quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I know Drudge is not in favor any more. I hardly look at his site.

But I do check it once in a while.

On the top left of the page is a poll

"Should impeachment trial have witnesses ?"

current tally: No 76 %, Yes 24 %

chance to send a message. recommend vote No

xxxxxxxxxxxxx


Rand Paul question that John Roberts refused to ask:

To the Manager Schiff and counsel for the President:

Manager Schiff and Counsel for the President, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?

If no one knows who the whistleblower is how can a question about 2 peoples relationship out the unknown?

quote:

If no one knows who the whistleblower is how can a question about 2 peoples relationship out the unknown?

I mentioned this several weeks ago as soon as some names were made public, but it was denied that he was indeed the whistleblower.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I mentioned this several weeks ago as soon as some names were made public, but it was denied that he was indeed the whistleblower.

So much BS and coverup going on I wonder about Roberts integrity.He also rejected a question from Paul today. If push comes to shove I think he has just shown his hand in this trial.

Alan Dershowitz is an imbecile. I literally cringed yesterday when I was listening to him. Whether or not he was technically correct is irrelevant. It's the dumbest argument you could possibly make. It was like admitting that the President committed the offense he's accused of but shouldn't be impeached because of some ridiculous logic that would only make sense to a child.

He handed the House Managers a huge gift and I knew they'd exploit it. They're all over it today. What a moron he is.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
Alan Dershowitz is an imbecile. I literally cringed yesterday when I was listening to him. Whether or not he was technically correct is irrelevant. It's the dumbest argument you could possibly make. It was like admitting that the President committed the offense he's accused of but shouldn't be impeached because of some ridiculous logic that would only make sense to a child.

He handed the House Managers a huge gift and I knew they'd exploit it. They're all over it today. What a moron he is.

WTF are you talking about? The man knows the Constitution inside and out and Team Trump was right to have him.

He didn't hand Shifty Schiff anything.

Roberts getting more attention

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...are-furious-n2560419

Justice Roberts Keeps Blocking Rand Paul's Questions and People are Furious

Sean Davis

Chief Justice John Roberts again refused to read Republican Sen. Rand Paul's question to the Senate. Roberts then immediately read verbatim a question from a Democrat senator.

Incredible cowardice, arrogance, and abuse of power by an unelected judge to hijack the U.S. Senate.

Julie Kelly

Can we add John Roberts to the witness list? I mean, he appointed the judges who authorized the unlawful warrants to spy on the Trump campaign . In fact, why isn’t he recused on that very basis? The IC IG worked for the agency that submitted all 4 applications to the court...

excellent question

other comments

John Roberts is rigging the impeachment trial. Withholding crucial evidence.

How can one of the jurors in the senate trial be denied the right to do his job?

Really weird thing about CJ Roberts' bizarre refusal to read @RandPaul's question about Eric Ciaramella's extremely close relationship with Schiff staffer Shawn Misko is that he never refers to him as "whistleblower." So so so weird.

Why was Rand Paul's question not asked? By what law or what justification was he silenced? This is extremely scary to witness and answers are needed.

Meanwhile, the left is calling for Senator Paul to be arrested.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Meanwhile, the left is calling for Senator Paul to be arrested.

Hey, they want to call witnesses and the witness that this whole bullshit was built on can't even be named or even asked questions about. What kinda silly horseshit is this? What a sham!

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
Alan Dershowitz is an imbecile. I literally cringed yesterday when I was listening to him. Whether or not he was technically correct is irrelevant. It's the dumbest argument you could possibly make. It was like admitting that the President committed the offense he's accused of but shouldn't be impeached because of some ridiculous logic that would only make sense to a child.

He handed the House Managers a huge gift and I knew they'd exploit it. They're all over it today. What a moron he is.

WTF are you talking about? The man knows the Constitution inside and out and Team Trump was right to have him.

He didn't hand Shifty Schiff anything.

What a coincidence. As I was reading your post, Schiff was speaking and he put up a video of Dershowitz's argument. What does that mean to you?

Schiff is a MASTER. I despise him but I have to acknowledge that the man is a MASTER

Go on YouTube or wherever and find his answer from today concerning the whistleblower. It was a performance for the ages. I've literally never seen a better performance. By the end, I was rooting for him

Anyone else NOT Surprised that this is devolving into Kavanaugh 2.0!

quote:

Alan Dershowitz is an imbecile. I literally cringed yesterday when I was listening to him. Whether or not he was technically correct is irrelevant. It's the dumbest argument you could possibly make.

