can’t just say it’s not relevant to know who on the staff that conducted the primary investigation here was in communication with the whistleblower.”

 

https://news.yahoo.com/roberts-again-rejects-impeachment-question-from-sen-rand-paul-193155660.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

 

GO RV, then BV

[Karsten]

Early but it is looking like Impeachment will Fail.

 

BREAKING: Key Swing-Vote Comes Out Against Witnesses — Democrats’ Impeachment Fails

 

https://www.analyzingamerica.org/democrats-impeachment-fails/?utm_source=msp

 

Karsten

[Shabibilicious]

Politics

Republicans Can’t Win Presidential Elections Anymore, but They Sure Can Steal Them

Michael Tomasky

The Daily BeastJanuary 30, 2020, 4:47 AM EST

 

 

Getty

“Let the people decide for themselves!” cried White House Counsel Pat Cipollone Wednesday, warning senators not to even think about pushing Trump out less than 10 months before an election.

Hmmm: Where have I heard that one before?

Alan Dershowitz Defends Trump With an Unapologetic Embrace of American Fascism

Flash back four years, to when Justice Antonin Scalia died and, while his corpse was still warm, Mitch McConnell said: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

That was a blatant abuse of legislative branch power, one of the most corrupt procedural moves any senator has made since the days when the old segregationists used whatever tricks they could to hold up civil rights bills. Also a total Hail Mary pass, because as McConnell spoke those words in February 2016, no one thought for a second that Trump was actually going to become president and most everyone thought it would be Hillarious Clinton. But the bet came up a winner, and McConnell got away with the kind of black-is-white/up-is-down logic at which the Republicans have become so skilled. He cloaked his anti-democratic maneuver (denying a constitutional prerogative to a duly elected president who won by a very comfortable margin) in the language of democracy (let the people decide).

So it is here. They can thump on all they want about Federalist this or Hamilton’s letter that, but the fact is that impeachment is in the Constitution. There’s no time frame on it. The Constitution doesn’t say, “Of course, we think you shouldn’t do it to a president within 10 months of an election.” It says the Senate may convict, period. Just like it says the President shall nominate people to fill Supreme Court vacancies, and the Senate shall vote on that nominee. Nothing about short-circuiting that process in a president’s last year.

It’s total nonsense. Suppose that in, oh, July of a presidential election year, a president had a political opponent killed. Caught in flagrante delicto, as it were. Open and shut. And suppose that like Trump most of the time, he didn’t even bother denying it. 

Under current law, the president couldn’t be arrested. That would have to wait until he left office. So the nation would be faced with two choices. Keep a murderer in the Oval Office, as the leader of the free world, or impeach him and remove him from office.

In that case, should the Senate just wait and “let the people decide”? Actually, if the president-murderer were a Republican, Midnight Mitch and Lawless Lindsey would undoubtedly say yes, which would give them and Fox plenty of time to concoct a story that the president was acting in self-defense, boldly preempting some “deep state” conspiracy. But the vast majority of Americans would presumably not want a murderer in the White House and would want him impeached and convicted.

And, of course, if it were a Democratic president, Mitch and Lindsey and the gang would be all for impeachment and conviction. They’d stand there before the very same cameras they stand before today solemnly telling us that it doesn’t matter whether it’s 100 days before Election Day or one, the Constitution imposes upon them this grave duty and they have no choice but to carry it out.

So “let the people decide” is not a principle. It’s an excuse. But to people paying only fleeting attention, it sounds like principle. Which they know. Which is what makes it so manipulative and cynical. 

This isn’t a hypothetical question. Alan Dershowitz flat-out claimed this as a legal principle Wednesday, asserting that, “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 only Nixon had known about this get-out-of-jail free card that Republican senators look ready to punch now for Trump. 

But that’s not even the worst part of it. The worst part of “let the people decide” is that in our system as it now stands, the people don’t decide. In 2016, the people chose Hillarious Clinton by nearly 3 million votes. They decided. They wanted Hillarious Clinton to be the next president (and nominate that Supreme Court justice). But people don’t count in our system. States do.

Cipollone knows this, as do all the Republicans from McConnell on down who’ve taken to parroting the defense counsel’s line. And they know a couple other things, too.

One, they know that after they acquit Trump, he’s going to go right back to cheating and trying to rig the 2020 election. Dershowitz just gave him constitutional carte blanche to do it if Republican senators accept this logic.

And not only do they know Trump will go back to cheating; they quietly hope he will. This is because of the second thing they know. 

Two, they know there’s a sporting (or better) chance that Trump is going win on the cheap again, but this time even worse. Trump could lose the popular vote this time by 5 million or more and still eke out an Electoral College win, as experts like David Wasserman and various others have written. 

