Poll: Any more impeachment suprises coming?

[DivineOb]

Pfft. Fox doesn't know any more about what Bolton will say than you or I do - and try not to confuse a commentator on Fox with Fox.

Based on prior results, I'm guessing this'll be yet another tasty nothing-burger - but a Trump hater can dream, eh?

Then why are they trying to paint one of the staunchest conservatives out there as a left winger? If they thought he would be beneficial or neutral why wouldn't they just tell the truth? And not only do you and I both know what he will say (hint, he wrote a book about it) but so have the Republicans this whole time. Y'all are going to get a bitter taste of how much respect the Trump party has for you.

If the reporting about what's in the book was false then Bolton would have put out a press release saying as much. Funny that he hasn't done that, isn't it? The only ones who have are those who are implicated by Bolton's book.

[Sparko]

Pfft. Fox doesn't know any more about what Bolton will say than you or I do - and try not to confuse a commentator on Fox with Fox.

Based on prior results, I'm guessing this'll be yet another tasty nothing-burger - but a Trump hater can dream, eh?

Yep we were right. As soon as the trial began, the dems start leaking "bombshell" after "bombshell" to influence the public opinion of the trial.

[DivineOb]

Yep we were right. As soon as the trial began, the dems start leaking "bombshell" after "bombshell" to influence the public opinion of the trial.

First off, wrong about the source of the leaks.

Second, so what? Are you saying you don't want to follow the truth wherever it leads?

[rogue06]

Yep we were right. As soon as the trial began, the dems start leaking "bombshell" after "bombshell" to influence the public opinion of the trial.

That's like predicting that the sun will "rise" in the east tomorrow. They have done this over and over, again and again. Look at Comey. Look at Kavanaugh. Heck, if you want to go back far enough it's what they did with Clarence Thomas.

[rogue06]

First off, wrong about the source of the leaks.

Second, so what? Are you saying you don't want to follow the truth wherever it leads?

I'd say that there is a history of this and that this history has nothing to do with following truth.


Oh, and who is the source of this latest "bombshell"?

[DivineOb]

Oh, and who is the source of this latest "bombshell"?

I don't know, do you? Let me guess, very stable genius Trump was once again foiled by The Whistleblower!

The White House was given *one* copy of the book. How are you suggesting the democrats got their hands on it?

Contra all claims that this is a leak it is entirely possible that Bolton approved of 'leaking' this in order to juice book sales. Not everything is a boogeyman.

[Sam]

Trump has a history of "wanting" to do all sorts of things. He has a habit of tossing out all sorts of ideas to see what will stick. In the end, did Trump follow through with this desire? Um, no.

Got any more tasty nothingburgers?

By late August, not only was Trump "following through on his desire", he had ordered the aid held long enough that it constituted a violation of law, even though his administration had been warning OMB of that fact.

Look, you can all always find a way to tell yourself that the next big thing is nothing. But this allegation is that Trump himself told Bolton -- as he was freezing aid to Ukraine -- that he wanted to keep that order in place until he got the "material" of the investigations that his own lawyer had taken pains to say were a personal matter and not a part of his presidential duties.

You only condemn yourselves if you treat evidence of that corrupt bargain as hum-drum.

--Sam

[One Bad Pig]

Then why are they trying to paint one of the staunchest conservatives out there as a left winger? If they thought he would be beneficial or neutral why wouldn't they just tell the truth? And not only do you and I both know what he will say (hint, he wrote a book about it) but so have the Republicans this whole time. Y'all are going to get a bitter taste of how much respect the Trump party has for you.

If the reporting about what's in the book was false then Bolton would have put out a press release saying as much. Funny that he hasn't done that, isn't it? The only ones who have are those who are implicated by Bolton's book.

You know Bolton can't legally comment on what's in the book until it clears vetting, right?

