Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Mountain Man]

The witnesses that Schumer argued against in the Clinton trial were not new witnesses, they had already testified in the House Impeachment, their testimony was already known, the witnesses requested to be heard in this the Trump trial have never been heard, their testimony, as well as documentary evidence was blocked, by the President. So, when are you going to tell us why you are afraid of the obstructed witnesses from being heard?

https://www.republicanleader.senate....act-vs-fiction

But regardless, the rules are set: both sides present their case; a motion will be heard to present new witnesses and evidence; if the motion fails, then it's over. So the question is, does the House have a compelling enough case to convince a majority of Senators to approve the motion? You don't sound very confident.

[JimL]

https://www.republicanleader.senate....act-vs-fiction

But regardless, the rules are set: both sides present their case; a motion will be heard to present new witnesses and evidence; if the motion fails, then it's over. So the question is, does the House have a compelling enough case to convince a majority of Senators to approve the motion? You don't sound very confident.

History lesson for you. Clinton was impeached for lying to congress over a sexual affair. These alleged charges are just a bit more serious.

[firstfloor]

A timeline:
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/t...d-ukrainegate/

[Mountain Man]

For the record...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../nyu1-d10.html
Part 2
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../nyu2-d11.htmlhttps://www.lawandsecurity.org/calen...-fisa-process/

The Just Security group will leak material which will then be picked up by specific Democrat politicians and used as evidence to attack and undermine President Trump.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...2020-strategy/

Always vet your sources.

[DivineOb]

Always vet your sources.

Agreed.

Do you mean we shouldn't trust Just Security or that we should take their analysis with a grain of salt?

When you say "leaks" do you mean leaks or do you mean "made up stuff"?

[JimL]

Agreed.

Do you mean we shouldn't trust Just Security or that we should take their analysis with a grain of salt?

When you say "leaks" do you mean leaks or do you mean "made up stuff"?

He means that if it isn't Breibart, or perhaps Sean Hannity, then don't trust them.

[DivineOb]

He means that if it isn't Breibart, or perhaps Sean Hannity, then don't trust them.

Hope springs eternal. I think MM is smarter than he lets on and knows the world is less black and white than his persona.

[Sam]

For the record...


Always vet your sources.

I understand this is futile, based on your previous off-the-wall idea of what the name "Lawfare" means but what material, exactly, has JustSecurity leaked?

--Sam

[firstfloor]

I heard about them on Trumpcast.

Virginia Heffernan talks to Kate Brannen, editorial director of Just Security, about her story uncovering the unredacted version of emails, mostly between Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller.

[Mountain Man]

Screenshot_2020-01-08 Leader McConnell on Twitter.jpeg
https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/sta...-house-dems%2F

Which means Ol' Nancy has zero leverage here. Oh, and she better hurry, because the clock is ticking...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...achment-trial/

Note that's 25-days from the impeachment vote, which means the clock runs out for Nancy and her gang on January 12!

[Mountain Man]

Even Diane Feinstein is telling Nancy it's time to throw in the towel...

Screenshot_2020-01-08 Laura Litvan on Twitter.jpeg
https://twitter.com/LauraLitvan/stat...s-to-let-go%2F

[JimL]

Even Diane Feinstein is telling Nancy it's time to throw in the towel...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41952[/ATTACH]
https://twitter.com/LauraLitvan/stat...s-to-let-go%2F

The good Senator from California must not be aware of the fact that so long as Moscow Mitch has delayed in order to block evidence and testimony in his attempt to put on his sham trial, a slew of new evidence keeps coming out which will be added to the Articles prior to them being delivered to the Senate. Moscow Mitchs' scheme is making things worse, not better for the Presidents case.

[Mountain Man]

The good Senator from California must not be aware of the fact that so long as Moscow Mitch has delayed in order to block evidence and testimony in his attempt to put on his sham trial, a slew of new evidence keeps coming out which will be added to the Articles prior to them being delivered to the Senate. Moscow Mitchs' scheme is making things worse, not better for the Presidents case.

Ah, I see you've been brushing up on the latest liberal talking points.

Yeah, sorry, there's not a "slew of new evidence". I suppose they can vote to amend the articles if they think it'll help, but whatever Nancy is planning to do, she better hurry it up, because she only has 4-days left before the Senate votes to dismiss all charges, and then the Democrats are back to square one. Again.

[DivineOb]

Note that's 25-days from the impeachment vote, which means the clock runs out for Nancy and her gang on January 12!

Interesting. Can't they just revote on the articles if this happens?

[JimL]

Ah, I see you've been brushing up on the latest liberal talking points.

Yeah, sorry, there's not a "slew of new evidence". I suppose they can vote to amend the articles if they think it'll help, but whatever Nancy is planning to do, she better hurry it up, because she only has 4-days left before the Senate votes to dismiss all charges, and then the Democrats are back to square one. Again.

That's a dumb strategy, MM. Square one wouldn't take any longer since there would be basically nothing to do but to take a vote and then deliver the new and improved Articles.