Assuming a vote of perhaps 145 to 150 million (about 137 million voted last time, and I’m guessing interest will be higher), 5 million is a lot. More than 3 percent. In any other election in this country, that’s case closed. The state laws that allow recounts typically allow them if the margin is less than 1 percent, or even .5 percent. Not 3.33 percent.

So no, in the United States of America, or the United States of Republican America, the people do not decide. The people chose Al Gore. The people elected Barack Obama to eight years in office, not seven, canceling out his appointment powers in the eighth year. And the people chose Hillarious Clinton. 

This is not partisan sour grapes. This is a crisis of a Constitution that was the product of compromises made with slaveholders. Today, the slaveholders’ descendants likewise have us by the throat and hide behind “the people.” Poor Merrick Garland learned that the hard way. But so have we all. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-t-win-presidential-elections-094700477.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

2 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Politics

Republicans Can’t Win Presidential Elections Anymore, but They Sure Can Steal Them

Michael Tomasky

The Daily BeastJanuary 30, 2020, 4:47 AM EST

 

 

Getty

“Let the people decide for themselves!” cried White House Counsel Pat Cipollone Wednesday, warning senators not to even think about pushing Trump out less than 10 months before an election.

Hmmm: Where have I heard that one before?

Alan Dershowitz Defends Trump With an Unapologetic Embrace of American Fascism

Flash back four years, to when Justice Antonin Scalia died and, while his corpse was still warm, Mitch McConnell said: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

That was a blatant abuse of legislative branch power, one of the most corrupt procedural moves any senator has made since the days when the old segregationists used whatever tricks they could to hold up civil rights bills. Also a total Hail Mary pass, because as McConnell spoke those words in February 2016, no one thought for a second that Trump was actually going to become president and most everyone thought it would be Hillarious Clinton. But the bet came up a winner, and McConnell got away with the kind of black-is-white/up-is-down logic at which the Republicans have become so skilled. He cloaked his anti-democratic maneuver (denying a constitutional prerogative to a duly elected president who won by a very comfortable margin) in the language of democracy (let the people decide).

So it is here. They can thump on all they want about Federalist this or Hamilton’s letter that, but the fact is that impeachment is in the Constitution. There’s no time frame on it. The Constitution doesn’t say, “Of course, we think you shouldn’t do it to a president within 10 months of an election.” It says the Senate may convict, period. Just like it says the President shall nominate people to fill Supreme Court vacancies, and the Senate shall vote on that nominee. Nothing about short-circuiting that process in a president’s last year.

It’s total nonsense. Suppose that in, oh, July of a presidential election year, a president had a political opponent killed. Caught in flagrante delicto, as it were. Open and shut. And suppose that like Trump most of the time, he didn’t even bother denying it. 

Under current law, the president couldn’t be arrested. That would have to wait until he left office. So the nation would be faced with two choices. Keep a murderer in the Oval Office, as the leader of the free world, or impeach him and remove him from office.

In that case, should the Senate just wait and “let the people decide”? Actually, if the president-murderer were a Republican, Midnight Mitch and Lawless Lindsey would undoubtedly say yes, which would give them and Fox plenty of time to concoct a story that the president was acting in self-defense, boldly preempting some “deep state” conspiracy. But the vast majority of Americans would presumably not want a murderer in the White House and would want him impeached and convicted.

And, of course, if it were a Democratic president, Mitch and Lindsey and the gang would be all for impeachment and conviction. They’d stand there before the very same cameras they stand before today solemnly telling us that it doesn’t matter whether it’s 100 days before Election Day or one, the Constitution imposes upon them this grave duty and they have no choice but to carry it out.

So “let the people decide” is not a principle. It’s an excuse. But to people paying only fleeting attention, it sounds like principle. Which they know. Which is what makes it so manipulative and cynical. 

This isn’t a hypothetical question. Alan Dershowitz flat-out claimed this as a legal principle Wednesday, asserting that, “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 only Nixon had known about this get-out-of-jail free card that Republican senators look ready to punch now for Trump. 

But that’s not even the worst part of it. The worst part of “let the people decide” is that in our system as it now stands, the people don’t decide. In 2016, the people chose Hillarious Clinton by nearly 3 million votes. They decided. They wanted Hillarious Clinton to be the next president (and nominate that Supreme Court justice). But people don’t count in our system. States do.

Cipollone knows this, as do all the Republicans from McConnell on down who’ve taken to parroting the defense counsel’s line. And they know a couple other things, too.

One, they know that after they acquit Trump, he’s going to go right back to cheating and trying to rig the 2020 election. Dershowitz just gave him constitutional carte blanche to do it if Republican senators accept this logic.