By your reference to "they" I'm guessing that you didn't bother reading my post very closely - your fantasy about what "everyone knows" the book will say notwithstanding. And as it happens, I don't have a whole lot of respect for the "Trump party" either - but the respect I do have dwarfs the disdain I have for the anti-Trump party.

[DivineOb]

You know Bolton can't legally comment on what's in the book until it clears vetting, right?

I'm not a National Security lawyer but I have a hard time believing that there is no process whereby Bolton, in coordination with the resident, could legally get a denial out there. The information is devastating enough to all but guarantee he will be called as a witness!

By your reference to "they" I'm guessing that you didn't bother reading my post very closely

- your fantasy about what "everyone knows" the book will say notwithstanding. And as it happens, I don't have a whole lot of respect for the "Trump party" either - but the respect I do have dwarfs the disdain I have for the anti-Trump party.

The fact that Trump is considering the ludicrous desperation move of seeking a restraining order to prevent Bolton from testifying tells you that, (far) more likely than not, his testimony will line up with the "leaks."

[rogue06]

I don't know, do you? Let me guess, very stable genius Trump was once again foiled by The Whistleblower!

The White House was given *one* copy of the book. How are you suggesting the democrats got their hands on it?

Contra all claims that this is a leak it is entirely possible that Bolton approved of 'leaking' this in order to juice book sales. Not everything is a boogeyman.

Apparently you think that you know enough about their identity to mock the idea that it could come from the Democrats. So why don't you share some of this wisdom and secret knowledge that you're a party to.

And we don't know what is in the book which even the New York Times which broke this story admits they don't know either. So effectively you can claim that Bolton says anything you want and there is no way to be sure at this point.

[One Bad Pig]

By late August, not only was Trump "following through on his desire", he had ordered the aid held long enough that it constituted a violation of law, even though his administration had been warning OMB of that fact.

Look, you can all always find a way to tell yourself that the next big thing is nothing. But this allegation is that Trump himself told Bolton -- as he was freezing aid to Ukraine -- that he wanted to keep that order in place until he got the "material" of the investigations that his own lawyer had taken pains to say were a personal matter and not a part of his presidential duties.

You only condemn yourselves if you treat evidence of that corrupt bargain as hum-drum.

--Sam

It was not a violation of the law.

Source: Michael Reagan

The GAO, which is an independent agency, announced that its investigators had determined that when the Trump White House's Office of Management and Budget delayed the military aid to Ukraine it broke the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.

The ICA is a Nixon-era law requiring the executive department to spend the money Congress has appropriated in the way Congress wants it to be spent.

It was designed to give Congress more power over the federal budget process by curtailing the president's power to impound federal money for programs he didn't like.

The act was passed by Congress during Watergate to punish President Nixon, who was so politically weak he didn't even try to fight it.

It's no coincidence, by the way, that once Congress got the upper hand over the budget process the annual deficit exploded, which is why every president since my father has supported the restoration of the impoundment power.

Democrats and the media made a really big deal out of the GAO's decision that Trump's OMB had violated the ICA on the Ukraine military funding issue.

"Oh my God, the president broke the law! He broke the law."

But let's wait half a minute. No law was broken.

The money for Ukraine was held up. It was not withheld. And it was sent by the OMB to Ukraine weeks before Congress' deadline, which was the end of the fiscal year on Oct. 31.

Anyway, violating the Impoundment Control Act isn't an impeachable offense. The act says Congress can try to get a court to force the president to spend what it appropriated.

© Copyright Original Source

And you're relying on anonymous hearsay for "Trump told Bolton". Anonymous hearsay a couple times removed is not evidence.

[DivineOb]

Apparently you think that you know enough about their identity to mock the idea that it could come from the Democrats. So why don't you share some of this wisdom and secret knowledge that you're a party to.

And we don't know what is in the book which even the New York Times which broke this story admits they don't know either. So effectively you can claim that Bolton says anything you want and there is no way to be sure at this point.

You chose not to answer my question of how you think "the Democrats" got their hands on the book. The reason you chose not to is because you don't have a plausible explanation.