You've been watching too much MSNBC.

Dershowitz was actually discussing “rooting out corruption and fighting corruption” in his argument before the Senate, and “that that is in the public interest.”

The fact that it may ALSO BE politically motivated does not mean it is NOT "in the public interest.”

Every politician has mixed motives, which usually include their own re-election:

A quote from an article in today's WSJ: "Who is Kevin Clinesmith?"

quote:

...which one of the following scenarios represents the greatest threat to American liberty:

A) After identifying a U.S. citizen volunteering for the U.S. presidential campaign of the party out of power, the FBI makes false claims and persuades a federal court that the citizen may be a Russian agent and should be subjected to electronic surveillance.

B) After observing a U.S. citizen obtain a Ukrainian company board seat for which he was manifestly unqualified while his father was running Ukrainian policy for the U.S. government—and in which capacity the father would later demand the firing of a local prosecutor investigating the son’s business associates—the U.S. President urges the government of Ukraine to investigate.

How I phrased that wasn't clear. We can agree with the substance of his argument, but the way he presented that argument and how he worded it was terrible. It was so bad that the House Managers referred to it numerous times and also played video of it.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

Every politician has mixed motives, which usually include their own re-election:

Every politician has mixed motives, which usually ALWAYS include their own re-election:

Fixed it for you!

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I mentioned this several weeks ago as soon as some names were made public, but it was denied that he was indeed the whistleblower.

So much BS and coverup going on I wonder about Roberts integrity.He also rejected a question from Paul today. If push comes to shove I think he has just shown his hand in this trial.

schiffty has made several appeals for giving Roberts powers to determine witness relevance and giving him other determinative powers. It looks to me like the dems at least think Roberts will rule in their favor, and in worst case, they have him by the nuts.

It could also be that as the minority schiffty just wants the senate to give up some of their powers in hope that Roberts will make rulings in the dems favor. Nto much risk to the dems if the senate gives Roberts power, but very risky and stupid to the republicans as the majority.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
How I phrased that wasn't clear. We can agree with the substance of his argument, but the way he presented that argument and how he worded it was terrible. It was so bad that the House Managers referred to it numerous times and also played video of it.

What the hell would they play video of? They're out of ideas and options, but still full of BS. Dershozitz did very well with his presentation. unfortunately there are far too many people in that senate chamber who are simply too stupid or corrupt (or both) to grasp most of it. The GOP members need to get together, get on the same page, and dismiss this abortion tomorrow. There is absolutely no justification for allowing this travesty any more oxygen.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
How I phrased that wasn't clear. We can agree with the substance of his argument, but the way he presented that argument and how he worded it was terrible. It was so bad that the House Managers referred to it numerous times and also played video of it.

What the hell would they play video of? They're out of ideas and options, but still full of BS. Dershozitz did very well with his presentation. unfortunately there are far too many people in that senate chamber who are simply too stupid or corrupt (or both) to grasp most of it. The GOP members need to get together, get on the same page, and dismiss this abortion tomorrow. There is absolutely no justification for allowing this travesty any more oxygen.

This is just a show for the American people. Everyone already knows the outcome. Nothing about this process has been sincere including this latest puppet show.

My issue is that I don't want people watching this to be left with the impression that the President is getting off on a legal technicality.

Just earlier, President 's council had to spend time "clarifying" Dershowitz's argument.

Trump Live in Iowa

Lamar Alexander: I'll Be Announcing My Decision on Witnesses Tonight, After the Last Question

He had just met with Sen. Lisa Murkowksi and he told CNN that he isn't coordinating with Murkowksi.

Murkowski: "You explained that Sondland and Sen. Johnson both said POTUS denied a quid pro quo with Ukraine. The reporting on Bolton's book suggests Bolton told directly [there was a quid pro quo.] This dispute weighs in favor of calling additional witnesses with direct knowledge. Why shouldn't the Senate call John Bolton?"

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Well, I won't say that's impossible, but it's...ummm, unlikely.

But it could portend a 2020 groundswell that pushes the popular vote so overwhelmingly to Trump that the Dems cannot cheat enough votes to counter it. This would force the blue states that agreed to cast their electoral votes for the popular vote candidate to vote for Trump.

The compact among the states that would force that to happen does not yet take hold, because not enough states have yet passed it to meet the 270 Elecctoral Vote threshold. I seriously doubt the threshold will be met prior to the election, either. (And it's even possible that it will be declared unconstitutional--there are several possible arguments to support that outcome.)

flashguy