And not only do they know Trump will go back to cheating; they quietly hope he will. This is because of the second thing they know. 

Two, they know there’s a sporting (or better) chance that Trump is going win on the cheap again, but this time even worse. Trump could lose the popular vote this time by 5 million or more and still eke out an Electoral College win, as experts like David Wasserman and various others have written. 

Assuming a vote of perhaps 145 to 150 million (about 137 million voted last time, and I’m guessing interest will be higher), 5 million is a lot. More than 3 percent. In any other election in this country, that’s case closed. The state laws that allow recounts typically allow them if the margin is less than 1 percent, or even .5 percent. Not 3.33 percent.

So no, in the United States of America, or the United States of Republican America, the people do not decide. The people chose Al Gore. The people elected Barack Obama to eight years in office, not seven, canceling out his appointment powers in the eighth year. And the people chose Hillarious Clinton. 

This is not partisan sour grapes. This is a crisis of a Constitution that was the product of compromises made with slaveholders. Today, the slaveholders’ descendants likewise have us by the throat and hide behind “the people.” Poor Merrick Garland learned that the hard way. But so have we all. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-t-win-presidential-elections-094700477.html

 

GO RV, then BV

 

From this side of the fence it looks like the left was the side trying to "steal" the election....

 

Just the facts......they are on record stating this was the only way they could beat Trump.....

 

Best part of all of this......no more having to listen to Schiffty standing there telling lies.....insulting the process and the opposition.....Robert's should had him sit down several times..... 

 

It's over......the process ran its course......move along.....nothing to see here but a pile of ashes of the old establishment Democrat party.....     CL

[learning all i can]

30 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

From this side of the fence it looks like the left was the side trying to "steal" the election....

 

Just the facts......they are on record stating this was the only way they could beat Trump.....

 

Best part of all of this......no more having to listen to Schiffty standing there telling lies.....insulting the process and the opposition.....Robert's should had him sit down several times..... 

 

It's over......the process ran its course......move along.....nothing to see here but a pile of ashes of the old establishment Democrat party.....     CL

Lol....yep those ashes are just blowing in the wind.  Just wonder for how long.  This is why as a Republican we must take the house in Nov and remain in the Senate.  Sure would be something to see what Trump could actually accomplish if he had some support with out opposition around every corner....oh me, wouldn't that be grande

BTW Coors, I have never really cared about politics very much, but by your encouragement 3 and a half years ago it now sorta makes my world go around.  It's some good stuff

Edited January 31, 2020 by learning all i can

[new york kevin]

9 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

"You can't make this stuff up," said Schiff

Hello. You cannot make up this stuff but Schiff can. Remember the false testimony he gave before Congress regarding the alledged transcript of "the call ?" How about issuing subpoenas months prior to Pelosi actually opening a Congressional Inquiry. Congress can not issue subpoenas or enforce them until after the Congress actually declares.an official Congressional Inquiry . Cannot make up the fact that in our republic we are ALL innocent till proven guilty,not the other way around ... That would be Napoleonic Law. There fore since the body that has the sole power to investigate impeachments ... that would be the Congress , needs to perform all their tasks like dig and vet info, subpoena who and what you need to prove or disprove a matter . Then present all your irrefutable evidence to the Senate who will run a due processed trial base solely upon the evidence the Congress provides them. The time for calling witnesses i. An Impeachment is when the matter is in and under the Congresses jurisdiction and not after all evidence it has all been handed over to the Senate . Bottomline, since Schiff, Nadless, and Peegrosley did not follow these established protocols any and all evidence derived as the result of these lawless subpoenas, or a byproduct of same, are fruit of the poisoned tree and cannot be used in a court .

[coorslite21]

4 hours ago, learning all i can said:

Lol....yep those ashes are just blowing in the wind.  Just wonder for how long.  This is why as a Republican we must take the house in Nov and remain in the Senate.  Sure would be something to see what Trump could actually accomplish if he had some support system" rel="">support with out opposition around every corner....oh me, wouldn't that be grande

BTW Coors, I have never really cared about politics very much, but by your encouragement 3 and a half years ago it now sorta makes my world go around.  It's some good stuff

 

Enjoyed this post.....flattered if I had any part in your getting involved.......in my perfect world we would get back to the time when party's worked together for the good of all the people... ...those qualified for a Supreme Court position would be approved 96-4.....or something like that...

 

Good people on the left and right......we just need to unite all of those good people for the good of the Country.....Enjoy your weekend!

CL

[Karsten]

Humm, I will just dump this right here...........