[Mountain Man]

Apparently you think that you know enough about their identity to mock the idea that it could come from the Democrats. So why don't you share some of this wisdom and secret knowledge that you're a party to.

And we don't know what is in the book which even the New York Times which broke this story admits they don't know either. So effectively you can claim that Bolton says anything you want and there is no way to be sure at this point.

Part of the beauty of a "sources say" story is that if/when it turns out to be false, the publication can shrug its shoulders and say, "Don't blame us, we were just reporting what we were told."

[DivineOb]

Part of the beauty of a "sources say" story is that if/when it turns out to be false, the publication can shrug its shoulders and say, "Don't blame us, we were just reporting what we were told."

Do you have any idea of how much credibility the NYT will lose if this story turns out to be false? This is a big one. Their story has had a larger impact on the impeachment trial of any story which has come out since the trial started. Do you have any idea of how much harm Trump will find a way to throw at them using this as a pretext? They wouldn't go to presses unless they felt the story was very solid.

[rogue06]

By late August, not only was Trump "following through on his desire", he had ordered the aid held long enough that it constituted a violation of law, even though his administration had been warning OMB of that fact.

Look, you can all always find a way to tell yourself that the next big thing is nothing. But this allegation is that Trump himself told Bolton -- as he was freezing aid to Ukraine -- that he wanted to keep that order in place until he got the "material" of the investigations that his own lawyer had taken pains to say were a personal matter and not a part of his presidential duties.

You only condemn yourselves if you treat evidence of that corrupt bargain as hum-drum.

--Sam

As I've been repeatedly warning y'all there is a big danger in constantly making allegations that don't pan out.

What they don't seem to understand is how their trying to turn everything into a major crisis is going to seriously backfire in the long run. If something truly bad ever comes out the public, having been inundated with these boy who cried wolf constant hysterical attacks, will very likely ignore it.

The thing with Trump is that he's bound to give them ammunition in the not so distant future. It was incredibly stupid on his opponent's part to continually fabricate charges since this will likely lead to a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" response from the public.

IOW, more fake news. Par for the course I'm afraid.

The more the left keeps concocting stories like these the more likely the public will simply shrug off something that's real. It's like the boy-who-cried-wolf.

And because of this constant over-the-top, either exaggerated or wholly fabricated barrage from the left, they have succeeded in creating a boy-who-cried-wolf atmosphere where Trump's actual gaffes and screw-ups get buried under an avalanche them or Stormy Daniels "news" and generally ignored.

This is the danger of the steady boy-who-cried-wolf sort of wild reporting the MSM has engaged in with this "animals" remark and its (mis)coverage being just another example in a long line. And I've been noticing more and more moderates tuning out news on Trump as well.

That's because they try to turn even the smallest of molehills into a Mount Everest-sized crisis. As I said multiple times it is like the boy who cried wolf meaning that if something truly bad does come along a sizable portion of the public will simply tune it out having been inundated with shrill doomsday warnings every few days.

If Trump is his own worst enemy he is certainly blessed by the nature of his opponents.

How often have I warned about the boy-who-cried-wolf effect?

This is a legitimate topic but unfortunately it is buried underneath a tsunami of "Boy Who Cried Wolf" fabricated crises like the collusion delusion and the hearsay-based impeachment resulting in it being essentially ignored.

I've been bringing up The Boy Who Cried Wolf problem multiple times as a warning to those on the left and the Never Trumpers that if they continue insisting on making every single molehill into an Everest-size "Constitutional crisis!", that if some legitimate evidence of actual Trump malfeasance would ever emerge, that the public would tune it out as yet another overwrought overreaction from the MSM and political opponents.

• Feb. 17, 2017
• June 8, 2017
• April 16, 2018
• May 19, 2018
• May 19, 2018
• July 14, 2018
• August 19, 2018
• June 13, 2019
• June 28, 2019

This is a bed of your own making that y'all were grimly determined on doing.