 

 

Karsten

[boosterbglee]

I see a trend....crooked Joe was trained by the crooked pantsuit!😂. The swamp has been deep for some time it seems.

[Synopsis]

Hey, I REALLY like the 13:30 to 16:00 personal endorsement by Rudy Giuliani for Cigar Aficionado.

 

From 15:20 to 15:30, however, by Rudy Giuliani's OWN admission, he let's his opinion be known to Marvin Shanken, Cigar Aficionado publisher, when he doesn't agree on the cigar ranking. Marvin listens very, very intently to Rudy and then says, "Rudy, stick to the law."

 

      

 

My opinion when socializing is a cigar lasting less than 1 1/2 hours is a waste of time.

 

Marvin Shanken also publishes Wine Spectator and Whisky Advocate.

[Shabibilicious]

Republican Senator Murkowski spares few in fiery impeachment speech

By Richard Cowan

,

Reuters•February 3, 2020

 

 

Scroll back up to restore default view.

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, an unpredictable moderate in a polarized Washington, on Monday declared she will vote to acquit Donald Trump, but not before leveling an attack against the president and fellow lawmakers of both parties during a partisan impeachment ordeal.

"The president's behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedent over those of this great nation," Murkowski declared in a speech to a near-empty Senate chamber.

On Wednesday the Senate is scheduled to wrap up a two-week impeachment trial and vote to either acquit or convict Trump on charges leveled by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives that the Republican president abused his powers and obstructed Congress' investigation of his dealings with Ukraine.

It was no surprise that the 62-year-old senator attacked House Democrats, accusing them of a slapdash investigation of Trump's actions toward Ukraine and his alleged withholding of U.S. aid in order to pressure Kiev to investigate one of his political rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But Murkowski, with her fellow senator from Alaska presiding over the chamber after other senators had left for the night, took on not only Trump, but also fellow Republicans, Senate Democrats and the media.

Alluding to a "demon" burning its way through Washington during the impeachment process that began late last September, Murkowski blamed "a careless media" that she said "cheerfully tried to put out the fires with gasoline."

Long one of the few moderate voices in the Senate, Murkowski shocked the political establishment in 2010 when she became the first senator in more than 50 years to win re-election with a write-in campaign after the Republican Party tried to dump her in favor of a more conservative challenger.

In the summer of 2017, Murkowski again was in the spotlight when she and two other moderate Republican senators -- Susan Collins and the late John McCain -- ruined Trump's push for a partial repeal of the "Obamacare" healthcare law.

On Monday she said, "I cannot vote to convict" Trump, and indicated a preference for a much softer penalty than the removal from office that Democrats have been clamoring for -- a "censure" by Congress.

She went on to list transgressions on both sides of the political divide that she saw unfolding during this impeachment process, only the third in U.S. history:

She cited Trump supporters' eagerness to "have just dismissed the case as soon as it reached" the Senate and Trump's detractors' acting as if "the only way the trial could have been considered fair was if it resulted in the president's removal from office."

With a broad-brush criticism of both political parties, Murkowski spoke of their "apparent willingness...to destroy not just each other, but all of the institutions of our government. And for what? Because it may help win an election?"

Having castigated the House, the Senate, Trump and the media, Murkowski wrapped up her approximately 11-minute diatribe on a note of faint optimism: "It's my hope that we finally found bottom here."

 

https://news.yahoo.com/republican-senator-murkowski-spares-few-020733121.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

News

Manchin proposes lesser punishment of censure for Trump

By Burgess Everett

,

Politico•February 3, 2020

 

 

 

Manchin proposes lesser punishment of censure for Trump

More

Sen. Joe Manchin is floating the less severe punishment of censure of President Donald Trump’s conduct, although the West Virginia Democrat acknowledges it’s unlikely to go anywhere with the GOP.

In a floor speech on Monday, Manchin said he remains undecided on whether to vote to convict or acquit Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and said “what the president did was wrong” in soliciting foreign intervention against Joe Biden and delaying Ukraine aid.

But Manchin also said that with no path to 67 votes for removing Trump from office, a bipartisan rebuke would be more effective than a partisan vote.

“I do believe a bipartisan majority of this body would vote to censure President Trump for his action in this matter. Censure would allow this body to unite across party lines,” Manchin said. “Censure would allow a bipartisan statement condemning his unacceptable behavior in the strongest terms.”

Afterward in an interview, Manchin said he’s been talking to Senate Republicans and “trying for a while” to generate support for censure. But he acknowledged that the GOP won’t go for it.

“They’ve shut it down I guess, as I understand it,” Manchin said. “It’s a shame.”

 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/manchin-proposes-lesser-punishment-censure-221350568.html

 

GO RV, then BV